Ray Stanford — May 18, 2014 Episode

[marduk]

He doesn't have to share his evidence...

Pragmatically I agree, there's no way I know of to compel someone to release their data.

However, ethically he does have an obligation have to share his data.

I fundamentally believe if his data is so profoundly significant to humanity, he has a moral and ethical responsibility to do so. Either it is not so significant or he has a problem as a scientist, which he considers himself to be.

Here's a very relevant part of the scientific method (I've edited and bolded relevant sections)

Peer review evaluation
Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three) fellow (usually anonymous) scientists familiar with the field for evaluation... This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific or pseudoscientific work, to help cut down on obvious errors, and generally otherwise to improve the quality of the material...

Documentation and replication
Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, unconsciously veer from scientific method (Pathological science) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately report false results. Consequently, it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis.

Data sharing
When additional information is needed before a study can be reproduced, the author of the study is expected to provide it promptly.
​

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[marduk]

I wonder if we're not actually seeing artifacts of gravitational lensing.

If you somehow warped the gravitational field around the craft, particularly the base, this could actually lens and focus the ambient light around the craft, causing the space around the affected areas to appear brighter.

It may also help explain the "blurring" or odd defocusing of the craft itself, as would their apparently inertialess and reactionless propulsion systems.

Consider the following example of gravitational lensing in astronomy:

 

[toxicsurf]

As out of print copies are a bit pricey, someone should talk to Ray about publishing a Kindle version of his Socorro book. That is, unless a digital version isn't already available to the elite UFO cabal.

Keep your eyes out. When I first started looking for Sanford's Socorro book after a Paracast episode 5-6 years ago, the few I found were expensive.But I kept looking from time to time and ended up with a first edition, signed copy in excellent shape.....$10. I've been offered well over 10x's that much for it...

In fact this goes for pretty much all of my valuable/rare ufo book collection. I try and be patient, hit lots of used book stores, garage sales swap meets, and frequent extensive internet searches...

Anyways, back on topic. Stanford is always a great guest. Good job...

 

[withoutlimits09]

That's exactly where I'm at.

My cognitive dissonance regarding Mr. Stanford is simple. He's an amateur scientist, and well-known and published in the field of palaeontology. Science is supposed to wait to publish and be quiet about it until they do. He's not that quiet, but won't publish his propulsion evidence (which, if true, knocks my socks off!) But he will present his evidence in other fields.

I'm inclined to believe him, and I'm inclined to think that he just doesn't care that much about his detractors and will publish in his own time. If Chris and James Fox say they've seen it, good enough for me.

But it must come out at some point if it's going to help the debate any.

Just be careful here, as I pointed out before, James Fox didn't see anything beyond the Zamora stuff. When I asked his co-producer Tracy Torme, about Ray's other "evidence" he essentially had no idea what I was talking about

--------


Actually James Fox's co-producer Tracy Torme was recently on Dark Matters Radio with Don Ecker and I specifically asked him if they had seen any of Ray's more outstanding work.

My question was as follows:

"Don, it is my understanding that Ray Stanford was heavily involved in this movie project and James Fox, and I assume Tracy, spent some time with him going over the Zamora case. However, did either of them get the opportunity to see his "holy grail" UFO footage. By Standford's own admission on the Paracast, he claims he shot footage of several UFOs flying over the water. He claims you can clearly see every detail of the craft, including its propulsion system! These crafts then shot beams and plasma out towards him. He states, "I have complete film of this in broad day light" (18:50 minute mark)

Any daylight footage, motion picture, or film that clearly shows a UFO shooting plasma beams at someone in broad daylight would win a Pulitzer Prize for science and history. If Ray possesses something this earth shattering, why has he not released this evidence to MIT or any other respectable University for further analysis?

As film makers, something as fantastical as Stanford's propertied footage would turn the field upside down and prove to be far more valuable to this film than some old burnt pieces of paper at the national archive."

