The Perfect Balance...The Lance Moody Interview

[Christopher O'Brien]

How do I know it? What are we talking about here? Ray's refusal to put up or shut up. His excuses on why he doesn't produce what he has claimed to have are what I'm referring to when I say high and mighty. Crazy claims? Yeah, how about pictures of flying saucers so close you can see inside. You saying he's not making any claims is just plain old bullshit, sir. He made plenty of them on your show and has yet to produce a scintilla of evidence for any of them. When I say you're giving him a pass, I'm referring to your overwhelmingly childish attitude towards anyone who would dare question the mighty Ray Stanford. There's a difference between blind devotion and support and I'm afraid it's plain to anyone who takes the time to look at the facts that you've crossed the line on this one. If Ray truly has what he says he has, he has an obligation not only to support his claims, but to everyone who ever stood up for the field of Ufology and has been yelled down by a resounding chorus of ridicule. The man claims he has evidence that could validate the entire field, the longer he goes without releasing it, the more I'm convinced, and I'm sure others are as well, that Lance and others like him have him pegged. The fact that you don't recognize his obligation to support his own claims shows just how far away from objective you are when it comes to Ray. The name calling and I don't give a f*cks just make you look childish.

I don't give a fuck what you or Lance think about Ray. He doesn't get a pass from me. I am constantly pushing and prodding him to release what I have seen him accomplish w/ his work. And I don't care for a second if you don't think I'm being objective about Ray or anything in this godforsakin morass of BS and true-believerism. You (and your boo-bird buddies) are wrong, wrong, wrong. You mistake my support for the man and his work as some sort of blind-belief and something akin to faith-based hero worship. Heh-heh--That's a laugh! If you knew me, you would never think about me in this way. I am actually much more skeptical about Ray, UFOs, the paranormal etc., than you could ever imagine...

 

[Muadib]

I don't give a fuck what you or Lance think about Ray. He doesn't get a pass from me. I am constantly pushing and prodding him to release what I have seen him accomplish w/ his work. I don't care if you don't think O'm being objective. You (and your boo-bird buddies) are wrong. You mistake my support for the man and his work as some sort of blind-belief and something akin to faith-based worship. That's a laugh! If you knew me, you wouldn't think about me this way. I am actually much more skeptical about Ray, UFOs, the paranormal etc., than you think...

You can claim not to give a fuck, but your immediate ultra defensiveness towards anyone who questions Ray says otherwise. That's why I say blind devotion, the fact that you don't care about maintaining objectivity when it comes to Ray is just further proof of that fact. You can claim to be skeptical all you want but you surely don't come across to those of us who listen to the show as skeptical. When questioned about Ray, you immediately get angry and raise your voice, not to mention how you call people names on the forums and all the "I don't give a f*cks" You don't think you come across as a true believer when it comes to Ray Stanford? What reason do you have to believe this man's claims? Have you seen the pictures of UFO's so close up you can see the inside? Probably not, but you still believe he has them, right? You think that's doesn't qualify you as a true believer? How is it any different from someone who believes in Steven Greer's line of bullshit without any actual proof that any of it is real? I'm sure Ray does talk a good game but so far, that's all it is, talk and talk is cheap.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

You can claim not to give a fuck, but your immediate ultra defensiveness towards anyone who questions Ray says otherwise. That's why I say blind devotion, the fact that you don't care about maintaining objectivity when it comes to Ray is just further proof of that fact. You can claim to be skeptical all you want but you surely don't come across to those of us who listen to the show as skeptical. When questioned about Ray, you immediately get angry and raise your voice, not to mention how you call people names on the forums and all the "I don't give a f*cks" You don't think you come across as a true believer when it comes to Ray Stanford? What reason do you have to believe this man's claims? Have you seen the pictures of UFO's so close up you can see the inside? Probably not, but you still believe he has them, right? You think that's doesn't qualify you as a true believer? How is it any different from someone who believes in Steven Greer's line of bullshit without any actual proof that any of it is real?

