Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
I agree with stonehart.. sounds like chris went above and beyond. .on ray now
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Ray Stanford has a photo of the Socorro craft & Martin Willis has seen it and is impressed but...
- Thread starter EQ42
- Start date
Free episodes:
In hindsight id like to formally retract my Micheal Horn comments, Chris has way more integrity and credibility than horn.
The comparison only works at a very very shallow and peripheral level ie lone voice of support amidst a consensus of suspicion as far as Ray is concerned.
I really wasnt trying to make a deeper point than that. Sorry if i offended you Chris.
But some of Rays history really does bring into question his credibility.
That time machine is a classic example
Ray Stanford, Time Travel, and Dinosaur Footprints (Part 1 of 2) (LONG)
Perhaps the Paracast could have Ray back as a guest to discuss his machine.
To my mind its just not enough to have a device that changes ones temporal co-ordinates. The planet earth along with every other celestial body never occupies the same spatial co-ordinate twice.
The models we were taught in high school regarding the solar system dont really factor in galatic spin and universal expansion. We dont travel around the sun in a flat plane. we dont occupy the same place in space on jan 1st every year.
Just one hours time travel backwards would leave you floating in space. His machine would have to change not just your temporal location, but your relative dimension in space as well. So a Paracast interview where he explains the mechanism that would make this device work would be great.
And again if the roles were reversed
If i were to tell you i know a guy, lets call him Roy Steadford. That Roy has smoking gun evidence of a UFO pictures and videos, Or to take this into Chris's realm of interest, has video that shows a UFO and its occupants involved in a cattle muttilation, smoking gun proof its ET doing the Mutes.
But that Roy, wont release that evidence because "some will cry fake"
And further that looking into Roys past we find he claims to have invented UFO detectors and a time machine........Had chanelled alains and even JC himself
Im confident Chris you would be as dubious as we are in this scenario.
And when even Ray himself calls BS on his own stuff
Then you can see how people need more than the claims without the evidence in this matter
The comparison only works at a very very shallow and peripheral level ie lone voice of support amidst a consensus of suspicion as far as Ray is concerned.
I really wasnt trying to make a deeper point than that. Sorry if i offended you Chris.
But some of Rays history really does bring into question his credibility.
That time machine is a classic example
Ray Stanford, Time Travel, and Dinosaur Footprints (Part 1 of 2) (LONG)
Perhaps the Paracast could have Ray back as a guest to discuss his machine.
To my mind its just not enough to have a device that changes ones temporal co-ordinates. The planet earth along with every other celestial body never occupies the same spatial co-ordinate twice.
The models we were taught in high school regarding the solar system dont really factor in galatic spin and universal expansion. We dont travel around the sun in a flat plane. we dont occupy the same place in space on jan 1st every year.
Just one hours time travel backwards would leave you floating in space. His machine would have to change not just your temporal location, but your relative dimension in space as well. So a Paracast interview where he explains the mechanism that would make this device work would be great.
And again if the roles were reversed
If i were to tell you i know a guy, lets call him Roy Steadford. That Roy has smoking gun evidence of a UFO pictures and videos, Or to take this into Chris's realm of interest, has video that shows a UFO and its occupants involved in a cattle muttilation, smoking gun proof its ET doing the Mutes.
But that Roy, wont release that evidence because "some will cry fake"
And further that looking into Roys past we find he claims to have invented UFO detectors and a time machine........Had chanelled alains and even JC himself
Im confident Chris you would be as dubious as we are in this scenario.
And when even Ray himself calls BS on his own stuff
Then you can see how people need more than the claims without the evidence in this matter
Last edited by a moderator:
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
I don't want to sound like Debbie Downer - but I'd be willing to bet at best we'll see something the size of a pin head that won't prove/disprove anything. Last summer I was thinking that it was going to be as clear as one of Meier's 'beamships". But to date, we know that anything that is as clear as that is a hoax (Meier, Ed Walters, the California drones, etc.)
It is a clear image of 4 airborne objects, 2 clearly are egged shaped and one has 3 landing struts visible. These closer objects are about 6 miles away from the camera and are not dots. One object further away is much bigger. What many do not know is that privately several of the New Mexico police officers saw this craft before and after the event. Chavez arrived in time to see it heading away. 3 other witnessed the blue flamed object and reported it to the police station before Zamora and Chavez came back from the scene. Our presentation will amalgamate all of the evidence beyond the presentation I already posted from you tube. I know its frustrating to hear us discuss it and we are working hard to get it out this Summer. After an examination by a non ufo related professional I personally would have no problem releasing a scan of the negative for free on the internet for all to do their DD on, but that's not my decision...yet. I will be in Socorro next month to see if there are other images that have not seen the light of day, and to visit the site and video the path that Zamora took out to the scene.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Ok, so you're saying you've got a piece of the holy grail: undeniable, photographic evidence confirming the details of one of Ufology's classic parables, that's what you're saying right? That sounds like a cousin of the Roswell Slides, and because Ufology has one consistent history, which is of disappointment, you'll forgive me if I say the following sincerely, as a former lover of the UFO:
Evidence of fact, and reasons to believe, are often promised. It borders on being a dead history in its attempt to foster belief. While i'm so ever hopeful that you have exactly what you say you have, you have to understand that the history of the shenanigans around this evidence is as outlandish as seeing a UFO is for those of us who have seen them, along with those of us who believe they have seen them. i honestly can't wait to see this piece of the holy grail as opposed to the artwork. But i'm no goat, no mutilated cow, and certainly no monkey, though i was born in the year of the monkey, those tricksters.
