Exhausting and discouraging, isn't it, not to mention boring. Some of us here do, however, appreciate your patience and clarity. Thank you for your efforts.
-
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:
Exhausting and discouraging, isn't it, not to mention boring. Some of us here do, however, appreciate your patience and clarity. Thank you for your efforts.
DissectionStalker
Paranormal Adept
Dear ISIS and anyone interested in this technology... These "beam ahead" ideas have been around since the 1960's, so you can easily find out these ideas are nothing new or top secret. Just search this forum using my Screen Name with search terms "Beam Ahead" to learn how ridiculous this is to consider it unknown and that Stanford has the smoking gun evidence. That's certainly some good ego development and high minded thinking that Ray knows more than the MIC that flew UFO's around for Ray to see and photograph. LOL. IMO.
DissectionStalker
Paranormal Adept
IMO, this was a very LOW TECH hoax that fits perfectly with the ET-UFO nut jobs that were having fun doing PSYOPS. These people were almost certainly connected to nearby bases, or Kirkland Air Force Base and Los Alamos AND Ray Stanford and possibly Hynek too! [It is suggested Hynek was impressed with this case. I'd crap in my pants if he really believed this BS.]
It's nothing more than the ET-UFO Wild Bunch wreaking ET havoc on the local natives. It's the Wild Wild West of ET. Remember Roswell and Socorro...
No way this was hologram technology. IMO.
Withoutlimits09, you have it right with these two posts you made elsewhere:
Talking about the upcoming 701 Movie and Stanford...
Great episode!
If Ray Stanford's mission is to have a serious discussion about UFOs and good evidence, this movie was his opportunity to contribute what he has. Rather than put forward his footage, which he claims shows a "flying saucer in broad day light, shooting a plasma beam at him," :rolls eyes: he chose to spend his time at the national archive debating the curvature of a on old symbol in the Blue Book record. If Stanford really had the "smoking gun" footage, I don't understand why he would even want to waste his time with trivial aspects of an old trace landing case where all the witnesses are dead.
To give an example, this would be like a aging Bigfoot researcher, who claims to have irrefutable clear video evidence of the creature, deciding to spend his days submitting molds of barely distinguishable footprints in an attempt to "expose the reality of the best."
My point is...if Stanford had ground breaking footage, and if he was serious about furthering the subject he spent his entire life "researching," he wouldn't be worrying about the symbol, as reported in the Blue Book file, he wouldn't be trying to get a photo from Socorro analyzed, because he thinks he sees a "black speck" he believes to be evidence of a craft, but rather he would be putting out his footage.
The guy who has bigfoot's body in his back yard, wouldn't waste his time trying to get plaster casts made of some poorly created foot print in the middle of nowhere. Similarly, if Stanford had remarkable UFO footage, he wouldn't waste his time with vague symbols and blurry pictures of he and Hyneck, that purportedly show a "speck."
The fact Tracy Torme said he would flat out walk away from this film if Stanford had any further influence or involvement in it, should tell anyone all they need to know. Torme is a gentleman, and a straight shooter. He doesn't say things like this lightly.
This was your other post about it too:
Torme was being polite, I think it was clear from his description of Ray, he thought Ray was unstable and not mentally sound.
I think we are confusing Fox's enthusiasm for Stanford's contributions about Socorro with any support for Ray's films. According to Torme, they came away with nothing, and Torme was of the opinion, Ray and all his supposed evidence was largely in his own mind.
If Stanford had anything of value, anything on the level he claims it to be, he would have submitted it to MIT by now and won a Nobel Prize in Science...the fact we have to learn about it on fringe podcasts and "UFO forums" tells me it is probably nothing substantial which is why Stanford doesn't release it.
Torme is a film industry professional, he knows the types of people and the types of personality that will discredit a film and cause people to laugh at it. I got the impression he wanted nothing to do with Stanford for these very reasons.
It's nothing more than the ET-UFO Wild Bunch wreaking ET havoc on the local natives. It's the Wild Wild West of ET. Remember Roswell and Socorro...
No way this was hologram technology. IMO.
Withoutlimits09, you have it right with these two posts you made elsewhere:
Talking about the upcoming 701 Movie and Stanford...
Great episode!
If Ray Stanford's mission is to have a serious discussion about UFOs and good evidence, this movie was his opportunity to contribute what he has. Rather than put forward his footage, which he claims shows a "flying saucer in broad day light, shooting a plasma beam at him," :rolls eyes: he chose to spend his time at the national archive debating the curvature of a on old symbol in the Blue Book record. If Stanford really had the "smoking gun" footage, I don't understand why he would even want to waste his time with trivial aspects of an old trace landing case where all the witnesses are dead.
