April 2, 2017 — Ray Stanford

[marduk]

Any truth to this?

From: Loren Coleman
To: ufoupdates at sympatico.ca
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:46 -0400
Subject: Ray Stanford

Ray Stanford has a history on the internet of joining Lists and then responding "with sarcastic comments and demands that certain subjects immediately be dropped," as one observer on a dinosaur list once wrote.

Forgive me. I now understand what is going on. I did not realize that Mr. Stanford was _the_ Ray Stanford, contactee, medium, and channel through which such less-than-scholarly books as "Speak, Shining Stranger" and "Fatima Prophecy" - gained via Stanford's psychic readings - have been produced. Stanford, of course, is the author of a book, Look Up (1958) that discussions his repeatedly close encounters with flying saucers and his discussions with their occupants, who he termed "the space people," but whom he would later call "The Watchers" (some even named "Aramda" and such).

No, I did not realize I was dealing with the Ray Stanford who in the 1970s, was the leader of the Association for the Understanding of Man (AUM), a national organization located in Austin, Texas. The purpose of AUM was given to Stanford via his so-called "psychic reading,..." given to him by "the Source," as well as "voices other than that of the Source [who] speak through the unconscious Stanford... speaking in various accents and inflections," as a 1977 AUM membership solicitation noted. "These voices were identified as exalted spiritual beings, members of an ethereal association called the 'White Brotherhood,' archangels, and even Jesus Christ himself -- all speaking courtesy of Stanford's 'borrowed' vocal cords, of course. Some of these 'Brothers' identified themselves as members of a UFO-operating alien race called 'The Watchers,'" as has been observed.

"Examination of the AUM material leaves no doubt that the 'Stanford readings' were the major 'drawing card' for the group's dues-paying members and its contributors - indeed, the organization's raison d'etre," a watchdog noted.

Furthermore, Stanford had plans to construct a time machine known as "the Hilarion Accelerator." He needed funding to get this done, of course.

"In a tape-recorded lecture to the annual AUM membership conference on August 24, 1974, Stanford told his followers that 'the Accelerator' would allow spiritually competent subjects to teleport physically from one place to another, but also to PHYSICALLY transport their bodies BACK IN TIME," remarked one who researched this gentleman.

Stanford's time machine was never built, to the best of anyone's knowledge.

No wonder Ray Stanford has no sense of humor about predictions done by crop circle promoters. After all, only Stanford knows the future.

Best wishes,
Loren

Ray Stanford's Background

 

[marduk]

And

In 1954, Stanford began to receive "telepathic messages from Space People" he stated. At the time, he was associated with George Hunt Williamson, an alleged fraud and "contactee." Williamson was closely allied with "contactee" George Adamski. (Williamson was the one who took the "plaster casts" of the Venusian footprints that Adamski said he found in the desert.)

And

Later, Stanford got deeply entangled with a 1950s cult called "Soulcraft." Soulcraft was an occult group with a dark side. It was established by William Pelley, the leader of an American Fascist organization called the "Silver Shirts."

And

He was also operating a "non-profit" Association for the Understanding of Man (AUM) in Austin, Texas. The central focus of Stanford's AUM was his "psychic readings." After inducing trances, he would give long taped discussions. He would speak in various accents and inflections. Stanford made unusual sounds and varies the tenor of his voice but maintained that these were the actual voices of the entities. He contacted such ethereal organizations as the "Great White Brotherhood" and "The Watchers."

In one tape, Jesus Christ, Himself, speaks through Stanford's borrowed vocal chords.

And

At one time, Stanford promoted the construction of a machine that he called "the Hilarion Accelerator." This device, he claimed, would transport a living human being back in time. He told his followers that the device would physically teleport people to the distant past. The machine was described as a metallic egg-shaped chamber (echoes of the Socorro UFO) that housed a human subject. Stanford said that when the device was charged to "around three million volts electrostatic charge" it would enhance the subject's paranormal powers. He eventually abandoned the machine. apparently concerned that it would send people to ancient times and that they would die there because he might not be able to get them back.

The Truth Uncensored: Ray Stanford Uncensored

?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Total BS—don't believe everything you read on the net.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

In His Own Words—Taken off UFO Updates:


Roy,

Although you are clearly on a 'fishing expedition', I will
respond in depth to your inquiry.

Since I self-published that little 66-page book at age 19, 45
years ago, in early 1958, it has been long out-of-print and I
never re-published it because before very long I began to
realize that the wide-eyed Adamskian 'contactee' interpretation
I had placed upon the otherwise genuine and well-witnessed UFO
encounters described in that book was fanciful and tainted by my
teenage belief in the contact and fake UFO photos of George
Adamski. But to compensate, within a few years I was actively
exposing Adamski's hoaxes and fake photos publicly, along with
the contact hoax and fake UFO movie(s) and photos fabricated by
Daniel W. Fry, whom I never believed. That experience with
Adamski and that whole 1950s 'contactee' crowd, is why I am so
dubious of the 'will-to- believe'. I've been through that and
know what damage it can do to one's objectivity.

Whether one likes how I presented Look Up, or not (I don't.),
tell me how many other youths have the enthusiasm and
determination to write a book (I didn't have word-processing
back then, either, to make the writing easier.) at age 18 (just
out of high school) and 19, and raise the money to pay a printer
to print it by working at a shoe store, in order to let people
know their experiences with UFOs or anything else. Let me assure
you that it took some very impressive UFO encounters and a
pretty dedicated young man to undertake such an effort. If you
or anyone else on this list would like to try to shame me for
that kind of dedication, then the person you shame is yourself
and not me. I never had any hope or delusion about making enough
money to even pay myself back for the printing of the book,
copies of which I sold for immense sum of $2! No, I was simply
on fire inside with excitement to share personal experiences
that I knew could not possibly involve objects of terrestrial
origin, even though in my excitement, I was reading too much
into some of my experiences, especially some of those that did
not involve UFOs, per se. Boys will be boys! Youth will be
youth!

But aside from the book's contactee idiom of presentation and
interpretation, it quite honestly reported the visual (and
auditory) events, of our multi-witness encounters with UFOs. In
the 10-21-56 encounter, my group of four (All of us swore a
notarized affidavit published in the book.), the object involved
was a blue-white, glow-pulsing oblate spheroid 30-40 feet across
that didn't look anything like Adamski's fictional lampshade
'scout craft'.

It twice passed within six feet above our heads. That was a bit
too close for comfort, causing our voluntary muscles to become
immobilized, and causing a sensation of a pulsed electrostatic
charge through our bodies and hair as it passed over us (twice),
causing our hair to lift up and go back down, alternately --
except for one of the witnesses, who had a 'flat-top' haircut,
so his hair stood up all the time. To explain further: our
hair raised up and down in pulses, the hair lift-up part
coinciding with the higher-amplitude component of a pulsing,
rather complex sound coming from the object. I'm not sure, but
Look Up may have provided one of the earliest descriptions of an
unmistakable electrostatic effect from a UFO to appear in the
literature. There are many, now.