Torme embarrassingly admitted he didn't know what I was talking about. He nor Fox heard or saw anything about footage, film of this type. He then asked me for the link to the paracast, where Stanford made these claims!
-----

If James Fox were serious about making THE movie on UFOs, Ray's film would be much more valuable than some old files and blurry photos of Hynek, scanned at the national archive. Moreover, if Ray was really serious about getting his work known, this movie would be the perfect delivery platform. I think it is really classless on Ray to help these film makers with their movie, while secretly holding on to what, by his own description, is hallmark UFO footage. If Ray really wanted to be helpful and wanted to really participate in the seminal UFO documentary, he would allow his footage to be analyzed by academia and have those results included in the film. Hell, at least Greer, had a reputable university look at his supposed mummified alien!!!

 

[Trystero]

Keep your eyes out. When I first started looking for Sanford's Socorro book after a Paracast episode 5-6 years ago, the few I found were expensive.But I kept looking from time to time and ended up with a first edition, signed copy in excellent shape.....$10. I've been offered well over 10x's that much for it...

In fact this goes for pretty much all of my valuable/rare ufo book collection. I try and be patient, hit lots of used book stores, garage sales swap meets, and frequent extensive internet searches...

Anyways, back on topic. Stanford is always a great guest. Good job...

Found a copy from a UK seller on eBay. It'll still take forever to get to me here in Switzerland, but the price was right.

I assume this is the same book given a less peculiar title for this edition:

 

[IsaacKoi]

Found a copy from a UK seller on eBay. It'll still take forever to get to me here in Switzerland, but the price was right.

I assume this is the same book given a less peculiar title for this edition:

Yes, that is the revised edition of Ray's Socorro book - first published by Fontana in 1978. (The first edition was published by Blueapple Books in 1976).

The book that you've bought, i.e. the revised edition, is the one that I was going to upload as a searchable PDF file to a free file storage website if Ray had given his permission for me to do so.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

More from Ray Stanford, quoted here with permission:

Hello mailing list:

On October 23, 2012, I received unsolicited contact by Richard T. Holder, Jr., son of Captain Richard T. Holder who was Up-Range Commander at the White Sands Proving Ground on Friday, April 24, 1964, when the Socorro CE III case occurred.

My habit usually is, if I respond to unsolicited correspondence at all, to seek confirmation of who the writer might really be. Well, at my request, Captain Holder's son, provided me very good evidence of his identity. He confirmed that I was correct, telling me that his father, Captain Holder, had suggested to Lonnie Zamora that he publicly conceal the actual red 'insignia' he had seen and substitute another. I wrote about this in Appendix A of my 1976 Socorro book [In the USA edition of Socorro Saucer in A pentagon Pantry, pages 206 - 211. Blueapple Books] and my subsequent statements (following Lonnie Zamora's passing).

To his credit, Captain Holder's eldest son was unhappy with the 'flack' I was receiving from certain noisy but ignorant-of-the-facts-of-the-Socorro-case internet loudmouths, and he wanted to set the record straight.

I told him that I wanted to send him a signed copy of my Socorro book, and asked that I send two copies, so that he (Richard) could sign one personally for me with a statement in his own handwriting, confirming that his father told him of suggesting to Lonnie Zamora that he not reveal publicly the actual shape he saw in red on the object's side, and that Lonnie complied, substituting a different one.

Richard T. Holder, Jr., returned the extra copy of my book with his hand-written statement of the facts inside it, signed and dated on March 3, 2013.

Rather than publish that long, hand-written (with a very fine-pointed pen) statement and have it be difficult to read when most internet sites using it will reduce its resolution for reasons of web-page practicality, I've asked Richard to just print, in nice-size type, a statement with his hand-written signature and date, so below is his statement, in his own words, with absolutely no coaching by me:

I sincerely commend Richard T. Holder, Jr, for the courage to come forth and provide us confirmation of what I learned in my very first visit to Socorro (April 28 - 30, 1964), by telling us what he learned from his father. Of course, I cannot speak for Richard's late father, Captain Richard Terry Holder, but -- from what I've learned about the dedicated family man who became a pharmacist after retiring from the army -- I suspect he would be proud of his son's stepping forth to finally 'close the book' on the question in the minds of some, as to whether the red 'insignia' was obfuscated, and how and why that happened.

THANKS, Richard T. Holder, Jr, not only from me, but on behalf of any and all interested in the Socorro case, who love the truth above the myths about what happened in Socorro, New Mexico, on April 24, 1964, and in the hours immediately following that well-documented CE III encounter.

