Ray Stanford: White Sands July 19, 1978 Scientific Evidence

[Christopher O'Brien]

Christopher. On another note. I remember hearing you speak about some surveillance footage that you were going to view-- have you had a chance to view it yet?

Nope. I have three confirmations of the surveillance footage's existence, but I need the important fourth who (allegedly) has primary data. She's been fighting cancer and undergoing chemo. I have a budget. Its a process--still working on it. Thanx4remembering

 

[stphrz]

Originally Posted by Frank Stalter

You never hear Michio Kaku come off like that . . . .
"You have to understand physics to understand me."
What a load of BS. Stanford is a fraud and an ass.


Angel asked why this paradigm shifting, "Slam dunk" evidence hasn't already shaken the scientific world after 32 years, it's pretty obvious...
It's the character assassination of a gifted man etc etc.....

Horse hockey. It is obvious, but not for the reasons you say.

You know that old saying "consider the source"? It is a fallacy. Evidence will stand by itself if it is the truth. It doesn't matter what anyone says about the person presenting it. Your defence of him would carry real weight if you just presented all the evidence you talked about in this thread. You made it sound like super good stuff. Surely it would blow us all away. You saw it, let us see it.

You really want to know who the worst enemies of progress in the field are? It's not the scientific community. It's not those raising objections. It's him, and you and others of like mind and tactics. You talk and talk and talk about this evidence but never present it. You give all manner of excuses:

"People are disrespectful, rude and unworthy."

or

"It's on film and only available for peer reveiw."

or

"You just don't understand. I know this man, he is brilliant! His ideas and methods are beyond your conventional ability to understand. Take my word for it, the evidence he has is real.You should believe everything he says without question because of his amazing work in other areas."

On and on. A familiar refrain filled with logic errors and fallacies. I've heard it before and I'm not impressed.

Then it gets even better. Mr. Stanford goes on the record in response to me, shoots himself in the foot, and you call me an assassin. Really?

Good grief, think about what you are saying. Think real hard.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Originally Posted by Frank Stalter

You never hear Michio Kaku come off like that . . . .
"You have to understand physics to understand me."
What a load of BS. Stanford is a fraud and an ass.


Angel asked why this paradigm shifting, "Slam dunk" evidence hasn't already shaken the scientific world after 32 years, it's pretty obvious...
It's the character assassination of a gifted man who has a visual acuity and observational awareness that is off the charts (see: dinosaur trace evidence work re: Smithsonian). Ray breaks the mold and re-defines what we know about reality in an impressive fashion in several scientific realms, and he has demonstrated that conventional scientific thinking is woefully inadequate. He would protest if he knew I said this, but (IMO) he is a classic trickster figure in culture. Go figure... Ray has impeccably documented his investigative process and IMO he is the most impressive, forward-thinking, seasoned expert we have in this proto-scientific field we grudgingly refer to as ufology. And then there is Ichnology, meterorites, psychic research etc etc
Enjoy the show...

Chris, I just want to clear something up - I never said that - Here's what I think you're referring to:

Thanks Chris. Since you've mentioned that he's been able to reproduce this effect ( I think that was in the first post), it does make it interesting. I'm curious to hear what will come from this once it's reviewed by other physicists or what they think since he's had this for 30 years, so I'm hoping that in that time others have looked at it.

I wasn't in any way trying to disparage his character, and I never used the words "slam dunk." We can disagree with how the evidence has been presented and how long it has taken, but I don't want words to be attributed to me that aren't mine.

Thanks

EDIT: Looking at the Jarvis thread, I did use the words "slam dunk," but that was before this thread was started. Anything pertaining to the evidence presented here has been discussed in this thread only.

 

[Kieran]

Note above how Christopher doesn't address the probem that Stanford claims to have much better evidence , much more compelling evidence that he never releases. The hidden material makes the above stuff irrelevant (if the hidden material existed).

I don't know if we are dealing with delusion or deception when it comes to Stanford but I think the wise thing would be to wait until he releases evidence that is compelling. The above stuff (essentially worthless, ignored when it was first released 30+ years ago and now recycled for us ) is only a smokescreen.

It seems to me that Chris's apparent emotional investment in selling Stanford and selling his irrelevant "evidence" above is not helpful to the Paracast listener but very helpful to Ray Stanford.

