Ray Stanford has a photo of the Socorro craft & Martin Willis has seen it and is impressed but...

[Bob Watson]

This post will be my last on the subject. There has been much made on the pics sight unseen. Rays motives. Ect.i will be happy to start a thread dissusing the case with out the pics. I have found Rays work to be an honest attempt at the truth. is Ray perfect? No but I see no run up like the slides in this case. I will rejoin the debate when the pics are released. I have a newborn baby to care for.
And last. ..two individuals have acted in a trolling manner here.
I am glad im not a mod..one is now on ignore.
Till the pics are released. .
Peace
Bob/vesve

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

Chris wrote "I will not speak about Ray on the Paracast again." I'm sorry you feel that way Chris though I can see why you might. I still think a discussion of these area when the promised website is ready to launch would be a great idea. But if there's no appetite...

Good post, Ravensfee. I'm sure we will want to discuss the website that @Ben Moss and @Tony Angiola are working on when it becomes available. That is, if all the overreacting naysayers in this thread have not destroyed the general interest, here and elsewhere, in the subject of 'ufology'. That certainly seems to be their intent and it explains the continuous deprecations of the entire history of ufo research -- and of those carrying it forward -- which these people resort to ad nauseum.

 

[EQ42]

I will not speak about Ray on the Paracast again.

That's disappointing. Ray's led an extraordinary life and I can think of no one still with us who has known all the people he's known. There's so much interesting stuff he rarely gets asked about in interviews. Oh well.

 

[Randall]

That's disappointing. Ray's led an extraordinary life and I can think of no one still with us who has known all the people he's known. There's so much interesting stuff he rarely gets asked about in interviews. Oh well.

Yes it's disappointing. But like Chris says, "Ray is Ray".

 

[DaveM]

Temporary Derailment

If we are going to dismiss anybody around here let's concentrate our interests on dismissing Donald Trump. Why his popularity is where it is escapes me and frightens me, I'm less concerned about him than the people who want to see him on the same stage as the other candidates instead of a more viable candidate like Carly and Rand. He's a better politician than the others though because he's got the art of providing unprovable ad hominem sound bites and attacks without any clear policy points down to a science and my fellow Americans are waiting it up they'll be disappointed by next year when he drops out and the public learns he played them for suckers and used the
publicity for shameless self promotion for whatever podium he's got up his sleeve...or maybe I should say up his ass. Just ask all those border agents he's always talking to.

Do you remember the last billionaire businessman to run for the presidency, Ross Perot? He was a thin skinned individual. You did it his way or the highway. A tycoon doesn't play well with other politicians.

Most people realized a businessman was't going to cut it as a politician. From what I can see, most of the Republicans are lightweights and we have twenty to pick from. If our country's only choice is between a Clinton, a Bush or Trump, we are truly doomed.

 

[Randall]

Do you remember the last billionaire businessman to run for the presidency, Ross Perot? He was a thin skinned individual. You did it his way or the highway. A tycoon doesn't play well with other politicians.

Most people realized a businessman was't going to cut it as a politician. From what I can see, most of the Republicans are lightweights and we have twenty to pick from. If our country's only choice is between a Clinton, a Bush or Trump, we are truly doomed.

Clinton would be bad, why? Just wondering.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

What the---?! This thread is out of friggin' control. I'm about to unwatch it- the fracasse was amusing at first, then salty and snarky, then awkward, now Presidential...thing??
Totally ducks.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

If any of it is going to be about the presidency, it must go in a separate thread. Final warning!

 

[Ben Moss]

Ray is 77. Tony and I along with Chris, who knows more about Ray than anyone, will help preserve his data and tell his story. Some who have attacked us are Mufon insiders who gave away a little too much info that allowed me to figure out who they are. Ray's life is a facinating one and there are sour grapes about this. As the saying goes the best revenge is living well. It's easy to badger people behind a fake name, that is what cowards do. The reward for us will be the truth in all that has been discussed. We will still investigate and stay in the field willingly while others will continue to hurl insults from their couch. The branch off into Trump is funny since like some here he is a sideshow who will bever make a difference, will never be president, will never be relevant.

