Both Ben and Chris already reported to this thread what they've seen. It's your turn to report your investigation. You said you did "much investigation" to believe Ray, and then you challenged me. I answered. So, it's your turn, just let us know what was your investigation? Thanks.
-
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:
Here is a challenge to anyone that believes Ray or is one of Ray's supporters. Do you own a digital camera that can take 6 or 8 megapixel pictures with your lens fixed or zoomed to 50mm? Or, do you own a camera that can come close to this? Most newer cameras since 2005 can do much better than this. Most newer cell phone cameras can exceed these specs too.
Now, go photograph an 18 wheeler and/or automobiles on a highway at 5-6 miles in distance away or a train on a railway. See what details you can enlarge with these photos. Use a lens set [zoomed or fixed] at 50mm with 6 or 8 megapixel resolution, this is much higher resolution than what those 1964 photos can have, and just see for yourself what you can do on your own. Do some investigation yourself. This is easy to do.
Position yourself 5-6 miles away from an airport and take photos of aircraft that far away. Please post your results here with the specifications of your camera settings. This is not hard to do.
Zamora said he thought the object was an overturned car when he first saw it, so a train car or 18 wheeler or twin engine aircraft or small private passenger jet is much larger to photograph 5-6 miles away. Seriously, do some investigation yourself. Show us what details you can photograph with a better resolution and camera than Ray had in 1964.
Now, go photograph an 18 wheeler and/or automobiles on a highway at 5-6 miles in distance away or a train on a railway. See what details you can enlarge with these photos. Use a lens set [zoomed or fixed] at 50mm with 6 or 8 megapixel resolution, this is much higher resolution than what those 1964 photos can have, and just see for yourself what you can do on your own. Do some investigation yourself. This is easy to do.
Position yourself 5-6 miles away from an airport and take photos of aircraft that far away. Please post your results here with the specifications of your camera settings. This is not hard to do.
Zamora said he thought the object was an overturned car when he first saw it, so a train car or 18 wheeler or twin engine aircraft or small private passenger jet is much larger to photograph 5-6 miles away. Seriously, do some investigation yourself. Show us what details you can photograph with a better resolution and camera than Ray had in 1964.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
How was that determined?
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
You can't start making claims to evidence that has not been presented. What has been established is that you have a very grainy film at work.
Anything .6 miles away, unless it is huge, is going to render little of merit. I would also highly question the capacity to measure distance of an object in flight with no other referent point or known scale for it. The spec could be a bug or a plane or just film grain on a cloud.
Much like the Roswell slides this is just getting to be an exercise in making things up.
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
Ok..I could post website links .
I could post books I read. I could post so much..but in the end I won't change your opinion. You think this is a hoax. I will not fight you. You honestly think a seasoned resercher in the person of chris o Brian was fooled I will not fight your opinion. At this point I cant post anything that will change your mind.
Peace
Bob/vesve
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
I could post books I read. I could post so much..but in the end I won't change your opinion. You think this is a hoax. I will not fight you. You honestly think a seasoned resercher in the person of chris o Brian was fooled I will not fight your opinion. At this point I cant post anything that will change your mind.
Peace
Bob/vesve
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
A scietist at Goddard determned elevation and distance.So many OPINIONS here it really is not worth posting anymore. When it comes out most of you will see that your photographic talents leave much to be desired.
I am suprised many have so much against Ray but have never met him. Its easy to attack someone who is not here to defend himself. Have fun chatting here I am gone baby gone...
I am suprised many have so much against Ray but have never met him. Its easy to attack someone who is not here to defend himself. Have fun chatting here I am gone baby gone...
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
I'll trust my own opinion in the darkroom and with shooting grainy high speed film over the unnamed scientist. Elevation and distance? I thought he has determining distance? Based on what?
And it's not Ray that's being critiqued here but the "facts" being boasted about based on unknown and invisible evidence. The details provided so far certainly make any level of detail in the grain to be highly doubtful.
While Chris may have seen Ray's work i'm not going to automatically make any assumptions on his behalf regarding this specific photo or the elaborate claims being made about it. There is to date no one single agreed upon photo of a genuine UFO (whatever that is), so I'm not going to get excited about a grainy dot that few have seen. This approach to "research" is highly problematic and does little by way of promoting the field with any seriousness.
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
I must agree..I will exit this dissusion till the pics are released bye now
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Are you serious? Where is that proof?
Btw, if that is true, then I'm saying this is pure fraud at this point. Why?
