• 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!

The Perfect Balance...The Lance Moody Interview

Free episodes:

There is no believe or dis-believe. I am not anti-Ray in any way. I am just another guy who wishes the likes of Ted Phillips and Ray Stanford kept quiet about all their fantastic evidence! It is the ultimate tease. I understand Ray's reasoning in that he sees no benefit in prematurely releasing tidbits for the consumption of the UFO community until he has the backup of others. He wants his science to be taken seriously.

I get all that, I'm just saying that for us mere mortals who have never seen a UFO, yet believe there is evidence for their existence, when I hear someone 'has the goods' I can hardly contain my excitement! It's not a position of malice in any way Chris. It is total and utter jealousy, impatience and curiosity on my part. Nobody will be more happy to see Ray's work and footage. I just want it NOW but know that is not going to happen!

If I could, believe me I'd be knocking on Ray's door asking for the full show and tell!

We hate on people like Stephen Greer, so why do people give Ray a pass? Hes been claiming all sorts of wonderful stuff on the radio for years and that hes got this amazing evidence of UFO's ( when you do this talk you have to give a timeframe when we'll see this evidence) How long does it take to present a UFO powerpoint presentation?

Personally, i think Ray is full of it ( hes a big ego), if hes evidence was good to change minds, he would have gone and released by it now (taken the glory) He does it with his Dinosaur work (why not here).

I know hes Chris mate, i think he might have some evidence worth looking at, but i've a feeling if and when or ever we get to see this evidence. Skeptics will just say i told you so when the evidence is looked at. I just find it incredible ( really i do) someone could keep amazing UFO evidence to themselves and not want people to see what their looking at ( Warning sign least to me)
 
I think UFO's is the biggest secret humanity choos

We hate on people like Stephen Greer, so why do people give Ray a pass? Hes been claiming all sorts of wonderful stuff on the radio for years and that hes got this amazing evidence of UFO's ( when you do this talk you have to give a timeframe when we'll see this evidence) How long does it take to present a UFO powerpoint presentation?

Personally, i think Ray is full of it ( hes a big ego), if hes evidence was good to change minds, he would have gone and released by it now (taken the glory) He does it with his Dinosaur work (why not here).

I know hes Chris mate, i think he might have some evidence worth looking at, but i've a feeling if and when or ever we get to see this evidence. Skeptics will just say i told you so when the evidence is looked at. I just find it incredible ( really i do) someone could keep amazing UFO evidence to themselves and not want people to see what their looking at ( Warning sign least to me)

Yep, he once claimed he could channel Jesus Christ himself, if that's not indicative of an out of control ego trip and strong delusions, I don't know what is...

Here's a bit of his background from Loren Coleman:

Ray Stanford's Background as Contactee and Psychic

EMAIL FROM LOREN COLEMAN TO THE UFO-UPDATES LIST
From: Loren Coleman
To: ufoupdates at sympatico.ca
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:46 -0400
Subject: Ray Stanford
Ray Stanford has a history on the internet of joining Lists and then responding "with sarcastic comments and demands that certain subjects immediately be dropped," as one observer on a dinosaur list once wrote.
Forgive me. I now understand what is going on. I did not realize that Mr. Stanford was _the_ Ray Stanford, contactee, medium, and channel through which such less-than-scholarly books as "Speak, Shining Stranger" and "Fatima Prophecy" - gained via Stanford's psychic readings - have been produced. Stanford, of course, is the author of a book, Look Up (1958) that discusses his repeatedly close encounters with flying saucers and his discussions with their occupants, who he termed "the space people," but whom he would later call "The Watchers" (some even named "Aramda" and such).
No, I did not realize I was dealing with the Ray Stanford who in the 1970s, was the leader of the Association for the Understanding of Man (AUM), a national organization located in Austin, Texas. The purpose of AUM was given to Stanford via his so-called "psychic reading,..." given to him by "the Source," as well as "voices other than that of the Source [who] speak through the unconscious Stanford... speaking in various accents and inflections," as a 1977 AUM membership solicitation noted. "These voices were identified as exalted spiritual beings, members of an ethereal association called the 'White Brotherhood,' archangels, and even Jesus Christ himself -- all speaking courtesy of Stanford's 'borrowed' vocal cords, of course. Some of these 'Brothers' identified themselves as members of a UFO-operating alien race called 'The Watchers,'" as has been observed.
"Examination of the AUM material leaves no doubt that the 'Stanford readings' were the major 'drawing card' for the group's dues-paying members and its contributors - indeed, the organization's raison d'etre," a watchdog noted.
Furthermore, Stanford had plans to construct a time machine known as "the Hilarion Accelerator." He needed funding to get this done, of course.
"In a tape-recorded lecture to the annual AUM membership conference on August 24, 1974, Stanford told his followers that 'the Accelerator' would allow spiritually competent subjects to teleport physically from one place to another, but also to PHYSICALLY transport their bodies BACK IN TIME," remarked one who researched this gentleman.
Stanford's time machine was never built, to the best of anyone's knowledge.
No wonder Ray Stanford has no sense of humor about predictions done by crop circle promoters. After all, only Stanford knows the future.
Best wishes,
Loren