A less-exciting, eleven-witness encounter described in Look Up,
occurred on November 6, 1954, on the Gulf of Mexico beach on the
south end of the 100+ mile long sand-bar type Padre Island --
quite unpopulated back then, but crowded with tourist hotels
and condominiums in recent years. There were eleven witnesses
(all of them named in the book) to the seemingly (not knowing
object size) fairly close approach to us of an golden, glowing,
domed disc. There had been an earlier UFO encounter that night,
but the police had not arrived when that happened. Three of the
witnesses to the domed disc were police officers, comprised of
Texas State Highway Patrol Officer Don Hoyd; his father, Deputy
Sheriff Ray Hoyd; and Deputy Sheriff Steve Woods. The notarized
affidavits (attesting to their witnessing the Padre Island UFO)
of the two Deputy Sheriffs were reproduced in the book, along
with a photo of the State Patrol Officer, Don Hoyd, and his
father, Ray Hoyd, handing me the elder Hoyd's affidavit. Ray
Hoyd was quite willing to pose for the photo for publication
with my account of the UFO encounter, but declined to sign a
notarized affidavit because of lack of clearance from a superior
officer in the State Police.

During that November 6, 1954, UFO experience, we had tried
stabilizing a cheapie little view-through-the-top small-aperture
camera (containing black and white film) atop a rather point-
topped cedar fence post and apparently succeeded in getting one
photo of the domed disc, but because the domed disc in the
resultant photo seemed a bit more horizontally 'stretched out'
compared to what we actually observed visually and did, thus,
not faithfully represent what we observed, we did not publish
that single photo. The horizontal elongation of the object's
image was probably due to trying to take a time exposure (a few
seconds, only) atop the fence post where, in all likelihood, the
camera rotated a bit (due to pressure on the shutter button) in
the horizontal plane, providing the distortion. Furthermore,
there was a foolish dictum around in UFOlogy in those days
saying that if a photo does not show exactly what the witnesses
described it is either a hoax or, otherwise, worthless! That
concerned us.

Had we been dishonest, we could have published that photo and
claimed the UFO dome and flange actually had looked that flat,
but, instead, I just put the photo away in my file on the case.
In fact, I cannot truthfully say with absolute certainty that it
was I who took that photo, because several others tried to
steady their hand on the camera and take a photo with the camera
atop the fence post that night.

It may be of further interest to note that, in evidence of our
honesty, we took that little camera with the unprocessed film
still in it to the Corpus Christi (Texas) newspaper, the Caller-
Times, and gave it to reporter Spencer "Bones" Pearson to
process in the newspaper darkroom, without any of us being
present. When Pearson came back out with what seemed a blank
film except for that one shot of the object and, seeing it was
not the somewhat 'fatter' domed disc we had perceived when
thinking we might be about to witness the landing of a
comparatively 'fat' Adamaki 'scout craft', we decided not to
publish the photo at that time. It never dawned on us that,
quite aside from camera instability likely accounting for the
horizontal stretch of the UFO image beyond what we had
remembered, we probably had perceptually distorted the domed
disc we had been watching that night into something more closely
resembling the 'Venusian scout craft' shown in photos of our
hero, George Adamski! The November 6 Padre Island photo shows an
edge-on view of what looks like a quite flat disc with a slight
downward point in the center of the bottom side and a rather
flat seeming dome on top (of maybe slightly under half of the
disc's diameter).

If you click on http://platinumstudios.com/titles/ufomag.php you
will see in the UFO Magazine partial-cover depicted there, an
artist's presentation of a UFO that, if you imagine the object
depicted edge-on (instead of what's shown) , and reduce the
bulge on the bottom part by about 60% (and make it a bit more
pointed) you will have a pretty accurate concept of the outline
of what's shown in the November 6 Padre Island photo.

In the photo, however, what resemble pointed 'beams of light'
seem to gleam off the edge of the dome and flange, at places.
The photo is not very impressive to me, simply because I don't
see anything in it that seems unambiguously propulsion-
diagnostic, and that's the way I prefer UFO films and photos.
The beam-like things in the photo are a bit interesting,
however, because I don't recall our seeing individual beams, per
se. We did notice that the domed disc seemed to quickly 'gleam'
(hard to describe) at times. Maybe those 'gleams' were what were
captured coming off the disc in the photo. I seem to recall that
some of us who witnessed the Padre Island UFO might have
speculated that the pointed beams in the photo were some type of
propulsion effect used in keeping the object oriented.

In Look Up I rather timidly described the observation by eight
of us on the night of January 5, 1957, of a very bizarre beam of
light striking three of us, that had extended slowly toward us
from a large, black UFO that came in from the west-northwest and
hovered just to the southeast of us, on the north end of Padre
Island. That time, we were not on a beach but in the east-west
middle of the island, half-way between the Gulf of Mexico and
Laguna Madre, to the west. I mention that event here just to
point out that we were the first persons in UFO history (so far
as I can determine) to report the now famous phenomenon of a
'slowly-telescoping' light beam, which some persons refer to
(hopefully only figuratively) as a 'solid' light beam.

The main column of the slowly progressing beam of January 5,
1957, was more subtle than its three more narrow, lengthwise,
internal components which were much brighter, reminding us of
tightly stretched Christmas tree tinsel, twisting and
'scintillating' in sunlight. That 'telescoping' beam struck only
the three of us who were separated from the others, but it
packed a 'wallop' that sent the three of us (as long as it was
on us) into some kind of awesome altered brain function that I
will never forget but do not pretend to comprehend.

That beam's effect on our brains was as bizarre as its
appearance, transforming our awareness into a kind of seemingly
timeless, 'cosmic ecstasy'. I have never figured out the purpose
of that action on the part of the UFO intelligences, if there
was any purpose other than, maybe, to experiment with our minds
or perhaps, even, just to 'humble' three maybe-a-bit-egotistical
18-year-olds with an experience they couldn't even begin to
understand. What I know is that it was totally awesome and
overwhelming. It was also totally unexpected and no such thing
had ever been described in UFO literature, so the three of us
found ourselves as strangers in a very 'strange land'
(experience)!

Forty-seven years later, slowly progressing beams of various
types are commonplace in UFO literature, and I even got a nice
daylight movie of a UFO 'projecting' and, later, 'retracting'
such a beam (electric blue with magenta nodes), on October 5,
1985, at the Corpus Christi, Texas, bay-front, filmed from the
Emerald Cove breakwater pier, with five others there watching
what was happening and watching me making a movie of it through
a 10-X lens.

