Ray Stanford: White Sands July 19, 1978 Scientific Evidence

[Angel of Ioren]

Is there any word on when Stanford is going to get his pictures and films digitized?

 

[dyingsun]

Is there any word on when Stanford is going to get his pictures and films digitized?

We both are waiting, Angelo.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

And then people complain when I'm skeptical about what Staford has. It's been weeks now (not counting the previous 30 years) and we have seen nothing of substance.

I just don't want people to forget this. Such a big stink was made about it and then no one says boo when no evidence is presented. I may be mistaken but this has happened all before.

 

[Michael Allen]

Lance,

I see no problem with "mobile UFO laboratories" using ELF magnetometers, gravimeters (yes, they are real--not just some voodoo device: Wikimedia Error ) and spectrometer devices (very useful for finding the physical properties of certain light emissions -- we use it for distant stars cf. Wikimedia Error).

All sorts of mobile labs exist for various purposes

Mobile Laboratories | Farber Specialty Vehicles

Mobile Laboratories from LECO

Sierra Mobile Labs, Inc.

MOBILE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES

etc...etc...

So to say this is mere comedy is probably disingenuous

I'd have to say, if there are obvious visual correlates (for those who are present at the times of the actual sightings) to these readings and data collected by his team, I would be interested.

 

[Arthur Dalvan]

And then people complain when I'm skeptical about what Staford has. It's been weeks now (not counting the previous 30 years) and we have seen nothing of substance.

I just don't want people to forget this. Such a big stink was made about it and then no one says boo when no evidence is presented. I may be mistaken but this has happened all before.

Look, Angelo, you appear foolish in implying that analog graphs of UFO-generated changes in acceleration due to gravity and of the extreme low-frequency magnetic fields emanating from the objects Stanford and his fellow lab crew members recorded (in case you didn't bother to read the captions) are, to quote you exactly, "no evidence".

Didn't you see what was posted on this forum and on Chris O'Brien's Our Strange Planet? That's not anecdote. It's quantitative as well a qualitative, and much more than that of it has been examined by several Ph.D. physicists and numerous engineers across the world, the names of whom Stanford has privately supplied to researchers known to me.

Stanford's pioneering instrumented UFO studies set a fine precedent in UFO research, and some of the gravimeter and magnetometer records were divulged as early as at the MUFON international symposium of 1980 and in its published proceedings. I've a copy, now, and have read it and seen the illustrations. There are 27 pages in that Proceedings, of hard evidence Stanford generously provided us. He discusses that evidence conservatively and intelligently. Read it and you might learn that Stanford is an objective and intelligent lay-scientist, contrary to the picture of him you seem to be trying to present to this form.

Have you bothered to read and study what he presented? Evidently not, or you'd not be carrying on as you've been doing here.

Oh, but I forgot. It's the amusement of hearing the UFO sound (produced in connection with very fast turns) Stanford said he'd try to get digitized for us to hear on the forum. Well, I believe that's coming, but keep in mind that Stanford is a very busy man. I'd guess he considers his scientific work in two different fields more important than the complaints of anyone like you who ignore the UFO evidence he has already released while negatively screaming, it seems, although you don't name it, to hear a UFO's roar! That's the ONLY thing which we've not as yet heard which Stanford suggested he MIGHT be able to digitize and let us experience. Such a sound recording happens to be very much less meaningful to physicists than the gravity and magnetic field effects he has recorded and shown quite openly for physicists to study, even showing a little bit of it here, where some like you clearly can't (or pretend you don't) appreciate it.

This time of year back in Stanford's part of the country, weather has probably moderated and I suspect he spends a lot of time outside in streams doing his paleontology work.

I believe he really wants to let us hear the UFO sound they recorded 1978, but will do it only as his busy life allows. He is, after all, 72 years old, has only about 85% of his heart left beating, and considers that before he passes on, the most important things must take priority. I don't think this forum's hearing a UFO roar should be a priority, and it would surprise me if he thinks that way.

We shouldn't blame him if he puts scientific work before the demanding shouts of an angry sounding guy like you, Angelo.