To give an example, this would be like a aging Bigfoot researcher, who claims to have irrefutable clear video evidence of the creature, deciding to spend his days submitting molds of barely distinguishable footprints in an attempt to "expose the reality of the best."
My point is...if Stanford had ground breaking footage, and if he was serious about furthering the subject he spent his entire life "researching," he wouldn't be worrying about the symbol, as reported in the Blue Book file, he wouldn't be trying to get a photo from Socorro analyzed, because he thinks he sees a "black speck" he believes to be evidence of a craft, but rather he would be putting out his footage.
The guy who has bigfoot's body in his back yard, wouldn't waste his time trying to get plaster casts made of some poorly created foot print in the middle of nowhere. Similarly, if Stanford had remarkable UFO footage, he wouldn't waste his time with vague symbols and blurry pictures of he and Hyneck, that purportedly show a "speck."
The fact Tracy Torme said he would flat out walk away from this film if Stanford had any further influence or involvement in it, should tell anyone all they need to know. Torme is a gentleman, and a straight shooter. He doesn't say things like this lightly.
This was your other post about it too:
Torme was being polite, I think it was clear from his description of Ray, he thought Ray was unstable and not mentally sound.
I think we are confusing Fox's enthusiasm for Stanford's contributions about Socorro with any support for Ray's films. According to Torme, they came away with nothing, and Torme was of the opinion, Ray and all his supposed evidence was largely in his own mind.
If Stanford had anything of value, anything on the level he claims it to be, he would have submitted it to MIT by now and won a Nobel Prize in Science...the fact we have to learn about it on fringe podcasts and "UFO forums" tells me it is probably nothing substantial which is why Stanford doesn't release it.
Torme is a film industry professional, he knows the types of people and the types of personality that will discredit a film and cause people to laugh at it. I got the impression he wanted nothing to do with Stanford for these very reasons.
Chuckleberryfinn
Paranormal Maven
UFO researchers love "landing trace evidence." The powers that be would of course be prepared for this and could easily travel there with butane torches, scorch some plants, make some indentations, leave some glass laying around ("the sand fused into glass!") -- and, voila, you've got a sighting with landing trace evidence. After reading Greg Bishop's "Project Beta" and being firmly convinced of the horrible crimes committed against Bennewitz, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to suggest that the Socorro case (and perhaps many others) could have been some kind of psy-op that arose out of Cold War paranoia, needing the Russians to think they had access to advanced aircraft, etc.
For Christ's sake, Bennewitz was in danger of discovering their laser research (bouncing lasers off of the atmosphere), and to conceal that technology Doty and his group happily fed him all of the UFO BS that he would swallow, so long as it drew attention away from what was really happening. They destroyed his mind, poor guy. So where's the motive for a psy-op? It's right there! And as for how -- not to be a boot-licker, but DissectionStalker makes a really strong argument on that score. If the Germans could be tricked with inflatable tanks and the rest, you think that one Police officer in the sixties couldn't be tricked into thinking that he saw a spaceship?
Can we make egg shapes? Yes. Can we make things float? Yes. Can we make blue flames? Yes. This psy-op hypothesis is at least as plausible as the ET hypothesis, I think.
For Christ's sake, Bennewitz was in danger of discovering their laser research (bouncing lasers off of the atmosphere), and to conceal that technology Doty and his group happily fed him all of the UFO BS that he would swallow, so long as it drew attention away from what was really happening. They destroyed his mind, poor guy. So where's the motive for a psy-op? It's right there! And as for how -- not to be a boot-licker, but DissectionStalker makes a really strong argument on that score. If the Germans could be tricked with inflatable tanks and the rest, you think that one Police officer in the sixties couldn't be tricked into thinking that he saw a spaceship?
Can we make egg shapes? Yes. Can we make things float? Yes. Can we make blue flames? Yes. This psy-op hypothesis is at least as plausible as the ET hypothesis, I think.
Ben Moss
Skilled Investigator
You 2 should get a room, unless of course you are the same split personality. Disruption seems to be your mission and nobody is biting. Every reason why Ray is hesitant to release information has come true due to the postings of frick and frack. Starting with their clear lack of knowledge of the Socorro case to the rantings of cults and inflatable tanks during World War 2 ( see the non logic in this comparison) it's no wonder that Ray would rather show such info to a select few than to the general population like Mo and Curly. Take several lies, repeat them over and over as truths, mix in some cults and a random conspiracy tangent, and viola you have an incredibly stupid yet sadly funny discourse on double talk and fiction. As Stanton would say "do not bog me down with the facts my mind is made up". Lets go ahead and ignore the rantings of 2 of the 3 Stooges and talk about the facts.
