• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

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

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

I hesitate to jump in here and share my opinion. I say this (respectfully) because I don't want to be a shit-stirrer, but with all due respect to Chris O (and Ben), I am sick and tired of hearing about Ray Stanford. The conversation is always the same, we general listeners of The Paracast hear selected individuals, be it Christopher O'Brien, Ben Moss, etc., talk about how amazing Ray's research collection is, it's depth and complexity, and how he is taking the "scientific" approach, and will only share it with serious scientists, how Ray doesn't owe anyone anything and has no fiduciary responsibility to share his research, yada, yada, yada. We get it.

Fine then, don't share it. I completely agree that Ray does not have to share anything with anybody he doesn't want to and since that is clearly the case with his years and years of UFO research, The Paracast shouldn't waste any (more) time talking about it because we, the general listenership, are prohibited from viewing the alleged evidence and educating ourselves about his research, so it all amounts to a big discussion of "insider baseball." I tune in looking for informed discussion that can lead to answers, or at least a greater understanding of the phenomena. Talking about Ray's "research" does none of that for any of us. One thing made clear to me after years of listening to the show, the unofficial motto is "Put up or shut up." Until there is a change in Ray's position, I wish him the best of luck in his continued research and look forward to a day when the information will be shared with a wider audience but let's forego the repetitious defensive screeds from Chris every couple of weeks about how legit Ray and his research is and how he doesn't care what anyone else says, etc. Right, we get it, so let's move on and stop any mention of Ray and his research until there's something all of us can review and discuss. There will hopefully be less complaining about Ray as a result.

Let me be clear, I am not denigrating Ray or his alleged ground-breaking research. I am not scolding Chris, or Ben. I absolutely believe Chris O'Brien when he states he's seen it and it's impressive. For me, Chris' credibility is unimpeachable. As a result, that's ALL I need to hear about it until we can all have some kind of exposure and access to the specifics. In the meantime, I hope we can move on and utilize the show's weekly time for discussions we can all participate in.
 
When you eliminate all of the posibilities what is left is the truth. If you knew the case well you would know that the Air Force and Blue Book looked long and hard for a human answer to Socorro. They could find none even though they really wanted to. Their internal documents, which we have copies of, show this. That is why it became one of 701 cases that they eventually classified as unknown. We have never, especially in 1964, had an egg shapped craft that could hover silently. All investigations bore this out, not my ego. Once again your rant is emotional. You cannot prove, nor could anyone, that it was a human craft. (3 exclamation points not needed)
 
Ben Moss said:
When you eliminate all of the posibilities what is left is the truth. If you knew the case well you would know that the Air Force and Blue Book looked long and hard for a human answer to Socorro. They could find none even though they really wanted to.
Click to expand...
LOL. Trust the Air Force or any other MIC group??? Hilarious! :D

Zamora changed his story, because other "authorities" told him to do so. He proves he can't be counted on to tell the truth, and he was manipulated to do what he was told to do. One witness does not make an ET-UFO event with trace evidence that could easily be Human caused.

Human fingerprints are all over this Egg in the face of UFO Mythology! Humans can make egg shapes and humans can cause objects to hover or appear to hover. The shorter younger humans acted exactly like humans, when the police showed-up. They were startled and took quick action. It's a place where dynamite was stored, and there was a blast, explosion/flash, and trace evidence of human type of exhaust from the blast, and it made plenty of noise. It had identification marks typical of what humans do, but not what UFO's typically do. Zamora took cover when the flash/blast occurred. UFO's were typically known to move in silence and not make a blast with exhaust at lift-off. Zamora never had eyes on the entire event, because he took cover and had to move closer from the area where he parked his car.

The FACT Stanford has a photo taken months later claiming it's the same object just SCREAMS how humans caused these events. Stanford can take a hike with this kind of BS. Have fun with Hangar One entertainment. MUFON is so full of ET-UFO believers and has been infiltrated with moles from military/intelligence types and the MIC that I certainly will continue to believe there are many other agendas going on that involve covering and monitoring for Human UFO's and also to provide ET UFO Hangar One type Entertainment that is part of the MUFON agenda too.