Don't ignore human nature. If you want something from any human, treat that person with respect and you might then be listened to and wishes granted.

So, in other words, 'Angel'. be more respectful to Mr. Stanford and of the evidence his project has obtained over more than three decades of time-consuming, difficult, and expensive UFO research.

Otherwise, a day may come when this forum sings to a familiar Christmas tune. It might go like, 'Angelo the Red-Faced Forum Dear...', and so on, but it surely wouldn't describe you as a hero, like Rudolph.:redface:

Arthur Dalvan

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Look, Angelo, you appear foolish in implying that analog graphs of UFO-generated changes in acceleration due to gravity and of the extreme low-frequency magnetic fields emanating from the objects Stanford and his fellow lab crew members recorded (in case you didn't bother to read the captions) are, to quote you exactly, "no evidence".

Didn't you see what was posted on this forum and on Chris O'Brien's Our Strange Planet? That's not anecdote. It's quantitative as well a qualitative, and much more than that of it has been examined by several Ph.D. physicists and numerous engineers across the world, the names of whom Stanford has privately supplied to researchers known to me.

Stanford's pioneering instrumented UFO studies set a fine precedent in UFO research, and some of the gravimeter and magnetometer records were divulged as early as at the MUFON international symposium of 1980 and in its published proceedings. I've a copy, now, and have read it and seen the illustrations. There are 27 pages in that Proceedings, of hard evidence Stanford generously provided us. He discusses that evidence conservatively and intelligently. Read it and you might learn that Stanford is an objective and intelligent lay-scientist, contrary to the picture of him you seem to be trying to present to this form.

Have you bothered to read and study what he presented? Evidently not, or you'd not be carrying on as you've been doing here.

Oh, but I forgot. It's the amusement of hearing the UFO sound (produced in connection with very fast turns) Stanford said he'd try to get digitized for us to hear on the forum. Well, I believe that's coming, but keep in mind that Stanford is a very busy man. I'd guess he considers his scientific work in two different fields more important than the complaints of anyone like you who ignore the UFO evidence he has already released while negatively screaming, it seems, although you don't name it, to hear a UFO's roar! That's the ONLY thing which we've not as yet heard which Stanford suggested he MIGHT be able to digitize and let us experience. Such a sound recording happens to be very much less meaningful to physicists than the gravity and magnetic field effects he has recorded and shown quite openly for physicists to study, even showing a little bit of it here, where some like you clearly can't (or pretend you don't) appreciate it.

This time of year back in Stanford's part of the country, weather has probably moderated and I suspect he spends a lot of time outside in streams doing his paleontology work.

I believe he really wants to let us hear the UFO sound they recorded 1978, but will do it only as his busy life allows. He is, after all, 72 years old, has only about 85% of his heart left beating, and considers that before he passes on, the most important things must take priority. I don't think this forum's hearing a UFO roar should be a priority, and it would surprise me if he thinks that way.

We shouldn't blame him if he puts scientific work before the demanding shouts of an angry sounding guy like you, Angelo.

Don't ignore human nature. If you want something from any human, treat that person with respect and you might then be listened to and wishes granted.

So, in other words, 'Angel'. be more respectful to Mr. Stanford and of the evidence his project has obtained over more than three decades of time-consuming, difficult, and expensive UFO research.

Otherwise, a day may come when this forum sings to a familiar Christmas tune. It might go like, 'Angelo the Red-Faced Forum Dear...', and so on, but it surely wouldn't describe you as a hero, like Rudolph.:redface:

Arthur Dalvan

I seem to have struck a nerve Arthur, and you have gone into defensive mode. Your opinion of me is of no consequence. It doesn't change the fact that Stanford has not backed up his claims of close up photographs that are not faked.

I can't wait to be red faced - when he presents his undeniable close up images and films of UFOs I will be incredibly happy since we'll all be able to stop arguing about this. We'll see when that happens.
I'll be honest; the evidence he presented is all well and good, but he keeps talking about amazing pictures and film. How much more difficult would it have been to show us that instead of what was presented? The photographs are easily accessible to everyone without nebulous information regrading gravimeter readings.