The FBI, Air Force and Army could not find any secret or black project to account for the landing. They tried hard and wanted to classify the case but never could.
The principle investigators, Hector, Col Holden and others all before passing said they believed Lonnie saw exactly what he said he saw and they believed him to be a truthful upstanding citizen.
There was never evidence of any gas, fireworks, balloon or plastic bag for the silly made up hoax story who nobody has any proof of or can provide the students involved.
The melted sand and crystallized rocks require a temperature of over 2,100 degrees burning over 40 minutes to accomplish, and a blow torch, matches and a bag of hot air just falls a little short of this feat.
Blue Book and other military branches spent a whole lot of money investigating this case, something they would not do if it was of there own making.
More incorrect statements from the peanut gallery that are wrong are:
There were multiple witnesses.
There were several reports of the same craft made by other people before and after this event, including some of the officers there.
There were metal fragments found embedded in a rock crushed under one of the landing pods.
This was one of the seminal cases that caused Hynek to become a believer in the UFO phenomena.
The film taken just after the sighting was fogged by radiation. There is a tape of Hynek confirming this but no you 2 cannot see it. Your words have confined you to standing facing the wall in the corner for several days with dunce hats to be worn.
The original Blue Book files on this case have been secured through Col. Holders son and we have them. They confirm all of this.
The picture Ray has is NOT video or film as erection, I mean Dissection, has said. Or was that Huckleberryslim? Cannot remember, do not care.
The picture was taken 120 days after the incident on the request of someone who wanted to know the name on the Dynamite shack and for no other reason. Upon blowing up the picture to read the name on the shack the objects became visible.
Suckelberry once again ignores the fact that nobody could have known that Lonnie would chase the speeder, that Lonnie would suddenly pull of of the road in a specific place after driving some miles, that some "ET UFO CULT was magically hiding in just the right spot, where incidentally there was no cover or place of concealment, ready with "butane torches, scorch some plants, make some indentations, leave some glass laying around". Wow that's pretty incredible...NOT.
So knukleberryflim and DissectedErection's solution was deducted using: no investigation, no facts, no knowledge of the case, no scientific logical thinking, no proof and no brains, yet it is "THE ANSWER. Wow with those skills go out right now and solve the Jimmy Hoffa case Sherlock and Watson.
In 1964 NORAD had many days of UFO's on their radar (some real research will uncover this, any researchers here?). The Hollerman Incident was 1964. So where several military incursions by UFO's recordeed by Norad and Bluebook. Perhaps these were students flying their egg shaped craft using a lighter, some glass, and a lot of flatulence.
In summery, well, in my summery, the tale told by the clueless is just that, a clueless tale of fiction, imagination with a purpose to confuse those who really want to know what happened in Socorro. For those who want to know, go out and read rays book "Socorro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry". Google Blue Book and Socorro, Norad and 1964. Read 'X-Descending"
For entertainment and amusement wait for the reply to this post from Beavis and Butthead. I am sure it will be a fun filled factless dribble of blow up tanks, psy ops and mysterious never before heard of or seen New Mexico ET cults roaming the desert looking for speeding cops to fool.
The FBI, Air Force and Army could not find any secret or black project to account for the landing. They tried hard and wanted to classify the case but never could.
The principle investigators, Hector, Col Holden and others all before passing said they believed Lonnie saw exactly what he said he saw and they believed him to be a truthful upstanding citizen.
There was never evidence of any gas, fireworks, balloon or plastic bag for the silly made up hoax story who nobody has any proof of or can provide the students involved.
The melted sand and crystallized rocks require a temperature of over 2,100 degrees burning over 40 minutes to accomplish, and a blow torch, matches and a bag of hot air just falls a little short of this feat.
Blue Book and other military branches spent a whole lot of money investigating this case, something they would not do if it was of there own making.
More incorrect statements from the peanut gallery that are wrong are:
There were multiple witnesses.
There were several reports of the same craft made by other people before and after this event, including some of the officers there.
There were metal fragments found embedded in a rock crushed under one of the landing pods.
This was one of the seminal cases that caused Hynek to become a believer in the UFO phenomena.
