• 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!

4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford

Free episodes:

Not always, but I disagree. A multidisciplinary approach to the study of any frontier science yields the greatest potential advancement. Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and the writings of Richard Rorty argue this point quite eloquently. This is exactly why Vallee's Passport to Magonia was such an important work and why Vallee the astronomer, computer programmer, venture capitalist, folklorist & ufologist and Stanford the anthropologist, paleontologist, plasma physicist & ufologist might take issue as well.

Agreed, intelligence and expertise should be able to travel across disciplines, but it seems that when it comes to issues concerning the paranormal, even the brightest come up with not only unreasonable findings but some pretty bizarre convictions.

Even Mr. Stanford's early dabblings in the contactee movement and channeling voices such as Jesus Christ should give one pause when it comes to believing in brilliant people working in the paranormal arena.

Ray Stanford's Background

And for what it's worth:

The Truth Uncensored: Ray Stanford Uncensored

Personally, I kinda like the idea of having a precision monitoring UFO magnetometer.

There's something about the ethereal world that must displace brilliance; it's probably connected to the strong desire to believe in the first place. At the same time, I like many others, await an eventual revealing of Stanford's evidence and theories, as so much has been promised.
 
I think the point wasn't that anyone is infallible, but that a record of being right should at least deserve some consideration. Ray and I have had different opinions any number of times, and sometimes that's the way it stays. But, as with his paleontological discoveries, sometimes the evidence is 'in your face' obvious. People who refuse to acknowledge it's there, or even look at it, would probably be more comfortable staying away from science. At least they could admit that they haven't even looked before passing off opinions.
 
I have found one copy of Journal of Instrumented UFO Research which is on its way. There must be more issues around, perhaps in pdf form. I have just received Socorro 'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry, and having already read X-Descending earlier this week, I'm slowly catching up on this area of research. I suppose it's because there's so little information on Mr. Stanford online that he had slipped below my radar.

There's another factor. I had previously heard a podcast with Stanford on Bishop's show Radio Misterioso, where he got into it with Greg's co-host and that had turned me off without listening further. I think the timbre of his voice and know-it-all attitude can get to people. But this is often the case with highly intelligent people losing patience with others.

But after stumbling on a site with some details about PSI (Project Starlight International), and reading his descriptions, I quickly realized that here was a heretofore unknown and valuable resource I had overlooked.

I have a modest library of some of the brighter lights in the field; all of the early (and free) online books by Keyhoe, Bloecher, Ruppelt, and the like, some articles by James McDonald, books by Sturrock, Hall, Haines, Hill, Aimee Michel , Sanderson, Feindt, Hastings, Vallee, Kitei, Walton, Feschino, Druffel, Chalker, Jerome Clark, Steiger, Good, Carl Jung, Hynek, Selier, Schroeder, Torres & Uriarte, and about ten Gb of podcasts, a huge collection of youtube movies and videos from all over the world and over 30 Gb of other articles, papers, and miscellaneous material.

I've stuck to multiple visual / radar cases such as the 1965 Edwards case and RB-47 type cases. The Hastings material is compelling. Feindt's huge site of water ufo cases , many going back centuries and from all over the world is equally compelling.

So the Stanford material is a welcome addition to my studies.

the Bulk (area between our brane and the quantum brane)
 
Perhaps Vallee has an explanation for what Stanford has seen?

Check the interview from min. 35 to 39

Where is Stanford shooting his film?
 
I have a modest library of some of the brighter lights in the field; all of the early (and free) online books by Keyhoe, Bloecher, Ruppelt, and the like, some articles by James McDonald, books by Sturrock, Hall, Haines, Hill, Aimee Michel , Sanderson, Feindt, Hastings, Vallee, Kitei, Walton, Feschino, Druffel, Chalker, Jerome Clark, Steiger, Good, Carl Jung, Hynek, Selier, Schroeder, Torres & Uriarte, and about ten Gb of podcasts, a huge collection of youtube movies and videos from all over the world and over 30 Gb of other articles, papers, and miscellaneous material.

Something like this list could easily be made into a 'sticky' for anyone wishing to imbibe the nutrients needed to build a good foundation for this subject.
 