The Hilarion accelerator sounds pretty hilarious... :D

Here's a little more from Daniel H Harris PhD:

FROM DANIEL H. HARRIS, Ph.D., MARCH 2, 2001:
....After receiving my Ph.D. in astronomy in 1976, from the University of Arizona, I looked for work in astronomy, and found none. And being in serious need, I took a job again doing UFO research. I had mostly forgotten my encounters with the UFO cults, nearly twenty years earlier.
Then in 1977 I came face to face with the cults, all over again. Noted UFO researcher, and psychic, Ray Stanford, asked me to come to work for him. The organization operated out of a modern office building, in central Austin Texas, and there was no talk of cultic topics, only what, at that time, to me seemed to be serious UFO investigative work and their need for a credible scientist to do the analysis of their many instrumented UFO recordings. I later learned of Stanford's long time contactee cult activities.
So in August, 1977 (until December 1978) I began work for the Association for the Understanding of Man, informally called AUM, in Austin Texas. AUM was the promoter of the trance medium activities of Ray Stanford, and the research of his brother, Rex Stanford, Ph.D. psychologist, who was then doing ESP research in their offices. I learned later that AUM was financed partly by selling transcripts of the trance medium readings of Ray Stanford.
I was then incredibly naive and open to occultic influence at the time. I became the Research Director, of their instrumented UFO observatory, and investigating activities, known as Project Starlight International, or PSI for short. At the Project Starlight remote UFO observing location near Lake Travis, PSI observers said they saw things, but just as it was in the 1950's, when I looked I saw nothing. These expectant, hopeful, persons were having delusions.

Pretty damning stuff right there, which reminds me of something from the episode with Lance. Chris says that he's seen frames from Ray Stanford's film, so does that mean he hasn't seen the actual entire film itself? The reason I ask is because he makes it seem like all you have to do is knock on Ray's door and he'll let you watch the film, but if that's the case then why hasn't Chris seen the entire film? If he won't show it to Chris, who sings his praises weekly, why would he show it to a skeptical stranger? I find that a little odd, but maybe Chris has seen the whole film and he just made a mistake when he said he's only seen frames?
 
Thanks for that mate.

Ray is not all there, hes obviously delusional.

Ray and David Icke should meet they've lot to talk about!!

 
Tell that to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum or the Goddard Space Flight Center and they will quickly correct you w/ a fair amount of indignation, I would think.

Chris, this has nothing to do with the other. Sure, he has published some excellent work on dinosaur tracks - I've discussed it with him over email correspondence in the past. However, when it comes to his UFO stuff, he's hyped it up so much that my guess (and it's a guess) is that he has nothing. 2 or 3 years ago he posted on this forum (or a "friend" of his did) and he said I would be embarrassed when he showed what he had. He's never going to show it because chances are it does not live up to what he has hyped it up to be. And when he does reveal something, it's nebulous stuff that you seem to think is incredible.
 