The film taken just after the sighting was fogged by radiation. There is a tape of Hynek confirming this but no you 2 cannot see it. Your words have confined you to standing facing the wall in the corner for several days with dunce hats to be worn.
The original Blue Book files on this case have been secured through Col. Holders son and we have them. They confirm all of this.
The picture Ray has is NOT video or film as erection, I mean Dissection, has said. Or was that Huckleberryslim? Cannot remember, do not care.
The picture was taken 120 days after the incident on the request of someone who wanted to know the name on the Dynamite shack and for no other reason. Upon blowing up the picture to read the name on the shack the objects became visible.
Suckelberry once again ignores the fact that nobody could have known that Lonnie would chase the speeder, that Lonnie would suddenly pull of of the road in a specific place after driving some miles, that some "ET UFO CULT was magically hiding in just the right spot, where incidentally there was no cover or place of concealment, ready with "butane torches, scorch some plants, make some indentations, leave some glass laying around". Wow that's pretty incredible...NOT.
So knukleberryflim and DissectedErection's solution was deducted using: no investigation, no facts, no knowledge of the case, no scientific logical thinking, no proof and no brains, yet it is "THE ANSWER. Wow with those skills go out right now and solve the Jimmy Hoffa case Sherlock and Watson.
In 1964 NORAD had many days of UFO's on their radar (some real research will uncover this, any researchers here?). The Hollerman Incident was 1964. So where several military incursions by UFO's recordeed by Norad and Bluebook. Perhaps these were students flying their egg shaped craft using a lighter, some glass, and a lot of flatulence.
In summery, well, in my summery, the tale told by the clueless is just that, a clueless tale of fiction, imagination with a purpose to confuse those who really want to know what happened in Socorro. For those who want to know, go out and read rays book "Socorro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry". Google Blue Book and Socorro, Norad and 1964. Read 'X-Descending"
For entertainment and amusement wait for the reply to this post from Beavis and Butthead. I am sure it will be a fun filled factless dribble of blow up tanks, psy ops and mysterious never before heard of or seen New Mexico ET cults roaming the desert looking for speeding cops to fool.
Chuckleberryfinn
Paranormal Maven
Say whatever you will about what Zamora saw. No one will ever know the truth, no matter how many hours Stanford spends at the library looking for pictures of that emblem.
I never said anything about UFO cults; I too think that insinuation is silly as all hell. I just like his point about WWII and disinformation and psychological warfare. It's a valid point, and if you cannot see it, then you're just too deluded by the will-to-believe.
Anyone who has any kind of sense at all can see how completely absurd this story about this new picture is for all of the reasons that have already been stated, which, by the way, you have failed to address at all. It's all implausible and completely fantastic far beyond the brink of absurdity.
I never said anything about UFO cults; I too think that insinuation is silly as all hell. I just like his point about WWII and disinformation and psychological warfare. It's a valid point, and if you cannot see it, then you're just too deluded by the will-to-believe.
Anyone who has any kind of sense at all can see how completely absurd this story about this new picture is for all of the reasons that have already been stated, which, by the way, you have failed to address at all. It's all implausible and completely fantastic far beyond the brink of absurdity.
Ben Moss
Skilled Investigator
And that reply was anticipated and reinforces the fact that you are devoid of the facts. Your mind is made up so you cannot contribute to the discussion except to voice what you decided long ago. It is one of the most famous and discussed case in the world by many respected educated people, many who find it still unexplained. The story is only absurd when viewed from your clouded uneducated view. You have proven once again that ignorance is bliss.
DissectionStalker
Paranormal Adept
Have you ever heard of "need to know" ? Yes! You have! But you willfully and blindly ignore this possibility! Duh!
We know New Mexico is where all the insane ET-UFO PSYOPS goes on and on and on. This definitely does NOT even have to be sponsored by the MIC, because there were already any number of UFO fraud artists in existence too.
Did you ignore Bill Moore?
How about Richard Doty?
Oh, and another policeman named Gabe Valdez knew far more about what the MIC does with ET's, UFO's, and Cattle Dissections than Zamora could possibly know.
Why would anybody in their 'right mind' believe what Ray Stanford might document about Socorro with his history living with Adamski for years? Until Ray Stanford pulls those ET Motherships and their smaller probe UFO's with a close-up of an ET-Pilot too, which Ray Stanford has assured ON RECORD he has, then I don't give a crazy bat sheeit rats ass what Ben Moss or Ray has to say about Socorro.
I've ALREADY proven more than once that Zamora changed his story. He discredited himself by doing that. Why, he even called the humans "white objects" at the radio station, because he was playing along and doing what he was told to do. Meanwhile, the Military was there monitoring and waiting for him at the radio station.