 

[DissectionStalker]

I'm sure we will want to discuss the website that @Ben Moss and @Tony Angiola are working on when it becomes available. That is, if all the overreacting naysayers in this thread have not destroyed the general interest, here and elsewhere, in the subject of 'ufology'. That certainly seems to be their intent and it explains the continuous deprecations of the entire history of ufo research -- and of those carrying it forward -- which these people resort to ad nauseum.

What this thread has become and WHY, imo...
I posted this in the Roswell Slide thread:

And the latest wrinkle in the "Topic That Shall Not Be Named":

A Different Perspective: Tom Carey Doubles Down on the Roswell Slides

Well, well, and Richard Dolan supports Tom Carey on your recent shows. I wonder what excuses he'll make for Carey now???

I expect a lot of people are prepared to double down and triple down and maybe burn down with Ray Stanford too, but that is another subject "off topic" for this thread. Yet it is related, so let me explain why.

Part of this Roswell Slide disaster was the continual withholding of photographic information. People should know what any photo is produced from when possible. We should know as soon as possible what camera was used, what lens was used, what film type/brand and ASA rating was used. If any digital scans are done of the originals, then we should know what those specifications are too!

Withholding that information only brings on more distrust and controversy, and I see that happening now in the Stanford picture thread too. No one is demanding to see that picture now, but everyone should be allowed to know ASAP the technical information about that photo. I see a lot of similarities going on now in that other thread compared to this thread here.

I just hope debating Ray Stanford will not be banned from this forum, as it seems Chris O'Brien is suggesting that happen in another "hot thread" here. Please do not allow for that Gene. That is clear censorship and not worthy of what this forum is all about, imo.

Also, since Chris has a personal "mentor connection" and deep respect for Ray, I think it is best Chris O'Brien not moderate ANY Ray Stanford topic. It's just too emotional and painful it seems. I trust your judgement, Angel, Goggs, but Chris is just too upset when people become critical about Ray Stanford. For Chris O'Brien to suggest Ray Stanford be a banned topic at this forum is over the top, and Chris should back down from that idea 100%.

Ray is a mature man, and he can stand on his own two feet as a controversial person. He knows he has stirred controversy all his life. In fact, he has attracted it so much that it is part of his entire life history. That can never change or be rewritten by anyone.

It is Ray Stanford himself that may offer his films and photographic proofs he has withheld from the public at large, but he has to understand he will be judged beyond the MUFON experts or Chris O'Brien's word to gain any legitimacy. The Roswell Slides "experts" prove that UFO experts are NOT needed to find the truth. That is what is awaiting Ray Stanford's films and photo proofs right now. No one is going to take any experts opinion after the Roswell Slides has proven otherwise!

MUFON has PROVEN recently by its own prominent leadership members that it has very serious issues about being trustworthy, and I have the PROOF with youtube links to these MUFON leaders that went public, thankfully!!!

Though I'm certain many will double down, triple down, that I'm full of it and deserve to be banned. Constance would just love for that to happen, and I have my reasons that Chris O'Brien will attempt this too. In fact, I believe Chris would have done it long ago if he could based on all "the likes" and critical posts he's made when I called into question many things about Ray Stanford and before that about Terry Sherman and Skinwalker too.

Here is what Chris posted today:

I will not speak about Ray on the Paracast again. I am about ready to ban the entire subject. [...] I am going to read this entire thread carefully and decide who will be toast. As you know, newcomers always get a warning first. Others, well, we will have to see...

Here is the Roswell Slide thread I am referring to:
The Roswell Slides Have Been Leaked Online
https://www.theparacast.com/forum/t...illis-has-seen-it-and-is-impressed-but.16619/

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

I'm not speaking for Chris, but I imagine he was probably just upset by this thread and wouldn't really ban the topic. Just my opinion based on his general personality (i.e. he doesn't seem like a total bastard to just censor because of this mess)
I have to say both sides of the salty discourse here have ketchup on their hands. One side being combative and the other side passive-aggresively baiting them.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Chris is understandably totally frustrated with people expecting him to be able to direct Ray in a direction that will please them but as Chris says, you cannot tell Ray what to do.
I once used an analogy of a songwriter who tells people he is working on a once in a lifetime song but the work is taking years and years and never apparently being finished.
People would badger this musician to allow them to hear some of it because they are fed up hearing what a fantastic song it's going to be....but you know that very few artists are comfortable giving previews of their incomplete work, and certainly not to people they don't even know!