Lance

This issue was brought up previously, by me and other people on the forum when he appeared on Greg Bishops show. I remember posing a few questions to Chris about Ray were he claimed he had photographs or film of a Giant Cigar ship or something, it has been a while since I heard the interview. But since then nothing came of it, and I believe David got involved in that thread and made arrangements to visit Ray to see his amazing work, but it never worked out.

If your going to make claims you have amazing evidence on Radio. Then you have to accept people will look to see that amazing evidence.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Once the episode is broadcast, the rest of the evidence Stanford made available will be posted. You can then make your decisions whether you accept the story or not.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Great. A picture of him pretending to communicate with a structured craft. Thanks...

 

[tyder001]

Angel, I have a really quick queston for you. No, I'm not "calling you out" or being rude I honestly have wondered about this and meant to ask before. You keep saying you have a Degree and a "background" in science. What does that mean? Which science? I have a Social Sciences Degree and I had to "take" biology and Natural Sciences in order to get the Degree. Is that what you mean? Or did you "minor" in a natural science? Just wondering.

On a side note ( and no it's not pointed at any one person) I notice a lot of "science fans" on here who quote and yell at others about "science" but what does that mean? Are they in the field or just jimmy randi fans? Ya know the magican that has a degree in........8)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angel, I have a really quick queston for you. No, I'm not "calling you out" or being rude I honestly have wondered about this and meant to ask before. You keep saying you have a Degree and a "background" in science. What does that mean? Which science? I have a Social Sciences Degree and I had to "take" biology and Natural Sciences in order to get the Degree. Is that what you mean? Or did you "minor" in a natural science? Just wondering.

On a side note ( and no it's not pointed at any one person) I notice a lot of "science fans" on here who quote and yell at others about "science" but what does that mean? Are they in the field or just jimmy randi fans? Ya know the magican that has a degree in........8)

I don't have a degree in science. I have a Bachelor of Fine Arts, Major Art History. I started my CEGEP (college in Quebec, sorta) in pure and applied science, although I finished it in commerce.
I'm a fan of science - that is true. The last three non-fiction books I have read were about science.

Also, I detect a hostility towards Randi and atheists in almost all of your comments. If you find him so irrelevant, and atheism so wrong, why do you feel so compelled to mention them all the time? The fact that he's a magician helped him debunk plenty of people making ridiculous claims like James Hydrick and Peter Popoff. The latter was using religion to steal people's money.

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q7BQKu0YP8Y?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

 

[tyder001]

I'm on a very old browser at work so I may have to wait until I get off to clean up my post. Anyway, kinda touch bout that atheist thing ain'tcha? Gonna bleep that last reply out cause it was uncalled for on my part. Other than that I stand by what I said.

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

I'm on a very old browser at work so I may have to wait until I get off to clean up my post. Anyway, kinda touch bout that atheist thing ain'tcha? Gonna bleep that last reply out cause it was uncalled for on my part. Other than that I stand by what I said.

Sigh! I give up I can't even edit my post with this browser. Anyway, breaks over. See ya on the PM side.

 

[trainedobserver]

The fact that he's a magician helped him debunk plenty of people making ridiculous claims like James Hydrick and Peter Popoff. The latter was using religion to steal people's money.

I really love the fact that Randi has actually throughly debunked the likes of Popoff, Hydrick, and (gag) Uri Keller amongst others, yet Popoff and Keller are still operating and people want to question Randi's motivations, methods, and conclusions. People will never learn. Randi isn't perfect by any means, but the guy knows what he is doing and has demonstrated it countless times.

 

[Arthur Dalvan]

Great. A picture of him pretending to communicate with a structured craft. Thanks...

He is not pretending anything. At top left it says it's a "simulation". You call yourself "Angel", but smile with a dagger behind your back!

Go ahead with your daydreams that Stanford doesn't have the evidence he has, but I saw what was surely some of the best of it presented to a large group in Arizona.

I'd venture that, from what was shown and explained in depth, you're gonna be awfully embarrassed some day if you don't quit slinging your covertly hostile remarks at Stanford.

Oh, but maybe that eventuality doesn't concern you because you're running off at the mouth (AKA fingers) under a pseudonym, does it, "Angel".

Arthur Dalvan

 

[Angel of Ioren]

He is not pretending anything. At top left it says it's a "simulation". You call yourself "Angel", but smile with a dagger behind your back!