If anyone alleges that it is shameful of me to report such a
bizarre, eight-witness experience as that of January 5, 1957,
and that it is a discredit to UFOlogy or to me as a researcher
working for years now with good cameras and other instruments to
gather the kind of evidence that may bring UFOlogy into
mainstream science, I don't agree. We must report UFOs and their
associated phenomena not as we had envisioned them to be in the
early days of UFOlogy, not as we might wish or hypothesize them
to be today, but we must have the courage to report and
investigate them, confronting the high strangeness that they
often manifest. Who among us can explain what has been called,
'the Oz effect'? Who can even explain the fact that there have
been UFO witnesses, face-to-face with each other in a close
encounter, who were startled to realize that although they spoke
loudly, neither could hear the other speak!? I speak of the
strange seemingly UFO-induced "silence" so often reported. I
suspicion that if we could come to understand the physics of
those phenomena, we might learn some of the most instructive
lessons of UFO physics. That might also be true of the January
5, 1957, beam.

Keep in mind that on January 5, 1957, when three of us got
'zonked' by that bizarre beam, there were still five other
witnesses, unaffected by it, who watched us get enclosed in that
beam, from fairly close-by. They not only watched in wonderment
while that beam engulfed us, they saw us loose normal
consciousness, collapse onto the sand on our knees while that
beam was enclosing us, then they watched us rise up after the
beam had slowly withdrawn from us and 'stagger' toward them
somewhat like sea-sick neophyte sailors on their first 'break-
in' cruise! Sorry, my friends, but the prudent don't throw out
an eight-witness case like that, just because it doesn't sound
like today's normally far-less-well-witnessed claims of
abduction. What kind of celebration would some of you abduction
researchers have upon learning of an eight-witness case?

Finally, although described using my contactee idiom of the
time, in Look Up I wrote that UFOs can behave as "second bodies
for their pilots", explaining my intuitive sense that without
even touching any controls, UFO operators maneuver their
vehicles at the behest of thought. Because, years later,
research by Stanford Research Institute in California developed
both hardware and software enabling jet aircraft to respond to
their pilot's thoughts without the time delay of transferring a
maneuver order to mechanical controls (a great help in combat, I
should think), I feel vindicated. Some of you may have seen the
demonstration of that mind-controlling of an aircraft on network
TV a few years back. I don't recall on which network it was
broadcast or the program name, but maybe some of you can provide
that information, for anyone interested.

Now I must declare, Roy, that if (as one might suspicion) you
were bringing up the subject of my rather irresponsible teenage
writing in a covert attempt at retribution because I may have
embarrassed you by exposing the book of fake UFO photos you were
declaring to be of extreme interest, then the joke's on you.

At age 66, and for decades now, I have been happy to admit and
discuss my teenage indiscretion and any self-deception in which
I engaged as a believer in Adamski. In fact, I delight in
persons bringing it up so I can set the record straight and make
my current and decades-long very different approach to UFO
studies clear. I hope some of the presently wide-eyed can take a
lesson from, and benefit from, my teenage journey into
'contactee land', so thanks for the opportunity to once more
share with others, without looking as though I had spoken
entirely out-of-turn.

A thoughtful person admits past indiscretions and mistakes and,
benefiting by his own personal recognition of such, grows beyond
them.

Well, now that I have once more explained my 45-year-old book's
teen-age stylistic and interpretative indiscretions (and some of
its important, well substantiated UFO accounts) for the last
time on this list, may we, in exchange, please be told whether
you still think Richard Brunswick's Photo Collection book's
phony photos are impressive?

Of course, I'm sure my personal explanation of your recommended
book as containing only fake photos did not convince you, but
hopefully the information reported in Friday's posting to this
list by widely respected V-J Ballester Olmos, Director of
FOTOCAT, should have convinced you, unless, of course, this is a
religious instead of a scientific issue with you.

From 'pipsqueaks' through Presidents, the ability or inability
to recognize and admit one's error or indiscretion, tells a lot
about a person.


Cheers,

Ray Stanford

 

[marduk]

Total BS—don't believe everything you read on the net.

Gotcha.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

I’d like to respond to the various objections that Ray Stanford offered to the Daniel Fry case.

Rather than arguing for the veracity of Daniel Fry’s story, which is still in my “grey basket,” I offer these responses to illustrate that while his story may not be true, the points raised against it are in many cases unconvincing, and sometimes simply untrue. So I still wonder about it, and specifically I wonder about the many surprising scientific claims that still remain unexplained to my satisfaction.

I suppose I was hoping for something more substantive to disprove this case, like someone who was working at White Sands with him at that time coming forward to say that he wasn't there that day, or perhaps a confession to his wife or a friend that he'd made it up. But apparently that didn't happen in the >30 years of telling his story.

“Z-Grade Sci-Fi writing” in The White Sands Incident
Ray: Daniel Fry’s books read like “kid’s stuff.”
Me: To be fair, he was a rocket instrumentation technician with no writing experience beyond technical writing at his job. If I had experienced an audio conversation with an alien being and ridden aboard an empty alien cargo craft to NYC and back, then written about it, I could scarcely expect to do much better, and I doubt that many of us could.

But I don’t necessarily accept his story as true, to me that's only one of many possibilities. But I do have some valid questions about specific scientific aspects of his books, which are generally written in deceptively simple language. Because there are a number of striking scientific claims in his books which only appear –even more- valid today than when he wrote his books. Sure, they’re written about in simple terms, as we’ll see below, but the substance is often keenly sophisticated and has on many occasions been validated by the latest developments in theory, observation, and contemporary experimentation. That’s 180-degrees in opposition to all of the other contactee stories, which are readily disproven by known physics and astronomy, and which grow increasingly laughable with the passage of time

And I’d like to point out that someone’s writing talent isn’t a useful measure for the veracity of their claims. So I’m looking for factual disproofs within his writings. And I’ve found a few questionable items, and identified what he claimed to have inserted into his first book to get the clearance to publish it. But I’ve also found many absolutely striking scientific concepts and predictions that can’t be explained away as confirmation bias or coincidence. So I want to understand how that happened, because it’s anomalous. And his descriptions of dark energy and gravitational field propulsion are eerily prescient, which merits careful scrutiny.

Lighting at the time of The White Sands Incident
Ray: a ~76% waning gibbous Moon just under the horizon at late dusk couldn’t have produced any appreciable light.
Me: Why not? With any light cloud cover in the upper atmosphere, the light of the Moon just below the horizon could easily illuminate atmospheric moisture or particulates to cast a glow well above the horizon, just as the light of the Sun lingers in the sky for quite some time after the Sun sets below the horizon. So it’s only a question of relative magnitude, and at the onset of night the diffuse illumination of moonlight can be reasonably bright.

Daniel Fry’s technical qualifications
Ray: Daniel Fry was a “Z-rate engineer," he was only self-trained.
Me: It’s true that he was self-taught and learned on the job. But as we’ll see below, he designed and built transducers for Aerojet’s military rocket research programs, which made the company millions of dollars. And he was one of the twelve founding members of the Pacific Rocket Society, established in 1944, and he picked up a lot of experience with their early rocket tests. So clearly he was quite capable. And I would also hope that none of the people working at the largest US military base engaged in rocket experimentation were “Z-rate engineers.”