In Fact, Ben Moss, I think you're likely either very disturbed over ET-UFO's, or you are also likely a disinformation agent within MUFON based on your abusive language here characterizing longtime forum members with childish "name calling" putdowns. I guess Chris O'Brien will give you a pass, because your foul mouth normally deserves a warning for such behavior.
Btw, as I already also pointed out, Chavez did NOT see the Egg, when he came to Zamora. That is according to public statements, which I already posted about here. IF Ray Stanford says otherwise, then I'm very happy to believe Chavez instead. Ray can take a hike and go find more dinosaur prints and do more peer review "privately", which is, of course, not what peer review means! LOL.
I'll just wait patiently for the ET-UFO Motherships, their UFO probes, and the "strike a pose" Vogue Madonna picture of the ET Pilot that can clearly be seen according to Ray Stanford ON RECORD.
withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
Thank you for taking note of what I wrote, sometimes I feel like it is a total waste of time to engage these topics. I think my points were well made and I don't see how anyone with any lick of intelligence could actually argue with those statements.
Thanks again.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
The initial questions asked about the nature of the film footage and how were initial frames captured or scanned for analysis remain as the pertinent ones. S8mm and 8mm film for example is a very limited film frame size and depending on the film ISO you may have a very limited resolution to work with given the nature of the film grain. I've scanned and transferred S8mm on my own and to be honest, without a proper high resolution scanner or optical film transfer unit results are limited at best. Any objects captured in the distance inside such a frame would be near impossible to make any confirmations about - certainly no new propulsion systems would be found there.
By way of comparison when you look at the 1959 Great Falls Montana footage the objects captured that are flying directly overhead are barely pea-sized blobs of light that do not even capture the level of detail that the witness provided about shape and spin. Consequently footage of a location that had objects far in the distance, that are not overhead, nor the object of focus in the frame, would be little dots at best. Blowing such an image up would not allow you to discern much of anything, especially not tripod legs nor would you be able to tell whether or not it's a bunch of birds or Socorro eggs. While I haven't read a confirmation anywhere here what the specific nature of this film stock and ISO was I would think that any distant object captured in the frame of film footage simply would not allow you to say very much about it even if it was 35mm.
By way of comparison when you look at the 1959 Great Falls Montana footage the objects captured that are flying directly overhead are barely pea-sized blobs of light that do not even capture the level of detail that the witness provided about shape and spin. Consequently footage of a location that had objects far in the distance, that are not overhead, nor the object of focus in the frame, would be little dots at best. Blowing such an image up would not allow you to discern much of anything, especially not tripod legs nor would you be able to tell whether or not it's a bunch of birds or Socorro eggs. While I haven't read a confirmation anywhere here what the specific nature of this film stock and ISO was I would think that any distant object captured in the frame of film footage simply would not allow you to say very much about it even if it was 35mm.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
I was thinking the exact same thing. "So wait, you went back to the landing site months later to take a picture of the TNT shack and miracuously there was the egg shaped UFO with its landing gear down in frame?"
That's like saying I went back to the scene of a successful bank robbery 6 months later to take pictures of the inside of the bank and when I got the pictures developed I noticed the original robbers with their guns and masks in frame. What are the odds?
Ben Moss
Skilled Investigator
Your analysis of 8 and 16 mm film is off. For instance if in the footage if the optics surrounding and behind the objects behave in a peculiar way you may say that there is a technology that is causing this effect. You can pull good data out of old film with the latest technology. A good example of this is the Zapruda footage of the Kennedy assassination. So unless you know what equipment Ray has used on his data then it' s just guessing, a common theme here with regards to Ray's data. The analogy of the bank robbers is also off. You could take a picture 4 months later and possibly catch the culprits revisiting the scene, something that they sometimes do.
Chuckleberryfinn
Paranormal Maven
Moss,
Please address Withoutlimits09's comments directly. They're good, sound arguments.
Please address or at least admit that you see the absurdity in the story. That is, the assertion that months later Stanford just happened accidentally to capture footage of spaceships zooming around in the distance and didn't notice until 40 years later. That's really absurd and improbable, just by sheer statistics. I mean, what are the odds of that happening? It's got to be in the multiple quintillions to one.
You just keep suggesting that us posters don't know the facts and blah blah blah. But all present have shown pretty clearly that they're familiar with the case. I have read about it in numerous places, including Hynek's "The UFO Experience," and I'm sure that many others present have done the same.
