• 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:

When we finally do see Ray's photo's and video's I assume we are going to see something on the order of this (as far as it being clear, structured, and daytime;
italy-ufo-2.jpg


and not a smudge, blur, or light. This is a good thing because it wipes out all the other usual excuses of UFO's (birds, swamp gas, airplane, etc.) and leaves us with two possibilities. It's either a real craft or a hoax.

I can't wait to see.
 
It's not a smudge but it's not a bright clear perfect photo like you see here. The crafts discovered where not the focus of the photo remember. Ray and Hynek each separately focused on the dynamite shack snapping their photos seconds apart. 2 people with 2 different cameras a few feet apart from each other
 
All I will say is that the craft in the picture is exactly what Lonnie described. It is not a fake, it is clear, it was a lucky grap I will give you that but the distance from the camera confirms it is not staged. Anyone who continues to push Socorro as a hoax either has their own agenda, has a closed mind, has no knowledge of the case or the evidence, and or is a liar and probably not able to see the forest for the trees. Or they could just be stupid.
 
Ben Moss said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, well at least now I know you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about at all when it comes to these film formats. The comparison you make is patently ridiculous as images that are shot near to you like a dead president vs. distant sky objects have literally no comparison whatsoever. I gave you some footage to consider I. E. Great Falls Montana by way of understanding that the miniscule objects captured in Ray's film would have limited if any contour, depth, shape or definition. Even if shooting with a very fine grain, that little spec in the distance is meaningless. Even if his lens is stunning it means absolutely nothing given the scale of the object - same goes for the quality of transfer. The notion that effects in sky or landscape could indicate a unique technology is also rather silly as we're talking about sky imagery in the distance, and unless we can see the black hole created then anything being talked about in this thread is mostly a waste of time except as instructional "waste of time ufo chatter" - see Koi's comment above.
 
I think it's clear something happened in Socorro. Now what exactly it was, who knows. I for one, do not believe it was an alien craft from another world. "Roaring jet engines with flames spitting out the bottom" tells me it was something more earthly. Also, how does an over turned car resemble an egg? Maybe I'm missing something. The hoax theory I do not buy. The most orchestrated hoax in the world couldn't pull off the things that needed to happen that day. Like know that Zamora would be in a car chase on a specific road and then when somebody gives the signal the fake UFO could make it's appearance, go over a ridge, park itself, then hope that Zamora makes his way to the fake UFO, etc etc.

It's also par for the course that there just had to be a controversy within a controversy. There's an alien symbol on the craft but let's create a bogus symbol - so we can weed out tricksters & other's. Huh? What? And I also don't buy that the frazzled, frightened, police officer could take a mental photograph of the symbol that was on the object and then accurately draw it later. Eyewitness testimony is some of the most ridiculously flawed testimony that there is.
 
Ben Moss said:
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.
Click to expand...


What a sad attempt at a rebuttal. I still think everything I wrote there makes perfect sense to any thinking person, but I will take the bait and reply.

1. I realize the footage first being discussed has nothing to do with the Zamora sighting. However, my point was to illustrate the fact that the Zamora sighting pales in comparison to the personal evidence Ray Standford claims to have. Therefore, I find it curious that after all these years, Ray Stanford would rather monkey around with the Zamora case knowing it will never be resolved, rather than focus his limited time getting out his "plasma beam shooting, flying disk" film. There is a disconnect there. Ray could indirectly do much more to further the Zamora case if he can actually prove UFOs exist by releasing his day light footage. If people could see clear irrefutable evidence of a UFO, that would do MORE to further any and all UFOs cases (including Sorrocco). Instead, Stanford would rather waste time on blurry symbols, old photos while spending time on fringe UFO podcasts where listeners can't see ANYTHING. So again, your rebuttal is weak here, it fails to address my main point, and is myopic in scope. If Ray Stanford's daylight UFO film of a disk shooting a plasma beam at him were to be authenticated by science, cases like Socorro would be much stronger.