And yet my pov is the same as the roswell slides, i'll remain open minded until the evidence is released and assessed.
Just as in the roswell slides i refuse to cry fake before i see the evidence.
Some will make milage of my stance in the afforementioned case and say i was naive and wrong.
But the moment we dismiss a case without seeing the evidence we may as well walk away from the topic.
Thats the denialists modus operandi.
Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the large pile of chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation and cautious inference. Science is scepticism and good scientists are sceptical.
Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it – sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.
I personally wont ever automatically dismiss a claim.
The issue here is we have no evidence to look at.
But it raises an interesting Dynamic, Rays concern is that some will cry fake after the evidence is produced.
But its just as true in this genre and for the examples that Burnt has pointed out, That many will also cry fake if no evidence is produced.
Its a zero sum game
The very result hes concerned about in releasing the pics (some will cry fake) is also created by not releasing them. And should imo not be a factor in deciding on whether to release or not
Releasing or not releasing will always result in "some will cry fake". So we need to move beyond those considerations and define the end game.
Dismissing "some will cry fake" as a null . whats left is the inevitable release of the evidence so it can be assessed by as large a body of people as possible and they will then have to stand or fall on their merits.
The roswell slides are a good example, despite all the "experts" the slides owners could bring to bear, the facts of the matter were quickly disected and analysed by the armchair enthusiasts, who like it or not were able to get to the bottom the matter quite difinatevly in the end. In much the same way as the SETI project uses thousands of PC's using seti screensavers to sift its data
Just as in the roswell slides i refuse to cry fake before i see the evidence.
Some will make milage of my stance in the afforementioned case and say i was naive and wrong.
But the moment we dismiss a case without seeing the evidence we may as well walk away from the topic.
Thats the denialists modus operandi.
Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the large pile of chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation and cautious inference. Science is scepticism and good scientists are sceptical.
Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it – sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.
I personally wont ever automatically dismiss a claim.
The issue here is we have no evidence to look at.
But it raises an interesting Dynamic, Rays concern is that some will cry fake after the evidence is produced.
But its just as true in this genre and for the examples that Burnt has pointed out, That many will also cry fake if no evidence is produced.
Its a zero sum game
The very result hes concerned about in releasing the pics (some will cry fake) is also created by not releasing them. And should imo not be a factor in deciding on whether to release or not
Releasing or not releasing will always result in "some will cry fake". So we need to move beyond those considerations and define the end game.
Dismissing "some will cry fake" as a null . whats left is the inevitable release of the evidence so it can be assessed by as large a body of people as possible and they will then have to stand or fall on their merits.
The roswell slides are a good example, despite all the "experts" the slides owners could bring to bear, the facts of the matter were quickly disected and analysed by the armchair enthusiasts, who like it or not were able to get to the bottom the matter quite difinatevly in the end. In much the same way as the SETI project uses thousands of PC's using seti screensavers to sift its data
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
I too will stay open minded and look forward to seeing the photo's. But this is a unique case, as it points to something that is one million times more improbable than just having a "normal holy grail UFO photo." It's the circumstances in which it was obtained.
What were the odds that the Hill's would see a flying saucer (then end up being on board it) in New Hampshire? Astronomical. But then what are the odds if sometime later (3 days, 3 weeks, 3 years, 30 years, whatever) I went back to take some pictures of the historic landing area and didn't notice anything right then & there, but at sometime after the film was developed/processed I noticed a pancake shaped flying saucer, complete with the side fins and double row of windows in frame? The odds of that would have to make the original odds of the Hills seeing a flying saucer seem like 2:1.
THEN on top of this extraordinary claim, it's coming from someone with a super dubious UFO past/history. Again, the odd's would be unfathomable if we could say Stan Friedman or the Governor of NM went back to take some photo's and had the same egg-shaped UFO appear in frame. But to make the odds even more unfathomable, it comes from the guy that used to live with & be pals with George Adamski. And the same guy that could talk telepathically with aliens. And who's car was made to teleport with him in it. So can we see why these new pics in question are suspect?
With all that being said, and in light of the recent Roswell Slides Debacle, I cannot fault anyone for being highly suspicious of the photo(s) that are now in question (and yet to be seen). At the same time, I am anxious to see them. I never say never and I hope, just like many of us, that this is finally the "Ah hah! We finally have the end-all proof!" photo.