Let me turn it around - I don't think that Standford is being respectful. He keeps touting all this evidence but when he is asked to provide the good stuff (not some pictures of red blobs) he makes up excuses. Now you're making up excuses for him too. The weather is nicer so he's outside looking for footprints? Really? That's what you come up with?

I know it's not popular for an armchair forum member to question a researcher like Stanford, but if some one makes certain claims and then doesn't back them up, I think it's warranted.

The cult of personality that seems to have formed around Stanford is really interesting. There's no need to lecture me on respect Arthur or for you to make up songs about me.

 

[stphrz]

Look, Angelo, you appear foolish in implying that analog graphs of UFO-generated changes in acceleration due to gravity and of the extreme low-frequency magnetic fields emanating from the objects Stanford and his fellow lab crew members recorded (in case you didn't bother to read the captions) are, to quote you exactly, "no evidence".

Foolish? How? How does he know those graphs are actual recordings of what you claim them to be and not something else? Remember he hasn't been permitted to see or hear any of the background evidence to make such a determination. Can you perhaps tell him and the rest of us just how we can see this evidence?

Didn't you see what was posted on this forum and on Chris O'Brien's Our Strange Planet? That's not anecdote. It's quantitative as well a qualitative, and much more than that of it has been examined by several Ph.D. physicists and numerous engineers across the world,

Awesome! Real scientists who have carefully looked at Mr. Stanford's evidence and have gone on the record about its authenticity and usefulness.

the names of whom Stanford has privately supplied to researchers known to me.

Oh god damnit!

Stanford's pioneering instrumented UFO studies set a fine precedent in UFO research, and some of the gravimeter and magnetometer records were divulged as early as at the MUFON international symposium of 1980 and in its published proceedings. I've a copy, now, and have read it and seen the illustrations. There are 27 pages in that Proceedings, of hard evidence Stanford generously provided us. He discusses that evidence conservatively and intelligently. Read it and you might learn that Stanford is an objective and intelligent lay-scientist, contrary to the picture of him you seem to be trying to present to this form.

We would be happy to read it. Link? Address to write for a copy? Anything?

Have you bothered to read and study what he presented? Evidently not, or you'd not be carrying on as you've been doing here.

Link? Address to write for a copy? Anything? All of us would look at this if only we could.

Oh, but I forgot. It's the amusement of hearing the UFO sound (produced in connection with very fast turns) Stanford said he'd try to get digitized for us to hear on the forum. Well, I believe that's coming, but keep in mind that Stanford is a very busy man. I'd guess he considers his scientific work in two different fields more important than the complaints of anyone like you who ignore the UFO evidence he has already released while negatively screaming, it seems, although you don't name it, to hear a UFO's roar! That's the ONLY thing which we've not as yet heard which Stanford suggested he MIGHT be able to digitize and let us experience. Such a sound recording happens to be very much less meaningful to physicists than the gravity and magnetic field effects he has recorded and shown quite openly for physicists to study, even showing a little bit of it here, where some like you clearly can't (or pretend you don't) appreciate it.

Well a sound recording can be independently analysed. Attempts can be made to reproduce the sound etc. But hey pictures of squiggly lines and red smears are certainly all the proof anyone would need. Surely.
Mr. Stanford is a busy man all right. He has the time to spend three hours on the Paracast telling exciting tales and getting needled by the hosts about his contactee experiences. Yet no time to digitize one clear photo or a short movie clip to give a good idea what he's talking about. Not to mention that others have volunteered their time and skills to make this happen. Still nothing.

This time of year back in Stanford's part of the country, weather has probably moderated and I suspect he spends a lot of time outside in streams doing his paleontology work.
I believe he really wants to let us hear the UFO sound they recorded 1978, but will do it only as his busy life allows. He is, after all, 72 years old, has only about 85% of his heart left beating, and considers that before he passes on, the most important things must take priority. I don't think this forum's hearing a UFO roar should be a priority, and it would surprise me if he thinks that way.

He doesn't have to do anything. Christopher O'Brien said he is willing to do this and many other things for him. Perhaps he will and we will get to see what comes of it all. I'm actually hoping he will. I would dearly love to see compelling evidence.