CBF
Please address Withoutlimits09's comments directly. They're good, sound arguments.
Please address or at least admit that you see the absurdity in the story. That is, the assertion that months later Stanford just happened accidentally to capture footage of spaceships zooming around in the distance and didn't notice until 40 years later. That's really absurd and improbable, just by sheer statistics. I mean, what are the odds of that happening? It's got to be in the multiple quintillions to one.
You just keep suggesting that us posters don't know the facts and blah blah blah. But all present have shown pretty clearly that they're familiar with the case. I have read about it in numerous places, including Hynek's "The UFO Experience," and I'm sure that many others present have done the same.
CBF
Chuckleberryfinn
Paranormal Maven
Here is what he said (some of this may be DissectionStalker; the quotes are jumbled):
talking about the upcoming 701 Movie and Stanford...
Great episode!
If Ray Stanford's mission is to have a serious discussion about UFOs and good evidence, this movie was his opportunity to contribute what he has. Rather than put forward his footage, which he claims shows a "flying saucer in broad day light, shooting a plasma beam at him," :rolls eyes: he chose to spend his time at the national archive debating the curvature of a on old symbol in the Blue Book record. If Stanford really had the "smoking gun" footage, I don't understand why he would even want to waste his time with trivial aspects of an old trace landing case where all the witnesses are dead.
To give an example, this would be like a aging Bigfoot researcher, who claims to have irrefutable clear video evidence of the creature, deciding to spend his days submitting molds of barely distinguishable footprints in an attempt to "expose the reality of the best."
My point is...if Stanford had ground breaking footage, and if he was serious about furthering the subject he spent his entire life "researching," he wouldn't be worrying about the symbol, as reported in the Blue Book file, he wouldn't be trying to get a photo from Socorro analyzed, because he thinks he sees a "black speck" he believes to be evidence of a craft, but rather he would be putting out his footage.
The guy who has bigfoot's body in his back yard, wouldn't waste his time trying to get plaster casts made of some poorly created foot print in the middle of nowhere. Similarly, if Stanford had remarkable UFO footage, he wouldn't waste his time with vague symbols and blurry pictures of he and Hyneck, that purportedly show a "speck."
The fact Tracy Torme said he would flat out walk away from this film if Stanford had any further influence or involvement in it, should tell anyone all they need to know. Torme is a gentleman, and a straight shooter. He doesn't say things like this lightly.
This was [his] other post about it too:
Torme was being polite, I think it was clear from his description of Ray, he thought Ray was unstable and not mentally sound.
I think we are confusing Fox's enthusiasm for Stanford's contributions about Socorro with any support for Ray's films. According to Torme, they came away with nothing, and Torme was of the opinion, Ray and all his supposed evidence was largely in his own mind.
If Stanford had anything of value, anything on the level he claims it to be, he would have submitted it to MIT by now and won a Nobel Prize in Science...the fact we have to learn about it on fringe podcasts and "UFO forums" tells me it is probably nothing substantial which is why Stanford doesn't release it.
Torme is a film industry professional, he knows the types of people and the types of personality that will discredit a film and cause people to laugh at it. I got the impression he wanted nothing to do with Stanford for these very reasons.
talking about the upcoming 701 Movie and Stanford...
Great episode!
If Ray Stanford's mission is to have a serious discussion about UFOs and good evidence, this movie was his opportunity to contribute what he has. Rather than put forward his footage, which he claims shows a "flying saucer in broad day light, shooting a plasma beam at him," :rolls eyes: he chose to spend his time at the national archive debating the curvature of a on old symbol in the Blue Book record. If Stanford really had the "smoking gun" footage, I don't understand why he would even want to waste his time with trivial aspects of an old trace landing case where all the witnesses are dead.
To give an example, this would be like a aging Bigfoot researcher, who claims to have irrefutable clear video evidence of the creature, deciding to spend his days submitting molds of barely distinguishable footprints in an attempt to "expose the reality of the best."
My point is...if Stanford had ground breaking footage, and if he was serious about furthering the subject he spent his entire life "researching," he wouldn't be worrying about the symbol, as reported in the Blue Book file, he wouldn't be trying to get a photo from Socorro analyzed, because he thinks he sees a "black speck" he believes to be evidence of a craft, but rather he would be putting out his footage.
The guy who has bigfoot's body in his back yard, wouldn't waste his time trying to get plaster casts made of some poorly created foot print in the middle of nowhere. Similarly, if Stanford had remarkable UFO footage, he wouldn't waste his time with vague symbols and blurry pictures of he and Hyneck, that purportedly show a "speck."