Chris, this has nothing to do with the other. Sure, he has published some excellent work on dinosaur tracks - I've discussed it with him over email correspondence in the past. However, when it comes to his UFO stuff, he's hyped it up so much that my guess (and it's a guess) is that he has nothing. 2 or 3 years ago he posted on this forum (or a "friend" of his did) and he said I would be embarrassed when he showed what he had. He's never going to show it because chances are it does not live up to what he has hyped it up to be. And when he does reveal something, it's nebulous stuff that you seem to think is incredible.

I think it's fair comment to ask for the evidence. If it's so good then there isn't much of an excuse for witholding it for so long other than it's his to do with as he sees fit. I also don't see any really good defense for witholding his own experiences either. So what if people might not believe it and so what if they ridicule it? The unexpected experiences we have in life are part of the natural wonder of the world and they're all fair to discuss and share and study without shame. Anyone might have them at any time and to relegate them to post-mortem disclosure status out of fear ( of whatever ), only serves to stigmatize it. I take the risks with my own experiences for exactly that reason. Stanford seems to have done a lot of field work and he seems to be a really interesting person. Unless he's signed a non-diclosure agreement with some serious legal repercussions, I don't see any valid reason for holding out on us ... perhaps not even then. Maybe Chris can provide the rationale for his decisions without actually betraying any confidence.
 
I think it's fair comment to ask for the evidence. If it's so good then there isn't much of an excuse for witholding it for so long other than it's his to do with as he sees fit. I also don't see any really good defense for witholding his own experiences either. So what if people might not believe it and so what if they ridicule it? The unexpected experiences we have in life are part of the natural wonder of the world and they're all fair to discuss and share and study without shame. Anyone might have them at any time and to relegate them to post-mortem disclosure status out of fear ( of whatever ), only serves to stigmatize it. I take the risks with my own experiences for exactly that reason. Stanford seems to have done a lot of field work and he seems to be a really interesting person. Unless he's signed a non-diclosure agreement with some serious legal repercussions, I don't see any valid reason for holding out on us ... perhaps not even then. Maybe Chris can provide the rationale for his decisions without actually betraying any confidence.

I can pretty much bet that it's something along the lines of "he's dotting his I's and crossing his T's in preparation for his huge disclosure that's going to turn the world of science on it's ear" or something to that effect. Chris tried to make it out like skeptics like Lance are trying to have it both ways but I don't think that's valid, the problem with that rationale is that Ray has already publicized having this game changing footage, so once you put that out there it's on you to prove it, that's not how science is done which was Lance's point on the whole Bigfoot DNA test. You don't announce what you have before you go through the peer review process, you do it afterwards, that way nobody has to take anything you say on faith.

I have a totally open mind when it comes to Ray, he might have something major he might not, but given his background I'm not willing to take his word for it, I want to see the goods. Put up or shut up, it's a simple concept and one that would benefit many members of this field if they took it to heart. Look at the whole Ted Phillips "blobsquatch" thing, it's far too easy for someone to blow what they have way out of proportion, and then the whole field looks bad once the skeptics get their hands on it.
 
OK, just to give myself a little break from the UFO stuff and the umpteenth Ray Stanford debate, I'll throw in some Poltergeist evidence (at least in my opinion it is), since that was a topic during that highly interesting and much too short discussion. And if you say Polter you have to fear the wurst.

Sadly, as with UFO footage, the stuff on Youtube concerning Poltergeists seems to range from poorly to obviously to probably faked, so no real evidence there.

But there is the affidavit signed by a policewoman, Carolyn Heeps, in the Enfield Poltergeist case. She wrote that affidavit complying to an inquest by the investigators from the Society for Psychical Research. In that affidavit, Carolyn Heeps, who answered the family's request for police assisstance, says she had seen a large 4ft armchair move unassisted across the floor. She afterwards examined the furniture to make sure there were no wires etc. to pull the chair. It seemed genuine to her.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a scan of the affidavit anywhere on the internet now, although I'm sure I have seen something like that before.