The reader's continued interest in understanding the Socorro case is appreciated.

Ray Stanford

 

[withoutlimits09]

:yawn:

all of this is chicken feed in comparison to what Ray claims he has in terms of his own evidence. Why even bother trying to confirm if the symbol changed, or if a blurry picture of Hynek at the national archives shows a dark pixel which MAY be anomolous in the sky.

I just find it odd that Stanford would even bother with these ancient cases and burnt pieces of paper still housed at the national archives when he is supposedly sitting on a treasure trove of evidence that would blow this field wide open. If Ray really wanted to get teary eyed and "vindicated" it would happen with the release of his footage, not from seeing some poor scribble down at the national archive.

Even from a mere examination of human behavior, I find considerable reasons to be skeptical of how he conducts himself. It is all very inconsistent. For example, if I knew personally that Santa Clause was real because I photographed him and or met him, I would not waste the time scouring over blurry photos of Santa Clause or taking trips to the North Pole, to sit 100 miles away in hopes of seeing a reindeer with a red nose. I would have already settled this in my mind, so I wouldn't carry on investigating the more trivial aspects of Santa's reality!

You can't rebut this, you can't say "oh Ray is conducting research for science." That process requires consensus, and merely showing this evidence to a handful of your cherry picked disciples, does not satisfy the methodology put forth by anyone seriously involved in research or science.

 

[boomerang]

I wonder if we're not actually seeing artifacts of gravitational lensing.

If you somehow warped the gravitational field around the craft, particularly the base, this could actually lens and focus the ambient light around the craft, causing the space around the affected areas to appear brighter.

It may also help explain the "blurring" or odd defocusing of the craft itself, as would their apparently inertialess and reactionless propulsion systems.

Consider the following example of gravitational lensing in astronomy:

I think this very salient. Whatever the UFO is, it has always demonstrated almost total control of time and space, and perhaps gravity as well. The presence of intense gravitation fields bending light might explain two very perplexing aspects of the phenomenon: Why various UFOs frequently do not appear alike, and why they may be observed from certain angles only.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I think this very salient. Whatever the UFO is, it has always demonstrated almost total control of time and space, and perhaps gravity as well. The presence of intense gravitation fields bending light might explain two very perplexing aspects of the phenomenon: Why various UFOs frequently do not appear alike, and why they may be observed from certain angles only.

I think we might also need to consider the possible multi-dimensional aspects of the phenomenon.

It always struck me how Carl Sagan's quirky video explaining the implications of an Apple playing tricks with a poor old square inhabitant of Flatland, could be somehow used to illustrate some of the most confusing aspects of the UFO phenomenon —the things that make us bring up the term 'paranormal'...

What I'm trying to say is: Could it be that whenever we look in the sky at what appears to be solid, metallic object, that we are only observing the three-dimensional projection —the shadow, if you will— of a multi-dimensional entity?

The above image is the angel Leliel, from the hugely popular anime series Evangelion —in that episode, it's later revealed the sphere is actually Leliel's shadow.

 

[Burnt State]

It always struck me how Carl Sagan's quirky video explaining the implications of an Apple playing tricks with a poor old square inhabitant of Flatland, could be somehow used to illustrate some of the most confusing aspects of the UFO phenomenon —the things that make us bring up the term 'paranormal'...

What I'm trying to say is: Could it be that whenever we look in the sky at what appears to be solid, metallic object, that we are only observing the three-dimensional projection —the shadow, if you will— of a multi-dimensional entity?

There's something so peculiar about the ephemerality of the UFO image. I think the process you are outlining is on to the right track to understanding how paranrmal matters of perception are distorted sometimes. Just the shadow of the orginal object is all we can glean of the UfO. It reminds me the most of transubstantiation. Not to get all catholic or anything, but the process is mystical enough that it connects for me with the more surreal aspects of the UFO phenomenon.

At the apex of the UFO experience is the witnessing of the craft, even more heightened is when occupants are part of the event. Similarly, at the climax of eucharistic celebration the bread and wine are miraculously altered and all that we see are the accidents of what was bread and wine, for now it is the flesh and blood of the sacrifical & resurrected god.

