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

[Wade]

(that's my attempt an invoking an aspect of nameless, a currently lost in space former poster i enjoyed for his community creating sensibilities and exceptional creative links and dynamic knowledge base, irascible and innovative & totally worth back catalogue reading in the forums for those who weren't here then)

Here Here , maybe if we invoke his name enough he'll rejoin us.
But then how do you invoke the name of someone who is nameless ?


At any rate, Nameless if you're still out there and you still keep your eye on the forums drop me a line to let me know how you're doing.

 

[Ben Moss]

For exactly the reason of the reactions here. Even if the footage blows some people away you will have those, like Dissection, who will try and say it is a hoax, will make up or find any way to show its not real, and will further bad mouth a gentleman that they do not know nor will ever meet. Trust me we want this out but the keeper of the jewels has to ok it. Chris, Tony and I are working on it but it may not happen for some time, the best we can do now is what we are doing, preserving the data, converting it to digital, and spending a lot of money cleaning these old films. We cleaned up the never seen Hynek interview and will be able to release that soon as Ray has given the go ahead as long as we credit him, which we will always do. Hynek does mention the fogged film due to radiation, the metal shards in the rock, and basically confirms everything that Ray has said. Remember, Ray and Hynek were friends. Ray is one of the last persons alive who hung out will many legends in this field. Even debunker Klass was impressed by Rays stuff, he visited Ray before he died, but he never talked about that publicly.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

Ben. That forum member has been banned. There's no good reason to call someone out personally, especially when they can't respond. It takes two to tango, and I'm NOT trying to scold you or put any blame on you-I just want these forums to be a collegial discussion, so I am just goving my best advice in order to have people be able to disagree and debate in a mature manner. I find the stuff you guys are hopefully putting together to be very interesting. To be fair and show that I'm not involved, I will point out one last time that the opposition to the Ray camp was unkind and that Chris O WAS targeted by unnaveptable personal harrasment. I feel as though Chris has a great personal and professional admiration of Ray, and if he wants to talk about something as the host of the Paracast, it's entirely up to him and Gene if that's cool or not. Having read the whole thread, there are aspects of the data and cases that Ray has in his possession, I have my own questions, but I'm not going to blow up the forum asking them if the Soccorro data etc isn't available for research currently.
I'm saying at this point talking about unreleased material on this forum (ie the genuineness of the material, an unreleased video interview) just sort of pushes buttons on those who trrnd toward the debunker side if the spectrum. Once they have the materials and if they unreasonably try to debunk them, THEN you go ahead and shoot them down or respond with your counter-argument (you get the idea).
I for one look forward to seeing the website and following the discussion on the forums about all of that interesting material).
PS if anyone takes anything negatively from that: I'm gonna poop

 

[Ben Moss]

Thanks. I did not know he was banned but the post do justify it.
We will probably put the Hynek interview up on our web site very soon, just want to confirm with Ray that its ok.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

Let's all try to put that behind us and be as forgiving to each other as our inperfect selves will allow, I think.
And do our best going forward. Is the site up now? I thought you all were still setting it up.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I am highly skeptical (as we all should be) about anything RS produces. However, I'll be the first one to give credit & accolades to him if his proof passes morning muster. I'm a skeptical believer. Have been since 1979. But after all the fraud's and phonies that this field has gone through in it's history, one can only be skeptical. I'm rooting for Ray's material. I hope it is the "end all" footage that can't be explained away as swamp gas, meteors, birds, etc. I could make a short list of things that makes the RS case look like a hoax, but I won't. I'll just keep an eye out for the material once it's presented. It would be nice to see something like the Roswell Slides Research Group/Curt Collins do an analysis and see what they determine. I really do hope there is something of substance on film. I would love to see the reaction of the die hard skeptics (guys like Klass). It would be interesting to see if they say something like "Wow. I was wrong all these years." or if they'll still deny it much in the same way that creationists deny dinosaurs existing, in spite of us having dinosaur bones in museums etc.

 

[Ben Moss]

This one has been on youtube for awhile. It's not great but is an unusual object.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

Hmm..that's definitely odd. I look forward to seeing the unveiling of this stuff. No matter what comes out of the analysis; just no way to say for now. RS strikes me as a tempermental guy and a very interesting personality with some very interesting data under his hat. Lots of men get crunchy and sensitive in their later years like my father who I still love. I know Chris had said on the show that he and others were leaning on RS to disclose and that he was worried about what might happen if he passed before the work came out. Hopefully this new site being made covers that issue or he has plans to hand it down.
Is there any general idea of when the site and materials might go live? Not a binding answer- like 6mo-year? 1-2 years?