We shouldn't blame him if he puts scientific work before the demanding shouts of an angry sounding guy like you, Angelo.
Don't ignore human nature. If you want something from any human, treat that person with respect and you might then be listened to and wishes granted.
So, in other words, 'Angel'. be more respectful to Mr. Stanford and of the evidence his project has obtained over more than three decades of time-consuming, difficult, and expensive UFO research.
Otherwise, a day may come when this forum sings to a familiar Christmas tune. It might go like, 'Angelo the Red-Faced Forum Dear...', and so on, but it surely wouldn't describe you as a hero, like Rudolph.

A familiar refrain. Repeated again and again. The lameness of such excuses cannot be overstated. Demands for respect of unseen evidence. Increasingly shrill warnings of future embarrassment for not seeing the unseen light. Calls for respect unearned. Mr. Stanford has had 30 years or more to compile and present his evidence. 30 years! In all that time not one name of a respected scientist has emerged going on the record in support. Not one.

Is this the best you can do?

 

[Arthur Dalvan]

I seem to have struck a nerve Arthur, and you have gone into defensive mode. Your opinion of me is of no consequence. It doesn't change the fact that Stanford has not backed up his claims of close up photographs that are not faked.

I can't wait to be red faced - when he presents his undeniable close up images and films of UFOs I will be incredibly happy since we'll all be able to stop arguing about this. We'll see when that happens.
I'll be honest; the evidence he presented is all well and good, but he keeps talking about amazing pictures and film. How much more difficult would it have been to show us that instead of what was presented? The photographs are easily accessible to everyone without nebulous information regrading gravimeter readings.

Let me turn it around - I don't think that Standford is being respectful. He keeps touting all this evidence but when he is asked to provide the good stuff (not some pictures of red blobs) he makes up excuses. Now you're making up excuses for him too. The weather is nicer so he's outside looking for footprints? Really? That's what you come up with?

I know it's not popular for an armchair forum member to question a researcher like Stanford, but if some one makes certain claims and then doesn't back them up, I think it's warranted.

The cult of personality that seems to have formed around Stanford is really interesting. There's no need to lecture me on respect Arthur or for you to make up songs about me.

You seem to forget that we heard Stanford's report of what his project has filmed and recorded electronically in an interview. When last I heard, there was supposed to be free speech in the USA, and he was open and honest in saying he has spectacular UFO films and photos.

Would he be a better man if he concealed that fact?

Keep in mind that there is neither obligation nor promise to show what many others and I have seen, to you, just because he spoke about it in the interview. You seem to have a silly, self-centered view of such matters.

Mr. Stanford did show the evidence you allege he refuses to show in Oak Creek on November 3, 2007, at no charge for attendance. I was there with what I think was over 150 people who saw the electronic presentation. I talked to quite a number of the audience at lunch break and later. Most of the audience impressed me as 'professionals' such as engineers, a few physicists, lawyers, etc., judging from their excellent questions. He answered them all, and in ways that made every questioner well satisfied. No type of questions were banned, either. He said to ask anything, and he honored it.

So, Angelo, you can knock off the erroneous and abusive talk about him liking to talk on-and-on of the evidence but does not show it.

That day in Oak Creek, he showed us well-documented UFO evidence that clearly explains many facets UFO propulsion, so clearly that it makes any and everything else ever shown publicly pale into relative scientific insignificance.

I suspect that Ray Stanford has enough respect to physicists who may be doing papers with him, to not publish names prematurely. And, by the way, what is your NEED to know names right now? He evidently respects the physicists and engineers enough to encourage them to make observations about his evidence in scientific papers or, if that's not their choice, not at all. In either case, prepublication privacy for both actual and potential scientific paper authors or co-authors is to be expected, but you don't seem able to accept that. Have you so lost (if you ever had it) perspective on this, that you forget it can be professional suicide to get publicly involved in UFO matters?

So tell me, what have YOU, Angelo, ever contributed to physical research into UFOs, other than to criticize and cast innuendos upon one of the very few who have?