I have seen enough of his evidence to know that Ray's work is groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting. I am pushing him to acknowledge our "right-to-know." Only Ray (and those who are privy to the diagnostic implications of his work) can decide if and when we have "a need to know." Until then... Here's a promise: I will no longer publicly comment on Ray Stanford's AAO diagnostic work. PERIOD I am NOT the idiot you and your ilk are making me out to be. I am NOT an apologist for Ray Stanford. I'm sorry but it's his work and it's all up to him from here on out. Talk amongst yourselves and leave me out of your insults, whining and mewling about the man...

 

[Muadib]

I have seen enough of his evidence to know that Ray's work is groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting. I am pushing him to acknowledge our "right-to-know." Only Ray (and those who are privy to the diagnostic implications of his work) can decide if and when we have "a need to know."

That's good and I hope you keep pushing, but until then, you can hardly blame us poor saps who don't have a "need to know" for being skeptical, right? That's all I'm trying to say is maybe you shouldn't get so pissed off at those of us who remain skeptical and acknowledge that thus far, we have a legitimate point.

As for your addition that I didn't quote, nobody is saying that you're an idiot, well, at least I'm not, I've always maintained that I like you Chris, I'm just trying to get you to see the other side of the coin and maybe to lay off of the insults, self righteous inidignation, and I don't give a fucks a bit yourself.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

That's good and I hope you keep pushing, but until then, you can hardly blame us poor saps who don't have a "need to know" for being skeptical, right? That's all I'm trying to say is maybe you shouldn't get so pissed off at those of us who remain skeptical and acknowledge that thus far, we have a legitimate point.

Yeah sure. Whatever. Contact him yourself if you are REALLY interested in what he is doing. I don't think you are. He (and evidently me) are just the latest convenient straw men for you to whack at.

 

[Muadib]

Yeah sure. Whatever. Contact him yourself if you are REALLY interested in what he is doing. I don't think you are. He (and evidently me) are just the latest convenient straw men for you to whack at.

Well, you can interpret it however you want but your assertion that I should just contact him and all will be revealed doesn't hold water, after all, if you haven't seen the pictures of the flying saucers so close you can see inside, then why would he show them to me? I'm not a ufologist, I'm just part of the audience, and I call them like I see them.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Well, you can interpret it however you want but your assertion that I should just contact him and all will be revealed doesn't hold water, after all, if you haven't seen the pictures of the flying saucers so close you can see inside, then why would he show them to me? I'm not a ufologist, I'm just part of the audience, and I call them like I see them.

Did I say I hadn't seen them?

 

[Muadib]

Did I say I hadn't seen them?

Well, one would think that if you had, you would have said so by now. If you have, what did the interior look like? Was it manned or unmanned, so to speak? This isn't an us vs. them kind of thing for me, I'm simply trying to get you to see that, in this case, the skeptical position some of us hold isn't unwarranted and certainly isn't worthy of anger, insults and I don't give a fucks.

If any Joe Schmoe off the street can simply call up Ray and see the goods, why not release them publicly? What's the difference? No, I think if that were true, we would have seen something by now. In the end, Ufology isn't my job, I don't write books and I don't have unlimited free time to chase down Ray Stanford and beg him for access, that doesn't mean I'm not interested, just that I have other priorities.

 

[Randall]

Religion is mostly metaphor and patterns that require followers to know their lines, pay their tithing and heed what the person in the pulpit speaks ...

In our modern day world where rational thinking is valued, the application of religious metaphors implies criticism suggestive of an irrational faith based belief. This is not something that the rational among us endorse as positive. Therefore to continue to paint the topic in that light is like dressing it up in a Popes costume and parading it around to illustrate that criticism. There are other historical examples where one group or another has been likened to something else in order to breed disrepute. So when it comes right down to it, this religious metaphor is no different except by degree. It serves not merely as a mental exercise but also as a flame. If you weren't already aware of that, you are now.