Perhaps Vallee has an explanation for what Stanford has seen?

Check the interview from min. 35 to 39

Where is Stanford shooting his film?


Here's a link to nicap's archive of Project Starlight International:

psi

He had a couple bachelor friends who funded his equipment to the tune of a couple million 1970s dollars.

He was trying to get the highest resolution photos and slides ASA 20, iirc.

Bulk
 
Chris, I have received one copy of Journal of Instrumented UFO Research vol. 1 no. 1 from Amazon and I would like to find and buy some more. I know you're in touch with Stanford. Can you find out where I can obtain more of these journals?

I've scoured the net for more but can't find any.

thanks in advance,
Bulk
 
But after stumbling on a site with some details about PSI (Project Starlight International), and reading his descriptions, I quickly realized that here was a heretofore unknown and valuable resource I had overlooked.

I have a modest library of some of the brighter lights in the field; all of the early (and free) online books by Keyhoe, Bloecher, Ruppelt, and the like, some articles by James McDonald, books by Sturrock, Hall, Haines, Hill, Aimee Michel , Sanderson, Feindt, Hastings, Vallee, Kitei, Walton, Feschino, Druffel, Chalker, Jerome Clark, Steiger, Good, Carl Jung, Hynek, Selier, Schroeder, Torres & Uriarte, and about ten Gb of podcasts, a huge collection of youtube movies and videos from all over the world and over 30 Gb of other articles, papers, and miscellaneous material.

I've stuck to multiple visual / radar cases such as the 1965 Edwards case and RB-47 type cases. The Hastings material is compelling. Feindt's huge site of water ufo cases , many going back centuries and from all over the world is equally compelling.

So the Stanford material is a welcome addition to my studies.

Sounds like you've completed quite a bit of studies, with some interesting notables in your collection. I'm curious to understand how and where you position Stanford as a welcome addition? Is he an iconoclast? What do you as valuable in his pursuits?
 
Sounds like you've completed quite a bit of studies, with some interesting notables in your collection. I'm curious to understand how and where you position Stanford as a welcome addition? Is he an iconoclast? What do you as valuable in his pursuits?


Well, you're asking me to position him among the authors I have already mentioned, but I haven't seen his films and stills and his detailed explanations accompanying them. I have read everything I could find, including numerous posts in the ufoupdates list.

Tentatively I would place him as the same "type" of researcher as James McDonald, Paul Hill and Richard Haines insofar as his scientific methodology and use of state-of-the-art instrumentation to observe and document ufos, though the aforementioned have degrees and peer-reviewed papers. Nevertheless, he stands on the shoulders of those giants before him and I think he represents the new and necessary wave of researchers using solid science to discover the clues and oddities which will elucidate this phenomenon (Yes, I know he's in his seventies). On a side note, I'd say that there are, and have long been, ongoing scientific studies relating to this subject, but they are hidden deep within our black budgets.

Around 1952 (after the Washington merry-go-round), or the early 50s, a decision was made to go black while simultaneously infiltrating, ridiculing and discrediting anyone who talked about the subject.

On a related side note, the amount of material available online, such as Isaac Koi's site, ufologie, ufoevidence, ufo*bc, narcap, cufos, and dozens more, is staggering, not to mention the released files of several major countries, the various lists like ats, ufoupdatelist, and the many excellent blogs--Chalker, Rutkowski, Randle, Kimball, Kean.

Some prerequisites to studying this subject might include, world history including mythology, religion and ethics, the life sciences, psychology, parapsychology and perception, the hard sciences, physics, chemistry, engineering, along with plenty of math and a couple additional languages---if ufology were a university course, it could be compared to becoming a medical doctor or heart surgeon with a lot more general education included. Over the last couple decades, we've seen specialization into subsets, such as trace evidence, military reports, also from missiliers, commercial aviation incidents, DNA studies, naval incidents, and so on.

I also think we need to change the tacky made-up name 'ufology' to an analogous name similar to zoology; perhaps 'xenology' (Fortean term iirc) or 'exology'; the study of off-world races. This is a classic case where one word, 'ufology', keeps scientists from even looking at data, for fear of their careers.