When you falsely eliminate all the possibilities, you quickly concluded the Egg was not human made. I say BS. There are many possible Human causes, and there are numerous reasons to believe Humans did this too. Your logic completely fails, because there is no way to eliminate completely the possibility Humans created the Socorro event. Btw, Stanford and you seem to be Humans too continuing this same Socorro Mythology that it can't be Human 50 years later.

Amazing!
 
DissectionStalker said:
LOL. Trust the Air Force or any other MIC group??? Hilarious! :D

Zamora changed his story, because other "authorities" told him to do so. He proves he can't be counted on to tell the truth, and he was manipulated to do what he was told to do. One witness does not make an ET-UFO event with trace evidence that could easily be Human caused.

Human fingerprints are all over this Egg in the face of UFO Mythology! Humans can make egg shapes and humans can cause objects to hover or appear to hover. The shorter younger humans acted exactly like humans, when the police showed-up. They were startled and took quick action. It's a place where dynamite was stored, and there was a blast, explosion/flash, and trace evidence of human type of exhaust from the blast, and it made plenty of noise. It had identification marks typical of what humans do, but not what UFO's typically do. Zamora took cover when the flash/blast occurred. UFO's were typically known to move in silence and not make a blast with exhaust at lift-off. Zamora never had eyes on the entire event, because he took cover and had to move closer from the area where he parked his car.

The FACT Stanford has a photo taken months later claiming it's the same object just SCREAMS how humans caused these events. Stanford can take a hike with this kind of BS. Have fun with Hangar One entertainment. MUFON is so full of ET-UFO believers and has been infiltrated with moles from military/intelligence types and the MIC that I certainly will continue to believe there are many other agendas going on that involve covering and monitoring for Human UFO's and also to provide ET UFO Hangar One type Entertainment that is part of the MUFON agenda too.

When you falsely eliminate all the possibilities, you quickly concluded the Egg was not human made. I say BS. There are many possible Human causes, and there are numerous reasons to believe Humans did this too. Your logic completely fails, because there is no way to eliminate completely the possibility Humans created the Socorro event. Btw, Stanford and you seem to be Humans too continuing this same Socorro Mythology that it can't be Human 50 years later.

Amazing!
Click to expand...

I see this is going nowhere. It's hard to have a normal conversation especially when you are apparently not too familiar with this case. There was NEVER human trace evidence of exhaust from a blast. Who knows where you pulled that from, but it's probably a stinky place.
"He proves he can't be counted on to tell the truth, and he was manipulated to do what he was told to do."
Here you have no idea what you are talking about and you make an assumption: "If I am asked to change a story that means I cannot ever be counted on to tell the truth."
Name one 20-30 foot egg shaped object in the 60's that humans made that can hover silently yet produce a blue flame. How do you know what UFO's typically do? How do you know that the UFO behavior you mention was real or not?
I could go on but since you are not a student of the case there is no point in detailing all the rest of your false opinions and assumptions. I can tell you probably never read Ray's book, never saw the Bluebook files on this case, which we have, and you never saw the interview with the retired Col. Holder and his claim that Lonnie Zamora was one of the most honest guys he ever met. Also your segway into conspiracy theory does nothing for any credibility you think you have in discussing this case. Another armchair debunker is not needed here. I will not reply to those who do not care to do some research before spouting off on a case that you really do not understand or know the details of. Obviously your mind was made up well before you ever knew the totality of the facts in this case.
And your dig at Hangar 1 is noted and as I mentioned emotions run through your reply and your CAPS.
Take it easy and try not to stroke out over this. The truth will come out, and just because it is not your truth, try not to be too disappointed.
Nuff said.
 
DaveM said:
I've never understood all the fussing about the Ray Stanford UFO photos. He is under absolutely NO obligation to show them to anyone. If he wishes to share these photos with close associates, so be it. What does he care if some poster on a UFO forum ever sees them?

I am quite sure if Ray did release these photos there would be plenty of individuals who would pooh pooh them. It sounds like a lose lose situation to me.
Click to expand...
NO.
If you wont show them just dont say anything, whats the point of "hey guys, I've got this amazing proof of aliens that Im not gonna show, cya! "
NO. JUST NO.
 