The fact Tracy Torme said he would flat out walk away from this film if Stanford had any further influence or involvement in it, should tell anyone all they need to know. Torme is a gentleman, and a straight shooter. He doesn't say things like this lightly.
This was [his] other post about it too:
Torme was being polite, I think it was clear from his description of Ray, he thought Ray was unstable and not mentally sound.
I think we are confusing Fox's enthusiasm for Stanford's contributions about Socorro with any support for Ray's films. According to Torme, they came away with nothing, and Torme was of the opinion, Ray and all his supposed evidence was largely in his own mind.
If Stanford had anything of value, anything on the level he claims it to be, he would have submitted it to MIT by now and won a Nobel Prize in Science...the fact we have to learn about it on fringe podcasts and "UFO forums" tells me it is probably nothing substantial which is why Stanford doesn't release it.
Torme is a film industry professional, he knows the types of people and the types of personality that will discredit a film and cause people to laugh at it. I got the impression he wanted nothing to do with Stanford for these very reasons.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Ditto.
Ben Moss
Skilled Investigator
If Ray Stanford's mission is to have a serious discussion about UFOs and good evidence, this movie was his opportunity to contribute what he has. Rather than put forward his footage, which he claims shows a "flying saucer in broad day light, shooting a plasma beam at him," :rolls eyes: he chose to spend his time at the national archive debating the curvature of a on old symbol in the Blue Book record. If Stanford really had the "smoking gun" footage, I don't understand why he would even want to waste his time with trivial aspects of an old trace landing case where all the witnesses are dead.
The footage being discussed here has nothing to do with Socorro. Socorro is a picture, but there is more than one.
The visit to the archives was very valuable in that it did show that Lonnie was told to change the symbol in case anyone else saw the same thing and gave the false or real symbol. (The real symbol is an inverted v, /\ with 3 lines through it.
To give an example, this would be like a aging Bigfoot researcher, who claims to have irrefutable clear video evidence of the creature, deciding to spend his days submitting molds of barely distinguishable footprints in an attempt to "expose the reality of the best."
So again when somebody mentions something they know nothing about, they dismiss it and compare it to whatever...This goes back to the fact that every single person here who talks negatively about the case does not know the case at all thus your comments have no merit when you do not do your homework.
My point is...if Stanford had ground breaking footage, and if he was serious about furthering the subject he spent his entire life "researching," he wouldn't be worrying about the symbol, as reported in the Blue Book file, he wouldn't be trying to get a photo from Socorro analyzed, because he thinks he sees a "black speck" he believes to be evidence of a craft, but rather he would be putting out his footage.
Again see above. The symbol is very important as it was seen in other cases around this time 1964, when a lot of these things were on radar and over military bases.
The guy who has bigfoot's body in his back yard, wouldn't waste his time trying to get plaster casts made of some poorly created foot print in the middle of nowhere. Similarly, if Stanford had remarkable UFO footage, he wouldn't waste his time with vague symbols and blurry pictures of he and Hyneck, that purportedly show a "speck."
Again a clueless dicussion of the uninformed.
The fact Tracy Torme said he would flat out walk away from this film if Stanford had any further influence or involvement in it, should tell anyone all they need to know. Torme is a gentleman, and a straight shooter. He doesn't say things like this lightly.
I have spoken with James and the producer about this film. You do not know the facts so why speculate with no contribution.
This was [his] other post about it too:
Torme was being polite, I think it was clear from his description of Ray, he thought Ray was unstable and not mentally sound.
I could say the same about anyone, including some here.
Proves nothing.
I think we are confusing Fox's enthusiasm for Stanford's contributions about Socorro with any support for Ray's films. According to Torme, they came away with nothing, and Torme was of the opinion, Ray and all his supposed evidence was largely in his own mind.
701 has its own growing pains. Do not confuse James work with Ray. Both are great guys and like many of us are looking for the truth, not money, not fame, and not fiction.
If Stanford had anything of value, anything on the level he claims it to be, he would have submitted it to MIT by now and won a Nobel Prize in Science...the fact we have to learn about it on fringe podcasts and "UFO forums" tells me it is probably nothing substantial which is why Stanford doesn't release it.
Torme is a film industry professional, he knows the types of people and the types of personality that will discredit a film and cause people to laugh at it. I got the impression he wanted nothing to do with Stanford for these very reasons.