Bulk
 
I also think we need to change the tacky made-up name 'ufology' to an analogous name similar to zoology; perhaps 'xenology' (Fortean term iirc) or 'exology'; the study of off-world races. This is a classic case where one word, 'ufology', keeps scientists from even looking at data, for fear of their careers.

I've given the above suggestion a lot of thought and debate, and the results are:
  1. Simply renaming ufology isn't going to fool the establishment into thinking we're not talking about UFOs.
  2. The word ufology is now an established part of the English language and has been in use for over half a century. Therefore if becoming established is desirable, then it makes no sense to start over with something that is not established.
  3. People are familiar with the word UFO and therefore changing the name of its associated field ( ufology ) only invites more confusion. This has already been proven by Kean's experience in having to explain the acronym UAP wherever she goes.
  4. Tens of thousands of historical records use the words UFO and ufology. Consequently searches for information under the FOIA, NARA and elsewhere ( e.g. UFO interest groups ) are going to require that we use those words. Therefore switching terms only complicates research rather than helping it.
  5. Other approaches have been tried and have failed, which demonstrates the difficulty in fostering acceptance for new terminology. Therefore it's not a wise use of resources to spend such a great amount of time and effort convincing people to use a different name just so they can carry on doing the same thing they were already doing beforehand.
  6. The ridicule and so-called giggle factor is not caused by the name itself, it's caused by a history of marginalization and mockery. Therefore changing the name will not cure the problem. However changing attitudes will.
Given the above, the obvious solutions are:
  1. Retain the words UFO and ufology and work toward resolving the issues.
  2. Establish clear and accurate definitions for UFO and Ufology based on historical and contemporary evidence and usage.
  3. Use these words consistently, unashamedly, and in their proper context.
  4. Counter ridicule and mockery with critical thinking, accuracy, and consistency.
  5. Mockery and ridicule are now considered politically incorrect and a form of bullying. Do not hesitate to send legitimate complaints to moderators, magazine editors, and news stations.
The above recommendations are most logical way to solve the semantics problem in ufology and garner respect for the field. It wouldn't hurt to have a UFO celebrity out there supporting this cause as well, but unfortunately there isn't anyone out there ( yet ).
 
I think you underestimate the (negative) emotional content of a word: if someone is called a 'bastard' that's one thing; but if called the 'Son of an Unmarried Female', that is quite another thing, mostly devoid of negative emotional content. Then using SUF and adding ology -- sufology -- clearly, this would be a ridiculous name for the historical study of prominent people whose mothers were unmarried.

You know that 'unidentified flying object' replaced 'flying saucer' not just because of the successful denigration of the term but also because 'flying saucer' didn't cover all the anomalous aerial objects seen..

Other terms used are bogey, fastwalkers, spaceship, craft, unknowns, UAPs, AAOs, USOs.

In the early days of continental drift theory many careers were damaged by the concept that 'continents floated about the globe', which is implied by 'continental drift'. Later, when much more evidence turned up, 'tectonic plate' theory replaced the former. This process took a half a century. Few are alive today that still associate continental drift with ridicule. Yet it happened. It happened in the hard sciences.

Now imagine applying this 'acceptance curve' to this field.

After Michelson-Morley the term 'ether' fell into disrepute. Yet today, physicists speak of space filled with virtual quantum particles, the 'quantum field', 'zero point energy', concepts not so far removed from the 'etheric medium'. What we term dark energy / dark matter today will appear silly and quaint a few years from now. Someone will invent new, more descriptive, scientific terms for them.

How long do you suppose it will take to cleanse the negative associations of ufology given it has had a generation's head start? One generation? Two? Can we afford to wait that long to undertake serious scientific studies?

So by continuing to use ufology we fall right into the hands of those who want to keep the subject ridiculed and forever in the fringe. Words and their connotations have incredible persistence and emotional power in common language. I'm sure you can think of numerous examples: consider all the politically incorrect words there's so much angst about these days. Consider how governments dehumanize 'enemies' through derogatory words.

But we are drifting far afield from the subject.

Bulk
 
The footage has been around for a long time without any peer review taking place, so who knows when, if ever, that will happen?The film is raw data. It does not undermine or preclude scientific analysis to make it available, regardless of whether doing so is customary. Not only that, the public at large includes experts of many varieties. Making it public will bring many eyes to scrutinize it, not just a few.

In general I think the Paracast listeners want to know and should be encouraged in that regard. Otherwise why are they listening? They of course don't have a "right" to the footage, but they are well within their right to encourage Ray to change his mind and release what he has. Its only fair of them to say that as he is making a point of proclaiming that he has it. He's voluntarily approaching the public by talking about it.
I agree. Much of this footage is decades old at this point and has still not been widely seen. I doubt we'll ever see it. And it wouldn't even shock me if Ray has something in his will that makes sure that remains the case in the event of his death. If the footage is passed on to one of his sons I'd like to think they'd make it widely available but there's always a chance they don't see the value in the footage or grew to be resentful of their father's interest in the subject and decide to throw it away. I remember a paranormal researcher talking about some footage Ed Warren showed him. I don't think anyone would consider Ed a serious researcher but this person said the footage he showed him was extremely impressive and was never made publicly available. Warren told him he viewed the footage as his retirement plan and would only part with it if the price was right. Well, he's been dead for quite a while at this point and as far as I know that footage has never been seen. I'm not saying Ray is holding out for a big payday, just that it's going to be a real shame if Ray dies and some or all of this footage is lost or thrown out or destroyed.
I think Ray is a fascinating figure. I'd love to read a biography of the man- his relationship with his twin brother, his involvement with ufo groups, his financial backers, etc. His personality reminds of the most psychically gifted person I've known- volatile, quick to get a read on someone, if they don't like you they won't hesitate to make it known and will be extremely unpleasant. But they can also be incredibly generous and thoughtful to those they consider friends. In the interviews with Ray, and what I've read from people who know him, I think he has a similar personality. And I think he's probably gifted psychically- and all manner of forteana tend to revolve around such people. I'm not put off by his involvement in fringe groups or his going into trance- I think the man is sincere. But I don't consider the reasons given to try and justify his refusal to make the footage widely available justified. If he was holding out for a big payday I might not like it but I could understand it. But to say he's holding out for "peer review", what does that even mean in this context, if it's simply letting scientists view the work first how many need to see it before allowing the general public to? Or if it's a matter of having articles published about the footage in peer reviewed journals- I think that could have been done repeatedly by now if Ray had been reaching out to those who might be interested. Remember, much of this footage has been around for decades. I tend to view the 70s as the heyday for this sort of research and there were a number of journals then that would have been amenable to publishing papers about his footage- and even now there's the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The editor is Dr. Stephen Braude- a brilliant philosopher and parapsychologist. Check out the journal- I bet one of their members would be very interested in viewing the footage and possibly writing a paper about it. But would Ray be willing to let them include stills in the paper? Regardless, it's not like "peer review" will be some magic bullet that would suddenly bestow credibility on the footage. Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake routinely publish in peer reviewed journals. Sheldrake was educated at Harvard and Cambridge and has been published in Nature. Even so, he is still viewed as a fringe figure by the scientific establishment- TED actually removed his talk from their YouTube page. I think I heard Chris or someone mention at some point that someone was looking to make a documentary about Ray and incorporate the footage. That movie needs to be made. Now. He's led a fascinating life, that can't be denied. I want to learn more about the man, warts and all, I want to hear from his supporters and detractors, and I want to SEE this footage!
 
... So by continuing to use ufology we fall right into the hands of those who want to keep the subject ridiculed and forever in the fringe. Words and their connotations have incredible persistence and emotional power in common language. I'm sure you can think of numerous examples: consider all the politically incorrect words there's so much angst about these days. Consider how governments dehumanize 'enemies' through derogatory words.

Good post, all the way up to the last part. Then the logic falls apart. The most obvious problem is that the examples you mention don't apply to the subject matter. They are entirely different topics and simply because they had a change of label isn't a valid rationale for changing the label of the topic under discussion. If that were a valid way to proceed, then I could find many examples where labels haven't been changed, but that would be equally invalid counterpoint. Hypothetically we could each have lists with hundreds of examples of labels that have either been changed or not changed and we'd still be no further ahead. To provide valid counterpoint, we need to address the issues pertaining to ufology, not plate tectonics, or astrophysics, or whatever else. Six points were mentioned, none of which you addressed.
 
I'd love to read a biography of the man- his relationship with his twin brother, his involvement with ufo groups, his financial backers, etc. His personality reminds of the most psychically gifted person I've known- volatile, quick to get a read on someone, if they don't like you they won't hesitate to make it known and will be extremely unpleasant. But they can also be incredibly generous and thoughtful to those they consider friends. In the interviews with Ray, and what I've read from people who know him, I think he has a similar personality. And I think he's probably gifted psychically- and all manner of forteana tend to revolve around such people.
I wrote an extensive biography of Ray's ufological life story—in his own words. I finished it almost six-years-ago. He won't let me publish it until he get's himself "back on the map."
 
Good post, all the way up to the last part. Then the logic falls apart. The most obvious problem is that the examples you mention don't apply to the subject matter. They are entirely different topics and simply because they had a change of label isn't a valid rationale for changing the label of the topic under discussion. If that were a valid way to proceed, then I could find many examples where labels haven't been changed, but that would be equally invalid counterpoint. Hypothetically we could each have lists with hundreds of examples of labels that have either been changed or not changed and we'd still be no further ahead. To provide valid counterpoint, we need to address the issues pertaining to ufology, not plate tectonics, or astrophysics, or whatever else. Six points were mentioned, none of which you addressed.

I think we simply have a difference of opinion. There's no sense in arguing about it. I did read and understand your six points and I thought I addressed them in the aggregate, with some historical context, with my reply.

One thing's for sure, time will tell. I suspect that when scientists get around to taking this subject seriously, they'll go ahead and give the various portions of ufology, xenology, their own names, probably derived from Greek and Latin roots to make them more acceptable to their peers. This all may take place long after you and I have passed from this phase of our existence. They'll learn the names of some of these visitors, or, if the visitors don't use names, they'll give them one for each species. Then sub-names will be given to various aspects of each, etc., etc.

Scientists, like editors, often like the taste much better after they've peed into the mix.

The study of other civilizations will make the entire body of knowledge we humans have seem as a drop in the bucket, maybe a drop in an ocean, if life is as common as it is beginning to appear that it is, given just the number of planets being discovered recently in our own backwater galactic neighborhood.

Bulk
 
I think we simply have a difference of opinion.
That would be true if most of what I had said were merely opinion.
There's no sense in arguing about it.
Then why did you create a post that takes an opposing position?
I did read and understand your six points and I thought I addressed them in the aggregate, with some historical context, with my reply.
Like I said, your counterpoint doesn't apply to the subject matter, and therefore no points were actually addressed. So although interesting as a general perspective, it doesn't substantiate your view.
One thing's for sure, time will tell. I suspect that when scientists get around to taking this subject seriously, they'll go ahead and give the various portions of ufology, xenology, their own names, probably derived from Greek and Latin roots to make them more acceptable to their peers. Scientists, like editors often like the taste better after they've peed in to the mix. This all may take place long after you and I have passed from this phase of our existence. They'll learn the names of some of these visitors, or, if the visitors don't use names, they'll give them one for each species. Then sub-names will be given to various aspects of each, etc., etc.
Ufology is not science and by its nature cannot become science because the scientific method cannot be applied to the full range of interest and activities that together make up the field as a whole, particularly the mythology and culture. However science as it already exists can conceivably be applied to various aspects of the field.
The study of other civilizations will make the entire body of knowledge we humans have seem as a drop in the bucket, maybe a drop in an ocean, if life is as common as it is beginning to appear that it is, given just the number of planets being discovered recently in our own backwater galactic neighborhood.
If that day comes you may well be right, and I hope our species lasts long enough and is resourceful enough to make that happen. But even if it does, it still may not change the basic nature of ufology. For example, upon studying newfound civilizations we may just as easily find that there have been other alien visitors to their worlds that have manifested themselves in observations and myths and beliefs within their culture and remain just as unexplained to them as they are to us. Trust me. I've been through all these scenarios, and in the end it makes the most sense to retain the words we're using for the purpose they're meant to fulfill. Of course making the most sense doesn't guarantee that the most sensible route will be taken, so you may be right that some other label will come along and replace it anyway. If that happens we'll know that the whole field has slid yet another notch toward the gutter.
 
This is a tempest in a teapot.

I've given you my take on it. Take it or leave it; it's no skin off my nose. I don't have a dog in this fight but it appears that you do. Perhaps you are taking this personally.

I'm beginning to wonder if your chosen nickname might have more to do with your reticence to consider other viewpoints. Please believe and accept that my comments on the name 'ufology' as it applies the study of unidentified aerial objects was never intended as any kind of slight to your chosen username.

But if you somehow took it that way, consciously or unconsciously, rest assured that was never my intent: it never even entered the picture and only occurred to me while reading your latest reply.

So, I apologize if I ruffled your feathers but I will nevertheless stand firm on my opinions.

Now let me address your six points.

  1. Simply renaming ufology isn't going to fool the establishment into thinking we're not talking about UFOs.
  2. The word ufology is now an established part of the English language and has been in use for over half a century. Therefore if becoming established is desirable, then it makes no sense to start over with something that is not established.
  3. People are familiar with the word UFO and therefore changing the name of its associated field ( ufology ) only invites more confusion. This has already been proven by Kean's experience in having to explain the acronym UAP wherever she goes.
  4. Tens of thousands of historical records use the words UFO and ufology. Consequently searches for information under the FOIA, NARA and elsewhere ( e.g. UFO interest groups ) are going to require that we use those words. Therefore switching terms only complicates research rather than helping it.
  5. Other approaches have been tried and have failed, which demonstrates the difficulty in fostering acceptance for new terminology. Therefore it's not a wise use of resources to spend such a great amount of time and effort convincing people to use a different name just so they can carry on doing the same thing they were already doing beforehand.
  6. The ridicule and so-called giggle factor is not caused by the name itself, it's caused by a history of marginalization and mockery. Therefore changing the name will not cure the problem. However changing attitudes will.
1. The idea isn't to fool anybody. It's so that scientists can address the issue publicly and before their peers, without being automatically, unconsciously, laughed off the stage.
2. This is the point I am making, but not only that it's established, but is established with half a century of association with ridicule and giggle factor. Take the word 'critter'. Likely it's derived from the word 'creature'. Yet unless one wants to use slang deliberately, one doesn't see it in common written texts. Think of the connotations, 'critter', unschooled, maybe frontier land lingo, pioneers with little or no education. Most of us don't break this down, it's automatic, it's associated with mountain men, Daniel Boone and his B'ar talk, no slur on Mr. Boone nor mountain men intended. The connotations are unconscious.
3. Kean uses this term because narcap prefers it and it has little negative association. It's true that it's a lesser known identifier. But since its use by Kean, it's more recognized than before.
4. Agreed. Continue to use the common terms for searches. However, I doubt if these acronyms will be found where the incontrovertible data is stored, most likely in black-budget corporations, and they're more likely to use initials we'd never guess, just to obfuscate matters and provide for plausible deniability. Consider the word 'fastwalkers'. Would any of us associate it with UFOs? I wouldn't have if I hadn't read it in a blog somewhere.
5. Language is a living thing; it's always changing, words are added or dropped, definitions change or evolve, spellings become simplified, nouns become verbs (google it!), acronyms become words (ufology), and so on. Language evolves. By your logic we should still be using the words astrology as the study of the stars, and alchemy for the study of elements.
6. Yes, changing attitudes will cure the problem. But why add in having to fight off the 60 year negative, constantly reinforced, now socially integrated negative associations (now mostly unconscious for most people and so much harder to reach and undo, if it were possible)? I submit it's not a wise use of resources to spend such a great amount of time and effort to try to undo the damage done. It's best to start with a clean slate.

I hope I have clarified my opinions without offending you.

Bulk
 
Back
Top