JeanLucPicard said:
NO.
If you wont show them just dont say anything, whats the point of "hey guys, I've got this amazing proof of aliens that Im not gonna show, cya! "
NO. JUST NO.[/QUOT
Click to expand...
JeanLucPicard said:
NO.
If you wont show them just dont say anything, whats the point of "hey guys, I've got this amazing proof of aliens that Im not gonna show, cya! "
NO. JUST NO.
Click to expand...
As was stated by Mr. Moss and Chris O'Brien, Ray Stanford is pulling things together with help of Mr. Moss and his associates. It may not be to everyone's timetable but so be it.
 
the thought of the craft being a Lunar lander test is silly here is one in Jan 64 note it looks NOTHING like what Zamora saw! and ONE pilot!

this is a CGI of what was seen. Mr.Moss and Mr. Angiola is this a good Idea of the object that was seen in 1964 according to all accounts?
 
Last edited:
No as I mentioned before the lunar lander at this time had no internal engine. Testing was in the form of being dropped from a cable to test the landing gear. The military was hoping that this was the cause but their investigation did not bore this out.
The symbol was checked against all known companies both public and private. Blue Book was perplexed and it showed. The real Socorro symbol was an inverted /\ with 3 bars through it.
 
Last edited:
vesvehighfolk said:
the thought of the craft being a Lunar lander test is silly here is one in Jan 64 note it looks NOTHING like what Zamora saw! and ONE pilot!
Click to expand...

The Lunar Lander simulator vehicles are something that always comes to my mind when considering whether the Soccoro object was a test vehicle.

I think the “1/2/1964” date on the video is wrong however, since the first flight of one of the lunar simulators (an LLRV) did not take place until Oct, 30 1964, more than six months after the Soccoro encounter. There were two types of these vehicles the LLRV (Lunar Landing Research Vehicle) of which two were built, and its successor the LLTV (Lunar Landing Training Vehicle) of which three were built.

Although the Lunar Lander simulator vehicles were state of the art through the late 1960s for wingless vertical takeoff and landing craft, they were very unstable and risky to fly. There was quite a debate within NASA whether these vehicles provided sufficient training benefit to justify the risk to the astronauts’ lives. Of the five LLRV and LLTV built, three crashed.

These vehicles were never flown off the base at which they were being tested, were never flown any significant distance horizontally, and always flown in the presence of a monitoring team. At best they could keep one person aloft for not more than 10 minutes. The idea that one of these would have gone flying off across the countryside is beyond consideration. And obviously they had no ability to fly silently.

Although state of the art in the 1960s, comparing the Lunar Lander simulator vehicles to the object described in Soccoro is somewhat like comparing the Wright Brothers Flyer to an F-15.

A video of a crash of one of the Lunar Lander simulators being flown by Neil Armstrong:
 
Was speaking with Ray today and he mentioned this thread. I do not know Ben Moss or Tony Angiola but am glad that they have taken the time to personally visit Ray and see his work. Chris's documentation of Ray has been extensive, for good reason. I and many others have made many visits over the years and know him to be one of the most fascinating individuals we've ever met and not just on the topic of UFOs. He is a dear friend, we speak often. If your interest is paleontology you can spend hours discussing dinosaur trackways, he made the cover of the Washington Post Magazine for this. If you want to discuss pre-Columbian history and artifacts, he is expert in this as well. Meteorite collecting and space science, same. Medicine, art, love of nature, animals and the fascinating world around us, same.
If you want to learn about the history of ufology from 1947 onward from something other than a book or the web: the contactee period, saucer clubs, APRO, George Adamski, George Van Tassel, Orfeo Angelucci, Daniel Fry, George Hunt Williamson, Charles Hickson, Travis Walton, Cayce's ARE, Uri Geller, Hynek, Phillips, etc., the fake and very possibly the genuine, Ray personally knew these people. There are not many around anymore who did. He took the time to do on-site field research, travel to gatherings and conferences and meet these people in their homes. He had amazing experiences with some of them. You can too.
 