That's 4 objects in the air with at least one at less than half the distance of a typical runway length! Anyone with good normal vision [for distance sight] can see aircraft at the other end of a runway, which is typically 10,000 feet in length for passenger jet aircraft.
We are to believe that Zamora, Hynek, and "the great" dinosaur track finder, Ray Stanford himself, could not see these four objects at much less than a typical airport runway distance!!! This is madness! Pilots have to be able to see objects all the way down a runway to the opposite end for basic safety reasons alone. That's up to 10,000 feet away! But Hynek, Zamora, and Stanford could not see one of these UFO objects 3,000-3,500 feet away??? This is BS.
We are to believe the eagle eye Stanford that sees things no other human can spot did not see these four objects 3,000 to 10,000 feet away??? One UFO is claimed to be much larger, as if it's a mothership. LOL. Then "eagle eye" Stanford is not even qualified to be a pilot [he can't see worth a crap] nor would he be a UFO spotter, if that is true! This laugh factor that we have to believe is really abusive to play these mind games on your sheep.
This is worse than lying... this is Adobe and the Pentagon all over again... remember the Roswell Slides?
Goddard is the new expert witness? Laughable beyond belief. A farce.
Blasphemy!
There's no doubt in my mind that Ray Stanford will never release a high resolution scan of the original negative itself that is not altered and not enhanced. Oh, and that is our fault, the people that want proof, because we complain at forums and blogs that Ray withholds the evidence. For those that personally claim to have seen this 4 object UFO picture... did you see the original negative on a light table under magnification to see these 4 UFO's??? Well, did you?
I can tell everyone now... no, they have not! I wonder why? And, these people are your trusted investigators?
Last edited:
IsaacKoi
Paranormal Maven
Yes Sue, this thread relates to the photograph I had in mind in my post on Facebook regarding red flags (the post that included the image below).
I'm slightly surprised that more of the relevant red flags regarding Ray Stanford, his background, his previous claims and the claims regarding his Socorro photo haven't been posted in this thread but it may simply be that others, like me, simply don't think it would be worth the effort involved.
Last edited:
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
Who the hell you think you are? Wow..insults and name calling..real big of you..yeah I was right I won't be baited your mind is made up sight unseen. .you hate Ray you think he is a fake.. there is nothing anyone can post to change your opinion. .
BTW honey pot...
I dont hide my real name.
So unless you offer PROOf the pics are fake I have Nothing more to Add to this Discussion. .I leave you to your options. .I have mine to respect Ray Chris ben moss. .till I see the pics im done with this.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
"the great" dinosaur track finder, Ray Stanford himself
This is worse than lying... this is Adobe and the Pentagon all over again... remember the Roswell Slides?
Then "eagle eye" Stanford is not even qualified to be a pilot [he can't see worth a crap] nor would he be a UFO spotter, if that is true! This laugh factor that we have to believe is really abusive to play these mind games on your sheep.
these comments show you approach the subject with the mentality of a 5 year old.
you are trolling nothing more. if you have a personal grudge on Ray that's your business. your opinion is clear and I have nothing more than this follow up to offer.. nothing I post will change your mind..
peace Bob W
(vesve) who will not hide under a forum name... unlike honey pot the troll.
This is worse than lying... this is Adobe and the Pentagon all over again... remember the Roswell Slides?
Then "eagle eye" Stanford is not even qualified to be a pilot [he can't see worth a crap] nor would he be a UFO spotter, if that is true! This laugh factor that we have to believe is really abusive to play these mind games on your sheep.
these comments show you approach the subject with the mentality of a 5 year old.
you are trolling nothing more. if you have a personal grudge on Ray that's your business. your opinion is clear and I have nothing more than this follow up to offer.. nothing I post will change your mind..
peace Bob W
(vesve) who will not hide under a forum name... unlike honey pot the troll.
Curious choice of names that. Honey Pot (well http://www.honeypot.com) is the name of a security site that helps guard against spammers. It's one of the tools we use to guard against such problems, which is why we have relatively few episodes of forum spam.
Heidi Lemmer
Paranormal Adept
It's just DissectionStalker.
Ready to confess Honey-Pot?
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
That's all old history in the forum. All of that was brought forward a number of times now in this forum, so much so that many have agreed to stop attacking Chris O'Brien because of Standford's "colourful" past and just let sleeping dogs lie. A Bridge Over Troubled Water and all that sort of thing, so many don't bother poking at the old wounds.
But when someone else brings forth outstanding claims based on a whole lotta nothing that no one can see then that certainly gets a response based on its own lack of merit as it has quite appropriately.