Go ahead with your daydreams that Stanford doesn't have the evidence he has, but I saw what was surely some of the best of it presented to a large group in Arizona.

I'd venture that, from what was shown and explained in depth, you're gonna be awfully embarrassed some day if you don't quit slinging your covertly hostile remarks at Stanford.

Oh, but maybe that eventuality doesn't concern you because you're running off at the mouth (AKA fingers) under a pseudonym, does it, "Angel".

Arthur Dalvan

Umm, please read my signature. My full name is there.

I can't wait to be embarrassed if it means we have proof of extra-terrestrial life visiting the Earth. It would be the discovery of a lifetime. Until then, I will gladly be skeptical.

 

[stphrz]

He is not pretending anything. At top left it says it's a "simulation". You call yourself "Angel", but smile with a dagger behind your back!

Go ahead with your daydreams that Stanford doesn't have the evidence he has, but I saw what was surely some of the best of it presented to a large group in Arizona.

I'd venture that, from what was shown and explained in depth, you're gonna be awfully embarrassed some day if you don't quit slinging your covertly hostile remarks at Stanford.

Oh, but maybe that eventuality doesn't concern you because you're running off at the mouth (AKA fingers) under a pseudonym, does it, "Angel".

Arthur Dalvan

Do you really understand what you are saying here? You are asking him to accept evidence he has not seen. You are asking him to believe hearsay.

I do believe that you have seen what you claim. I have no reason to doubt it. But no scientist in the world ever accepts data unless it is right in front of them. Reports of data have even more problems with it than direct reports of actual events.

 

[Arthur Dalvan]

Umm, please read my signature. My full name is there.

I can't wait to be embarrassed if it means we have proof of extra-terrestrial life visiting the Earth. It would be the discovery of a lifetime. Until then, I will gladly be skeptical.

"Angel",

Please accept my apology for not noticing your name. I'm new to this forum and am still blurry-eyed (a mind state, actually) and can hardly find anything.

O.K., but you will likely still be embarrassed for putting down the guy. Proof, of course, is in the mind of the beholder, much like beauty, but when that project's best evidence (not those nocturnal photos) comes out, I suspect you're observant and intelligent enough that you'll recognize the evidence as genuine and be amazed at what it will do for scientific interest in 'the UFO problem'.

But for now, you shout for Gee whiz daylight photos, as though you are only interested in amusement, when the guy is showing you good, machine recorded evidence of what was only hearsay until July 19, 1978. I'm talking about direct recordings of a UFO manipulating acceleration due to gravity. You can even compare it to the object's magnetic pulses on the chart we've been provided here on The Paracast.

No one before that date (except the government) had recorded direct evidence of 'g' manipulation by a UFO, and you turn your nose up at it as if it was worthless.

Well, in Arizona, Stanford showed what I'd guess was a audience of about 150 persons, daylight movie film frame sequences, displaying totally regular pulsed gravitational lensing of mountains on the horizon beneath a really big (judging from motion parallax evidence) cigar-shaped thing, with smaller UFOs (disks and deltas) moving around it, as filmed from an airliner.

I believe your chance will come to see that, and all of what Stanford showed us and maybe a lot more, in its proper context and time.

I'm a skeptic, too, but I'm open to what looked to me like the best evidence anyone has ever provided.

Arthur Dalvan

 

[stphrz]

"Angel",

I'm a skeptic, too, but I'm open to what looked to me like the best evidence anyone has ever provided.

Arthur Dalvan

Again, how can you be sure he would come to the same conclusion you did? Why should he take your word for it?

 

[Arthur Dalvan]

Do you really understand what you are saying here? You are asking him to accept evidence he has not seen. You are asking him to believe hearsay.

I do believe that you have seen what you claim. I have no reason to doubt it. But no scientist in the world ever accepts data unless it is right in front of them. Reports of data have even more problems with it than direct reports of actual events.

You try to put words into my mouth, but don't succeed. I was not asking "Angel" to accept anything, but advising him to keep away from prejudging what he has not seen to prevent a red face later.