There are few I think are genuine. .fewer still those I respect. .Chris is one I respect. His words here showed me that Ray is one to respect. I am digging into his work. The more I see the more I see why Chris holds Ray in respect. He has earned it. And mine as well.
Bob/vesve

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
Ray Stanford was about 26 years old when Socorro occurred. He had a lifetime fanatical commitment to understanding the UFO since 1947 at 9 years old. It is obvious he was completely driven fanatically by this one goal for most of his adult life.

Ray lived with Adamski for years knowing he was a fraud too! When people become so obsessed with such UFO goals, it is well known one's perspective and even mental health can be effected beyond what is considered normal or rational. The UFO was Ray's religion, imo.

Because of Ray's interests, etc. he was already well known by the government including the FBI and Blue Book well before 1964. He could be considered a subversive based on his travels and his interests, etc. Obviously, at 26 years old Ray could EASILY have been targeted for UFO disinformation with Socorro. Or, Ray could have been co-opted eventually by these MIC UFO people too. By the time Ray wrote that Socorro book in 1976, IMO, he was already either well deluded for decades by being involved with his UFO investigations, or he was ALSO used by various MIC interests that could easily use him for disinformation. It's called plausible deniability. I believe he was definitely used, whether knowingly or not is debatable.

The dead giveaway that Socorro is almost certainly Human caused is Ray's picture claiming to have the same UFO Egg on film that was seen by Zamora a few months before. The catch is Ray's photo is taken months after what Zamora saw. So, The Head Investigator of MUFON for Virginia, then has the balls to come here to the forum to claim this can't be Human caused. That's the kind of Kool-aid drunkenness that exists about Socorro.

There are numerous reasons to consider Humans caused this event, and just because words paint a picture of what happened those words are FAR REMOVED from the actual event. 12 years later for Ray's book, and NO ONE else witnessed the event but what Zamora saw. UFO investigators can easily lead the witness, get the witness to change the story, and record in WORDS that are biased to THEIR UFO beliefs!!! Yes, that did happen in Zamora's case too! No sheeit, Zamora did change his wording and what happened, because he was told to do so.

That is on record. Anyone can verify what I just said. I've already posted about this months ago about Zamora.

Does Chris O'Brien claim to have thousands of hours of darkroom experience, obviously, before digital? I know he doesn't have it. Does Ray? Does ANYONE reading this thread have that kind of experience in the darkroom with developing negatives and printing pictures of all sizes? I do. The reason I mention this is because my experience tells me that what Ray Stanford claims to have on S-8mm is NOT possible in the way Ray himself has told these stories ON RECORD.

So, yeah, I do write in CAPS, when it's obvious too much Kool-aid drunkenness is being passed around. I KNOW Ray is a fascinating character with more experience going after UFO's than probably any Human alive, but that does not mean he is accurate about what he thinks he knows. Ray is a very fallible Human, and Ray has admitted that too.
 
Wow the med's ain't working. You proved you don't even know the case. There were several witnesses including Chavez.
But I digress by talking to the clueless. Your 15 minutes of shame are up.
 
Get the facts straight. He never ever said humans. And Chavez showed up as the craft was still visably leaving. ( At the end of the primary event) Duh.
 
One of the problems with UFO investigators is they don't understand the limitations of the Human Eye... what it can see at x-distance with accuracy through atmospheric conditions. I think only an Eagle might be able to see clearly some objects Ray claims to have seen or filmed.

What was Ray's vision test at 20? 30? 40? 50? 60?

Do some research on what super telephoto lenses can do that are FAR MORE POWERFUL by many orders of magnitude than Ray's S-8mm 10x Cannon film camera and cost well over $100,000, and even that lens would probably not be able to capture enough detail about what Ray claims he has ON RECORD with his S-8mm film camera. It's just not possible, because atmospheric conditions will distort the image too much at such distances along with the optical limitations of the lens on his film camera and the small size of the film itself.

YES... The HUGE problem is MAINLY the very small size of S-8mm film and what it can resolve to see at such distances. The film size is too small at too low a resolution, because the chemistry particle/grain sizes are too big on such a small sized film.

BTW, the above commentary is not directed at the Socorro incident, since Ray used a photo camera. I have no idea what the lens, camera, or negative size is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top