Ray Stanford UFO's - still perplexed

[Creepy Green Light]

I've been involved with UFO's since 1979. I'm getting burnt out on the subject. The subject just spins it's wheels in the mud. Especially in the era of the internet, Photoshop etc. I love listening to Ray (just wish he'd slow down when he talks and not be so long winded). But if he has all this incredible, real movie footage of a vehicle not manufactured here on earth, why be so secretive about it? Why not get this out there so that once and for all, everyone can see it and know that we are not alone in the universe? It would be on every news channel, newspaper - all over the world. Then we could shift some of the focus to; who is piloting these vehicles? Instead of spinning the wheels over "do flying saucers even exist? Or are they all in the mind or hoaxes?"

Same goes for Marley Woods. If there's all this unbelievable footage, get it out there. The way my mind works is; if you tell the story of how incredible the footage is, but choose to let nobody see it, then there must not be anything to really see. You would think if the footage was that compelling that the person would be tripping over themselves to get the footage to CNN etc. Am I wrong with that kind of thinking?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...The way my mind works is; if you tell the story of how incredible the footage is, but choose to let nobody see it, then there must not be anything to really see. You would think if the footage was that compelling that the person would be tripping over themselves to get the footage to CNN etc. Am I wrong with that kind of thinking?

Yes, but what if the footage in no way conformed to your preconceptions concerning the physical reality of the phenomenon? Most people have been programmed to "believe" that UFO/UAP/AAOs are Adamski/Meir-looking mechanical constructions that are similar in appearance to 1950s-style "flying saucers." The reality is quite different. It's one thing to present scientific and analytical data to physicists, quite another to woo the masses visually w/ something that doesn't conform to front-loaded, mundane expectation.

 

[Burnt State]

i won't comment on Stanford as that point's been debated on the forum many times over, but I would agree with the wheel spinning bit. on the most recent episode of Radio Misterioso RPJ and Greg Bishop talked about how the more you stay in Ufology the more skeptical you become and if not then you end up losing your mind. that really resonated for me as this most recent ufo phase for myself has been here on this forum and listening to The Paracast and it has only forced me to investigate things even deeper and it has definitely made me much more skeptical than ever before. i have even doubted myself at some points, so impossible the ufo mystery seems it can be.

what the doubtful Zetetic approach yields is your appreciation for the third bank of the river, your ability to accept many possibilities or to resign yourself to the fact that you are willing to believe in absolutely nothing until something really, really good comes along. I prefer patient doubt as that has yielded a new interest in really creative thinkers and looking at the conundrum from whole new angles. there's good value there in understanding events, past cases and the phenomena through new lenses. people may call you debunker - I just prefer to consider myself a persistent seeker that has yet to arrive.

 

[Burnt State]

Yes, but what if the footage in no way conformed to your preconceptions concerning the physical reality of the phenomenon? Most people have been programmed to "believe" that UFO/UAP/AAOs are Adamski/Meir-looking mechanical constructions that are similar in appearance to 1950s-style "flying saucers." The reality is quite different. It's one thing to present scientific and analytical data to physicists, quite another to woo the masses visually w/ something that doesn't conform to front-loaded, mundane expectation.

What's interesting about that is how the images of the UFO conform to different expectations of popular culture imagery depending on the decade. Cultural programming must interact with consciousness all the time to create the consistent types of sightings seen at different time periods.

I'm always very engaged by the really strange and bizarre reports of UFO's that look like tanks, flying hotels, or giant chandelier light displays. It seems to me that the trickster seems to aid with the psychosocial UFO theory, while the rare one off weirdo stories I'm more inclined to believe as examples of really bizarre craft visiting our airspace.

Rutkowski opens one of his books about UFO's in Canada with a young woman reporting a glowing blue green UFO rectangular object about the size of a shoebox, floating in front of her with a rotating sphere in the dead centre constantly spinning. This probe, or container of mini-aliens, appeared to examine her for a bit and then bolted up into the sky. Ufo's are simply much stranger that we think, much stranger than we can even imagine. I wonder how often sightings have their odd edges shaved off by our perceptual apparatus that simply can not tolerate the ultra-weird. Some people probably just forget the really bizarre stuff they see because their brain just does not have a familiar box to put it into.