Then, there is the Rosenheim Poltergeist case that happened in the 1960s in Munich. Many technicians, physicists and a parapsychologist investigated the case and didn't find a rational explanation (although most of them were suspicious of the „focus person“). Lamps swinging, neon tubes unscrewing and glass bulbs bursting on a ceiling 3 metres high when eye witnesses were around, telephone calls going out all day with no one doing them etc. The only evidence, I have to say, is a rather bad piece of footage showing a painting on a wall that suddenly seems to become unhinged. You can see it at 1:52 in this vid:

My last piece of evidence is the SPR study of rapping or knocking sounds recorded during Poltergeist cases which came to the conclusion, that these sounds are different from normal knocking or rapping in that they seem to build up inside the material instead of just being caused by the surface being hit:

Scientific evidence of poltergeist knocking? | Society for Psychical Research

Not much, I'm afraid, and I myself am far from convinced by any of this. But to just say it's probably the alleged focus person hoaxing the events is just too simplistic for me.

For example, in the Enfield case the kids have been caught trying to fake events, but there still are too many good eyewitness reports (like that of a news reporter who had fully expected to expose the kids as hoaxers). Obviously the kids liked the attention of the press, so when the events died down and the newspapers were losing interest, they might have taken things into their own hands to stir them up a little.

The „levitation“ fotos could easily just be the kids jumping up and down, and the guttural voice could have been the girl playing a very elaborate trick on the investigators, but if they are that still doesn't outweigh the affidavit and the reports by Maurice Grosse, Guy Lyon Plaifair and other credible witnesses.

Same with the Rosenheim case. Lots of people tried to expose the girl as a fraud. A police comissioner tried to intimidate her into a confession and she was even offered money, but she never did confess or say anything but that she didn't know what was causing the disturbances, only that they seemed to intensify when she was getting upset or emotional.
 
@zenbug: We all have to suspend our disbelief everyday zenbug. It's a fact of life. [...] It's called trust. You trust your banker, your priest, your lawyer, your elected official? Right? ;)

Sure, but the suspension of disbelief should be directly related to the claim being made, not the person making it. I'm sure this quote is repeated many times here, but as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." To use your example, if my banker told me that my paycheck cleared, I'd believe him, because that's a reasonable claim. If, however, my banker told me that he was in reality a reptilian from Zeta Reticuli, I would need more evidence than just his claim, regardless of his reputation.

@zenbug: If George Knapp and Colm Kelleher state publicly in their book that the camera event occurred at the ranch (based on Colm's direct involvement w/ the event, btw), hell yeah I believe them... I've known George since the mid '90s--he's a multiple Emmy-Award winning journalist whom I look up to. [...] Yes, I think the camera incident really happened. Why? Because I trust the veracity of Knapp & Kelleher's account.

Again, their credentials are completely irrelevant to the veracity of the account. It's infinitely more likely that they are at least mistaken about what they witnessed than that it actually happened.

@zenbug: I also realize that this event may have perfectly illustrated to NIDS (and the scientific community) the futility of their efforts to capture definitive data defining the jinni, trickster, alien, demon, ghost, MIB or whatever other term would best apply to the situation.That makes it even more believable to me.

Well that shouldn't make it more believable to you. It's a recursive argument: "We can't capture any evidence of the paranormal, so some supernatural force must be preventing us from doing so."

@zenbug: z-bug: If what gets you off about the show are your perceptions of my deficiencies and my style of logic--be sure to tune in every week to the Paracast for more adventures in how we determine what, where, who and why to "believe" (whatever) about the "paranormal" and then make up your own mind... We aren't telling you what to trust & believe, we trust that you are smart enough to make up your own mind.

Oh don't worry - although I almost never post in these forums, I've been a loyal listener to the podcast for many years and will continue to be.

@zenbug: z-bug: Then, ask yourself: [...] is the USA government really looking out for my community's best interests?

Well I'm Canadian, so the USA government is definitely not looking out for my best interests. ;)
 
“Well I'm Canadian, so the USA government is definitely not looking out for my best interests. “

Right...,up until someone launches an ICBM in your direction. Guess which country would be most likely to intercept it? I’ll give you a hint.., not Canada. And by the way, where do you think the technology came from in order to help protect your country, as well as other countries in the free world.., not Canada.
 