2, 3, 4. The Bigfoot analogy is actually still very good. I am not merely "comparing it whatever" out of ignorance. In fact just the opposite. I am attempting to use logic to make some basic predictions. For example, "if A is true, then I would expect to see _________" if I don't see "blank" then that should call into question the validity of A. For example, if it rained heavily today, I would expect to see puddles and moisture on the street, if the street was not wet and their was zero evidence of moisture, the likelihood it actually rained is diminished.

So if a Bigfoot hunter possesses crystal clear film of a 9 foot beast walking around the woods....you wouldn't then expect him to continue to go on TV (or podcasts lol) and present his poorly made plaster prints in an attempt to prove his case. You would probably expect him to vindicate himself by releasing the crystal clear footage of the 9 foot beast walking around in the woods. Similarly with Stanford, if he has irrefutable evidence of a day light flying saucer, you would expect to see him presenting that at academic conferences or Universities. However, instead we have to hear him speak excitedly about "enhanced" photos of a TNT shack on the "Martin Willis" podcast. So again, my analogy was a good one, if someone has fantastic footage of bigfoot, and has spent their entire life trying to establish its existence, it would seem odd they would spend their last years in life looking at blurry bigfoot photos and poor plaster molds. You would have every reason to expect they would be doing everything they could to authenticate their film and bring it to as many academics as possible.

Do I really even have to go on at this point? :sigh:

5. "I [stated], 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."

You replied that I don't know the facts and that I am speculating. However, you are again...wait for it...wrong! I asked Tracy on Don Ecker's Dark Matters Radio. What I stated above was his reply to my question. You can go back and listen to the episode. Torme said that Stanford was out of line with his behavior and Torme let Fox know that if they were going to use Stanford any more, Torme was done with the project. Those were Torme's comments, not my speculation. I didn't sit home one day and invent this idea, rather it was what Torme stated while on-air with Don Ecker. You can listen to the episode in the archives. Additionally, Torme stated that they walked away from their time with Stanford with "nothing" in terms of video evidence. Torme concluded his response by saying to something the effect of, "Like the Holloman Air force footage, I think Ray's evidence isn't what he claims it to be and largely in his own mind. I doubt we will ever see any of it."

So yes, class is now over, but your poor attempt at a rebuttal will be the laughing stock of the school :)
 
Last edited:
withoutlimits09 said:
What a sad attempt at a rebuttal. I still think everything I wrote there makes perfect sense to any thinking person, but I will take the bait and reply.

1. I realize the footage first being discussed has nothing to do with the Zamora sighting. However, my point was to illustrate the fact that the Zamora sighting pales in comparison to the personal evidence Ray Standford claims to have. Therefore, I find it curious that after all these years, Ray Stanford would rather monkey around with the Zamora case knowing it will never be resolved, rather than focus his limited time getting out his "plasma beam shooting, flying disk" film. There is a disconnect there. Ray could indirectly do much more to further the Zamora case if he can actually prove UFOs exist by releasing his day light footage. If people could see clear irrefutable evidence of a UFO, that would do MORE to further any and all UFOs cases (including Sorrocco). Instead, Stanford would rather waste time on blurry symbols, old photos while spending time on fringe UFO podcasts where listeners can't see ANYTHING. So again, your rebuttal is weak here, it fails to address my main point, and is myopic in scope. If Ray Stanford's daylight UFO film of a disk shooting a plasma beam at him were to be authenticated by science, cases like Socorro would be much stronger.

2, 3, 4. The Bigfoot analogy is actually still very good. I am not merely "comparing it whatever" out of ignorance. In fact just the opposite. I am attempting to use logic to make some basic predictions. For example, "if A is true, then I would expect to see _________" if I don't see "blank" then that should call into question the validity of A. For example, if it rained heavily today, I would expect to see puddles and moisture on the street, if the street was not wet and their was zero evidence of moisture, the likelihood it actually rained is diminished.

So if a Bigfoot hunter possesses crystal clear film of a 9 foot beast walking around the woods....you wouldn't then expect him to continue to go on TV (or podcasts lol) and present his poorly made plaster prints in an attempt to prove his case. You would probably expect him to vindicate himself by releasing the crystal clear footage of the 9 foot beast walking around in the woods. Similarly with Stanford, if he has irrefutable evidence of a day light flying saucer, you would expect to see him presenting that at academic conferences or Universities. However, instead we have to hear him speak excitedly about "enhanced" photos of a TNT shack on the "Martin Willis" podcast. So again, my analogy was a good one, if someone has fantastic footage of bigfoot, and has spent their entire life trying to establish its existence, it would seem odd they would spend their last years in life looking at blurry bigfoot photos and poor plaster molds. You would have every reason to expect they would be doing everything they could to authenticate their film.