 

[SRL+]

on the most recent episode of Radio Misterioso RPJ and Greg Bishop talked about how the more you stay in Ufology the more skeptical you become and if not then you end up losing your mind

Also, on Greg’s most recent show, 12/1/14, both RPJ and GB discuss why they have become reluctant to post in paranormal forums.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

But at this point & time, I myself do not care (nor would I think the majority of the public would either), of what the physical shape of these objects/craft are. If the footage is that compelling, regardless of the shape or appearance, get it out there. It would at least demonstrate to a lot of us that we are not losing our minds. And it would also stifle the skeptics. Guys like Bill Nye and Sherer (sp?)

 

[boomerang]

Most critically thinking UFO enthusiasts eventually come to two conclusions:

A) Something very real and very strange is undeniably at the core of the phenomenon.

B) Whatever it is makes no rational sense whatsoever.

 

[Randall]

Yes, but what if the footage in no way conformed to your preconceptions concerning the physical reality of the phenomenon? Most people have been programmed to "believe" that UFO/UAP/AAOs are Adamski/Meir-looking mechanical constructions that are similar in appearance to 1950s-style "flying saucers." The reality is quite different. It's one thing to present scientific and analytical data to physicists, quite another to woo the masses visually w/ something that doesn't conform to front-loaded, mundane expectation.

So what if fakes aren't real? That doesn't mean there aren't any genuine craft approximating the shape of a disk that have been engineered and built by aliens and observed by humans from our civilization. Need I remind you of the 1947 Schulgen Memo? That alone is sufficient evidence to cast serious doubt on a generalization like: The reality of UFOs is quite different than 1950s style flying saucers.

Also, whatever Ray's photographic or film based evidence is, it's still only film or photos. It's not a physical alien craft. Therefore although it might be interesting, even convincing to many, it cannot possibly be scientifically conclusive. We don't know exactly what the objects in his images really are, let alone the ones in all the other reports out there. All we can say with reasonable certainty is that alien craft are real and people have seen them. But being 100% certain about any given report isn't possible ( yet ).

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I thought this was very interesting; The Shulgen Memo Hoax

 

[Randall]

I thought this was very interesting; The Shulgen Memo Hoax

The so-called Shulgen Memo hoax is interesting. However the genuine memo also has the same information that is relevant to this discussion, and because of the similarities, the ones that have been deemed to be not genuine appear to be more disinformation than an outright hoax. In my mind these fabrications imply "inside job", and IMO because of the connection to the MJ-12 documents, this lends some credence to the MJ-12 story, even if some of the documents themselves have been fabricated. In other words, they appear to have been fabricated by someone who was more than a simple UFO hoaxer forger, more like someone who was using the original documents as templates, and who knew exactly how to sew disinformation.

 

[Wade]

The thing is using Ray's thinking one has to ask who will show us the way to get us prepared to me more receptive to more exotic explanations? It's sort of a chicken or egg situation is in not ? It seems like there would be a way to set the table to get people prepared otherwise it's going to have to be the "visitors" themselves that mentally prepare us, at which point I don't think Ray's evidence would be all that pertinent.

What I would like clarification though Chris is i remember when you were promoting your Stalking the Tricksters you mentioned that Ray's work bumped you more towards a off planet visitation. is that still the case ? Assuming I didn't misunderstand, I'm sure most everyone here would be receptive to that scenario, if anything I gather more people would be skeptical towards a interdimensional/on planet (Ultra Terestrial) scenario. Of late I believe you mentioned there was evidence of time dilation being involved, is that the basis of his reticence? Again I don't think this would be all that controversial to many, for the most part i would say the "outside world" would be hostile to ANY signs of alien visitation in ANY form. If Ray is waiting for most of humanity to be more open before he releases his findings, well....