Even if old poking bears come back to stir their Honey Pot, past aside, i think most of what was said there was pretty accurate and sensible, sans CAPITALS, i might add, so good for you.
I think everything I wrote was truthful, but I might be mistaken. I welcome proofs with evidence to the contrary. I'm happy to be corrected or proven mistaken, and I will apologize for any serious mistakes I've made on this thread. I'm not here to troll. Sorry.
It is "screen name" Socorro [aka Ben Moss] that is making some fantastic claims that seem to be not possible regarding the distance claims he says a Goddard scientist has done. I don't believe for one second that Zamora, Hynek, and Standford would not have seen these four UFO objects, when considering the new assertion from Ben Moss that "the strut" object was only 3,000-3,500 feet away. I've already posted the valid reasons why I think it is not possible.
Four UFO objects within 10,000 feet should easily be seen by at least Ray Stanford. Why? Believe it or not Ray has claimed to see and photograph UFO's that are much more than 10x times, yes, even 20x times that distance of only 10,000 feet. I think Ray Stanford had excellent vision in 1964, so I think it's just not possible that he would miss seeing 4 UFO's nearby.
Screen name Socorro is Ben Moss, based on recent posts, so is one person using two accounts to post here? More deception?
Wasn't DissectionStalker banned for posting to this thread? Am I about to be banned too?
I do not hate or have any grudge against Ray Stanford or Ben Moss. In fact, I'm sincerely interested in Stanford's history with the paranormal. All his experiences and interests and mentors and reference materials.
I'm interested in finding the truth, and I do see similar parallels to what is happening now with the Roswell Slides. I am very disappointed with what happened with the Slide fraud. Sorry if that upsets some of you for making such comparisons, so should I just shut-up? I'll be banned for doing that?
Until some new evidence is presented here... something that Goddard backs with some documentation about the distance proof or an original high resolution scan of the negative that is not enhanced or altered is released, then it is pointless to debate these issues. I'm out of this thread until something "real" that can be checked is presented.
Am I banned now? If there are no more posts from me, then I was banned for identity demands. Privacy protection is not respected for anyone here if this happens. It is extremely dangerous to be probed this way on the Internet. We are exposed to all kinds of criminal abuse and harassment, when our identity information can be known by moderators or other forum members here. Privacy must be respected and protected too for all concerned here. Beware. The dangers are real.
It is "screen name" Socorro [aka Ben Moss] that is making some fantastic claims that seem to be not possible regarding the distance claims he says a Goddard scientist has done. I don't believe for one second that Zamora, Hynek, and Standford would not have seen these four UFO objects, when considering the new assertion from Ben Moss that "the strut" object was only 3,000-3,500 feet away. I've already posted the valid reasons why I think it is not possible.
Four UFO objects within 10,000 feet should easily be seen by at least Ray Stanford. Why? Believe it or not Ray has claimed to see and photograph UFO's that are much more than 10x times, yes, even 20x times that distance of only 10,000 feet. I think Ray Stanford had excellent vision in 1964, so I think it's just not possible that he would miss seeing 4 UFO's nearby.
Screen name Socorro is Ben Moss, based on recent posts, so is one person using two accounts to post here? More deception?
Wasn't DissectionStalker banned for posting to this thread? Am I about to be banned too?
I do not hate or have any grudge against Ray Stanford or Ben Moss. In fact, I'm sincerely interested in Stanford's history with the paranormal. All his experiences and interests and mentors and reference materials.
I'm interested in finding the truth, and I do see similar parallels to what is happening now with the Roswell Slides. I am very disappointed with what happened with the Slide fraud. Sorry if that upsets some of you for making such comparisons, so should I just shut-up? I'll be banned for doing that?
Until some new evidence is presented here... something that Goddard backs with some documentation about the distance proof or an original high resolution scan of the negative that is not enhanced or altered is released, then it is pointless to debate these issues. I'm out of this thread until something "real" that can be checked is presented.
Am I banned now? If there are no more posts from me, then I was banned for identity demands. Privacy protection is not respected for anyone here if this happens. It is extremely dangerous to be probed this way on the Internet. We are exposed to all kinds of criminal abuse and harassment, when our identity information can be known by moderators or other forum members here. Privacy must be respected and protected too for all concerned here. Beware. The dangers are real.
Last edited:
mikeclr
Skilled Investigator
I think Honey-Pot has posted reasonable questions and statements. I wouldn't think he deserves any kind of censure.