Contact with the UFO is the pinnacle of paranormal experience. It is perfectly understandable how the contactee also bring religious overtones to their message. At the high point of UFO contact we are transformed ecstatically (see Cash-Landrum case and the Second Coming/Apocalypse connection at Blue Blurry Lines). And afterwards, all that remains are thin artifacts: a few impressions in the ground, a streaked photo, some traces on radar and the witness memory. Only the accidents of an alien craft remain. But really, i bet it's something else altogether, something really weird.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

There's something so peculiar about the ephemerality of the UFO image. I think the process you are outlining is on to the right track to understanding how paranrmal matters of perception are distorted sometimes. Just the shadow of the orginal object is all we can glean of the UfO. It reminds me the most of transubstantiation. Not to get all catholic or anything, but the process is mystical enough that it connects for me with the more surreal aspects of the UFO phenomenon.

At the apex of the UFO experience is the witnessing of the craft, even more heightened is when occupants are part of the event. Similarly, at the climax of eucharistic celebration the bread and wine are miraculously altered and all that we see are the accidents of what was bread and wine, for now it is the flesh and blood of the sacrifical & resurrected god.

Contact with the UFO is the pinnacle of paranormal experience. It is perfectly understandable how the contactee also bring religious overtones to their message. At the high point of UFO contact we are transformed ecstatically (see Cash-Landrum case and the Second Coming/Apocalypse connection at Blue Blurry Lines). And afterwards, all that remains are thin artifacts: a few impressions in the ground, a streaked photo, some traces on radar and the witness memory. Only the accidents of an alien craft remain. But really, i bet it's something else altogether, something really weird.

Very interesting. I also noticed your comment was #111 in this thread --or should I say, TRIAD?

 

[marduk]

I think we might also need to consider the possible multi-dimensional aspects of the phenomenon.

This could be true, and I can see the possibility of this.

However, let's make two "entity" assumptions (in Ockham's terms) and posit that:
1) an advanced civilization can directly convert mass to energy for power (I think ZPE is stupid), and
2) an advanced civilization can direct large amounts of energy to arbitrary points outside the craft and convert that energy back to mass

I can conceive of this being possible within what we understand of physics (no, I'm not a physicist and I 100% expect to be called out on my crap).

How much energy would it take to lift a craft?

Let's say a 10 meter diameter disc has the similar mass of, say, a F-22 Raptor which has a mass of about 20,000 kg.

So it would exert a force of about 200,000 Newtons downwards towards the earth.

So, to levitate it would need to exert a force of at least 200,000 Newtons vertically upward.

How much mass would it take to exert this much force from, say, 1 cm outside the top of the hull?

Using this handy dandy calculator Gravitational Force Calculator and playing with the numbers I come up with a resultant required mass of about 20,000,000kg, or about the mass of Godzilla in Godzilla vs Gigan according to this website: Calc Storage - From The Toho Archives: Godzilla vs Gigan (1972) - Naruto Forums

Of course the 20,000,000kg (or 1 Godzilla unit) would have to exist in an area of 1cm radius or less, which results in a density of 2x10^13kg/m^3, or just under the neutron dip line where the atomic nucleus falls apart into protons or neutrons. It wouldn't degrade into neutron star density per se, but wow... this thing would be damn dense. Like, Rense dense.

How much energy would it take to make that much mass assuming 100% total efficiency in conversion?

About 2 x 10^24 joules, or the amount of energy the sun emits in 1/100th of a second. Whoa.

Of course you'd also need to convert about 2000 cubic meters of lead to get the energy to do this to begin with. Double whoa.

This would have the additional downside of having the resultant object plummet towards the earth if it didn't immediately explode due to nuclear fusion, and either blow up your disc or punch a nice round hole through the middle of the hull before it slammed into the Earth and proceeded downward towards the core.

Crap.

This isn't working.

Even if you didn't use energy to create mass to levitate the craft (by, say, warping spacetime)... that's a shit-ton of energy just to hold your disc up and wow the natives.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[withoutlimits09]

We need to ask Stanford, he claims he understands UFO propulsion to the point if he ever released his information, it would jeopardize our national security lol...

 

[marduk]

okokokok... let's say it does use plasma propulsion for thrust...

Magnetohydrodynamic plasma thrusters generate about 25N of thrust with about 500kw of power (Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, lessee, to generate 200,000N of force would take... carry the 2... about 4,000,000kw of power.