Do I really even have to go on at this point? :sigh:

5. "I [stated], 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."

You replied that I don't know the facts and that I am speculating. However, you are again...wait for it...wrong! I asked Tracy on Don Ecker's Dark Matters Radio. What I stated above was his reply to my question. You can go back and listen to the episode. Torme said that Stanford was out of line with his behavior and Torme let Fox know that if they were going to use Stanford any more, Torme was done with the project. Those were Torme's comments, not my speculation. I didn't sit home one day and invent this idea, rather it was what Torme stated while on-air with Don Ecker. You can listen to the episode in the archives. Additionally, Torme stated that they walked away from their time with Stanford with "nothing" in terms of video evidence. Torme concluded his response by saying to something the effect of, "Like the Holloman Air force footage, I think Ray's evidence isn't what he claims it to be and largely in his own mind. I doubt we will ever see any of it."

So yes, class is now over, but your poor attempt at a rebuttal will be the laughing stock of the school :)
Click to expand...
You made all of my points - exactly. Thank you.
 
TonyAngiola said:
It's not a smudge but it's not a bright clear perfect photo like you see here. The crafts discovered where not the focus of the photo remember. Ray and Hynek each separately focused on the dynamite shack snapping their photos seconds apart. 2 people with 2 different cameras a few feet apart from each other
Click to expand...
Dear MUFON Investigator, please help with the following:

Is there any image on Hynek's picture? Was Hynek's camera positioned so it likely would have captured the same object?

As investigators, both of you should already know the camera, lens, and negative type that was used by Stanford. Do you know this information or not? Would you please tell us now what camera, lens, and black and white negative brand/ASA that was used by Stanford???

Thanks.
 
What a sad attempt at a rebuttal. I still think everything I wrote there makes perfect sense to any thinking person, but I will take the bait and reply.
Perhaps in your mind it does, but that apparently is where you are legend.

1. I realize the footage first being discussed has nothing to do with the Zamora sighting. However, my point was to illustrate the fact that the Zamora sighting pales in comparison to the personal evidence Ray Standford claims to have. Therefore, I find it curious that after all these years, Ray Stanford would rather monkey around with the Zamora case knowing it will never be resolved, rather than focus his limited time getting out his "plasma beam shooting, flying disk" film. There is a disconnect there. Ray could indirectly do much more to further the Zamora case if he can actually prove UFOs exist by releasing his day light footage. If people could see clear irrefutable evidence of a UFO, that would do MORE to further any and all UFOs cases. Rather Stanford would rather waste time on blurry symbols, photos and fringe UFO podcasts. So again, your rebuttal is weak here, it fails to address my main point, and is myopic in scope. If Ray Stanford's daylight UFO film of a disk shooting a plasma beam at him were to be authenticated by science, cases like Socorro would be much stronger.
Again another assumption, that Ray waste his time on...You have no knowledge of what Ray does. And I guess you did not read what I said before about scientist. Many have seen it, none will comment publicly. Do you get that yet?? There are other examples of really good daylight footage, and if you cannot find it I'm not going to tell you. The fact is that nobody is going to stand behind really good evidence in academia due to the repercussions. The sad part is that even if you have a real piece of a craft that is unusual or made of unknown material, what do you have? In the eyes of this dumbed down tv watching short attention span public they only want to see green men landing on the White House lawn asking to be taken to our leader.
Have you read X-Descending? Do you think with a roll of film that you could prove UFO's exist? Of course not.

2, 3, 4. The Bigfoot analogy is actually still very good. I am not merely "comparing it whatever" out of ignorance. In fact just the opposite. I am attempting to use logic to make some basic predictions. For example, "if A is true, then I would expect to see _________" if I don't see "blank" then that should call into question the validity of A. For example, if it rained heavily today, I would expect to see puddles and moisture on the street, if the street was not wet and their was zero evidence of moisture, the likelihood it actually rained is diminished.
That's a terrible analogy. It can rain hard and with the humidity around here 10 minutes later you would never know it happened. Stick with Bigfoot.