And I find this to be an odd criticism from a self-taught paleontologist who has made significant contributions to the field without any academic training. History is rife with examples of very accomplished autodidacts. I admire such people. Oliver Heaviside was a self-taught electrical engineer, mathematician and physicist, and one of the most brilliant minds in the history of science, who, I should mention, discovered and formulated the principles of gravitoelectromagnetism in 1893 – over twenty years before Einstein’s general theory of relativity codified those principles of gravitation into the academic canon of physics, and he also may have been the first scientist to propose the existence of gravitational waves (which were only detected for the first time last year, over a century later, by the LIGO project):
Oliver Heaviside - Wikipedia

White Sands personnel on the base on the 4th of July
Ray: White Sands is closed down on the Fourth of July with only a skeleton crew of essential personnel on the base.
Me: Do you know this for a fact, or is this supposition? I’d like to see proof; we'd need to see the base records to know for sure. Perhaps John Greenwald could help with an FOIA request for those base personnel records. It seems to me that a rocket testing crew in the middle of a project might stick around over a holiday break to get back to work early the following day.

The description of the “differential accumulator”
Ray: Daniel Fry is trying to impress the dumb reader by using a technical term.
Me: He’s describing an energy storage device that’s not a chemical battery and not a reactor, so what else is he supposed to call it? It seems like a fair term to use. Calling it a “battery” would give the false impression that it’s like a Duracell, and that can’t be accurate because one would imagine that the energy density would be vastly greater than a common chemical battery. And any other applicable term is going to sound even wordier, like “electrical potential storage device.” I suppose it might be as simple as some kind of capacitor, but that seems unlikely given the problems of storing energy that way (which is why we use chemical batteries in our smart phones instead of capacitors). Perhaps it consists of some kind of room-temperature superconducting magnet that stores electromagnetic energy in kinetic form, or even an L-C circuit that oscillates the energy between static and kinetic states. We don’t know, but the term “differential accumulator” seems like a reasonable term to explain what it does, without getting into these kinds of details.

It just seems like there’s an unwarranted level of hostility in this kind of critique, rather than substance. A similar objection is raised with the use of the word “amplitude.” What’s so objectionable about that? “Amplitude” is a common word synonymous with “magnitude” – anyone with half a brain knows exactly what it means. In fact I’m hard-pressed to think of another word that would convey the same idea accurately. The mockery/hostility I’m hearing in these objections seem more emotional than factual. I mean, it would be one thing if Daniel Fry was using these words wrong. But he’s not. So what’s the problem?

The magnetic field propulsion description
Ray: This description of magnetic field propulsion sounds like a seventh-grader writing sci-fi.
Me: This description appears to be a red herring. A far more compelling gravitational field propulsion description was provided in the 1973 edition of the book, which I included in my previous post. For a host of excellent reasons, a gravitational field propulsion system is currently the most credible concept for an interstellar or even advanced terrestrial propulsion system. And since gravitational field propulsion is a central theme in all of his other books, the 1973 description of that operating principle is the one to critique.

EDIT: I completely forgot about this - Daniel Fry always described the propulsion system of the craft, in his talks and interviews, as a gravitational field propulsion system. Here he is explicitly describing the gravitational field propulsion system in relation to the absence of g-forces that he experienced aboard the alien vessel, during his interview on the Long John Nebel show on August 1st, 1958 (this unique characteristic of a gravitational field propulsion system didn't appear in the academic literature until 36 years later, in 1994):
Daniel Fry describes gravitational field propulsion effect on the Long John Nebel show 8/1/58

Daniel Fry’s description of gravitational repulsion at the intergalactic scale anticipated the discovery of the “dark energy” effect 42 years later in 1998
Ray: Fry didn’t say anything to indicate that, and other people were talking about this kind of thing at the time.
Me: Yes he did state it very explicitly. Please see my earlier post; it’s indisputable. And it’s not an effect that a clever person could just figure out on their own: the world’s top astronomers were shocked when they discovered this effect. If you can cite a source where someone else is describing an intergalactic gravitational repulsion at the time of Daniel Fry’s writings I would be very grateful to see it because I’ve never found another reference about it from that era.

Daniel Fry’s 1954 descriptions of the characteristics of gravitational field propulsion accurately anticipate the first theoretical descriptions of the subject published in Miguel Alcubierre’s 1994 warp drive paper
Ray: You’re reading into it, he didn’t do any such thing.
Me: I touched on this a little in my previous post, and I wrote a chapter on the subject for Sean Donovan’s comprehensive 2014 biography of Daniel Fry. So I’ll just offer two examples of this and we can get into it in more detail later on if anyone’s interested.

In this brief passage, Daniel Fry describes the absence of g-forces within the gravitational field propulsion system of the craft, even under high accelerations. The absence of acceleration forces within a gravitational field propulsion mechanism weren’t described in the scientific literature until Miguel Alcubierre published his 1994 paper about gravitational field propulsion:

“A moment later, the ground suddenly fell away from the ship with incredible rapidity. I say that the ground `fell away’ because I did not feel the slightest sense of motion myself, and the ship was as steady as a rock. In spite of the fact that we must have been accelerating at the rate of at least ten g’s, I could have sworn that we were standing still.”
The White Sands Incident, Daniel Fry, 1954

And that’s now known to be true – Alcubierre clearly describes how a passenger and his craft propelled in this manner would “free fall” along a geodesic, so no accelerations are experienced within the field, even when executing rapid accelerations in speed or direction. This is absolutely unique to a gravitational propulsion system. Within a gravitational field propulsion system a craft can execute hairpin supersonic maneuvers with no stresses on the craft or the passenger, as if they were motionless – the world outside a window in the craft would appear to scroll around erratically like a movie projected on a wall. But it gets even more interesting with this next passage that explains a more exotic technical detail of a gravitational field propulsion system:

“’But in this case,” I thought, ‘why am I not floating around in the air as things are supposed to do within a missile which is in free fall?’”

‘The answer to this also should be fairly obvious,’ was the reply. ‘Before the ship was put into motion, you were resting upon the seat, and there was a force of one gravity acting between your body and the seat. Since the force which accelerates both the ship and your body acts in exact proportion to the mass, and since the earth’s gravity continues to act upon both, the original force between your body and the seat will remain constant, except that it will decrease as the force of gravity of the planet decreases with distance.’”
The White Sands Incident, Daniel Fry, 1954

This is exactly correct, and I’ve seen no other references about this effect in the literature of that era. Alcubierre explained in 1994 that the region within the acceleration field remains “flat” with respect to spacetime geometry, so conditions aboard the craft would remain unaltered. But an external gravitational field intersecting the craft would pass right through the field and persist as if the gravitational propulsion field doesn’t exist. So hovering above the Earth, the passenger and objects within the craft would still feel the Earth’s gravity, until they rose far enough from the surface of the Earth that the field became too weak for any observer at that height to experience the gravitational field of the planet. To the best of my knowledge, nobody understood this until Alcubierre published his paper 40 years after Daniel Fry published his book The White Sands Incident in 1954.

