• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Robert Hastings

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Angel of Ioren said:
Stay classy Chris. I am not trying to bait you. You really come off sounding defensive and douchey.
Click to expand...
Hundreds of thousands of people have walked right over thousands of dino tracks that Ray has collected into the world's largest collection of tracks. Most of his tracks are virtually indistinguishable from mundane indentations in the rock they were preserved in—that's why nobody knew they were there. They don't know what they are looking at. His ability to spot trackways and analyze them is the same observational acuity he is bringing to bare on the trackways and visual data he (and others) have captured in the sky.

I don't care what you and others say about this. YOU don't know what you are talking about. Check out some of the tracks in his presentation at Goddard and tell me you would have recognized them as dinosaur tracks... Goddard Systems Engineering Seminar Series
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
Hundreds of thousands of people have walked right over thousands of dino tracks that Ray has collected into the world's largest collection of tracks. Most of his tracks are virtually indistinguishable from mundane indentations in the rock they were preserved in—that's why nobody knew they were there. They don't know what they are looking at. His ability to spot trackways and analyze them is the same observational acuity he is bringingto bare on the trackways and visual data he (and others) have captured in the sky. http://mediastream.ndc.nasa.gov/Public/webvid/OTH/2012/OTH20120913e/Default.html
I'm done here.
Click to expand...

I have always acknowledged that the work Stanford has done with his work on dinosaur tracks - it's excellent work and he has provided the information for all to see. He even sent me a thank you email for defending him in this forum when someone questioned his work on that.
I am questioning why he has not been so forthcoming with his UFO information that he has had for decades!

And Chris, you really should apologize for being so rude to a member of the forum.
 
It's difficult for me not to want to mediate when I see things getting bent a bit too far out of shape. I appreciate what both of you are saying. If Chris says that Ray has some valuable evidence, then he probably does. Just how valuable may or may not be overstated. That remains to be seen. At the same time there's no reasonable excuse for withholding such evidence for this length of time. In the end the science is going to turn out the same result regardless of when the evidence is released. Therefore, disclosing the evidence can only serve to educate us on what kinds of evidence we're looking at and how it can be analyzed, and since Ray allegedly doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, he shouldn't have a problem with that. This is why I tend to agree with Decker on the real motivation. But the bottom line here is that in the meantime, Chris has taken some considerable time over the years to get acquainted with Ray and get the inside track on this lead. So while it's fair to remain constructively skeptical, IMO Chris has proven himself to be outside the realm of what another poster here called "low-level hucksters", and that means he deserves some credit and respect for his efforts. Let's try to focus a little more on that OK?
 
I gotta say I agree with Angelo, but I understand Chris' defensiveness if Stanford really does have something. I would think he could give us a peek, even a severely cropped image of something. If I was sitting on something that important I would consider throwing out a scrap of something to us laypersons to give us all hope.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
I agree with you Ufology - everything you said makes sense. I'm just a bit startled by Chris' reaction.
Click to expand...
You have been sounding like a broken record for several years and it has gotten to the point where I smack the needle to stop it from sticking. I dislike intensely the insinuation that I'm a fool who has been duped by a pseudo-scientific con-man. I have a really well-tuned BS meter and a well-honed sense of intellectual elegance when I see it. This comes from interviewing thousands of people and reading thousands of books and I think I am able to separate the signal from the noise better than a lot of people when it comes to what rings true and what is a pile of crap. So, don't be startled at my reaction. You made your point about Ray 2 or 3 years ago and I'm tired of hearing you complain. Ray was recently contacted by a NASA physicist. I will be very interested to hear what he has to say after reviewing Ray's data...
 
Chris you said in the podcast you observed "ghosting".. was this occurring BEFORE or after an analog to digital conversion? In film conversions "ghosting" is quite common. Even if the ghosting is a artifact from the conversion I am still excited about what Ray has and hope he shares a glimpse of it with us in the near future.
Why does ghosting occur?

High source impedance on a scanned channel causes its settling time to increase. The small internal capacitance on the analog-to-digital converter (ADC) combines with the high source impedance to create a low pass filter. As the source impedance increases, so does the time constant of this filter and thus its settling time. A simplified diagram is below:

As the multiplexer switches from one channel to the next the capacitor C starts to charge from the voltage of the previous channel to the voltage of the connected channel. If RX is too large C will not be charged (or discharged) to the correct voltage and will show remnants from the previously scanned channel when the measurement is taken by the ADC. This incorrect reading is called ghosting. It is also often incorrectly labeled crosstalk.



How Do I Eliminate Ghosting From My Measurements? - National Instruments
 
DaveM said:
I'm confused Atticus11. What does Harold Camping, Rev. Moon and L. Ron Hubbard have to do with the Disclosure event in Washington?? Robert Hastings didn't want to be mixed in with Steven Greer, Linda Moulton Howe or Stephen Bassett, can you blame him?
Click to expand...

No problem. What I meant is that I think it's funny that - within that group - some of them see themselves as more legitimate or serious than the others. From the outside looking in it appears to be a clown fight to get center ring in a flea circus.
 
Atticus11 said:
No problem. What I meant is that I think it's funny that - within that group - some of them see themselves as more legitimate or serious than the others. From the outside looking in it appears to be a clown fight to get center ring in a flea circus.
Click to expand...

Are you assimilating Hastings to the other three? He seems more serious, responsible and sober minded than the others.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
That was funny. He is really dry though and seems to have no sense of humor
Click to expand...

He also seems to have a short temper. We had a nice discussion that lasted all of two messages in another thread on this board before he angrily announced "I'M DONE HERE" and stormed off after I asked him a question. His very public feud with some of the Reality Uncovered folks seems to add an underscore.
 
Unknown Objects over Sensitive Military sites housing WMD's for me is the most Serious aspect of Ufology, there is quite a history of these occurances and what leaves me scratching my head is the fact no Mainstream media is remotely interested in these fascinating cases!!!
 
As was mentioned in the show, we can even forget totally anything to do with UFOs and it is still weird/worrying that multiple, independent missile systems have gone down simultaneously.

I have not read Hastings' book, nor have I checked any documentation myself so I can't claim any authority or even deep knowledge but I haven't seen any debunking of the claim about the missiles going down.
 
Somewhere, a long time ago, I was ran across some of the engineering analyses of ufo related ICBM failures. I can't even recall whether it was Minot or Malmstrom, or what group compiled the report. Perhaps it was Boeing. The report was done in a serious and detailed manner and most of it was way over my head. But I recall thinking how interesting it would be go over this document with someone knowledgeable enough to break it down into terms most of us could understand. I assume it was not classified or it would not be in the public domain. But the real takeaway for me was the thoroughness of the report. No doubt this was serious stuff.
 
Qmyster said:
what leaves me scratching my head is the fact no Mainstream media is remotely interested in these fascinating cases!!!
Click to expand...

because they didn't happen

various sources too numerous to mention satisfactorily debunked and discredited Hastings' rambling conspiracy theory (admittedly, if you make the choice only listen to Hastings' version, it does sound credible - must be the beard)

there are loads of self-published authors selling their books out of dumpy motel conference rooms all over the country, no one has the resources to report on each of them ... renting a conference room at the press club for a couple hours to hawk your self-published book, instead of the Starlight Room at the Howard Johnson in Boise, doesn't really legitimize anything
 
Back
Top