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

It's a work in progress but up:
The Stanford Chronicles | The scientific study of Anomalous Aerial Object

Hi Ben. I understand the site is a work in progress. As such, there appears to be a date error in the first post. The heading says Sighting 7-19-54 but all the links to scanned reports in the post are dated 7-16-54. Therefore, shouldn't the correct date for the subject technically be Sighting 7-16-54?

A quick word about DS's apparent banning. Obviously, I am not a moderator in this forum (talk about a thankless job), nor am I completely familiar with Chris' and DS's apparent sordid history, but IMHO I think his banishment was unwarranted in this instance. Disagreeing with a host/moderator on Ray's involvement with Cult Adamski , whatever the truth of it is, and merely uttering the words "Get real, CO'B" do not seem like the kind of "fighting words" that should get someone banned, regardless of prior behavior. Taken at face value those comments are fairly benign.

Again, I'll reiterate my point of view, that all things allegedly paranormal are inherently controversial in nature and, as a result, can lead to some very strongly held beliefs on either side of the fence. I feel it's important to hear the voices of the fervent non-believers as much as it is to hear from the true believers. Then you have the majority of us open-minded skeptics on a sliding scale in between. As long as a forum member is not being overly disruptive, which, of course, is subject to interpretation, or personally attacking a fellow forum member, they should be allowed to express themselves freely and openly about all paranormal topics AND any individuals involved in researching UFOs, aliens, ghosts, orbs, or any high strange events.

I think Ray Stanford, his perceived credibility, or lack thereof, is fair game to be discussed in its obviously painful minutiae, just like it is fair to discuss a Michael Horn, Phil Imbrogno, Derrel Sims, Thomas Carey, Donald Schmitt, Nick Pope, etc. The ONLY difference I can see in this case is that the person being discussed is a close friend and mentor of one of the hosts. It's never easy to hear criticism and doubt directed at one's friends but given the nature of these discussions, it is bound to happen. There will be inflammatory claims made and counter-claims made to rebut but it's the nature of this kind of discourse in an online forum.

I'm done commenting in this particular thread. I've said my piece. I look forward to the full launch of the website, Ben, Tony and Chris. Then a much more erudite and educated discussion can occur and personalities can be left out of future substantive discussions. Unfortunately, in Ray's case, that's all we're seem to be left with given the paucity of shared data.

 

[Burnt State]

Not to defend any actions, but there was some unnecessary persistence of insult that no one needed, that we may have encouraged, and it's not our sandbox, and scapegoats help us to renew our forgotten pagan ways.

And besides, on occasion the prodigal sons that are the absent members have been known to return from their journey transformed, or not.

 

[Han]

I intentionally avoided this thread (although I have been following it from the beginning) I believe that the show and the forum are the most important things, however sometimes I let my feelings get in the way, I am pleased that this was was not one of those times.

My reason for posting is now is: I understand that Mr Stanford is aware of this thread and I don't want him or anyone else to get the wrong impression of the Paracast.

I don't visit any other Paranormal/UFO websites or forums because, from what I have seen they are unbalanced and biased in one way or the other.

I have confidence that I could raise any question regarding UFO's and I would get a series of balanced and well thought out responses, from both sides of the fence.

The participants of this forum are incredibly knowledgeable and experienced in a whole multitude of areas, but it is an internet forum, and as we are not debating each other face to face, a different mindset is inevitably adopted.

It is a privilege to be given the opportunity to interact with the guests that choose to join the forum, or to have a question asked via the question bank.

What I really want to say is that both Mr Stanford and the forum should be treated with respect.

I am sorry to see that DS got himself banned, and pleased to see that Mr Moss has now taken a less combative approach.

Like it or not the "data" being discussed is not there for everyone to see, how can you make any conclusions until you have seen it? but at the same time expecting people to be patient and reasonable is naive, people want answers and they want them yesterday, especially when it comes to UFO's. In fact they are so desperate for answers that some will invest in obvious fakes or hoaxes.