The nature of the scientific process
Ray: Science isn’t conducted by looking at later findings and comparing them to earlier claims.
Me: That’s exactly wrong: this is precisely how science is conducted. A claim is advanced in the form of a prediction, and then it’s either confirmed or refuted by subsequent theoretical developments and/or experimental observations. And time and time again I’ve found that many of Daniel Fry’s assertions accurately describe subsequent developments in the scientific literature. That’s what makes his books so unique and scientifically compelling – no other alleged contactee can boast a series of accurate scientific predictions. So how did he do it? I wish I knew; none of the explanations I’ve considered seem to satisfactorily explain all the various aspects of this case.

Daniel Fry’s discomfort when suddenly in free fall
Ray: Astronauts don’t report this when they become weightless.
Me: Astronauts never experience instantaneous free-fall, their rise out of the gravitational field is gradual and the burn-out of a rocket engine isn’t instantaneous. In Fry’s account, he experiences an essentially instantaneous change from 1 earth-gravity to free-fall, which would indeed be an alarming and uncomfortable experience, like having the floor instantly drop out from underneath your chair. Here’s the description in Fry’s book:

“Instantly the compartment light came on. After the total darkness in which I had been, the light was blinding. While I was attempting to adjust my eyes to the light, my stomach suddenly leaped upward into my chest. For a moment I could plainly feel my heart beating against the lower end of my throat, while my lungs and other upper organs seemed determined to extrude through my ears. I had been through steep dives and sharp pull-outs in airplanes, and have ridden in many amusement devices calculated to produce the feeling of weightlessness, but had never felt anything like this before. There was no sensation of falling. It simply felt as though my organs, having been released from a heavy strain, were springing upward like elastic bands, when released from tension. Fortunately this sensation was of short duration. In a few seconds I felt almost normal again.”
The White Sands Incident, Daniel Fry, 1954, p. 62

Personally I wouldn’t want to unexpectedly experience a change from 1g to free-fall in an instant. And I think it’s rather a bit of hyperbole for dramatic impact to state “my lungs and other upper organs seemed determined to extrude through my ears,” but I think a little exaggeration helps convey the sense of dismay and discomfort that anyone would experience in that situation. Because even though the change in acceleration (~9.8ms^-2 to zero) is fairly small in this instance, the rate of change of acceleration (what physicists call “jerk”) can produce significant mechanical stresses, upon the body or anything else, and in this case the jerk appears to be very high.

Daniel Fry scientific sophistication
Ray: Fry was a poor technician with no real science training and little scientific understanding.
Me: He was a successful rocket instrumentation technician working with major US defense contractors like Aerojet, on cutting-edge rocket systems under development after WWII. This is all documented in Sean Donovan’s book Contactee: Was Daniel Fry Telling the Truth? I assume that he worked alongside Operation Paperclip rocket scientists, and must have held a security clearance to work at the base on these projects, because they were working on advancing the V2 rocket technology. And his books demonstrate a firm grasp of the key concepts of nuclear physics to thermodynamics to relativity, as well as prescient descriptions of the dark energy effect and gravitational field propulsion physics that weren’t elucidated in the scientific literature until decades later. And the ability to describe physics in layman terms is a sign of real understanding. Louis de Broglie attributed this apropos quote to Albert Einstein: "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.'”

Regarding Daniel Fry’s professional credentials, they are actually rather impressive – Sean Donovan did an amazing job of researching his background and interviewing family members and digging up the history of his professional career for his biography about him. Sean writes:

“A custom measurement system utilizing what would eventually be called a "transducer" was built. It consisted of a tiny thin-walled tube wrapped in wires, and when the pressure in the tube changed the resistance of the wires changed, which could be measured on an oscillograph, an early type of oscilloscope. Although Daniel didn't create these transducers for the Eaton Canyon Project, this is likely where he learned how they worked. Daniel would eventually design, build and install these and more advanced types of pressure transducers for Aerojet, making Crescent Engineering millions in sales.”
Contactee: Was Daniel Fry Telling the Truth?, Sean Donovan, 2014, p. 40

“As the war drew to a close and the demand for rockets subsided, all on-site production ended in September of 1945. In April six months earlier, Daniel returned to full-time work at Crescent, which now had 35 employees, and worked as a supervisor of plant number two. Crescent was performing contract work for other large rocket companies during the blossoming rocket age, including the manufacture of stainless steel components for Aerojet's liquid-fuel JATOs. The work that kept Daniel busy at plant number two was fixing thousands of solid-fuel Aerojet JATO rockets. A number of planes had plunged into the trees during takeoff because the carbon shields that protected the metal rocket nozzles were not properly fitted, and during take-off they would vibrate, disintegrate and substantially reduce thrust. The JATO revision work kept Daniel and plant number two busy for six months until the end of the war on September 2, 1945.”
Contactee: Was Daniel Fry Telling the Truth?, Sean Donovan, 2014, p. 41

“Early in 1949, with Elma bearing a third child, Daniel left his family in Grants Pass, Oregon and took up a job with Aerojet General, which was now testing and launching some of the largest rocket motors ever built. The rockets were launched to perform atmospheric experiments at the White Sands Proving Ground in New Mexico. Aerojet knew of Crescent Engineering and Daniel because he had worked for them during the war, fixing their JATO rockets. It was during this time at the White Sands Proving Ground that Daniel had his life-altering experience.

Below is Daniel's story about this event, which is now combined into one complete book[1] for the first time. It begins on July 4, 1949[2]. Daniel Fry, now 41 years old, is setting up test equipment including transducers for upcoming static tests of the Aerobee rocket engines. The "Aero" in Aerobee stood for Aerojet and "bee" for "Bumblebee," a name given to it by the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) which sponsored the research. In early 1946, as the supply of captured German V-2 rockets was used up, a general-purpose research rocket was suggested. There were various types of Aerobees and Daniel helped to test a 12-meter-tall variant called the XASR-SC-1, a helium-pressurized rocket which flew for the first time in late 1949. The Aerobee had two sections, the first was a solid-propellant rocket booster and the second was a single-stage liquid-fuel spin-stabilized rocket. The booster was necessary to bring the rocket up to speed at the top of the launch tower where the fins would take effect, the solid-fuel booster was then jettisoned a couple of seconds later and the liquid-fuel section would take over. The first Aerobees reached altitudes of 120 kilometers with a payload of 68 kilograms, and would ultimately see over a thousand launches in broad applications by the U.S. military research agencies. Daniel's part in the tests was to design, build and attach the transducers to the rockets on the test stands where they measured thrust performance and other parameters.”
Contactee: Was Daniel Fry Telling the Truth?, Sean Donovan, 2014, pp. 41-42

The alleged UFO footage and photographs
Ray: Daniel Fry faked the film and photographs of UFO’s.
Me: Yes he did. And that is the single most compelling reason to discount his entire story.

But there are two issues that weigh on my mind about this. I’ve already mentioned the first issue: this fakery seemed to comprise a fairly brief and shameful era in his story, and it’s possible that he did this to provide some evidence to support his story. Even good people sometimes do bad things. Here’s what Timothy Good had to say about this in his 1998 book Alien Base:

“I have always been dubious about the authenticity of Fry's 16 mm films of UFOs (copies of which are in my possession), particularly an object he said he saw in Oregon in May 1964, which to me looks like a couple of lampshades or similarly shaped devices fixed together and suspended with fine twine. He went into some detail as to the circumstances of the filming, and claimed that some frames show the limb of a cloud coming in front of the saucer. I remain unconvinced; the movement of the craft gives every indication of being a suspended fake. Perhaps I am wrong. But does this prove that Fry was lying about all his previous experiences? I think not. Most probably, he thought that a few fabricated movie films of "saucers" would bolster his unprovable claims.”

I’m frequently tempted to write the whole thing off because of these faked images, and I think that others are wholly justified to do so.

But the other thing that weighs heavily on my mind is the combination of the subsequently confirmed scientific assertions, and the apparent incongruity of this deception with the rest of his life, which Sean Donovan researched exhaustively and wrote about in great detail. We’ve already touched on a few of the scientific topics that, while written about in simple terms, are very striking in many respects.

But after reading (and providing a complete editorial revision) of Sean’s book about Daniel Fry, he sincerely strikes me as a guy who started from nothing and made something of himself through hard work and independent study, and ended up working alongside some of the brightest defense industry minds on the planet, within the early rocket research program. He was nothing at all like the weird, fickle, and often stupid characters who populated the “contactee scene.”

I’ve listened closely to his radio interviews and his audio talks on scientific subjects, and he comes across as a very earnest, knowledgeable, credible scientific technician with a better grasp of a wide variety of scientific subjects than Ray Stanford gives him credit for. His answers in response to a dizzying variety of questions related to ufology are always thoughtful, sensible, and often quite insightful. His story didn’t “evolve” over time – every re-telling of his alleged experience at White Sands remains unchanging, even across the decades of audio I have of his talks and interviews.

And he had a Lot of truly great ideas. For example, in one of his science talks called “The Many Varieties of Energy,” he closes with a speculation perhaps one day we’ll be able to convert matter into antimatter, under extreme pressures and temperatures, and thereby permanently solve the energy problem for human civilization. He argues, rightly, that such a process would not cost energy (other than setting up the proper conditions) because mass-energy would be conserved in the transformation, and that charge is also conserved in such a process. It’s a brilliantly novel and sensible idea that nobody else seems to have ever thought of before, to the best of my knowledge. And although it’s assumed to be impossible, very recently a theoretical physicist at CERN by the name of Dragan Hajdukovic has published a fascinating theory about antimatter and gravity that suggests precisely this same idea: that the universe periodically re-collapses (but not into a singularity) and “bounces” into a new Big Bang – but in the process all of the matter in the universe is converted into antimatter. The universe would then evolve exactly as our own matter universe has, because the laws of physics appear to hold perfectly for antimatter, until it recollapses again and the antimatter is converted into matter again with the next "bounce." And this would solve one of the biggest conundrums in astrophysics today: the baryogenesis problem. In this model, baryon number is conserved over vast timescales as antimatter-dominated universes oscillate with matter-dominated universes.

And decade after decade I’ve seen this kind of thing happen, unique to Daniel Fry’s work: something he said is verified or echoed in new scientific papers. And ultimately, that’s why I can’t just write it off as just another crazy story by some opportunistic hoaxer.

I just want to thank Tom (if I may be so informal as to call you that) for taking the time to write this polite and detailed "rebuttal" post. I appreciate the time, effort and information that went into its crafting. Both it and your initial post are a fantastic addition to the discourse in this thread.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I just want to thank Tom (if I may be so informal as to call you that) for taking the time to write this polite and detailed "rebuttal" post. I appreciate the time, effort and information that went into its crafting. Both it and your initial post are a fantastic addition to the discourse in this thread.

Thank you Chris (if I may be so bold ; ). I'm glad you found it worth the time to read through it. I suppose that what fascinates me so much about this case, is that it's much harder to dismiss today, than it would have been 30-40 years ago. Because back when Daniel Fry published his books, and gave most of his talks, a well-educated scientist would have said "there is no repulsion between the galaxies, and there's no such thing as gravity propulsion" - and they would have been right, according to the best knowledge of the day. There would have appeared to be a firm, factual basis to discredit his account on scientific grounds.

But now the tables have turned: the science of Daniel Fry's day was incorrect/incomplete, it turns out. In fact he didn't live to see the repulsion between galaxy clusters confirmed, or the publication of Alcubierre's 1994 paper about gravitational field propulsion that validated his descriptions published 40 years earlier. So how did he know?

If that doesn't make one stop and wonder, what will?

 

[Sand]

For the first time in years I yesterday watched the 1992 contactee documentary Farwell, Good Brothers. It’s still as entertaining and humorous as ever. It’s sad to see that most everyone featured in the film has now passed away (including Robert Girard of Arcturus Books)

A couple of the interesting segments:

Part 4. 14:00 - The Giant Rock contactee Flying Saucer Convention in the California desert. It’s said that at the 1958 convention there were about 5,000 attendees which would be larger than any UFO convention today. It must have been something walking through the tables of the vender section at that convention, with each person pitching their story of having ridden on a flying saucer. It said that in those days there were less UFO researchers than people saying they had been on a flying saucer.

Part 5. 7:16 - A very elderly Daniel Fry assessing the contactees saying, “some of them want to make some money, some of them want to get somewhere, some of them want to do something, some of them want to apply some logic, there isn’t anything you can imagine that somebody didn’t want to do to it.”

On YouTube the film is posted in five parts.

 

[Randall]

My only question is: Does anyone in ufology ever have a "best seller" from the vantage point of mainstream publishing? I realize that in 1987 Whitley Strieber ht paydirt with COMMUNION, but that is because he created a new genre of the fictional non-fiction book. But ufology is still a special niche within the overall publishing world. So even if Ray Stanford had a popular book in this small pond, I doubt this would lead to riches and fame in the larger ocean. I don't see a real problem with seeking financial return on his investment into a book. That's the American way. I just doubt the proceeds would allow him to buy a new Lexus, much less give him a life of ease and security.

You're entitled to that opinion, but personally, I think it's a bit shallow. I believe that humanity in general should have free access to things that affect humanity in general, e.g. medical care, justice, knowledge, and in the area of knowledge, the reality of alien visitation is significant, and it has been actively covered-up by the PTB. So while Stanford may have the right to keep whatever he has to himself, I don't think I'm alone in the belief that any worthy information he has should be freely shared with humanity.

Against the background of the struggle for official disclosure, I also think it's fair for ufologists to despise the attitude of anyone who would hold-out for the highest bidder. If the evidence were mine, I would publish it directly to the Internet at my own expense so that nobody could suppress it. It's why USI charges nothing for membership or access to anything on the site that I have direct control over. Yes we accept donations, but that's not the same thing. Yes we advertise other people's books and videos, but I have no control over what other people charge, and at least make an effort to make it easily available, and there won't be any evidence in my own book that isn't also included on the site.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

You're entitled to that opinion, but personally, I think it's a bit shallow. I believe that humanity in general should have free access to those things that affect humanity in general, e.g. medical care, justice, knowledge, and in the area of knowledge, the reality of alien visitation is extremely significant, and it has been actively covered-up by the PTB. So while Stanford may have the right to keep whatever he has to himself, I don't think I'm alone in the belief that any worthy information he has should be freely shared with humanity. I most certainly would.

In fact, against the background of the struggle for official disclosure, I think it's fair for ufologists to despise the attitude of anyone who would hold-out for the highest bidder. If the evidence were mine, I would publish it directly to the Internet at my own expense so that nobody could suppress it. It's why USI charges nothing for membership or access to anything on the site that I have direct control over. Yes we accept donations, but that's not the same thing. Yes we advertise other people's books and videos, but I have no control over what other people charge, and at least make an effort to make it easily available, and there won't be any evidence in my own book that isn't also included on the site.

Your entire reply is based on the assumption that Ray Stanford has information that would revolutionize the understanding of the entire human race regarding an alien presence. I am not willing to make such an assumption. Ray can present his findings and analysis, much as John Keel did in his time. John's information was food for thought but didn't exactly change the world. I sincerely doubt that Ray has any information that would change humanity's perception of itself or the possibility of alien involvement. Perhaps instead of shallow I simply view this from a high perspective based on history and my ancient lineage of 65 years.

If you wish to go after someone with "hidden" information, go after Robert Bigelow, the billionaire ufo enthusiast who buys up witness testimonies and researches mysterious places and then publishes nothing.

 

[marduk]

Your entire reply is based on the assumption that Ray Stanford has information that would revolutionize the understanding of the entire human race regarding an alien presence. I am not willing to make such an assumption. Ray can present his findings and analysis, much as John Keel did in his time. John's information was food for thought but didn't exactly change the world. I sincerely doubt that Ray has any information that would change humanity's perception of itself or the possibility of alien involvement. Perhaps instead of shallow I simply view this from a high perspective based on history and my ancient lineage of 65 years.

If you wish to go after someone with "hidden" information, go after Robert Bigelow, the billionaire ufo enthusiast who buys up witness testimonies and researches mysterious places and then publishes nothing.

My default position is both of them have nothing. Just like the US government or any other human organization.

 

[Randall]

Your entire reply is based on the assumption that Ray Stanford has information that would revolutionize the understanding of the entire human race regarding an alien presence.

Not exactly. That's an exaggeration. I'm speaking about evidence in general. What I do think is important is the subject matter. Like Chris constantly points out: It's not all about you ( Stanford or Greer or Me or whomever ). I take that to mean that figuring out what's really going on is more important than individual egos, eccentricities, and power plays.

I am not willing to make such an assumption.

That's probably wise.

Ray can present his findings and analysis, much as John Keel did in his time. John's information was food for thought but didn't exactly change the world. I sincerely doubt that Ray has any information that would change humanity's perception of itself or the possibility of alien involvement. Perhaps instead of shallow I simply view this from a high perspective based on history and my ancient lineage of 65 years.

Hey 65 isn't all that ancient, 65 is like the new 55. Maybe I'm just more of a socialist and idealist than a capitalist and calling your view "a bit shallow" is a reflection of that bias. No doubt some people have a problem with my attitude too, but I'm willing to stand by why I made the comment, and it wasn't intended to offend as much as to mark a point of contention for discussion.

If you wish to go after someone with "hidden" information, go after Robert Bigelow, the billionaire ufo enthusiast who buys up witness testimonies and researches mysterious places and then publishes nothing.

Either way, the money is irrelevant to me. If you think sharing the evidence for the benefit of humanity isn't relevant at all, you'd have no problem with Stanford selling-out to Bigelow and never having it see the light of day. I'm guessing there's a layer of principle in you someplace on this aspect of the subject. Mine is just more black and white. If someone has evidence, it should be shared freely with those who are looking for the answers instead of hoarding it pending an offer based on notoriety and/or money.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Not exactly. That's an exaggeration. I'm speaking about evidence in general. What I do think is important is the subject matter. Like Chris constantly points out: It's not all about you ( Stanford or Greer or Me or whomever ). I take that to mean that figuring out what's really going on is more important than individual egos, eccentricities, and power plays.

That's probably wise.

Hey 65 isn't all that ancient, 65 is like the new 55. Maybe I'm just more of a socialist and idealist than a capitalist and calling your view "a bit shallow" is a reflection of that bias. No doubt there's people who have problems with my attitude too, but I'm willing to stand by why I made the comment, and it wasn't intended to offend as much as to mark a point of contention for discussion.
Either way the money is irrelevant to me. If you think sharing the evidence for the benefit of humanity isn't relevant at all, you'd have no problem with Stanford selling-out to Bigelow and never having it see the light of day. I'm guessing there's a layer of principle in you someplace on this aspect of the subject. Mine is just more black and white. If someone has evidence, it should be shared freely with those who are looking for the answers instead of hoarding it pending the right offer.

My point about the BILLIONAIRE Bigelow is that he has limitless money to buy up and conduct his own research, all without sharing the results with anyone. An analogy would be a billinaire buying up all the world's great art and never showing it to anyone. His wealth gives him access and capabilities none of us could hardly imagine. Imagine if YOU had a billion dollars and could fund ufo research. Yet none of the research is shared with anyone. Sorry, but money gets things done on this planet in just about any nation, including Somalia and other anarchist or libertarian wet dream states.

I still think a man or woman has a right to reap the benefits of their research, which like John Keel, took place over decades. If you begrudge the $14.50 or the $19.50 for a paperback book of their results, then that is your right not to buy it. If such a person was holding the information hostage for some $1500 "Night with Steven Greer" presentation or outing in the fields signalling to 747's, then I have an issue. But unless you are independently wealthy, live off mommy and daddy, I assume you trade your labor and/or intellect for money. How crass of you! LOL But if you don't support yourself, then someone somewhere has to do it for you.

By the way, I am a very liberal progressive person and think the safety net is sacred, even as the GOP works relentlessly to destroy it. And the poor and middle class continue to vote for their own peril and poverty by re-electing these godawful creatures. Nonetheless, I support the right of a person to benefit financially from their hard work.

Oh, by the way, thanks for insulting me by saying by inference that I lack principles. I do not usually share this, but since retirement in 2004, I have been an unpaid hospice volunteer. Yes, I do give back without a financial reward. But I am able to do so because I earned a lot of money as an Information Systems person.

 

[Randall]

My point about the BILLIONAIRE Bigelow is that he has limitless money to buy up and conduct his own research, all without sharing the results with anyone. An analogy would be a billinaire buying up all the world's great art and never showing it to anyone. His wealth gives him access and capabilities none of us could hardly imagine. Imagine if YOU had a billion dollars and could fund ufo research. Yet none of the research is shared with anyone. Sorry, but money gets things done on this planet in just about any nation, including Somalia and other anarchist or libertarian wet dream states.

Nobody is denying that money isn't useful ( it is ). Bigelow should also share whatever he's got as freely as anyone else ( including Stanford ). Just because Biglow's rich doesn't exempt him any more than Stanford not being rich exempt's him.

I still think a man or woman has a right to reap the benefits of their research, which like John Keel, took place over decades. If you begrudge the $14.50 or the $19.50 for a paperback book of their results, then that is your right not to buy it. If such a person was holding the information hostage for some $1500 "Night with Steven Greer" presentation or outing in the fields signalling to 747's, then I have an issue. But unless you are independently wealthy, live off mommy and daddy, I assume you trade your labor and/or intellect for money. How crass of you! LOL But if you don't support yourself, then someone somewhere has to do it for you.

Nobody is denying Stanford should have the right not to disclose. It's that there's a consequence to making that choice that gives others an equal right to be critical of that choice.

By the way, I am a very liberal progressive person and think the safety net is sacred, even as the GOP works relentlessly to destroy it. And the poor and middle class continue to vote for their own peril and poverty by re-electing these godawful creatures. Nonetheless, I support the right of a person to benefit financially from their hard work.

Nobody is suggesting that a person shouldn't have the right to benefit from their hard work, but plenty of people also volunteer at least some their hard work for the greater good, and IMO evidence of alien visitation qualifies as the kind of thing that should be voluntarily disclosed, and I personally think less of those who claim to have it and don't openly share it. That's one of the reasons I never joined MUFON.

Oh, by the way, thanks for insulting me by saying by inference that I lack principles. I do not usually share this, but since retirement in 2004, I have been an unpaid hospice volunteer. Yes, I do give back without a financial reward. But I am able to do so because I earned a lot of money as an Information Systems person.

Like I said, my comment on shallowness wasn't intended to offend as much as it was to mark a point of contention for the sake of discussion. I also admit that it reflects my own biases, and certainly not everyone agrees with me either. I also think it's fine that you volunteer and if there was any inference about your principles it was, "I'm guessing there's a layer of principle in you someplace on this aspect of the subject.", which suggests exactly the opposite of any insult, gives you the benefit of the doubt, and was intended to focus your attention on the ethics of non-disclosure. I hope that clears up that miscommunication.

 

[marduk]

If Bigelow had something, you'd see him profiting off of it.

You don't.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

He doesn't have to profit in public.

 

[Randall]

He doesn't have to profit in public.

I think you guys both have really valid points. When he was recruiting "out of the box thinkers" to help him figure out UFO propulsion, it's rather obvious that he was looking for a serious edge in commercial space ventures. At the same time, if his "inside the box thinkers" ( because ironically those are the only people he would accept ), did manage to stumble on some sort of exotic propulsion, it's also entirely possible he'd license it out to the military secretly for a huge profit. Is that along the lines you were thinking Gene?

 

[withoutlimits09]

Ray Stanford claims to have irrefutable proof of a, "flying saucer shooting a plasma beam at him." He has mentioned this film several times and claims it is so compelling, academics have back engineered parts of this technology, and are implementing it today. Ray says this film proves flying saucers are real and that they are not made by "us." Subsequently, Ray Stanford has recently worked very hard to shed new light on the Socorro UFO mystery. In fact, he spent hours at the National Archives with Jamie Fox. At one point Ray became emotional over a sketch of a symbol, proof, Ray says, that substantiates his own claims about this case. Moreover, he claims to have a day-light photo of the Socorro UFO with its "landing gear" visible...

Now to any rational person there are clear problems with all of this. Why would one become emotional over having a sketch authenticate their story, when at the same time they claim to have a photograph of the egg-shaped UFO from that very case? If you really wanted to validate the case, and bring interested observers to it, wouldn't you want to release that photo in order to open more doors. If the photo is what Ray says it is, it would be far more compelling to mainstream science than a sketch on a napkin found at the National Archives.

Worse yet, let's go back another step. Ray has spent his entire life investigating UFOs, he wants to focus people's attention on the subject, and wants to help authenticate his claims about the Socorro New Mexico encounter. I simply ask, what better way to validate all of this than to release the daylight UFO footage of a flying saucer shooting a plasma beam someone! If, as Ray claims, the video evidence is so dynamic, it would indirectly substantiate UFOs as a real phenomena, which would mean he wouldn't have to dig through papers at the National Archives and get emotional over "napkin sketches."

Ray of course knows this, because this is exactly what he has done with his Dino research. Ray would be a nobody in that field if he found fossils, hyped them up, but refused to turn them over to any serious academic research facility. However, Ray is noted for his finds because he did turn them over to reputable agencies who did verify them. This is how things are proven, this is called science. What Ray is doing with his UFO "evidence" is akin to a circus side show, not any real attempt at accomplishing something.

I have made this analogy before, and I will make it again, simply because it is so spot on. Ray Stanford, and his claims about his UFO evidence, is akin to a Bigfoot researcher who claims to have a real body on ice, but spends his time taking plaster castings of "footprints" in hopes of attracting mainstream science to the possible reality of Bigfoot. If such a person had the Bigfoot body, they would not need the plaster prints, similarly so, if someone had the holy grail UFO film, they would not need sketches at the National Archives to bring attention to a UFO case. The film would take care of everything, the fact it has never been formally turned over to academia is very telling to me.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...What Ray is doing with his UFO "evidence" is akin to a circus side show, not any real attempt at accomplishing something....

When it comes to Ray and his ufological work, you are making assumptions which indicate you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[withoutlimits09]

When it comes to Ray and his ufological work, you are making assumptions which indicate you do not know what you are talking about.

Hyping these films up on various podcasts, showing the film to a few selected devotees in his own living room, while giving every excuse in the book, as to why he can't turn the film over to an accredited university, is akin to a side show, yes.

Any rational person, who is not a Ray Stanford devotee drunk on his Kool-aid, will see I make very valid points in my post. Chris, you did some cool research on cows, but you are either being blinded here out of respect for the old guy, or you are just wrong.