I actually met a couple of Ph.D.s who've seen a bunch of the film evidence in possession of Stanford, and although I'd not want to speak for them, they were positively impressed with his daylight movie evidence of pulsed gravitational lensing by UFOs, and he has more than one movie documenting that. They also spoke very positively about the twenty or so seeming rings due to Faraday rotation an object generated when taking off from a much bigger cigar shaped object.

Arthur Dalvan

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You try to put words into my mouth, but don't succeed. I was not asking "Angel" to accept anything, but advising him to keep away from prejudging what he has not seen to prevent a red face later.

I actually met a couple of Ph.D.s who've seen a bunch of the film evidence in possession of Stanford, and although I'd not want to speak for them, they were positively impressed with his daylight movie evidence of pulsed gravitational lensing by UFOs, and he has more than one movie documenting that. They also spoke very positively about the twenty or so seeming rings due to Faraday rotation an object generated when taking off from a much bigger cigar shaped object.

Arthur Dalvan

Don't worry about me being red faced later. Like I have said many times - I have nothing at stake here. I'm just interested in the science of space and the universe. Proof of extra-terrestrial intelligence visiting us would be astounding. If the pictures he has are proven to be authentic and they are accepted as such through peer review like every other type of scientific discovery, I will gladly accept it. However, if they turn out to be nebulous like every other piece of UFO evidence presented, I will remain skeptical.

 

[Arthur Dalvan]

Again, how can you be sure he would come to the same conclusion you did? Why should he take your word for it?

Ola, stphrz,

First tell me how to pronounce THAT.

You don't seem to realize that when I'm informing anyone of something, that's not the same as asking that person to believe it. I might state something enthusiastically, but that's certainly not telling anyone they must believe it. As I said, I'm a big skeptic, myself, so I'd be a damned hypocrite to ask anyone to accept something he or she has not had the chance to personally examine, but I do reserve the right to suggest that the person refrain from rejecting something until it has been duly examined.

I also maintain the right to tell anyone of my choosing what I've personally seen, examined, or concluded. That's not trying to force anything on anyone. That's sharing.

You see, there's a big difference in asking anyone to keep an open mind until examining alleged evidence, and asking anyone to believe anything without due examination.

Thanks for saying something that allowed me to clarify my position, if it wasn't clear to a 'fair witness' reader already.

Arthur Dalvan

 

[stphrz]

You try to put words into my mouth, but don't succeed. I was not asking "Angel" to accept anything, but advising him to keep away from prejudging what he has not seen to prevent a red face later.

I actually met a couple of Ph.D.s who've seen a bunch of the film evidence in possession of Stanford, and although I'd not want to speak for them, they were positively impressed with his daylight movie evidence of pulsed gravitational lensing by UFOs, and he has more than one movie documenting that. They also spoke very positively about the twenty or so seeming rings due to Faraday rotation an object generated when taking off from a much bigger cigar shaped object.

Arthur Dalvan

You said: "Go ahead with your daydreams that Stanford doesn't have the evidence he has"

Words have meaning.

You accuse him of fantasy for not accepting the existance of something he has not seen. Perhaps I should have been more precise and said "the existance of evidence." However you go on to extoll the virtues of this evidence and speak for scientists (unnamed of course) even though you would "not want to speak for them."

You also warn him of later embarrassment for his stance. You ARE trying very hard to convince him.

Excuse me now, what words did I put in your mouth?

Ola, stphrz,

First tell me how to pronounce THAT.

You don't seem to realize that when I'm informing anyone of something, that's not the same as asking that person to believe it. I might state something enthusiastically, but that's certainly not telling anyone they must believe it. As I said, I'm a big skeptic, myself, so I'd be a damned hypocrite to ask anyone to accept something he or she has not had the chance to personally examine, but I do reserve the right to suggest that the person refrain from rejecting something until it has been duly examined.

I also maintain the right to tell anyone of my choosing what I've personally seen, examined, or concluded. That's not trying to force anything on anyone. That's sharing.

You see, there's a big difference in asking anyone to keep an open mind until examining alleged evidence, and asking anyone to believe anything without due examination.

Thanks for saying something that allowed me to clarify my position, if it wasn't clear to a 'fair witness' reader already.

Arthur Dalvan

You pronounce it every time you sneeze.

This is much better. An even better way would be something like "Angel, I have seen the evidence being referring to. I encourage you to do so as soon as you have the chance." Then you could perhaps advise him on when, where, how he could go to see it for himself.