Arthus Dalvan

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You seem to forget that we heard Stanford's report of what his project has filmed and recorded electronically in an interview. When last I heard, there was supposed to be free speech in the USA, and he was open and honest in saying he has spectacular UFO films and photos.

Would he be a better man if he concealed that fact?

Keep in mind that there is neither obligation nor promise to show what many others and I have seen, to you, just because he spoke about it in the interview. You seem to have a silly, self-centered view of such matters.

Mr. Stanford did show the evidence you allege he refuses to show in Oak Creek on November 3, 2007, at no charge for attendance. I was there with what I think was over 150 people who saw the electronic presentation. I talked to quite a number of the audience at lunch break and later. Most of the audience impressed me as 'professionals' such as engineers, a few physicists, lawyers, etc., judging from their excellent questions. He answered them all, and in ways that made every questioner well satisfied. No type of questions were banned, either. He said to ask anything, and he honored it.

So, Angelo, you can knock off the erroneous and abusive talk about him liking to talk on-and-on of the evidence but does not show it.

That day in Oak Creek, he showed us well-documented UFO evidence that clearly explains many facets UFO propulsion, so clearly that it makes any and everything else ever shown publicly pale into relative scientific insignificance.

I suspect that Ray Stanford has enough respect to physicists who may be doing papers with him, to not publish names prematurely. And, by the way, what is your NEED to know names right now? He evidently respects the physicists and engineers enough to encourage them to make observations about his evidence in scientific papers or, if that's not their choice, not at all. In either case, prepublication privacy for both actual and potential scientific paper authors or co-authors is to be expected, but you don't seem able to accept that. Have you so lost (if you ever had it) perspective on this, that you forget it can be professional suicide to get publicly involved in UFO matters?

So tell me, what have YOU, Angelo, ever contributed to physical research into UFOs, other than to criticize and cast innuendos upon one of the very few who have?

Arthus Dalvan

First thing: What does this have to do with free speech? He made a claim, and since it's a pretty incredible one (clear UFO photos), I would like to see those photos. Of course it's his choice as to whether he wants to show them to me or anyone else. He doesn't have to, but don't expect me to believe it. Free speech and all.

I never asked to know any names or anything like that - please re-read what I wrote up there. Someone claims to have evidence, but when we want to see it, we hit a wall. That's all I'm saying.
I have contributed absolutely nothing to UFO research and don't plan to either. The last time I checked, it was not a pre-requisite to post in this forum and I don't know what it has to do with anything and it's a pretty silly thing to say.

Arthur, I'm glad you got to see the photos, but surely you can understand how hard it is to believe for someone that has not seen them. Also, I'm not alleging that he's refusing to show it, I am SAYING that he has not shown it to us in this forum - which the last time I checked was interested in seeing them.

I haven't lost any perspective, and if it is professional suicide to get involved in UFO matters, Stanford committed years ago - it's not a secret that he's involved in the subject.

Arthur, you need to relax a little about this - keep in mind all I'm asking is for someone to show me something before I believe that he has it. Pretty simple, no? And if he doesn't care about what people on this forum think, he should not have suggested that he had those images in the first place.

 

[Arthur Dalvan]

First thing: What does this have to do with free speech? He made a claim, and since it's a pretty incredible one (clear UFO photos), I would like to see those photos. Of course it's his choice as to whether he wants to show them to me or anyone else. He doesn't have to, but don't expect me to believe it. Free speech and all.

I never asked to know any names or anything like that - please re-read what I wrote up there. Someone claims to have evidence, but when we want to see it, we hit a wall. That's all I'm saying.
I have contributed absolutely nothing to UFO research and don't plan to either. The last time I checked, it was not a pre-requisite to post in this forum and I don't know what it has to do with anything and it's a pretty silly thing to say.

Arthur, I'm glad you got to see the photos, but surely you can understand how hard it is to believe for someone that has not seen them. Also, I'm not alleging that he's refusing to show it, I am SAYING that he has not shown it to us in this forum - which the last time I checked was interested in seeing them.

I haven't lost any perspective, and if it is professional suicide to get involved in UFO matters, Stanford committed years ago - it's not a secret that he's involved in the subject.

