• 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!

August 9, 2015 — Micah Hanks

Forums New posts
Gene Steinberg

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
When it comes to UFO researcher/blogger/talk show host Micah Hanks, the world of the paranormal consists of a number of amazing possibilities.

This is yet another episode where your friendly (mostly) Paracast hosts brainstorm with a guest and come up with some fascinating possibilities.

When it was all over, there was a lot left on the table. So Micah agreed to join us to continue the conversation on the August 9th episode of After The Paracast, which is part of The Paracast+ subscription service.

Check here for more information: Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
I'll ask my question in this thread, as opposed to the Ray Stanford thread, since it is based directly on something Chris O'Brien definitively stated during the show with Micah Hanks today.

To quote Chris verbatim: "I've always maintained that there is one person in the field that's actually scientifically pulling the field forward currently and that's Ray Stanford." (emphasis mine)

That is, indeed, a bold statement. Not to mention, an exciting statement in its possibilities for the field of Ufology. Would you please expand on that statement and share with the forum some detailed scientific examples that demonstrate how Ray is "scientifically pulling the field forward?" I sincerely look forward to you sharing the examples, as they would be singular in their achievement, so that I (and fellow forum members) can develop a greater sense of what Ray's ongoing work entails and its apparent importance to the field.

Respectfully, and let me be clear, I'm not trying to be contentious or disingenuous here. I realize Ray is the "hot button topic-du-jour," especially for Chris O'Brien, but since Ray Stanford CONTINUES to be brought up on the show and continues to given high praise by Chris O, it seems to me a fair topic to continue to address. I also realize Chris pledged in the other Ray Stanford thread that he would "never mention Ray Stanford on the show again," but I assume that promise was made AFTER the Micah Hanks show was recorded. So my question stands, related to what was most recently discussed on the 8/9 show.

In the interest of fairness, if a Paracast guest made that statement above, I fully expect that Gene or Chris would follow up asking for specific examples we could all review to determine the veracity of the claim. If none were forthcoming I think the claim would be summarily dismissed, or, at the very least, judgement reserved until evidence was ultimately provided. As I've said before, it's the "put up or shut up" foundation of the Paracast that is so integral to serious listeners. This is no different than questioning a Margie Kay about her psychic abilities, or Michael Horn about his Billy Meier claims. Proof is proof. Bullshit is bullshit.

I'll also anticipate a possible response and say if individuals (OK, Chris O) are sick and tired of the questions and the skepticism, and are unprepared, unwilling or unable to answer or rebut them, then stop talking about the subject on the show. Please. You wouldn't allow a repeat guest to make the same unfounded claims show after show, would you? No. We are ALL seekers here and are, to varying degrees, thirsty for ANY answers. Statements like the one above are like dangling an ice cold bottle of Smartwater in front of a parched man (or woman) in the desert but never giving them a sip.

In closing, I'd like to emphasize that I am not attacking Ray (whom I do not know), or Chris (whom I genuinely respect), in any way, shape or form. I'm only asking questions about claims being made. I'm strictly focused on those claims and only interested in any answers by way of the evidence necessary to back them up. Period. Thank you.
 
Please wait for the forthcoming website. Ben and Tony are hard at work creating him a web presence and digitizing his archival materials, i.e., cases, police reports, photographs, etc. There is also an effort underway to convert all of his many analog movie film clips into high-resolution video. I made the statement about not mentioning him after the taping and I will stick to it from here on out. I'm completely fed up w/ the tone and tenor of all conversations relating to the man here on the forums but I still maintain my high opinion of the man and his work.
 
I need to do some clarification and correction about whether Ray was a member of Adamski's UFO Cult. I do think of Adamski as a UFO cult leader. I think when Ray and his brother went to visit and stay with Adamski that they came to learn from the UFO Master Guru. At 18 years old Ray Stanford was NOT an investigator visiting Adamski. He was a naive kid that was taken-in by Adamski's book he bought years before. Ray is ON RECORD stating he BELIEVED Adamski's 1953 book! Ray was in contact with Adamski after buying his book and before traveling to California from Texas. So, Ray had a belief and following for Adamski for 2-3 years BELIEVING before going to learn from this UFO Cult leader.

Well, as often happens with naive followers of Cult Leaders there is fraud and falsehoods involved with their message. Ray still said Adamski was not a bad person, and he has sympathies for him for what he did too. AND, Ray did not investigate Adamski and discover anything! Adamski told Ray and his brother what he did. Adamski admitted and showed them how he committed the fraud. Ray continued his association with Adamski after knowing that too.

The point I'm making is Ray followed and believed in Adamski for years before the truth was revealed. In that sense, I do still think of Ray following this guy Adamski -a UFO Cult leader.

How long Ray stayed with Adamski on his visits and how many times I can not say. I never heard Ray say he ended his friendship with Adamski or had some big falling out with him. Ray moved on to other UFO Cult people at some point too, so I need to retract the idea he was a "member" of Adamski's UFO Cult in some formal sense or lived with him for years. That is an exaggeration and not accurate. But Ray did follow Adamski as a believer for a long period of time, and he knew him over a period of years. I have no problem if Ray remained friends with Adamski.
 
Last edited:
Cross-posted from the Ray Stanford thread...

I think that is an important clarification, DS. Whatever the initial reasons Ray went to check out Adamski as a young, naive 18yo, I don't think the association should color him for life. Many, many individuals who are "seekers" come and go from all sorts of different movements (or cults, if you prefer). I live in Southern California and I have dipped my toe into a New Agey gathering or two in my 30 years out here. None, ultimately, resonated with me to the degree that I "joined" or "believed" beyond simply being curious to learn more. Once I did I moved on, no besmirched character on my part (IMO), just something that was part of my early journey.
I'll share a tad bit more with the class as it pertains to aliens and UFOs. My "origin story," if you will. I was 21yo in February of 1987 when Whitley Strieber's "Communion" was released. That book was my entré into the field of aliens and UFOs. Without reading that book at 21, I'm probably not where I am now (thanks a lot, Strieber!). At the time, I BELIEVED the author and his claims of alien abduction. I was both terrified and enthralled. I held on to the belief that Strieber truly had those experiences until I was in my early 40s. Of course, I hadn't lived my life along that belief and I wasn't that engaged in reading about aliens and UFOs during that time, having done very little additional research about the topic, especially Strieber's stories specifically, but it remained part of the foundation of why I believed what I believed regarding what we now call the ETH. Fast forward and I get back into the subject a couple decades later and now I firmly believe that Strieber's account was simply a compelling tall tale that has grown and mutated over the last 30 years. I don't think I should be penalized for having initially believed the story. I'm thankful that I educated myself about the topic of aliens and UFOs, and along the way Strieber's accounts, to get to the more evolved belief system I have now. Which, by the way, is a much broader "something's going on but I'm not exactly sure what, why or how." Basically, the more I have read and listened the last 8-10 years, the less I seem to know. Or, the less I seem to be as sure about when I was in my 20s and 30s. Though I could say that about a lot of things, not just UFOs.

My long-winded point is, I appreciated your post clarifying your thoughts about Ray because the folly of his youth is the folly of many of us at that age. It shouldn't tar us for life and in Ray's case, I don't think it should be used to define his character or integrity as an adult.

I have my questions about Ray's material, and I'm certainly no apologist, but his Adamski past is possibly part of HIS "origin story" and shouldn't be used against him 60 years later. Cheers.

Sorry for the ramble.
 
Thanks for your post. All excellent points. Yes, Ray was in a period of discovery and youthful exploring, but I absolutely do not see him as some UFO expert or investigator that was uncovering all these UFO fraud artists he came to know. That's laughable.

Get Real CO'B. :D

I use the idea of Cult Leader, when there's one person leading a group of followers with some really "far out" ideas. Certainly Adamski fits that category, since he was far enough out to meet ET's and visit other planets too. :)

This is from Wiki:

George Adamski (April 17, 1891—April 23, 1965) was a Polish American citizen who became widely known in ufology circles, and to some degree in popular culture, after he claimed to have photographed spaceships from other planets, met with friendly Nordic alien Space Brothers, and to have taken flights with them to the Moon and other planets. He was the first, and most famous, of the so-called contactees of the 1950s. Adamski called himself a "philosopher, teacher, student and saucer researcher," although investigators concluded his claims were an elaborate hoax, and that Adamski himself was a con artist.[2]

Adamski authored three books describing his meetings with Nordic aliens and his travels with them aboard their spaceships: Flying Saucers Have Landed (co-written with Desmond Leslie) in 1953, Inside the Space Ships in 1955, and Flying Saucers Farewell in 1961. The first two books were both bestsellers; by 1960 they had sold a combined 200,000 copies.[3]
==========================
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I got real, real fed up w/ the baiting, insults and innuendo. To bring your baiting, BS rumor-mongering, pontificating w/ lies and innuendo over to this thread was the last straw. Sigh-oh-nara dude! You'll have to go dissect and stalk elsewhere where they will put up w/ your feces.
 
Another excellent show, and I'm only halfway through. Micah Hanks is a class act. The Gralien Report is a good mix of humor and skeptical inquiry. The Paranormal Report is also a good show (I think it's monthly), and is very accessible, especially for those just getting into the field.
 
So about yesterday's show

i very much enjoyed this episode even if you didn't get to any listener questions but that says a lot about what Micah brings to the table with him. I hope he keeps his mystery booms site going and branches off into other areas such as marine life beachings etc. this is an area i find quite interesting and i don't want to have to pay someone *LMH* for collecting freely available content from the web and charge me to look at it just because i'm cheap and lazy.

when you guys touched on the trumpet sounds that are uploaded on places such as youtube i was going to mention in my follow up (which Micah subsequently answered) the thing about the scraping sounds as i've heard others mention this before and after i read this i thought that the sound of a bucket on a skip loader being dragged across pavement sounds just like these trumpets, still this in a way shouldn't have been a mystery as it's not exactly a new phenomena as i'm sure all of us are aware of this sound as we have heard it since childhood so it's kind of funny that it is now a "thing" oh well the power of the web and the power of persuation i guess. still i am now curious if in the past i had heard this sound i wonder if i would have been able to track it down, what i mean is would i have been able to walk a few blocks or so and find the cause or would this sound too also carry much much furthur than one would think, i guess what i'm getting at has something changed atmosphereically (spl?) to enable this or is it that we now sort of pay more attention to it?

i think the issue that Gene brought up @ minute 22 is a bullseye , many people (not all) would welcome the added attention and as a result would be expected to embellish their expierence and pile on for the aided attention, i think i saw DS as well as others touch on this as well which is why there be mine fields aplenty in this field. the human element is probably the biggest gotcha or wild card in any attempt to study the phenomena. This also brings up a point i have wondered about and that is if one wants to argue that any contact is initiated by whomever it is that is doing it, couldn't they vet their intended "victims" a little better because such contact can and does result in a emotional breakdown and seriously, IS THAT their intent, to emotionally cripple a human being? i have to wonder that when these cases come up that isn't it more likely that person wasn't just ill in the first place and they just got sicker either by their own hand or by something else. It is because of the human variable that i find this a fascinating field to be interested in not just my feelings, but the feelings of people who witness such things and the feelings of people commenting on the people think they have witnessed something. i'm content with my airchair observer status because what with all this human emotion varaibles and trickster guys like Jim Moseley, Richard French and Richard Shaver and liars club alumni it can make it a challenge to get to the bottom of anything in it.
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
Yeah, I got real, real fed up w/ the baiting, insults and innuendo. To bring your baiting, BS rumor-mongering, pontificating w/ lies and innuendo over to this thread was the last straw. Sigh-oh-nara dude! You'll have to go dissect and stalk elsewhere where they will put up w/ your feces.
Click to expand...
Clearly, there seems to be a history here that I am unaware of. However, the smackdown seems a bit of a thin-skinned, knee-jerk reaction, IMO. Very unfortunate as I thought things had calmed down, for the most part. Hopefully, cooler heads will soon prevail. I can't help but feel partially responsible, as it was my post he was responding to with his comments.
 
Wade Ridsdale said:
the human element is probably the biggest gotcha or wild card in any attempt to study the phenomena. This also brings up a point i have wondered about and that is if one wants to argue that any contact is initiated by whomever it is that is doing it, couldn't they vet their intended "victims" a little better because such contact can and does result in a emotional breakdown and seriously, IS THAT their intent, to emotionally cripple a human being? i have to wonder that when these cases come up that isn't it more likely that person wasn't just ill in the first place and they just got sicker either by their own hand or by something else. It is because of the human variable that i find this a fascinating field to be interested in not just my feelings, but the feelings of people who witness such things and the feelings of people commenting on the people think they have witnessed something.
Click to expand...
The human element is what it's all about. The sonic booms, trumpet scrapes, and dead whales on beaches are often a result of our own heavy handed industrial stomping all over the planet. Once upon a time the mystery was faeries stealing our kids and leaving changelings behind, or we were hearing rocks thrown on roofs and saw witches in the sky. Stories repeated by people who call them mysteries.

The emotional breakdown is an interesting feature as so many witnesses and experiences of troubling events are deeply affected by these. Some seem to crave the limelight and stage while others are seriously troubled and perhaps were in that state prior to their experience, or was the cause of it in the first place. Rutkowski's Alien Abductions book investigates these troubling aspects of human psychology. The whole paranormal soup strikes me as more to do with human psychology and anthropology first before any facts of strange events take precedence. Perhaps this approach would be a good way to reboot Ufology - to look more at who is telling the mysterious tale instead of focussing all the energy on the unknown mystery.
 
Glad he brought up the Brown Mountain Lights. I would be very curious if Mr. Hanks finds in the sections were the lights are seen that there would be deposits of cinnabar.
 
Burnt State said:
The human element is what it's all about. The sonic booms, trumpet scrapes, and dead whales on beaches are often a result of our own heavy handed industrial stomping all over the planet. Once upon a time the mystery was faeries stealing our kids and leaving changelings behind, or we were hearing rocks thrown on roofs and saw witches in the sky. Stories repeated by people who call them mysteries.

The emotional breakdown is an interesting feature as so many witnesses and experiences of troubling events are deeply affected by these. Some seem to crave the limelight and stage while others are seriously troubled and perhaps were in that state prior to their experience, or was the cause of it in the first place. Rutkowski's Alien Abductions book investigates these troubling aspects of human psychology. The whole paranormal soup strikes me as more to do with human psychology and anthropology first before any facts of strange events take precedence. Perhaps this approach would be a good way to reboot Ufology - to look more at who is telling the mysterious tale instead of focussing all the energy on the unknown mystery.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it would be difficult for serious investigators to question abductees about what their physical and emotional conditions were at the time of the experience because they fear the stigma of mental illness.

Their defensiveness is understandable since many who have sought medical help have been crudely labelled as psychotic or neurotic or otherwise delusional.

Granting that some may have experienced actual anomalous or paranormal events, it's safe to say that some may have seen something that wasn't there. But that doesn't indicate mental illness.

Perfectly sane people have temporary physical conditions that could cause hallucinatory experiences or false memories. Anything from a lack of sleep or being on a fad diet can produce hallucinations. In Charles Bonnet syndrome, the visual cortex manufactures fully dimensional moving images that are the same in every way as actual physical beings except that they aren't there.

In sleep paralysis the brain is partly awake while the motor neuron system remains asleep. The brain produces imagery to "explain" the paralysis to itself, but it is not fully awake, so dream or nightmare imagery is active.

More knowledge about human psychology and physiology on the part of investigators could bring reassurance to people who fear being labelled as mentally disturbed, and help develop patterns in the data collected from sane and sober people who have experienced high strangeness.
 
Last edited:
dmanister said:
I'm guessing it would be difficult for serious investigators to question abductees about what their physical and emotional conditions were at the time of the experience because they fear the stigma of mental illness.
Click to expand...
I think this kind of contextual examination of the witness is exactly where the conversation needs to go eventually, as a means of understanding the situation of the witness. Follow up questioning would also be strategic in order to gauge their impact and understand how they have been affected, or if in fact they are continuing to have such experiences.
 
Burnt State said:
I think this kind of contextual examination of the witness is exactly where the conversation needs to go eventually, as a means of understanding the situation of the witness. Follow up questioning would also be strategic in order to gauge their impact and understand how they have been affected, or if in fact they are continuing to have such experiences.
Click to expand...

Witnesses or experiencers will not be forthcoming about their physical or mental condition unless they feel they are in good hands in a safe, trustworthy environment.

No one is going to divulge details about their medical history, especially what medicines they take, to some stranger from MUFON or another agency. And who can blame them?

Neither are people inclined to report emotional distress unless the investigator is known to be trustworthy about confidentiality. And that's the rub. We know that for example tapes of hypnosis sessions have been released.

It's not a matter of asking the right questions, but of getting real information as a result of a patient, painstaking period of reassurance.
 
dmanister said:
Witnesses or experiencers will not be forthcoming about their physical or mental condition unless they feel they are in good hands in a safe, trustworthy environment.

No one is going to divulge details about their medical history, especially what medicines they take, to some stranger from MUFON or another agency. And who can blame them?

Neither are people inclined to report emotional distress unless the investigator is known to be trustworthy about confidentiality. And that's the rub. We know that for example tapes of hypnosis sessions have been released.

It's not a matter of asking the right questions, but of getting real information as a result of a patient, painstaking period of reassurance.
Click to expand...
Of course getting real information necessitates asking critical questions, but yes, creating a place of comfort to treat the whole person and not just the isolated incident that they witnessed is an orientation that is needed. Did you hear the latest RM episode with Redfern, Dolan and Peter Robbins? The witness angle didn't get much traction there and this tells us something of the problem with the traditional paradigm with regards to witnesses.

Does this then not bring many UFO cases into deep murky waters? Unless we see psychological stress unfold following the incident, along the lines of Dale Spaur and his UFO companion Floyd, we really have little knowledge of a witness' psychological state or past history, nor will this be pursued. These strike me as very critical features. How many times do we hear about these unique and strange incidents happening following other deconstructionist events in witnesses' lives (Duensing on RM)? If you do a search for abduction tales on the forum, or even sighting reports, we anecdotally also hear about personal stress, family stresses and other real life traumatic incidents taking place that precede the anomalous event. Human beings are unstable creatures and we really don't know what the full impact of psycho-emotive events. Childhood seems to be filled with even more instability making those periods of life more fraught with weirdness in terms of personal experiences - also well documented on this forum.

When you think about the differences between say traditional indigenous medicine vs. western medicine you can see how we need to rework the witness paradigm. Ufology traditionally treats the symptoms of the event like the western doctor, and does not engage the whole person. To know all that is going on following an anomalous event we must also look deeper into the context of said event, which should involve a more holistic approach to understanding who was doing the looking in the first place and what their life story is.

Speaking of life stories and how we arrange variable in our lives to define our story you might find this article a former student of mine posted to me:
The Story of Your Life
 
Very interesting comments. As individuals, we have a "private" reality, which we carry around in the universe in our head, and a "shared" reality that is a kind of social "consciousness." Scientific method, of course, falls into the latter category, while mystical and metaphysical experiences fall into the former. At base, it is inherently very difficult to "re-encode" an individual mystical or metaphysical experience so that it is scientifically meaningful (this is the quandry, for example, of Ellie Arroway in the novel, "Contact"). Collecting data "around" the experience (social and familial situations, health issues, etc.) is, as suggested here, probably the best way to go. However, I remain doubtful that truly useful conclusions (beyond highly generalized statements such as: "Experiencers are predominantly creative people," for example) will emerge from such research.

Best,

Brian
 
Back
Top