So if a Bigfoot hunter possesses crystal clear film of a 9 foot beast walking around the woods....you wouldn't then expect him to continue to go on TV (or podcasts lol) and present his poorly made plaster prints in an attempt to prove his case. You would probably expect him to vindicate himself by releasing the crystal clear footage of the 9 foot beast walking around in the woods. Similarly with Stanford, if he has irrefutable evidence of a day light flying saucer, you would expect to see him presenting that at academic conferences or Universities. However, instead we have to hear him speak excitedly about "enhanced" photos of a TNT shack on the "Martin Willis" podcast. So again, my analogy was a good one, if someone has fantastic footage of bigfoot, and has spent their entire life trying to establish its existence, it would seem odd they would spend their last years in life looking at blurry bigfoot photos and poor plaster molds. You would have every reason to expect they would be doing everything they could to authenticate their film.
Again with this same old line that you just do not seem to get why it is fruitless. Many have been invited to see the evidence, many have come, none will discuss it though they leave impressed.
Phillip Klass was one, but he never told anyone, because it would kill his debunking career. Your analogy is not good. The Gimli Patterson film probably does show an unknown humanoid, but all people believe is that it was a 7 foot tall guy with breast walking around in the woods many miles from nowhere.

Do I really even have to go on at this point? :sigh: No actually you can stop at any time.

5. "I [stated], 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."
So thus by your great powers of deduction Torme never tells a lie, is always correct in everything he says, and because he is a straight shooter he is better that a Psychologist in knowing who Ray is. Wow tackle the Zapruda film next.

You replied that I don't know the facts and that I am speculating. However, you are again...wait for it...wrong! I asked Tracy on Don Ecker's Dark Matters Radio. What I stated above was his reply to my question. You can go back and listen to the episode. Torme said that Stanford was out of line with his behavior and Torme let Fox know that if they were going to use Stanford any more, Torme was done with the project. Thos were Torme's comments, not my speculation. I didn't sit home one day and invent this idea, rather it was what Torme stated while on-air with Don Ecker. You can listen to the episode in the archives. Additionally Torme stated that they walked away from their time with Stanford with "nothing" in terms of video evidence. Torme concluded his response by saying to the effect of, "Like the Holloman Air force footage, I think Ray's evidence isn't what he claims it to be and largely in his own mind. I doubt we will ever see any of it." Of course I will not do this as AGAIN you assume that Torme's word is as good as Gods. Jeez, I guess you do not need to study the case or Ray since by listening to a radio broadcast you have figured it all out. Your logic is...wait for it..incredibly flawed.

So yes, class is now over, but your poor attempt at a rebuttal will be the laughing stock of the school :) Is that what your classmates told you? Yes, I think it is. Now class is finally dismissed.
 
This has been an entertaining thread.

My only comment is regarding the mention of whether there any black projects going on at the time of the Zamora sighting.
From my perspective and experience, there could very easily have been a black project going on at the time that would not be found by any FOIA or UFO researcher request even today. If the results of that project were such that there was a major breakthrough and the technology is relevant today in a classified platform/application, DoD etc. would never give that up as having been operationally tested at the time of the incident of interest even if fifty years ago. Yes, they can, and properly would, say 'Nope, there wasn't any secret testing going on anywhere near the incident at that time (...that we can reveal)'. Any source a UFO investigator can gain access to is not likely to have a really in-the-black project listed especially if, as I said, there was a breakthrough and that tech is relevant to classified equipment in use today.

That's my two cents on the invocation of certainty that there was absolutely no black project activity involved in the Zamora case. FWIW.
 
AdventureMan said:
This has been an entertaining thread.