What were the odds that the Hill's would see a flying saucer (then end up being on board it) in New Hampshire? Astronomical. But then what are the odds if sometime later (3 days, 3 weeks, 3 years, 30 years, whatever) I went back to take some pictures of the historic landing area and didn't notice anything right then & there, but at sometime after the film was developed/processed I noticed a pancake shaped flying saucer, complete with the side fins and double row of windows in frame? The odds of that would have to make the original odds of the Hills seeing a flying saucer seem like 2:1.
THEN on top of this extraordinary claim, it's coming from someone with a super dubious UFO past/history. Again, the odd's would be unfathomable if we could say Stan Friedman or the Governor of NM went back to take some photo's and had the same egg-shaped UFO appear in frame. But to make the odds even more unfathomable, it comes from the guy that used to live with & be pals with George Adamski. And the same guy that could talk telepathically with aliens. And who's car was made to teleport with him in it. So can we see why these new pics in question are suspect?
With all that being said, and in light of the recent Roswell Slides Debacle, I cannot fault anyone for being highly suspicious of the photo(s) that are now in question (and yet to be seen). At the same time, I am anxious to see them. I never say never and I hope, just like many of us, that this is finally the "Ah hah! We finally have the end-all proof!" photo.
callmesnake
Skilled Investigator
Proof of what though?
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
I assume you seen the pics? And have access to them? Can YOU ask for them to be released?
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
mikeclr
Skilled Investigator
Exactly! All these photos would prove, even if verified beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that there were some white objects in the sky that day.
Not exactly undeniable proof we have been visited by extraterrestrials.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Exactly. At this point in the game I've come to expect the mystery is never going to be solved (in my lifetime - I'm 44). But I would be extremely satisfied if somebody could produce a clear, daylight photo of a structured craft (made somewhere besides Earth). Forget having to know who the occupants are, where it comes from, what it's mission is, blah blah. Just a real UFO that isn't a toy model/hoax - proof that there is such a thing as a "flying saucer". From there, I'm sure it will take an additional 500 years to obtain all the other specific info we would be curious to know about the craft & it's origin.
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
Please excuse my possible ignorance of a lengthy explanation that may have already appeared in this lengthy (though quite entertaining) thread, but may I ask what is requiring so much time to prepare said materials for presentation? Not being an a-hole, sincerely asking. Is there an issue besides scanning some photos or getting Ray's permission for release? I'm not clear on this particular point. Thanks.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
I'm with you. I'm not sure why the release of a picture seems to be this big, epic process that has to go through different levels of congress approval, etc. Again, I tend to over simplify things; if I had a picture I'd either release it or not. There wouldn't be some 6 month to 12 month long "process" that I'd have to go through to release it. It's a picture. Put it out there or not. Not sure what the giant delay is for. It's not like it's a photo classified Top Secret by the U.S. Navy.
Jeff Davis
Paranormal Adept
I went through and read a pretty decent portion of this thread a few weeks ago, and apart from the typical "UFO People" factional name calling and such, I think what Socorro is stating basically boils down to the fact that Ray is afraid of being made fun of, or discredited ??? No matter what, at best this photo if presented will turn out to be a grain of sand on the beach of UFO folklore. The problem with attempting to acquire or bolster "UFO evidence", especially that which is hypothetically contentious at best, is the fact that it will pass like so many grains of sand before it, through that great folk hourglass that sits firmly atop the stratified framework of human perception.
To many people UFOs are not a phenomenon. Those people have defined UFOs to their own contentment and satisfaction. These people are those that seek to convincingly corroborate their definitions via grains of sand. A place where even tiny diamonds and gold dust looses any and all significance.
callmesnake
Skilled Investigator
I give up.
Even if they're legit, Where do the photos leave us.
Nowhere. We Still know f all.
Even if they're legit, Where do the photos leave us.
Nowhere. We Still know f all.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Not to sound mean spirited or to sound like a rude jerk, but I would think if he's going to be made fun of it would have already come along with the claims of making a time machine, teleporting in his car, telepathically talking with aliens, being roommates with Adamski, etc. I think providing a photo with a possible flying saucer in it would towards the bottom of the totem pole of embarrassment, IMO.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Back to square one.
DaveM
Paranormal Adept
My question is: will the release of photos that are 30 to 40 years old change anyones view of ufology? I suspect most people will not be swayed one way or the other by these photos. It feels like a large waste of time to get bent out of shape because someone won't let us see some pics.
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
This made me wonder if it's actually a case that no one will care? Is interest in UFOs at a low right now? I've heard that, in spite of the reality TV etc. I must admit, I'm curious to see them. I always like to at least see the latest released imagery because you never know when it might be a good one. I'm not losing sleep over it, though. Hell, I don't lose sleep over stuff I spend months/years researching and write about. Actually, I only lose sleep if the bed's uncomfortable.