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!
LOL ... Interesting that you don't want to "play it anymore" or have "nothing more to say" but just couldn't resist saying something anyway, including suggesting that I "drop it", which is something I'm not entirely sure how to interpret. I'm just commenting on the issue of anonymity in ufology using a popular example. I'll follow that discussion as far as anyone wants to take it.
I've not added anyone to the "chopping block". I'm just using the example of Koi to illustrate a point about anonymity. It was that person's choice to use a pseudonym, therefore he or she or they set themselves up to be used as an example. So there's no personal attack going on here. It's strictly an objective exercise. We don't know who he or she or they really are, and therefore if some clue suggests a name and that name turns out to be the same as someone's who has a bad reputation, it's not my fault. I'm just saying, hey, if you look at it this way, this is what happens, and if anonymity wasn't a factor, then that issue might very well be nonexistent.
I've made no statement that it should be a "requirement" to be forthcoming. I made the statement that not being open out of fear of professional consequences contributes to the perpetuation of stigmatization. Therefore I have greater respect for those who are forthcoming because they aren't afraid to be counted for what they believe in, and if they really do have professional credentials on top of it, then so much the better. That contributes favorably to the reputation of the field.
Certainly no need for you to apologize, and I do appreciate that you took the time to reflect on the point. I like your posts and figured we had just gotten off on the wrong track with this one
Yup.
I generally support people's right to anonymity as well. Only in extreme cases is it justified to force disclosure of an anonymous identity.
I actually seriously doubt that claim and there's no way to prove it short of doing it, and for all you really know, you might gain clients. The subject of ufology is engrained in modern culture all the way down to the graphics on iPhone apps. It's all in how you present yourself. Come across as rational and objective and you would probably find many people are interested in the subject. I've talked to literally hundreds of people in person and not once has any of them been harshly critical, and most have found it very interesting. Canadian ufologist Christ Rutkowski works at a university and so far as I know has had no problems as a result of his interest. IMO there is really little to fear but the fear itself.
The average forum poster is one thing, but someone like Koi with a dedicated website and a bit of a following is another. There's more reason for those people to come out into the open and use their notoriety ( if they actually have any ) to add acceptance and credibility to the field rather than contributing to the cultural repression. That being said, the Koi site is pretty good. I haven't been through everything, and so far I'm not knocking the effort or the content, but I also still agree with Chris that anonymity in this day and age raises a caution flag.
Sounds good to me, but at the same time I don't like sweeping things under the rug. I'm happy to leave it until someone else lifts the carpet and finds it there, at which time I'll probably say something again, like, "I keep on encouraging people to be open and objective and honest and help clean it up; but not everyone has the wherewithal." That doesn't make them "bad people". It's just too bad that they have to feel that way because of the continued stigmatization, that by being afraid to test, only adds to the problem.
It's not the kind of thing you necessarily want to advertise, but in my experience, virtually everyone I've asked whether or not they've seen a UFO has indicated that they either have seen something they thought was unusual, or if they haven't, they know someone who has, or if they draw a total blank it's because they really haven't talked about it with anyone, and have found it to be an interesting introduction. In my own business dealings ( doing outcall PC repairs, website work, and such ), I've actually made some positive connections, because when other people who might be hesitant discover it's OK to talk to you about it, they want to support you too. So the trick is getting a feel for them rather coming across as evangelical about it.
I would strongly advise you to remain completely anonymous here and never reveal your real identity to anyone here, especially, any moderator. Unless there are criminal or other legal issues, such as a subpoena, then there is absolutely no valid reason to know anyone's real identity here, imo. Why? Let me count the ways, and I will in a thread topic about this. To continue to post here about this subject is Off Topic.
Exactly.
Since you do a lot of archive work preserving a lot of UFO history and information, I highly advise anyone wanting to preserve "the record" on Ray Stanford to download and save every radio broadcast or podcast he's done. Why? Ray really has revealed a lot of what he believes he has on film and photos and tape recordings about UFO's, alien pilots, and motherships -all preserved in his own words publicly "on air".
I'll answer this in another thread topic, as long as you [or Gene] won't ban me for doing it. You and Gene are both trigger happy to get rid of me from this forum.
Can you tell us whom the Goddard scientist is? What is their qualifications to do this analysis? Are they currently working for Goddard, or were they retired from Goddard when they did this analysis privately not sponsored or paid to Goddard? In other words, does Goddard back these claims too?
The best way to put this issue into perspective is to just listen to what Chris has to say about his connection with Stanford. We have seen the kind of work Chris does and it is excellent. He's not one of the wide-eyed true believers, so if he says Ray has some interesting stuff then I have no doubt in my mind that he does. Therefore it's a good thing Chris in a position to do his thing with it should that time come. In the meantime, Chris has tried to encourage Stanford to come forward, but to paraphrase Ecker: "Ray's a curmudgeon". That's not Chris' fault, so let's not get the two researchers confused. We're dealing with two completely different types of personalities.
I haven't seen you causing so much of a problem that you should be banned. I've even been banned. It's no big deal. This is the most tolerant forum I've ever been on. Trust me. I'll tell you how trigger happy Gene is: You have to touch just the right nerve to make Gene sneeze exactly while his mouse is over the "Ban" button ... keep trying and you might accidentally just get it right ... LOL.
!Smear campaign? I hadn't noticed. Actually I hope @Christopher O'Brien does get to write a book about Stanford. I'd probably be one of the first in line to buy it
.
Yes, there has been a smear campaign for far longer than I have known Ray. Where much of the derogatory info online is from a "Sue Sharpei" or some such name. This person started viciously dogging Ray for his dino work back in the 80s, (if memory serves correct) then, when she found out about Ray's interest in ufology, she dug around in his distant past and started to post rumors, disinfo and the like about Ray's psychic work from the 1960s and early '70s. As to the book, I spent 5 years (2002-2007) interviewing Ray mostly on the phone about his ufological life. Over 100 hours of tapes. I put everything in a timeline format starting from his childhood in the mid 1940s to 2007. The entire story is in Ray's own words, edited by me for brevity. I left my questions in the text to give the stories and his direct answers even more pop and sizzle. It's so far beyond unbelievable, it could only be true, IMO. He literally knew everyone important person (and many witnesses) in the field from the mid-1950s through the 198s. I didn't attempt this project to make money, become famous or any other self-serving goal. I did it because Ray trusted me and to make sure that this man's amazing life was documented for history. There, I said it...Smear campaign? I hadn't noticed. Actually I hope @Christopher O'Brien does get to write a book about Stanford. I'd probably be one of the first in line to buy it
Chris, seriously take this under advisement: Ray has been saying for years "on air" all the evidence he possesses. There is literally nothing new Ray can possibly say that he has proof of on the public record. The problem is Stanford withholds all the evidence from the public seeing any of the evidence. Now, after the recent past history of the Roswell Slides and its aftermath, it seems that strategy of withholding evidence for decades now yet publicly making claims during all those years too will backfire and cause harm to all involved.