The above being said, if we remove the flame and deal with the point, the examples you mentioned are all facets of ufology culture. Some are more high profile than others, and not unlike the sciences ( particularly medicine ), ufology also has its share of quacks ( e.g. orgone energy ) and those who merge it with elements of the New Age movement. The important thing to remember is that none of these facets alone represent ufology as a whole or the principles by which rational ufologists operate. I can't speak for everyone, but USI ( my group ) has over 2500 members worldwide and the principles of critical thinking are central to our view on the subject. That doesn't mean that there aren't also individuals who are exploring some fringe areas, but open minds are also valuable, and provided that members pursue their interest in a genuine and constructive way, every contribution has some merit.

 

[Randall]

As to how Stanford pretends to be doing science, we have seen the same bullshit over and over again among paranormal hucksters. Some of us know baloney when we smell it.

Although you may be right, making a judgment call on the evidence based on the "smell of baloney" is prejudicial. I have no idea how good Stanford's evidence is. My issue is with the attitude he reportedly has regarding its disclosure and how little he values the rest of his peers. That attitude is disingenuous and unconstructive, which are both completely opposite to the principles that the ufology community should be striving for ( IMO ).

 

[Burnt State]

In our modern day world where rational thinking is valued, the application of religious metaphors implies criticism suggestive of an irrational faith based belief. This is not something that the rational among us endorse as positive... It serves not merely as a mental exercise but also as a flame. If you weren't already aware of that, you are now.

... The important thing to remember is that none of these facets alone represent ufology as a whole or the principles by which rational ufologists operate.

What's your version of rational? A lot of the content on your site is material I don't take for granted at all, that strikes me more as part of an irrational mythology, that attracts more fringe and prophets than rational discussion. What is endorsabe; who's the endorser? These are all debatable and as malleable as a Hessdalen Light.

Let's take the recent flame over Ray Stanford, who is historically a mixed bag of science and irrationality, and i would describe as a John the Baptist in the desert claiming that the real thing is on the way. Now I'm caught between Chris' passionate assertions and Lance's justifiable rejections. You see, I find myself agreeing with a lot of Chris' creative thinking on various topics, but also as doubtful as Moody over other pieces Chris offers <cough>Nancy Talbot<cough> however i can not reject Chris' voice outright. He just believes some different things than I. He's had different experiences than I; consequently, i don't expect anybody to believe my story. I'm also a Doubting Thomas when it comes to Stanford's claims. Chris, a lot of people really appreciate you not rubbing our faces in the images we can't see anymore. It did feel like that at many times for us.

This is a very diverse, personally interpreted experience - look at how upset it gets people. Where is the 'whole' in all of this? I was hoping this recent positive & civil show was a movement towards middle ground and a conversation that could move us forward, to be speculative without being demanding. Instead it's just the same broken bicycle with way too many riders going nowhere. It reminds me of hanging out as a teen with extended family after church, drinking and yelling at each other, joy and anger colliding like a meteor shower in a snowstorm.

 

[Randall]

What's your version of rational? A lot of the content on your site is material I don't take for granted at all, that strikes me more as part of an irrational mythology, that attracts more fringe and prophets than rational discussion ...

My version of rational? To the extent that it's possible and appropriate, being rational involves making decisions based on reasons supported by critical thinking as opposed to faith, superstition, or bias. Regarding the "content on my website" being "part of an irrational mythology", the Ray Stanford reference you are using as an example doesn't apply to my website, particularly because I have yet to create an entry on my website for Ray Stanford. It seems like you might be assuming that I am part owner of the Paracast or something along those lines. I'm actually just a participant here. My website ( USI ) is located in the link in my signature line.

 

[boomerang]

Perhaps I should clarify something here in regard to religion and ufology. The word "ufology" is simply a title used for the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. Therefore ufology itself is neither a religion nor a cult and to categorize it or associate it with such is not accurate. Religion as it pertains to ufology is a subset of ufology studies and is treated objectively the same way as mythology, history, and culture are studied in relation to the topic of UFOs in general. Ufology demands no adherence to any supernatural belief and does not expect worship or devotion to any deity. Groups like USI only require members to possess a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon, and it's purpose is to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth. To accomplish this task the process of critical thinking and the use of science are encouraged. Modern ufology views UFO religions such as Heaven's Gate or Raëlism as a cultural phenomena. To clarify further, being a Raëlian in no way makes one a ufologist any more than being a Catholic makes one a historian. Furthermore, ufologists who are religious doesn't make ufology a religion any more than scientists who are religious makes science a religion. On it's own ufology is an entirely objective topic. The only subjective elements are those that are brought into it by those who have taken an interest in it.

Beware of posting when tired ! I didn't mean to in any way equate the level headed pursuit of truth about the nature of the ufo phenomenon to a "ufo religion". Although, those sadly exist. What I do see is an ancient pattern of this phenomenon using its almost complete control of encounters with humanity in ways that may shape our collective psyches over time. Human religions may or may not be an outgrowth of this. But neither do I think we have had the least success in the use of traditional scientific tools to disentangle this mystery. When our models of reality break down, what is left in their wake is fear, awe and mystery. Perhaps it is like the oyster's irritating grain of sand producing pearls. Or perhaps it produces nothing. But this suggests to me not only a higher order of technology, but possibly a higher order of raw intelligence, or perhaps beings operating from a physical realm beyond our current reach.

Of course, whatever pulls the strings and levers behind the ufo could turn out to be nothing more ( !) than biological critters like ourselves using the advantage of superior technology to repeatedly yank our chains. Respected researcher Robert Hastings seems to think so.

 

[kanakaris]

So what was the black diamond shaped completely silent object that was hovering before my and dozens of others eyes , Lance ?(Belgium 1997 )Please tell me.

 

[Polterwurst]

Hey cool. Sorry I didn't take notice earlier. So you're from Belgium and have had a sighting? Did you post a description around here somewhere? If not, could you write one?

Often, people speculate that the Belgian triangles were military craft or prototypes, because in comparison to other "true UFO" reports they seem to be rather mundane. Would you agree?

 

[kanakaris]

Yes , i did post it here somewhere , but can't remember where .That was the way i found out about this site.

 

[Polterwurst]

I'll do a search then.

 

[manxman]

I have a dual confession: my takeaway from the show, combined with reading some other forum threads featuring Lance Moody's criticisms on Ufology & the great number of famous, scientifically verified UFO photos that were later found to be hoaxes - it all leaves me doubting anything anyone calls proof in the field outside of the anomalous experience of the witness.

But like vesvehighfolk, i saw a UFO and it was not an experimental craft. I share in that personal vision of crafts up close that then disappeared upwards, leaving me in awe. I can still see their two points of light tracing up into the stars and then further still before blinking out. I don't know where they came from but that experience left a pretty big impression and a desire to want to know the answer to the mystery.

The best thing I have read here in this forum that makes sense to me about ufology is boomerang's comment from the fake Belgian triangle photo:

"On the subject of hoaxed photos combined with testimony from seemingly credible witnesses, I would defer to Jacques Vallee. This is, and always has been, an essentially sociological rather than technological phenomenon. "Sociological' in this case refers to something deeper and more profound than misidentification, confabultion of hoaxing. What, we do not know.

In this sense ufology has always had the historical characteristics of an unfolding religion. Sane people witness incredible, mind bending things, become fundamentally changed in ways they cannot rationally understand, and thereby affect societal values over time. This is my takeaway from the work of Vallee.

This is also why is I pay so little attention to films and photographs. The close encounter is a deeply PERSONAL process. There is no one "best" or defining ufo sighting. It's a matter of countless profound experiences over time that leave society's values changed."

How do you think you will find out, if YOU keep scaring them off like that.

 

[Burnt State]

How do you think you will find out, if YOU keep scaring them off like that.

There was no scaring at all except me and my wits. But next time they show up I'm sending them your way for eels and crumpets.

 

[manxman]

I was just thinking about their thought process's, ' jesus christ its a canadian' whoosh.
They did the same when they bumped into randal.