My only comment is regarding the mention of whether there any black projects going on at the time of the Zamora sighting.
From my perspective and experience, there could very easily have been a black project going on at the time that would not be found by any FOIA or UFO researcher request even today. If the results of that project were such that there was a major breakthrough and the technology is relevant today in a classified platform/application, DoD etc. would never give that up as having been operationally tested at the time of the incident of interest even if fifty years ago. Yes, they can, and properly would, say 'Nope, there wasn't any secret testing going on anywhere near the incident at that time (...that we can reveal)'. Any source a UFO investigator can gain access to is not likely to have a really in-the-black project listed if, as I said, there was a breakthrough and that tech is relevant to classified equipment in use today.

That's my two cents on the invocation of certainty that there was absolutely no black project activity involved in the Zamora case. FWIW.
Click to expand...
Great point. I know just from being a combat aircrewman in the U.S. Navy that there were times we flew into an area we weren't supposed to. But we were seen and it was reported back to HQ's. HQ's knows that we weren't supposed to be there so of course they deny it. But behind closed doors our crew get's reprimanded for "going off course."

So it's not some far out there, ridiculous theory that they denied an experimental lander/craft that nobody was supposed to have known existed made a landing near Socorro.
 
Ben Moss said:
What a sad attempt at a rebuttal. I still think everything I wrote there makes perfect sense to any thinking person, but I will take the bait and reply.
Perhaps in your mind it does, but that apparently is where you are legend.

1. I realize the footage first being discussed has nothing to do with the Zamora sighting. However, my point was to illustrate the fact that the Zamora sighting pales in comparison to the personal evidence Ray Standford claims to have. Therefore, I find it curious that after all these years, Ray Stanford would rather monkey around with the Zamora case knowing it will never be resolved, rather than focus his limited time getting out his "plasma beam shooting, flying disk" film. There is a disconnect there. Ray could indirectly do much more to further the Zamora case if he can actually prove UFOs exist by releasing his day light footage. If people could see clear irrefutable evidence of a UFO, that would do MORE to further any and all UFOs cases. Rather Stanford would rather waste time on blurry symbols, photos and fringe UFO podcasts. So again, your rebuttal is weak here, it fails to address my main point, and is myopic in scope. If Ray Stanford's daylight UFO film of a disk shooting a plasma beam at him were to be authenticated by science, cases like Socorro would be much stronger.
Again another assumption, that Ray waste his time on...You have no knowledge of what Ray does. And I guess you did not read what I said before about scientist. Many have seen it, none will comment publicly. Do you get that yet?? There are other examples of really good daylight footage, and if you cannot find it I'm not going to tell you. The fact is that nobody is going to stand behind really good evidence in academia due to the repercussions. The sad part is that even if you have a real piece of a craft that is unusual or made of unknown material, what do you have? In the eyes of this dumbed down tv watching short attention span public they only want to see green men landing on the White House lawn asking to be taken to our leader.
Have you read X-Descending? Do you think with a roll of film that you could prove UFO's exist? Of course not.

2, 3, 4. The Bigfoot analogy is actually still very good. I am not merely "comparing it whatever" out of ignorance. In fact just the opposite. I am attempting to use logic to make some basic predictions. For example, "if A is true, then I would expect to see _________" if I don't see "blank" then that should call into question the validity of A. For example, if it rained heavily today, I would expect to see puddles and moisture on the street, if the street was not wet and their was zero evidence of moisture, the likelihood it actually rained is diminished.
That's a terrible analogy. It can rain hard and with the humidity around here 10 minutes later you would never know it happened. Stick with Bigfoot.

So if a Bigfoot hunter possesses crystal clear film of a 9 foot beast walking around the woods....you wouldn't then expect him to continue to go on TV (or podcasts lol) and present his poorly made plaster prints in an attempt to prove his case. You would probably expect him to vindicate himself by releasing the crystal clear footage of the 9 foot beast walking around in the woods. Similarly with Stanford, if he has irrefutable evidence of a day light flying saucer, you would expect to see him presenting that at academic conferences or Universities. However, instead we have to hear him speak excitedly about "enhanced" photos of a TNT shack on the "Martin Willis" podcast. So again, my analogy was a good one, if someone has fantastic footage of bigfoot, and has spent their entire life trying to establish its existence, it would seem odd they would spend their last years in life looking at blurry bigfoot photos and poor plaster molds. You would have every reason to expect they would be doing everything they could to authenticate their film.
Again with this same old line that you just do not seem to get why it is fruitless. Many have been invited to see the evidence, many have come, none will discuss it though they leave impressed.
Phillip Klass was one, but he never told anyone, because it would kill his debunking career. Your analogy is not good. The Gimli Patterson film probably does show an unknown humanoid, but all people believe is that it was a 7 foot tall guy with breast walking around in the woods many miles from nowhere.