“Well I'm Canadian, so the USA government is definitely not looking out for my best interests. “

Right...,up until someone launches an ICBM in your direction. Guess which country would be most likely to intercept it? I’ll give you a hint.., not Canada. And by the way, where do you think the technology came from in order to help protect your country, as well as other countries in the free world.., not Canada.

 
“Well I'm Canadian, so the USA government is definitely not looking out for my best interests. “

Right...,up until someone launches an ICBM in your direction. Guess which country would be most likely to intercept it? I’ll give you a hint.., not Canada. And by the way, where do you think the technology came from in order to help protect your country, as well as other countries in the free world.., not Canada.

Heheh! Geez...I thought we were supposed to be the sensitive ones.
 
Tell that to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum or the Goddard Space Flight Center and they will quickly correct you w/ a fair amount of indignation, I would think.

I've trouble believing Ray because this is the same guy who believes he communicated with Jesus ( a 2,000 year old character from the bible)
Should we just forget, he also claimed he had knowledge to build a time machine? Come on Chris, the guy obviously says stuff that isn't the truth and you should know better.

If anyone else told you they were channeling Jesus ( what would you say?) Honestly just think about this and get back to me.
 
... up until someone launches an ICBM in your direction. Guess which country would be most likely to intercept it? I’ll give you a hint.., not Canada. And by the way, where do you think the technology came from in order to help protect your country, as well as other countries in the free world.., not Canada.

Hmm ... Blame Canada ... eh ...
Did I mention I'm Canadian and think this is hilarious ;) !​
 
I have just caught up with a few para cast podcasts and listened to this podcast intently. The program started off reasonably balanced before veering off the cliff.

Now I don't know lance nor does he know me. Hearing Lance speak on the show and reading his posts it is in my opinion that he is highly intelligent, articulate, well spoken and well read.

That's why it makes it harder to understand his myopic view?

I can't seem to shake off that lingering feeling hearing the tone in his voice that he was the kid that no one liked at school, perhaps he was a little too bright to fit in and grew up bitter and angry at the world wanting to prove something.

He's picked a soft target, the paranormal community, he's a bit too bright to be bothering with such a tarnished & broken subject so why bother?

It seems like every time he debunks a theory, he leans back from his keyboard and looks into the sky, imagination bubble forming....he can see himself racing into a telephone booth and change from his khaki elbow pad suit into blue suit and red cape with SS emblazoned on the front "super skeptic" saving us poor intellectual single celled protozoan amoebas from ourselves. Can you see it now...when he's finished he's like an intellectual gladiator standing over the corpse of his defeated paranormal carcass!?

It's a paranormal debunking bloodlust...every post the same, talking down at the great unwashed, of course he will argue with his telephone directory size cache of "data" to refute any and all theories.

That is until Chris threw a curve ball a couple times and proved what we all know. Blind belief in anything whether it be religion, the paranormal, science or political ideologies can only lead to one lying to one self and handicapping yourself from finding out the truth.

I'm not a believer or skeptic. I find the subject interesting and like to think that the world is not just about going to work every day endeavouring to acquire as much Ikea furniture, watching zombie tv and eating processed food.

Sure there are loads of snake oil sellers and con men in the field, but to dismiss everything? Really?

Just the opinion of a poor university drop out...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'll let Lance speak for himself on this one but I just wanted to say that I definitely don't get the impression of him being some kind of super skeptic looking down his nose at the unwashed masses in his blue and red tights. He seems to me like a guy who's perpetually annoyed with all the bs that gets passed off for science in this field and all of the huge claims that either go unsupported or fail to live up to the hype once they're presented.

I do agree with the good Dr. when he says that everything in the field of the paranormal shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but how can you say that Lance does that? He goes through cases and evidence with a fine toothed comb, he just hasn't found a case that he can't explain rationally and even if he did, his inability to explain something does not = aliens or ghosts or whatever someone's particular pet theory is. It just means it's unexplainable. I think the backlash in this field against guys like Lance is that people take the paranormal and turn it into some kind of personal quasi religious type belief and any attack made on that belief is seen as an attack on the person themselves. If we could all set our egos aside in this field, I think we'd get a lot more accomplished.
 
Back
Top