Arthur, you need to relax a little about this - keep in mind all I'm asking is for someone to show me something before I believe that he has it. Pretty simple, no? And if he doesn't care about what people on this forum think, he should not have suggested that he had those images in the first place.

Angelo, you'd be a naive fool to fully accept without reserve anything you've not had a chance to evaluate for yourself, but you I will not allow you to attribute words which I never uttered, or concepts I never would expound, to me.

I suspect you know quite well that I've never said anyone should believe sans examination. If you can show me even one single example of my saying that, I will correct myself. What I will declare anywhere, is that you should not cast innuendos about Stanford, as you've been doing today, when you've not seen the evidence. It's terribly unfair, despite any frustrations the situation may provide you.

I don't have any way of knowing for sure, but think someone said that Stanford would like to get out to Arizona again and show the latest version of his presentation to a group of selected persons such as engineers and physicists. Do you live anywhere near there? Maybe he'd invite you. He said in Oak Creek Village three years ago, that he loves to show the evidence to skeptics and see their jaws drop. A lot of jaws dropped that day!

O.K. You ask what this has to do with free speech. I brought up the issue because you imply that he should not tell us about such things and then not show them.

I, for one, enjoyed every bit of the interview, but admittedly I had seen what he was discussing.

but Angelo, do you expect anyone who appears on The Paracast to be obliged to fork-over all his or her evidence that was discussed just because, like some impatient little child, you don't want to wait for publication in a more credible place? If you don't think that way, then why pick on Stanford?

Since you say you haven't contributed, and don't intend to contribute, anything to physical science as applied to UFOs, then it's obvious that you're not complaining about not seeing what you want to see because of any interest in promoting understanding of UFOs as a result of physical evidence, but just complaining because you cannot get immediate self gratification.

I seriously suggest that, as I said earlier, you quit figuratively spitting at Stanford. At the very least respect him for his gift to the nation (because he wants to inspire kids to take interest in the earth's history and in science more generally) of the new genus of dinosaur (a cute little baby one, I'm told) he discovered while 'tracking' in a stream bed.

A good excuse to be out in stream beds this time of year, huh, Angelo? With his eye for discoveries, I'm sure he'd rather be there than showing you his UFO evidence at your demand! I wasn't making an excuse for him as you pretend. I was stating what is routine for him, according to an Associated Press article about him a few years ago.

Anyone visiting Washington D.C. can see Ray Stanford's gift permanently displayed in the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, even though some fossil dealer wanted to take it to a big fossil show in some other country, promising Stanford he could get him at least a million bucks for it within the next three weeks!

If you don't think Stanford has integrity (as you have clearly implied, Angelo), please read that last paragraph again, and don't anyone call him a fool for his decision to donate the dinosaur to we the people, instead of selling it.

Integrity, warrants respect.

That's all I've time to possibly waste on trying to reason with you, Angelo.

Arthur Dalvan

 

[Lauren Jones]

"Most of the audience impressed me as 'professionals' such as engineers, a few physicists, lawyers, etc., judging from their excellent questions."

Appeal to Authority Fallacy + Sherlock Holmes

 

[trainedobserver]

All the emotion and egos aside it really just gets down to this.

People who say they have extraordinary evidence to prove their claims should provide it for examination. If they don't and insist that the unseen evidence be given some credence nevertheless, they are being unreasonable and it isn't unreasonable to point that out.

I have no doubt in my mind that Ray S. has a mountain of data. I have no doubt that he has a plan to present that information to people he deems appropriate. Until he does so and it is made public, it seems pointless to discuss it IMHO.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I don't have any way of knowing for sure, but think someone said that Stanford would like to get out to Arizona again and show the latest version of his presentation to a group of selected persons such as engineers and physicists. Do you live anywhere near there? Maybe he'd invite you. He said in Oak Creek Village three years ago, that he loves to show the evidence to skeptics and see their jaws drop. A lot of jaws dropped that day!

Since I live in Montreal and have a young family and a job, I would much prefer that we use the wonderful internet to digitally share these incredible images. It really isn't hard. Hopefully Christopher is able to get some of those films and images digitized.