Do I really even have to go on at this point? :sigh: No actually you can stop at any time.

5. "I [stated], 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."
So thus by your great powers of deduction Torme never tells a lie, is always correct in everything he says, and because he is a straight shooter he is better that a Psychologist in knowing who Ray is. Wow tackle the Zapruda film next.

You replied that I don't know the facts and that I am speculating. However, you are again...wait for it...wrong! I asked Tracy on Don Ecker's Dark Matters Radio. What I stated above was his reply to my question. You can go back and listen to the episode. Torme said that Stanford was out of line with his behavior and Torme let Fox know that if they were going to use Stanford any more, Torme was done with the project. Thos were Torme's comments, not my speculation. I didn't sit home one day and invent this idea, rather it was what Torme stated while on-air with Don Ecker. You can listen to the episode in the archives. Additionally Torme stated that they walked away from their time with Stanford with "nothing" in terms of video evidence. Torme concluded his response by saying to the effect of, "Like the Holloman Air force footage, I think Ray's evidence isn't what he claims it to be and largely in his own mind. I doubt we will ever see any of it." Of course I will not do this as AGAIN you assume that Torme's word is as good as Gods. Jeez, I guess you do not need to study the case or Ray since by listening to a radio broadcast you have figured it all out. Your logic is...wait for it..incredibly flawed.

So yes, class is now over, but your poor attempt at a rebuttal will be the laughing stock of the school :) Is that what your classmates told you? Yes, I think it is. Now class is finally dismissed.
Click to expand...


Typical reply...terrible in every way. You are one of the people I like to call a "Stanford Devotee." That is fine, I am glad that you and a few of your friends have sat in Ray's house and watched his film in the worst possible viewing conditions while pushing aside boxes upon boxes of dino bones. Who knows what the hell you actually looked at. However, it isn't persuasive to me that Martin Willis and yourself think the footage is good, you are not qualified to make such determinations. You are people from a UFO forum.

X-Desending? No, I have not read that? What academic publisher released that book? Oh, wait, it was self-published and is only available in "Kindle." Hardly research material. Not worth my time.

Ray stated firmly, "I have day light film of a flying saucer shooting a plasma beam at me..." put up or shut up. No one serious cares about specs floating about the horizon of a TNT shack, which after "enhancements," begins to look like an egg with legs. Just listen to yourself, listen to the ridiculousness of the evidence you are suggesting. Until a reputable institution looks at Stanford's evidence, has it peer-reviewed and draws some real conclusions from all of it, I don't want to hear about it anymore. The mere fact the only interest his evidence gets is by his devoted followers and fringe UFO podcast listeners, is again...probably a good indication the evidence is very weak
 
Keep in mind at this point Moss has to defend Stanford since they had him on a radio show/podcast. So at this point he's "dug in". That's why I was asking about what the position of MUFON would be IF it comes out that Ray is a complete fraud? We just got done watching/seeing/hearing The Back Peddle Olympics (Roswell Slides).
mufonva
 
That may be pushing it. We've had dozens and dozens of guests through nearly 500 episodes of The Paracast. I assure you we do not feel we have to defend those guests, other than that we tried to present a thought-provoking show.
 
Well it was a pleasure, kind of like talking to a tree, not a lot of good feedback but a great listener. As far as black projects that was looked at internally by the Air Force, FBI and probably others but there was nothing. Its easy to say that is what it was but there is no proof and it not make much sense to test that off the reservation so to speak.
As Ray mentioned to me bringing this stuff out will just increase attacks on himself and the data no matter how good the evidence is, and a few here drove that point home. But we will continue to work on getting this out in good time and not on the demands of nameless arm chair bloggers who contribute nothing but love to strut and fret their time on the stage. Asta la vista baby.
 
Back
Top