Like it or not, this is Ray's private artwork and he is under no obligation to show it before he decides the time is right and possibly more importantly than that, Ray knows how poisonous this field is and he probably sees no upside to giving sneak previews to people who would be ready to shoot it down, regardless of whether the work has merit or not.

Chris has been fending off direct and poorly masked sleights about all this for years and it gets tiring going over the same ground over and over again.

One difference between Stanford and others in the UFO field who claim great evidence but don't show it is that Ray has been showing it to people. People in the field and people not in the field but qualified in related disciplines. It's just US, the mass babblers of Ufology who will have to wait.

I certainly would not support banning discussion of this in the forum but I absolutely urge Chris to give it a wide berth because he has done 2 lifetimes of sticking up for his friend Ray and there is no need for him to waste any more energy arguing about it here.

Any other members who wish to continue discussing the subject are welcome to on the understanding it is kept civil and that nobody tries to bait Chris back into responding for the nth time otherwise he is gonna blow his top and start getting medieval on some asses!

 

[Walter Bosley]

I say the hostility doesn't help anything. I'm also glad Gene insisted that the political crap go to another thread. That in itself is the one single topic I am completely fed up with in American society in general. I come to forums like these and related podcasts etc to escape and explore and enjoy other things than everyone's a-hole opinion about either political party.

I just wanted to add that I like Chris' comment about 'others in the building' so to speak. It's no secret I've been convinced that such is responsible for the overwhelming majority of what people are seeing and assuming to be ET. Please notice I did not say "all", I said "overwhelming majority". I first began to suspect this personally in the summer of 1986. Six years on active duty in the USAF as an AFOSI agent a decade later served to further 'strengthen that suspicion', you might say. But I have never nor am I now trying to convince anyone that I know all the answers.

I don't know Ray. I've never met him. My only encounter with him was on a podcast in which he felt he had been shanghai'd by the host (which he was not). I won't judge him based on that.

My wish is to see more civility in discussions. It's an annoying fact that all too often in the digital forum world, some little b____ of a guy who'd never act the same to his target's face gets all mouthy and ballsy and rude and spastic in forum commentary when face-to-face the conversation would actually be more calm and perhaps get somewhere productive because two human beings stand before each other and would rather not make a scene.

I gave up trying to prove certain things to anyone else because I accepted that I simply cannot do it. Then it quickly became not important to prove those things. It doesn't mean they stopped. It just means that proving something to everyone isn't all that important anymore to me. Not a sour grapes thing, in fact it's liberating. I just found something else to write and talk about. Maybe Ray has crossed that Rubicon and no longer cares whether he's believed about this.

Here's the deal: Either Ray will or will not release what he has someday. In the meantime it's probably wise for his witness supporters to keep mum on what he has and it's definitely best for the potential recipients (believers and critics alike) to just cool down. In the end, does it really matter enough to be uncivil? If I've learned ANYTHING about UFOs, the paranormal etc, I've learned that it ain't gonna jump when any of us snap. If anything, it doesn't give a crap about what we want or demand. Quite the opposite.

For what that's worth.

 

[Wade]

i don't know if this is an appropiate anology but i liken this discussion to something i observe almost every day here in LA especially thursdays on the westside where i live

It doesn't take long for the traffic to go bumper to bumper and inevitabally the horns start, that is to say that people start leaning on their horns and don't let up and then this leads to a whole lot of people leaning heavily on their horns like coyotes howling out in the desert ( another slightly forced anology) at any rate i sometimes wonder why do people do that ? Do they really think that if they all make a bunch of noise the jam will magically break and they will get what they want or are they just frustrated or is it both?

Personally speaking i don't find it very helpful to do this, for i'm not about to let a barrier get the better of me to the point where i get frustrated about something i am pretty powerless to put an end to, because i'm in the middle of something much bigger than me and i don't for a minute think adding my car horn to the din is going to change anything. things will clear up when they clear up.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Hi Goggs.