Again you know not of what you speak. Many credible people have seen Rays work, but its one thing to see it and another to talk about it knowing it can hurt your career to be associated in any way with UFO's. Why do you think pilots do not report them until they retire? because if they do they suddenly find themselves flying a desk, or at home with no job.
Instead of being educated here about the real facts why don't you read the book, look at the documents, and learn all about the true facts of this case. Class over.
The footage being discussed here has nothing to do with Socorro. Socorro is a picture, but there is more than one.
The visit to the archives was very valuable in that it did show that Lonnie was told to change the symbol in case anyone else saw the same thing and gave the false or real symbol. (The real symbol is an inverted v, /\ with 3 lines through it.
To give an example, this would be like a aging Bigfoot researcher, who claims to have irrefutable clear video evidence of the creature, deciding to spend his days submitting molds of barely distinguishable footprints in an attempt to "expose the reality of the best."
So again when somebody mentions something they know nothing about, they dismiss it and compare it to whatever...This goes back to the fact that every single person here who talks negatively about the case does not know the case at all thus your comments have no merit when you do not do your homework.
My point is...if Stanford had ground breaking footage, and if he was serious about furthering the subject he spent his entire life "researching," he wouldn't be worrying about the symbol, as reported in the Blue Book file, he wouldn't be trying to get a photo from Socorro analyzed, because he thinks he sees a "black speck" he believes to be evidence of a craft, but rather he would be putting out his footage.
Again see above. The symbol is very important as it was seen in other cases around this time 1964, when a lot of these things were on radar and over military bases.
The guy who has bigfoot's body in his back yard, wouldn't waste his time trying to get plaster casts made of some poorly created foot print in the middle of nowhere. Similarly, if Stanford had remarkable UFO footage, he wouldn't waste his time with vague symbols and blurry pictures of he and Hyneck, that purportedly show a "speck."
Again a clueless dicussion of the uninformed.
The fact Tracy Torme said he would flat out walk away from this film if Stanford had any further influence or involvement in it, should tell anyone all they need to know. Torme is a gentleman, and a straight shooter. He doesn't say things like this lightly.
I have spoken with James and the producer about this film. You do not know the facts so why speculate with no contribution.
This was [his] other post about it too:
Torme was being polite, I think it was clear from his description of Ray, he thought Ray was unstable and not mentally sound.
I could say the same about anyone, including some here.
Proves nothing.I think we are confusing Fox's enthusiasm for Stanford's contributions about Socorro with any support for Ray's films. According to Torme, they came away with nothing, and Torme was of the opinion, Ray and all his supposed evidence was largely in his own mind.
701 has its own growing pains. Do not confuse James work with Ray. Both are great guys and like many of us are looking for the truth, not money, not fame, and not fiction.
If Stanford had anything of value, anything on the level he claims it to be, he would have submitted it to MIT by now and won a Nobel Prize in Science...the fact we have to learn about it on fringe podcasts and "UFO forums" tells me it is probably nothing substantial which is why Stanford doesn't release it.
Torme is a film industry professional, he knows the types of people and the types of personality that will discredit a film and cause people to laugh at it. I got the impression he wanted nothing to do with Stanford for these very reasons.
Again you know not of what you speak. Many credible people have seen Rays work, but its one thing to see it and another to talk about it knowing it can hurt your career to be associated in any way with UFO's. Why do you think pilots do not report them until they retire? because if they do they suddenly find themselves flying a desk, or at home with no job.
Instead of being educated here about the real facts why don't you read the book, look at the documents, and learn all about the true facts of this case. Class over.
Ravensfee
Paranormal Maven
It seems a bit off to be making this criticism at one of the guys who is currently trying to help bring Ray's evidence into the public domain.
It also seems odd for participants in forum where all aspects of the UFO phenomenon are discussed to come out with a "what are the chances of that happening?" line of attack. You could use the same point to instantly wipe out any high strange/UFO report. Betty and Barney Hill? Skinwalker ranch? Yeah, what are the chances of that happening...
It also pre-supposes the nature of the phenomenon. Thought experiment: Imagine UFOs are not alien visitors from another planet but are more like, for example, poltergeist hauntings. Would repeated events focussed around one person seem so unlikely then?
And, lastly, it seems highly unusual on a forum that I like to frequent to enjoy open minded discussions to see posters instantly and occasionally aggressively dismiss things as junk and rubbish without having seen them. Maybe Ray's submissions won't amount to anything but I'll wait until Ben and Tony have the website live and see what is being presented before I start letting off steam.
*climbs down from soapbox*
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
I agree I withholding any comments untill I see the evidence. But so far I seen ray is a credible researcher..
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk