Famous 1971 Lago de Cote, Costa Rican UFO hoaxed?

[Bulk]

For the previous post.

Bulk

 

[withoutlimits09]

So if this photo is discredited, and the Belguim UFO photo is discredited, Ed Walter's photos are discredited (and so forth), what are we left with in terms of photographic evidence? I keep hearing about some guy named Ray Stanford who has the "holy grail" of UFO films, however until I actually see it, rather than hear about it on radio shows (which unsurprisingly promote...Ray Stanford), I remain unconvinced.


I think we can safely say there is nothing in terms of photographic evidence that is even slightly compelling. Perhaps, someone in posession of some "truly authentic" :cough: UFO "evidence" should step forward...

LOL, yes not very unlikely, I know!

If you keep hanging the footage out there, like a carrot on a stick, you can remain relevant, continue to appear on radio and podcasts, while continuing to perpetrate this myth, that your evidence, and ONLY your evidence, is the best.

personally, I say PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

If it the footage is so good, you can leave this earth with having settled the most important question of all time, or you can continue to make excuses as to why you won't release this footage to a major university and news outlet for examination and confirmation.

Sorry some old hillbilly and a computer, telling me the film is real on countless podcasts is not enough to satisfy a scientific mind...

WE NEED MORE!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

So if this photo is discredited, and the Belguim UFO photo is discredited, Ed Walter's photos are discredited (and so forth), what are we left with in terms of photographic evidence? I keep hearing about some guy named Ray Stanford who has the "holy grail" of UFO videos, however until I actually see it, rather than hear about it on radio shows (which unsurprisingly promote...Ray Stanford), I remain unconvinced...

You don't listen very well, but I can HEAR YOUR yelling.

Ray DOES NOT HAVE ANY VIDEOS. Holy grail in quotes? I never said that and neither has Ray. Please be correct and accurate. He has analog films and still (film) photos and some physical evidence of various types, i.e., burnt paper and vitrified quartz from the Soccorro site, a glass and copper meteorite from TX, etc. And he has his analysis. What he has DOES NOT conform to the simplistic 50s sci-fi/Adamski/Billy Meir "flying saucer" You can ooh and ahh all you want over at Third Phase of Loon. Obviously, you don't trust my appraisal of Ray's scientific work. That's OK, you'll deal with it. Until he is ready, everyone will just have to continue being patient. If that's not good enough, go ahead email and bitch and moan to him yourself [email protected]

 

[withoutlimits09]

You don't listen very well, but I can HEAR YOUR yelling.

Ray DOES NOT HAVE ANY VIDEOS. Holy grail in quotes? I never said that and neither has Ray. Please be correct and accurate. He has analog films and still (film) photos and some physical evidence of various types, i.e., burnt paper and vitrified quartz from the Soccorro site, a glass and copper meteorite from TX, etc. And he has his analysis. What he has DOES NOT conform to the simplistic 50s sci-fi/Adamski/Billy Meir "flying saucer" You can ooh and ahh all you want over at Third Phase of Loon. Obviously, you don't trust my appraisal of Ray's scientific work. That's OK, you'll deal with it. Until he is ready, everyone will just have to continue being patient. If that's not good enough, go ahead email and bitch and moan to him yourself [email protected]

Chris, we all know you worship Ray.

However, you cannot, in good faith, maintain that Ray does not claim to have any footage! I am being perfectly correct and accurate — otherwise I would not have said anything.

In short, Ray Stanford claims he shot footage of several UFOs flying over the water. He claims you can clearly see every detail of the craft, including its propulsion system! These crafts then shot beams and plasma out towards him (I am not making this stuff up people LOL). He then states "I have complete film of this in broad day light" (18:50 minute mark). You are claiming he doesn't have footage, I have just provided proof to the contrary.

However, he (of course) won't release any of it.

Anyone interested can listen to Ray's promotion of his footage (that, according to Chris, he doesn't have?) here, along with the quote provided above at:
https://www.theparacast.com/podcasts/paracast_120401.mp3

Additionally, people can read a thread (on this very site) about his reluctance to release this footage along with Chris's unrelenting defense of Ray.
4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford | The Paracast Community Forums


Moreover, what exactly are Ray Stanford's qualifications to analyze a photo, or a dinosaur bone, or even UFO propulsion system? Has he even set foot in any accredited University? What are his educational credentials? Sorry overall "acuity" about a blueberry pie does not suffice.

The only thing I can dig up about the guy (aside from his self promotions) are instances of him being in UFO cults, claims of being a contacee, and other assorted nonsense that void him of any credibility (see below).

1. 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.)"
2. "Stanford stated that in the autumn of 1973 his car was, not once, but twice, teleported large distances while driving to the airport to pick up Uri Geller. Stanford stated that he (along with the car!) was transported some 30 miles in the blink of an eye. Stanford said that an entity that he had conjured called "Spectra" assisted in moving him and his vehicle instantaneously down a highway."
3. "Stanford fancies himself a UFO scientist. He started up yet another group (the time called Project Starlight International, or PSI) with the aim to attract and detect UFOs.
4. Stanford's UFOdetector had an "attractor" feature that include a circle of lights that was supposed to gain the attention of flying saucer aliens! Simple and child-like in design, Stanford's circle of spinning lights, which displayed on and off at different intervals, is reminiscent of Steven Greer's ridiculous attempts at attracting UFOs by shining flashlights up into the sky. Stanford also had a "Precision Monitoring UFO Magnetometer" for use in the home"

The Truth Uncensored: Ray Stanford Uncensored


I could post more things, but can you really take anything seriously from a guy who was vectored away in his car by a being named "Spectra."

I certainly can't.

The "hero worship" in this field is unbelievable to me! The above posted tid bits are similar to the stuff you all knock Steven Greer over the head with daily (and rightfully so) however, Ray is one of the "cool kids" and "we like him" so he gets a pass on all of his ridiculous claims!

 

[Randall]

It seems that some differentiation between the words "video" and "film" is in order, the former being a reference to magnetic tape or digital media, and the latter being a reference to old-fashioned light sensitive analog film. Personally I'm willing to reserve judgment on Ray's evidence and give Chris the benefit of the doubt. Chris is a respected field investigator and author who isn't among the whacko's out there. So it's neither fair nor appropriate to start in with cracks like "hero worship" and such. The problem isn't with Chris. He's just following up on his investigation. The problem is that Ray Stanford is holding out on the ufology community and by extension the world at large. Given the importance of such evidence, IMO Ray hasn't provided a reasonable explanation for his behavior. But like Chris says, that doesn't matter to Ray, he still has the right to do it, and he's doing it anyway. In the meantime, Chris does excellent work and I'm sure that if it were up to him, he'd be more than happy to share such evidence with the ufology community.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Yes, Chris clearly does state that Ray has analog film (such as Super 8) as well as stills. He is pointing out that it is not video footage as in VHS etc.

I believe Ray is very careful about what he says he has and has not. I am as eager as the next man to see his footage and hear his lecture and share any frustration anyone else feels but being frustrated is not the same as no film existing.

Also, just because the Belgian triangle and Costa Rica phots may well be fake, that does not detract from many other pictures that are pretty unexplainable.

 

[withoutlimits09]

I am not looking to play semantics here, though I did use the term "footage" and not "VHS video." Regardless, I said that Ray claims to have this amazingly impressive UFO footage that he touts at every opportunity. It is akin to the holy grail of evidence if you even listen to Ray's description of it. Any "footage, motion picture, film, super 8," ...WHATEVER, that clearly shows a UFO shooting plasma beams at someone in broad daylight will win a Pulitzer Prize for science and history! I am not looking to play Webster dictionary here, everyone knows what Ray claims he has. To suggest he doesn't have anything, or to make light of what he does have, is a direct contradiction to what Ray himself promotes online and on radio.

According to Ray, he possesses "the real deal" and (it seems) everyone else has faked or hoaxed material... Hence my problem with his work on this Costa Rican photo. Ray has a problem with anyone having something "better" than his footage, which, ironically, he won't open up to the same sort of scrutiny he likes to do to other evidence that DOES exist out there.

That was my point!

As far as Chris's ability as a researcher, I made no broader comments. My criticisms of him were strictly confined to the Ray Stanford footage and his persistent defense of Ray, his film, and his abilities. It borders on hero worship for reasons I outlined. When Steven Greer claims vectoring into ships, alien contact, super secret evidence that only he has access to, Chris and everyone at the Paracast take him to task, However, when "good ole boy" Ray Standford does seemingly the SAME EXACT thing, he gets a pass. This is not philosophically consistent, and I am merely pointing out this dispartiy.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

A major difference between Ray and Greer, for me anyway, is that Ray seems to work away by himself and isn't constantly self-promoting but Greer, IMO, is totally robbing people of large sums of cash and has put himself up as the person who trains others as an inter-stellar ambassador. There is a huge difference between those two, although I agree that a lot of Ray's former belief's and statements are extremely hard to swallow. I do wonder what he would say today when asked about such stuff?

 

[withoutlimits09]

A major difference between Ray and Greer, for me anyway, is that Ray seems to work away by himself and isn't constantly self-promoting but Greer, IMO, is totally robbing people of large sums of cash and has put himself up as the person who trains others as an inter-stellar ambassador. There is a huge difference between those two, although I agree that a lot of Ray's former belief's and statements are extremely hard to swallow. I do wonder what he would say today when asked about such stuff?

I suppose I disagree, as this website points out, Ray Stanford did precisely the same things as Greer. He made little groups up of contactees and served as their "leader" he sold UFO "detection" devices, which at the time, would be on par to Greer's free energy jargon today. He claimed special abilities like vectoring vast distances and meeting various beings. He also swindled people in various "channeling" schemes, going as far as claiming Jesus Christ was talking through him. In all honestly, after reviewing all of this, and writing it right here, I think Stanford is actually WORSE than Greer. Standford had his hand in UFO's, channeling, religious cult leaders, selling various devices, a true snake oil salesman!


At least Greer was able to amass the group of witnesses for the first Disclosure project. Granted a few nut cases got in, but the overall core group of testimony presented at that press conference went on to make up the bulk of Leslie Kean's acclaimed and well respected best seller, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record. At the very least he did more for Ufology with that effort than anything Standford has done channeling Jesus, selling rudimentary UFO detectors, or setting up various UFO related businesses aimed at separating people from their money.

 

[Randall]

I suppose I disagree, as this website points out, Ray Stanford did precisely the same things as Greer. He made little groups up of contactees and served as their "leader" he sold UFO "detection" devices, which at the time, would be on par to Greer's free energy jargon today. He claimed special abilities like vectoring vast distances and meeting various beings. He also swindled people in various "channeling" schemes, going as far as claiming Jesus Christ was talking through him. In all honestly, after reviewing all of this, and writing it right here, I think Stanford is actually WORSE than Greer. Standford had his hand in UFO's, channeling, religious cult leaders, selling various devices, a true snake oil salesman!


At least Greer was able to amass the group of witnesses for the first Disclosure project. Granted a few nut cases got in, but the overall core group of testimony presented at that press conference went on to make up the bulk of Leslie Kean's acclaimed and well respected best seller, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record. At the very least he did more for Ufology with that effort than anything Standford has done channeling Jesus, selling rudimentary UFO detectors, or setting up various UFO related businesses aimed at separating people from their money.

OK, that was well put. However it's not like we're looking at a true side by side comparison. Once upon a time Greer came across as more respectable, and once upon a time Stanford came across as less respectable. Then over time, while Stanford has become more respectable, Greer has become less respectable. Therefore why should they both be treated equally now? Plus Chris has had personal experience with both people, seen some of the evidence for himself, and he has a reputation as an accomplished field investigator and author. So once again, Chris' opinion is worth some weight, and if he says the evidence Stanford has now is more deserving of serious consideration than Greer's, then that's probably how it is.

I don't think we need to make any more of a deal out of it than that. If Ray comes forth with his evidence, then we can all evaluate it for ourselves. Until then, since there's nothing any of us can do to change the situation, we might as well focus on other things that are more productive. For example, Ray's photo analysis 1971 Lago de Cote, Costa Rican UFO is deserving of some consideration. Personally, I've never looked at the artifact in that way before, and I think that a conical reflector is a reasonable interpretation. Thanks to Chris and Ray we had something new to consider that was presented in a genuine and constructive manner. That's the spirit I like to see and IMO it wouldn't hurt to have more of it.

 

[withoutlimits09]

Can we look at Ray's footage as closely as the Costa Rican image? Why not?

When was the last time Steven Greer was given credit for his initial disclosure efforts? He is forever tainted by his more recent embellishments, which, upon retrospect, don't even come close the BS Ray Stanford tries to peddle. So why should we give Stanford any credit in light of his previous lies? At least Greer was able to get a major University to look at his speciman and admit it raised real questions. Ray is still out there peddling his junk but refusing to expose it to any real academic analysis all while, moon lighting as an expert on propulsions, dinosaurs, UFOs, and photo analyiss. At least Greer went to medical school and earned a legit M.D.!

(this is troubling for me to even have to point out because I don't even like Greer! However, it just illustrates how pathetic Ray Stanford is in comparison.)

Though you may think Chris's opinion is worth some weight regarding Ray Stanford, I beg to differ. Chris has always blindly supported the guy no matter what. This is hardly the behavior of a true objective researcher. Though Chris may have done very good work in other areas, his position on Ray Stanford is, sadly a bit disappointing. I wish he put forward one percent of the skepticism towards Ray as he done 3/4 of the guests on his show. Many of which are not claiming anything near as fantastical of an account as Stanford.

Since replying to this thread more than a few people have messaged me to tell me that they appreciated my firm position on Stanford. Others outlined even more troubling problems with him!

Are you aware that:

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.


This sort of thing makes Steven Greer look like an honest broker in comparison. An objective researcher, like Chris O'brian should be bright enough to see through this latest hype from Stanford, and deem it more of the same. The guy literally has a 30-40 year history of propagating unreliable and unverifiable junk.

Standing behind a guy with credibility issues as troubling as Stanford should cast one's objective sense of journalism into question...

Frankly, I can't see how anyone even objects to my position.

 

[Burnt State]

While I've taken similar positions on Stanford in the past I think that ufology has a better approach. One thing I've learned from listening to The Paracast and observing some of the more interesting moments of personality conflicts that arise in Ufology's tangled web is that people in the field do have history with each other. Many have mentored each other, worked together and probably shared a lot more than paranormal analysis. There are probably many deep friendships between those who are on the record vehemently disagreeing with the other's big theory. Consequently, I've toned down what I used to see as hypocrisy when it comes to what degree of grilling people get. Relationships have to be maintained and I bet some are challenged or even broken due to podcast interviews. The other thing to remember is that very few are making big money from this work. Greer and contactee popularists are the exception; Stanford may have once been down that road but his name is not in lights now. The entertainment service that podcasts like The Paracast provide are free, so should i complain in anger about moments in a field that more frequently looks like a circus more often than not?

Over time there are themes between people, about certain topics and guests that repeat and Stanford is a big itch that many would like see scratched and divulged. But until that moment I take many statements with salt shaker handy, remain doubtful and err on the side of humor and mild sarcasm.

The other thing to consider is that a lot of emotions get in play over the big controversies: Emma Woods, Linda Cortile, Hopkins, Greer, etc. and it's not a surprise that some have taken sides. These are not pleasant spaces.

I'm very interested in what appears to be a legitimate refutation of another one of the most famous UFO photos. Perhaps the bigger question to focus on is whether or not any real photos exist at all in the public domain and if not - why? Until Ray's big reveal I don't bother considering his statements, though Chris suggests otherwise. If you listen carefully to the whole of what O'Brien has to say he is mostly skeptical AND he hosts a paranormal radio show. There are acceptable conflicts and dualities present in this "instigator."

 

[Randall]

@Christopher O'Brien

Though you may think Chris's opinion is worth some weight regarding Ray Stanford, I beg to differ. Chris has always blindly supported the guy no matter what.

I wouldn't go so far as to agree that Chris "blindly supports" Stanford, or anyone else for that matter. Chris seems only to be defending his position with respect to some very specific things.

This is hardly the behavior of a true objective researcher. Though Chris may have done very good work in other areas, his position on Ray Stanford is, sadly a bit disappointing. I wish he put forward one percent of the skepticism towards Ray as he done 3/4 of the guests on his show. Many of which are not claiming anything near as fantastical of an account as Stanford. Since replying to this thread more than a few people have messaged me to tell me that they appreciated my firm position on Stanford. Others outlined even more troubling problems with him! Are you aware that:

I respect your skepticism. I've also expressed my position about Stanford holding out on us more than once, and I've also seen mentions of Stanford's fringe activity elsewhere. But I've also seen articles on his recognized discoveries in paleontology as well. Does Ray's past pseudoscience nullify his recognized accomplishments? How do we know his UFO evidence doesn't deserve any merit when we haven't even seen it? So what if he's done some outside the box thinking in the past and actually tried it? Good for him. On the other hand, if you're saying his unorthodox experiments were actually intentional frauds on the public for the purpose of personal gain, then that's another story. Has he ever been charged with a related offense? If so when and for what? Let's make sure we have these accusations in their proper context and aren't simply character assassinations by biased skeptics.

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.

This sort of thing makes Steven Greer look like an honest broker in comparison. An objective researcher, like Chris O'brian should be bright enough to see through this latest hype from Stanford, and deem it more of the same. The guy literally has a 30-40 year history of propagating unreliable and unverifiable junk.

Again ... Does Ray's past pseudoscience nullify his recognized accomplishments? Until we see the evidence for ourselves it could fall either way, so is it not fair to reserve judgment? And since we all know Chris, why shouldn't we give him some benefit of doubt when he says the evidence looks good? I seriously doubt Chris would say something just to string us along. He's not making any claims that Ray has the Holy Grail of ufology or anything like that, only that he's been impressed with what he's seen so far.

Standing behind a guy with credibility issues as troubling as Stanford should cast one's objective sense of journalism into question.

I'm confident that Chris can tell good evidence when he sees it. Let's also not forget that Chris has said he's suggested to Ray that he come forward, but Ray has chosen not to. So what else do you expect Chris to do? Wrestle the guy to the ground? Or steal it and disclose it himself? As for Chris' sense of "objective journalism". Have you ever read any of his books? That's where Chris' journalism is found. What we see here on the forum and on the show, are glimpses into his journey as an author. He hasn't written a book on Stanford's evidence yet, so you might want to reserve your judgment on that until he does.

In the meantime, sure Chris has his own pet theories like anyone else, but he's far from being a blind follower or wide eyed believer. He has respect for the evidence. I know this because of my personal exchanges with him. If you follow my posts you know that I tend to lean toward the ETH, which isn't the focus of either Gene or Chris, but both of them have indicated in no uncertain terms that because we still haven't got all the answers, it's fair that we should consider all reasonable avenues. We're all looking for answers where we can find them and we have mutual respect, which is something I think the field could use more of.

Frankly, I can't see how anyone even objects to my position.

It's not that I object to your skepticism. I even think that your doubts are reasonable given the evidence you've cited. But if you want to turn this into a character attack on Stanford and Chris you're going to have to produce something far more substantial and relevant for today. So far as I'm concerned Chris is doing commendable work, and I'd like to think that Ray could consider the Paracast as a place he could disclose his evidence without being treated in a prejudicial and hostile manner. If he's as hard on his own evidence as he is on the 1971 Lago de Cote, Costa Rican UFO photo, then I'd more than welcome him here to share it with us.

 

[withoutlimits09]

I will end by saying, those of you out there "holding on" for Ray to produce something will be sadly disappointed. I am not going to respond point by point, but merely say that Ray Stanford has a 30-40 year window in which he peddled what he claimed was game changing evidence, technology and abilities. When Contacee's were popular, he was of course a leading Contacee. When channeling was in, he was of course an expert channeler, when UFO searchers were popular, he of course came up with the ultimate "detector," when time travel was in, he of course invented a device that would let you travel back in time. Now that we are in the video age, he of course, has the pinnacle UFO footage, so clear you can see inside the crafts!

This guy has placed himself smack dead in the center of every fringe movement in this field, without EVER presenting one bit of evidence. In light of this track record, I am not sure how anyone can take him seriously. Has been convicted of fraud? Nope. Has Greer? Nope, but that doesn't stop anyone from rightfully pointing out that what he engages in is highly self-serving and suspect. Stanford is no different, in fact the sheer length of his stories and a veracity of the claims, puts him in a category far below Greer.

When assessing someone like Stanford, and looking at his "new" evidence, I am maintaining it is important to look at previous claims and seeing what became of those. Once done, you will quickly realize that Stanford is just finding new ways to stay relevant in an ever changing field. He will never release this footage, just like he never released his time machine. His contributions will never lead to anything substantial just like his UFO "detector" didn't signal down any mother ships.

He is just another charlatan in a field where bovine scatology runs very deep.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris, we all know you worship Ray....

No dude, I don't worship anything or anybody. If you'd read my books and listened to me on the show, you'd no better than to make such a ridiculous statement. I respect Ray because I have seen his amazing analytical work and I don't care what you or anyone else says about this. YOU are an anonymous poster w/ trollish tendencies. Its a personal problem and I empathize with your apparent angst.

The only thing I can dig up about the guy (aside from his self promotions) are instances of him being in UFO cults, claims of being a contacee, and other assorted nonsense that void him of any credibility (see below).

1. 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.)"
2. "Stanford stated that in the autumn of 1973 his car was, not once, but twice, teleported large distances while driving to the airport to pick up Uri Geller. Stanford stated that he (along with the car!) was transported some 30 miles in the blink of an eye. Stanford said that an entity that he had conjured called "Spectra" assisted in moving him and his vehicle instantaneously down a highway."
3. "Stanford fancies himself a UFO scientist. He started up yet another group (the time called Project Starlight International, or PSI) with the aim to attract and detect UFOs.
4. Stanford's UFOdetector had an "attractor" feature that include a circle of lights that was supposed to gain the attention of flying saucer aliens! Simple and child-like in design, Stanford's circle of spinning lights, which displayed on and off at different intervals, is reminiscent of Steven Greer's ridiculous attempts at attracting UFOs by shining flashlights up into the sky. Stanford also had a "Precision Monitoring UFO Magnetometer" for use in the home"

...the stuff you all knock Steven Greer over the head with daily (and rightfully so) however, Ray is one of the "cool kids" and "we like him" so he gets a pass on all of his ridiculous claims!

Yeah, you read it on the Internet so it MUST be true, right? I would suggest that unless you get to know someone (and their work) think twice about making assumptions and casting aspersions. I have known Greer for 20 years. I have known Ray for 12 years. I know them as people and I know their work well. I don't know you but I can say that perhaps you might be better off (and come across more mature) if you took the time to get to know people and their work before whining so loud and slandering them with insults and innuendo. It's so easy to be a tough guy and all puffed up when you cower behind anonymous avatars. Without limits? That speaks volumes...around here, we have limits and calling someone a "charlatan" without presenting proof potentially violates our forum rules.

fwiw: I'm pushing Ray as hard (to go public w/ his work) as I can without totally pissing him off. BTW: Who are you? What have you done to take the field forward? Where and what have you published? Where have you presented? On what topic(s) What is your area of expertise (besides whining)? Where can we go to see (and contemplate) your work and your contributions?

 

[withoutlimits09]

:yawn:

Another aggressive defense of Ray Stanford, this pretty much makes my point for me.

It does not matter what I have and have not done. I am not claiming to have time machines or UFO footage showing an object shooting plasma beams at me in broad daylight. I am not a UFO researcher (nor would I ever waste that much of my time with this subject matter). I am simply a person engaging a topic on a public forum while pointing out what should be rather obvious about a guy with a 30 year record of making unsubstantiated and outlandish claims.

For the record, withoutlimts is reference to a movie about the Olympic runner Prefontaine, so in reality, it does not "speak volumes"... :rolls eyes:

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Another aggressive defense of Ray Stanford, this pretty much makes my point for me.

I'm not defending Ray Stanford, I'm stating my personal opinion of his work which I have seen. You have not.

It does not matter what I have and have not done. I am not claiming to have time machines or UFO footage showing an object shooting plasma beams at me in broad daylight.

So, you do believe everything you read on the 'net. I have seen multiple frames of the "beam ahead" footage. So did Leke Mirabeau from Rensselear Poly Tech who patented technology which duplicates what the Corpus Christi footage shows—shortly after visiting Ray and seeing his groundbreaking FILM footage. Instead of merely reading and gullably believing unfounded character assassinations of Ray on the 'net—do some real research and get yourself up2speed about how real research and paradigm shifting discoveries are conducted. Read Chris Lambright's book XDescending, the complete, documented story of the importance of the Corpus Christi footage is there.

I am not a UFO researcher (nor would I ever waste that much of my time with this subject matter). I am simply a person engaging a topic on a public forum while pointing out what should be rather obvious about a guy with a 30 year record of making unsubstantiated and outlandish claims.

Oh great, here we go you read it on the 'net so it MUST be true! The truth comes out! Finally you admit you are nothing more than a person pretending to NOT be a troll. Your venomous disdain (and your languaging) speaks volumes. You are a complete time-waster and you will not receive another minute of my precious time. Put on your hiking shoes and use 'em.

 

[withoutlimits09]

You say, get up to speed "about how real research and paradigm shifting discoveries are conducted?" You can't be serious! Real discoveries are made when data is turned over to leading experts for exhausting examination (even Greer did this with his creature). That is the exact opposite of what is going on here. Rather than submit his "evidence" Stanford has cherry picked a few insignificant UFO "experts" and radio personalities to look at his film in secret. Again, I don't know how anyone can honestly suggest this is how paradigm shifting discoveries are conducted. I am seriously in shock someone can be this shallow and maintain this position. Also, who is Leke Mirbeau? Can't seem to find any published work from him, or any of his qualifications. A simple search turns up zilch. So I doubt this guy is a leader in his field (however I could be wrong). That said, I can't even find a listing of him on Rensselaer's own website.

As far as the background information about Stanford is concerned. This is all true and verifiable, usually by his own admission! It extends beyond just internet rumor mongering. Anyone can research his history as a channeler, read about his attempts at promoting time travel, hear about his experiences being vectored around town by a being named Spectra, and so forth. He wrote about much of this HIMSELF in various publications. Let's also not forget the book he wrote claiming he channeled the Virgin Mary's message at Fatima. To say this guy is on the far fringes of the field is an understatement.

Again, I am just pointing out that Steven Greer gets totally ridiculed and his conclusions questioned because he promotes free energy, engages in shameless self promotion, while positioning himself as a charismatic leader who routinely vectors around town and is in touch with aliens. I am simply pointing out Ray Stanford has done each and every one of those things, but continues to get a pass by many of the same people who disparage Greer. I am just noting this inconsistency while highlighting some of the reasons I am personally offended by the claims of Stanford. This seems totally fair game in an open discussion on a public forum about these very topics...


Anyone interested in other people's skepticism of Stanford might enjoy the following:

Re: Ray Stanford, Time Travel, and Dinosaur Footprints (Part 1 of 2) (LONG)
Ray Stanford, Claimed Alien Contacts, and Credentialing Issues (Part 2 of 2)

Cheers!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Man up and ask him yourself:
[email protected]

 

[Randall]

I will end by saying, those of you out there "holding on" for Ray to produce something will be sadly disappointed ...

Maybe ... but you've also overlooked some key points in my last post and have instead started to repeat the same rationale you started with as though it's still just as relevant. It's not. The principle of equivalency that you are trying to make between Stanford and Greer is not supportable by virtue of the fact that you're not taking into account the context of time or the proven accomplishments of Stanford that indicate that there is a scientifically legitimate side to some of his explorations. You've also failed to prove how Stanford deliberately misled or defrauded people rather than engaging in some out of the box thinking and experimentation that he has since given up on. Until you can address those issues, your concerns are only partially justified, and continuing to press them in that state is starting to come across more as a series of character attacks than valid counterpoint.