Ray doesn't have to show anybody anything. Agreed. Chris O is frustrated beyond belief. Agreed. That may be where our love affair ends.

As I've said earlier in this thread, IMO this is quite simply a "put up or shut up" situation. Chris can get as upset as he'd like, but at the risk of poking the bear, he's brought it on himself, so I'm happy he's pledged to stop talking about Ray until there is something to be shared with the class. He's been insisting for years that Ray and his research are the "real deal," however, that begins to fall on deaf ears pretty quickly when nothing is ever produced to back up that claim. If this were anyone BUT Ray, I would expect Chris and Gene to be highly skeptical of anyone making those claims until viewing the evidence. Why expect any of us to react any differently? That seems to me to be the foundation upon which the show is built.

I respect Chris. I seriously dig the guy. If they auctioned off an opportunity to have dinner with Chris (and Gene) to raise money for the show, I'd bid! His experience and integrity means his opinion lends credibility to whatever he's talking about, but just because he periodically talks about Ray in glowing terms on The Paracast doesn't mean I have to accept that Ray's research is anything other than a lifelong hobby of photos of interesting phenomena. Like Reagan said about the Soviets, trust BUT verify. Great, Chris has seen the research and doesn't care what anyone else thinks, nor should he. Yet don't expect ME to genuflect at the altar of Stanford by proxy without experiencing any of the research, that which is only being shared among a very small circle of Stanford "insiders." None of us interested in UFO phenomena, that participate in this forum and listen to the weekly program because we are searching for greater knowledge and understanding, should lend any credibility to Ray's research, one way or the other, because it's never been shared with the general public so that we may form our own opinions. Again, he has no obligation to share it but if that's the decision, no one should get upset when people express varying degrees of skepticism. If you don't want to hear the skepticism, then stop talking about the issue. Personally, I'm neutral on the subject of his research because I haven't seen anything. I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to see what Ray's got (some day). That said, I am sick and tired of hearing about Ray Stanford's "incredible research" and the trope of why he refuses to share it with the unwashed masses, lest we sully it with our "unscientific" analyses, or that it will help the terrorists win. THAT I find utter hogwash. That much of an opinion I will express.

Given the track record of bogus claims and related "proof" in this field of "Ufology," most reasonable people would be extremely skeptical about anyone claiming to have "definitive proof" until it's been actually seen. Once that happens, some might ultimately share Chris' enthusiasm for what Ray has (an exciting proposition, indeed), though some may share Tracy Tormé's recently-expressed opinion on Don Ecker's DMR #701, that he didn't think much of anything was there (I'm paraphrasing) and found Stanford so contentious and unhinged that if James Fox wanted Ray involved in 701, the movie, then Tormé was out. That was a "WHOA" moment for me. Others may feel that raises legitimate questions about the interpretation of what Ray has, since it would seem to reason that if it was that compelling, Fox and Tormé would want to include it in their film regardless of how difficult Stanford is to deal with. Just a thought.

Finally Goggs, if it helps, I composed this while listening to Teenage Fanclub "Bandwagonesque"...

 

[Burnt State]

Ufology at the Crossroads: Episode 14

i think that ChrisJohnsen expressed most of what i wanted to say about a lot of basic critical features of this discussion. The Paracast is about separating signal from noise and as the show frequently repeats in its own criticisms as it has in the past of the Roswell Slides, Michael Horn, Meier, LMH and many, many others, it has identified that talking about and promoting supposed killer evidence without providing the evidence, or distributing fake evidence, is simply noise without signal.

I made all those comparisons, that some who admire Ray Stanford may say are denigrating, but they were to draw attention to a basic problem in Ufology and paranormal investigations. To talk passionately about non-evidence only weakens the field. This is also a refrain heard often on the show. If this show is going to continue to separate signal from noise then it should continue to admire how critical and skeptical its forum participants can be especially when they bring their varying levels of expertise to the situation. I have heard Chris O'Brien express great admiration about the forum participants in this way. It is one of the most appealing features of this community. If it was not Ray Stanford that was the focus of criticism then would there even be a crossroads here to face or would this be a Nancy Talbot and Robbert Van Den Broeke critique festival?