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...i remember when you were promoting your Stalking the Tricksters you mentioned that Ray's work bumped you more towards a off planet visitation. is that still the case?

Yes. His work appears to show extremely large "carrier" -type "grandmother ships," as he calls them that disgorge large triangular "motherships" that then disgorge smaller delta and "clipped-wing" delta craft and small polygonal (not circular) craft. His thinking is that this type of scenario indicates that these "14 mile long" pencil-like "grandmothers" are coming vast distances and once they arrive here, they expel the smaller craft that then zip around and do whatever-it-is that smaller UFOs do in our atmosphere. From the standpoint of energy resource efficiency, this would make sense if these huge carrier craft came from other star-systems, or were cruising around in interstellar space. I'm still not convinced completely by this evidence, but in my mind, this is the best argument/evidence I know of that demonstrates the possible efficacy of the ETH.

Of late I believe you mentioned there was evidence of time dilation being involved, is that the basis of his reticence?

He has identified photographic evidence of ghost imaging and other potential "time dilation" effects. He is reluctant to publicize his litmus tests for identifying trufos for fear that hoaxers will start attempting to duplicate these photographic effects/by products and further muddy the the already murky digital imaging waters. Obviously, at some point he will have to get over this fear and reveal these photographic artifacts, explain how they can be obtained by skywatchers (ideally equipped w/ extremely high-speed camera systems) and finally get over his umm, proprietary issues...

 

[technomage]

Maybe Ray can give us one itty bitty sample so we have an idea of what he is recording?

 

[Constance]

. . . He has identified photographic evidence of ghost imaging and other potential "time dilation" effects. He is reluctant to publicize his litmus tests for identifying trufos for fear that hoaxers will start attempting to duplicate these photographic effects/by products and further muddy the the already murky digital imaging waters. Obviously, at some point he will have to get over this fear and reveal these photographic artifacts, explain how they can be obtained by skywatchers (ideally equipped w/ extremely high-speed camera systems) and finally get over his umm, proprietary issues...

That's an excellent reason to hold back the evidence. Thanks for sharing this information. It's good to know about it, and knowing about it should cut down on the constant complaints about him.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

That's an excellent reason to hold back the evidence. Thanks for sharing this information. It's good to know about it, and knowing about it should cut down on the constant complaints about him.

Perhaps, but doubtful. Here again, I am coming across like a Ray apologist, but I'm so over the complaints and whining about Ray's process (or lack of one) depending on your POV. Ray is Ray and Ray will do what Ray will do. I'm over trying to play go-between him and the rest of the ufological world and have done as much as I can do in this regard. I'm lucky he still talks to me. From what I can tell, the group of scientists (rocket and otherwise) that have beat a path to his door these past months is (or appears to be) impressive and so are their alleged impressions of his AAO analytical work. He knows he ain't getting any younger...

 

[boomerang]

From what I can tell, the group of scientists (rocket and otherwise) that have beat a path to his door these past months is (or appears to be) impressive and so are their alleged impressions of his AAO analytical work.

That's new info to me and might be a third leg to the stool of credibility. I've gotta' ask, do we have documented evidence of this?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

That's new info to me and might be a third leg to the stool of credibility. I've gotta' ask, do we have documented evidence of this?

What? Like videotapes, recorded phone conversations? Signed affidavits? Copies of emails? No, not that I've seen, but Ray isn't a bullshitter and he wouldn't have named names and described their reactions on a lark, or simply to impress me. He mentioned that the last one he showed parts of his presentation (6 hours) a scientist highly placed at Goddard Space Flight Center, suggested giving his AAO lecture there—like he did for his dino track track work. The scientist felt that this presentation would be enthusiastically attended and well-received. When this happens Boomer, I'll be sure to let you and everyone else know, and when it get's posted on Goddard's site, I'll be sure to post the link, etc so you can see it for yourself.