To stay levitating for one hour would consume about 1.4x10^13J, or the direct conversion of about 7.6kg of mass to energy.

Way, way more reasonable. Of course you'd need about eight thousand times the size of a thruster to do so...

On top of that, we still have the problem of the stuff you have to use for thrust -- the material you are going to exhaust to begin with. If you were using air for thrust, it wouldn't work in space, under water, and would produce a helluvalaotta thrust downward -- enough to probably light local livestock on fire.

That's not reported. At all.

Sigh.

 

[withoutlimits09]

If aliens are visiting here in craft, chances are their physics is not based on anything we can understand. That would be like egyptions trying to determine what animals future humans would have to capture and domesticate in order to travel such great distances so quickly.

I could imagine the conversation would be like this.

"SLAVE, how would humans in the future ever travel 100 miles so quickly?"
"Well, Pharaoh they would have to breed a special, giant Lion, one that is really fast, then they would have to train it, and then attach a harness to it."

It would be an utterly pointless conversation, they would have no way of even beginning to talk about a steam engine let alone a space shuttle. Despite what that dude with crazy hair on ancient aliens might believe.

 

[marduk]

If aliens are visiting here in craft, chances are their physics is not based on anything we can understand.

Bah, I don't believe that at all, and that's just waving your arms in the air and claiming "magic." Anyway, it's no fun at all.

There's very little in the visible universe that doesn't behave the way we expect it to behave. Besides, if you get rid of the stuff you know doesn't work, it lets you pair stuff down and leads you down thought pathways....

Waitaminute.

Dark energy.

Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, on a mass–energy equivalence basis the universe contains 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy (for a total of 95.1%) and 4.9% ordinary matter....
​

and

Independently of its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (acting repulsively) in order to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.​

According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the stress–energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

In the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. More exactly, the second derivative of the universe scale factor, \ddot{a}, is positive if the equation of state of the universe is such that \! w<-1/3 (see Friedmann equations).

This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion", which is a colorful but possibly confusing expression. In fact a negative pressure does not influence the gravitational interaction between masses—which remains attractive—but rather alters the overall evolution of the universe at the cosmological scale, typically resulting in the accelerating expansion of the universe despite the attraction among the masses present in the universe.

The acceleration is simply a function of dark energy density. Dark energy is persistent: its density remains constant (experimentally, within a factor of 1:10), i.e. it does not get diluted when space expands.
​

Hmm...

If you emitted dark energy underneath the craft, causing space there to expand at the same rate as you were falling... you may effectively bouy yourself up on a bubble of space-time.

Waitaminute again.

If you expanded space-time in a bubble underneath your craft to "surf" on top of it, you'd expand space-time but dramatically reduce the density of the atmosphere and you'd expect the air to actually rush in under the craft quite a bit.

And by the ground... well... you'd probably rip the ground apart and at the same time convert the dirt to gas as you rip the component molecules apart by making the distances between them and disrupt the covalent bonds. Maybe explosively.

Crapcrapcrap.

I need another scotch.

 

[withoutlimits09]

"There's very little in the visible universe that doesn't behave the way we expect it to behave."

You are assuming the visible universe is all there is. I could think what my physical eyeballs can see is all there is, but there so much more beyond the "visible" spectrum. We are finding new and perplexing things about the quantum level that throws conventional physics on its head. So civilizations from a far off universe, the future, or another dimension will not be using things known to us in 2014, just like the horse and carriage people would have no way of having a conversation about a fuel injected engine.

 

[boomerang]

 

[marduk]

"There's very little in the visible universe that doesn't behave the way we expect it to behave."

You are assuming the visible universe is all there is. I could think what my physical eyeballs can see is all there is, but there so much more beyond the "visible" spectrum. We are finding new and perplexing things about the quantum level that throws conventional physics on its head. So civilizations from a far off universe, the future, or another dimension will not be using things known to us in 2014, just like the horse and carriage people would have no way of having a conversation about a fuel injected engine.

Sure. Exotic physics are sure to be uncovered.

But we should at least give it a shot. Nature isn't magic, and neither are these things.

I refuse to believe that this conundrum is beyond human comprehension, even as I concede that possibility.