Regarding insults…The evidence provided to date regarding what has been captured on film: four dots not the subject of focus on 35 mm film that has then gone through a "process." This supposedly supports a claim of alien technology at work in our skies. Yet the history of Ufology is often about daylight photography of obvious discs in focus. As these UAP's look like alien craft and are routinely subjected to highly critical debate we must consider just what possible value these four dots can have. In light of this who has dished out more/any insults about individuals - myself or Ben Moss? Talking about how big you are in person is not talking about evidence - in fact there has been very little evidentiary support that sounds reasonable at all. The Paracast has continued to promote critical discussion about non-existing evidence because it does not further Ufology in any way, as many have stated from hosts to previous guests. Talking about evidence that has yet to be revealed is no different and produces the same effect. Where exactly is the signal here and who is bringing the noise?

We have met at these crossroads before on the forums regarding Stanford and at one point, i realized i was in direct conflict with someone whose work i really admire: it is thoughtful, well researched, aims for innovative examination and is probably one of the biggest and most valuable skeptics that participates here and that's Christopher O'Brien. When i understood him better as an active researcher in the field and understood his own relationship to Stanford i backed off of the Stanford critique wagon that many boarded including myself. I still think that Chris is a person of integrity and an incredible asset to the Ufological community. I am still perplexed as to how these four dots could possibly support any claim. This is not baiting, just honest confusion and doubt. If Chris takes anything away from this discussion i hope it's that despite his promotion and support of Stanford many continue to admire him and can separate criticism from insult. I also understand that Stanford has made many strong and verifiable contributions to various fields and was probably the core inspiration behind the SLV camera project. That being said there is always a way forward and no one should ever take anything personal here unless you make it personal.

 

[Wade]

The Paracast is about separating signal from noise

That's a good point Burnt and one that got by me, but in this case I think that any signal noise separation comes after the point that Ray's findings are published either by him or someone else, right now it's just noise.

 

[Ben Moss]

Point taken and that was a well written post. I understand if 4 dots is the perception of what we have then many think resolution is unteniable. That is not correct but the proof will be in the pudding. I can say that I personally would not, as an investigator, be putting this out here if I did not believe it. My own opinion from my own research is that what I have seen is not a hoax, is visable as described by the late honerable Lonnie Zamora, and was an incredible stroke of luck on Rays part first to take the picture and second to uncover the data some 50 years later. So until we have the go ahead to show it, which will eventually happen, I will exit the forum.
Thanks to those who read this and understand that we are just trying to present the info on this most important case in the best way possible, with no cost or event, when we are released from the promise made to Ray.

 

[Burnt State]

Point taken and that was a well written post. I understand if 4 dots is the perception of what we have then many think resolution is unteniable. That is not correct but the proof will be in the pudding. I can say that I personally would not, as an investigator, be putting this out here if I did not believe it. My own opinion from my own research is that what I have seen is not a hoax, is visable as described by the late honerable Lonnie Zamora, and was an incredible stroke of luck on Rays part first to take the picture and second to uncover the data some 50 years later. So until we have the go ahead to show it, which will eventually happen, I will exit the forum.
Thanks to those who read this and understand that we are just trying to present the info on this most important case in the best way possible, with no cost or event, when we are released from the promise made to Ray.

And i meant it when i said i wish you well on your journey as i know that many are here because they are perplexed, critical but mostly highly intrigued by a long standing mystery that is not easy to crack. Everyone will approach this mystery from different angles and conflict will ensue. But it's not personal; it's just a consequence of individual passions. In that way there is a lot of shared interest and i think that most can separate the criticisms dealt from taking things personally. There's a lot of people i think are outstanding in many ways but whose occasional beliefs boggle my brain. Everyone should still get along at the end of the day for last call. Wade, you buy the first round, and then we'll try to stick Angelo with the cheque. Gene and Chris, drinks are on us all night long for services rendered.

 

[CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SCAM]

I have been hearing about the "incredible" data from this person for years. Like any claim, Ill believe it when it is available and peer reviewed. Other than that, a nice little fairy tale.