The issue as I see it here, is a bit like: deciding to eat a honey sandwich in front of a hungry bear.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Hi Ben. I understand the site is a work in progress. As such, there appears to be a date error in the first post. The heading says Sighting 7-19-54 but all the links to scanned reports in the post are dated 7-16-54. Therefore, shouldn't the correct date for the subject technically be Sighting 7-16-54?

A quick word about DS's apparent banning. Obviously, I am not a moderator in this forum (talk about a thankless job), nor am I completely familiar with Chris' and DS's apparent sordid history, but IMHO I think his banishment was unwarranted in this instance. Disagreeing with a host/moderator on Ray's involvement with Cult Adamski , whatever the truth of it is, and merely uttering the words "Get real, CO'B" do not seem like the kind of "fighting words" that should get someone banned, regardless of prior behavior. Taken at face value those comments are fairly benign.

Again, I'll reiterate my point of view, that all things allegedly paranormal are inherently controversial in nature and, as a result, can lead to some very strongly held beliefs on either side of the fence. I feel it's important to hear the voices of the fervent non-believers as much as it is to hear from the true believers. Then you have the majority of us open-minded skeptics on a sliding scale in between. As long as a forum member is not being overly disruptive, which, of course, is subject to interpretation, or personally attacking a fellow forum member, they should be allowed to express themselves freely and openly about all paranormal topics AND any individuals involved in researching UFOs, aliens, ghosts, orbs, or any high strange events.

I think Ray Stanford, his perceived credibility, or lack thereof, is fair game to be discussed in its obviously painful minutiae, just like it is fair to discuss a Michael Horn, Phil Imbrogno, Derrel Sims, Thomas Carey, Donald Schmitt, Nick Pope, etc. The ONLY difference I can see in this case is that the person being discussed is a close friend and mentor of one of the hosts. It's never easy to hear criticism and doubt directed at one's friends but given the nature of these discussions, it is bound to happen. There will be inflammatory claims made and counter-claims made to rebut but it's the nature of this kind of discourse in an online forum.

I'm done commenting in this particular thread. I've said my piece. I look forward to the full launch of the website, Ben, Tony and Chris. Then a much more erudite and educated discussion can occur and personalities can be left out of future substantive discussions. Unfortunately, in Ray's case, that's all we're seem to be left with given the paucity of shared data.

I didn't realize that DS was banned indefinitely. That seems rather harsh for simply disagreeing with somebody.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

DS was banned because I asked him nicely to cool out and ratchet his hostility back (he had been warned a number of times already -- 25 warning points) and instead of chilling, he brought his continued baiting over to the Micah Hanks thread. That was the last straw. He had been warned on several occasions over the months he's been back about his aggressive style and continued innuendos & name calling (calling RS a "fraud," "hoaxer" "cultist" etc etc etc) and he chose to keep sticking his attitude in my face. Well, Gene agreed and he has been banned. This is his second (or third?) banishment, btw...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Understand it takes a lot to "earn" a permanent ban. We don't do it lightly.

 

[Wade]

So you have a points system for that ? is it possible to earn enough positive points so that it takes you that much more to get to the point where you get put on a time out?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It's not a fixed standard. Our moderators have a fair amount of latitude on how to give out demerits and bans.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...and I only awarded DS a few warning points several months ago. I personally have never banned anyone. I've asked Gene only two times in 6 years to ban someone. I'm actually very tolerant and have an easy moderator hand on the PC forum and it takes a lot to piss me off. Sure, at times I get annoyed, but who doesn't? It takes persistence and complete indifference to piss me off to the degree that I ask for someone to be banned.

 

[Constance]

DS was banned because I asked him nicely to cool out and ratchet his hostility back (he had been warned a number of times already -- 25 warning points) and instead of chilling, he brought his continued baiting over to the Micah Hanks thread. That was the last straw. He had been warned on several occasions over the months he's been back about his aggressive style and continued innuendos & name calling (calling RS a "fraud," "hoaxer" "cultist" etc etc etc) and he chose to keep sticking his attitude in my face. Well, Gene agreed and he has been banned. This is his second (or third?) banishment, btw...

Not only in your face, Chris; he's been sticking his provocative attitude and his contemptuous insults in many of our faces for months and months. I've been truly surprised that he was allowed to carry on this way since his return from his third enforced ban. If this ban is permanent, as I gather it is, he has certainly earned it.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As Chris said, he's history.

 

[Burnt State]

So, this would be more of a case of self-dissection then, as opposed to

some kind of collective act of sacrifice in order to promote future community growth.