• 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!

July 5, 2015 — Ray Hernandez

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
We had an enjoyable visit with Ray Hernandez, Operations Manager of FREE, which stands for Foundation of Research into Extraterrestrial Encounters. But is it possible this organization, of which Dr. Edgar Mitchell is a co-founder, is prejudging the nature of the encounters they are investigating?

You'll also want to listen to our discussions about this episode on this week's episode of After The Paracast.

If you're interested in subscribing to our premium service, which also includes an ad-free version of this show, please check here:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
As always an interesting and enjoyable episode and thank you for asking one of my questions.

Ray came across as a genuine, well-intentioned guy who started from a rational position, experienced, what he described as, extra-ordinary events and is now seeking a rational, quasi-scientific explanation for them.

This is understandable though I think even Ray's own experiences, as described by him, undermine the approach he is taking.

The events he describe can't be explained by, at least my understanding of, quantum holography or nuts and bolts ETH. If anything, certainly the first event, sounded like a traditional religious experience.

I look forward to seeing what the data gathered by FREE produces (though let us remember this survey group appear to be self selecting which may produce quirks e.g. why so many have classified their experience as positive) but perhaps wish the group were saving their conclusions until after the number crunching is completed.
 
I found Ray's experiences to be remarkable and unique.
FREE's use of the term 'extraterrestrial' seems to be misplaced, as Gene and Chris well pointed out.
FREE also seems to be a contactee organization given the amount of favorable responses they have gotten.
 
I rather enjoyed this episode of the Paracast. I'm a sucker for seemingly credible accounts of high strange events from the experiencers themselves. It would be a great follow-up episode to have Rey Hernandez back on the Paracast to discuss, in greater detail, his direct personal experiences with more of the paranormal activity he described.
 
Unfortuntely, I don't share your same enthusiasm for this episode. I've been listening since 2011 pretty faithfully but ended up turning this episode off. As usual, as I'm lying in bed, I turn on the Paracast+, put my head phones on, and listen. I forgot where I made it to (maybe the 10 or 15 minute mark?) but I couldn't take this guys preamble. Going on and on about his background, schools he went to, etc. etc. and then that ended and then starts with his dog is sick and takes Viagra and other meds, then dog had a stroke, etc. etc. He reminded me of Ray Stanford (hey, the two Rays, "Ray Ray" :). But I guess at least Stanford talks at Mach 5. And I'm sure Ray H. had some interesting stuff to say but for my tastes, he just takes way too long to get to the point. I finally said to myself "ok, I cant take this anymore." and took the headphones off and went to sleep. I am already looking forward to next weeks episode though. Just my two cents which I realize in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter.
 
Unfortuntely, I don't share your same enthusiasm for this episode. I've been listening since 2011 pretty faithfully but ended up turning this episode off. As usual, as I'm lying in bed, I turn on the Paracast+, put my head phones on, and listen. I forgot where I made it to (maybe the 10 or 15 minute mark?) but I couldn't take this guys preamble. Going on and on about his background, schools he went to, etc. etc. and then that ended and then starts with his dog is sick and takes Viagra and other meds, then dog had a stroke, etc. etc. He reminded me of Ray Stanford (hey, the two Rays, "Ray Ray" :). But I guess at least Stanford talks at Mach 5. And I'm sure Ray H. had some interesting stuff to say but for my tastes, he just takes way too long to get to the point. I finally said to myself "ok, I cant take this anymore." and took the headphones off and went to sleep. I am already looking forward to next weeks episode though. Just my two cents which I realize in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter.
You should give it another try. Just fast forward to 20 or 25 minutes in. He has lots of amazing stories and definitely gets around to discussing them.
 
W.T.F.

Either this guy is crazy as a loon or he's still totally overwhelmed by what he's experienced. He was stumbling over his own sentences, reporting them.

When he talked about the survey, the percentages and stuff, he sounded sharp and rational enough, and the background he gave would indicate that he's not only totally sane but highly intelligent.

But what's with these "encounters"? Giant craft made up of light beams? E.T. bothering to heal a dog that would have died a few months later, anyway? It's like "what are you doing, you know the skeptics are going to have a field day with this". I wish we could have his wife or his daughter on to corroborate these claims.

I really hope he follows up with telling the other members of our reaction to the "Extraterrestrial" part of their acronym. Although I'm afraid it won't be of much use. Changing the meaning of E.T., indeed.

Man... just when I thought, I'd heard it all. :rolleyes: (you know, there should really be a "broken record" icon with these smilies)
 
Last edited:
I rather enjoyed this episode of the Paracast. I'm a sucker for seemingly credible accounts of high strange events from the experiencers themselves. It would be a great follow-up episode to have Rey Hernandez back on the Paracast to discuss, in greater detail, his direct personal experiences with more of the paranormal activity he described.

I'd like to hear more from him too, and to hear much more about the research project he's managing, but I'd be surprised if he would want to engage in another round on the Paracast.
 
Just wanted to say THANK YOU CHRIS, for your unrelenting probing (pardon the pun) about why the FREE organization are using E.T. In their acronym. It was infuriating listening to Ray try and reconcile what the term ET meant to his organization when 9/10ths of the world see ET and compartmentalize it based on modern perception of the term which generally ends in a belittling of the subject or subject matter! I hope he does bring it up to the board because the woo woo train has left the station and ET is on it! The burning question that I had for Ray was " who proved any of these things were piloted by ET!!?? NO ONE HAS RAY!! That's why it's still a mystery. Beware the front load- you're absolutely right Chris, and Gene for that matter- this type of prejudged front loaded approach may just attract all those 'ascended to the fifth dimension masters' who would only have positive contacts 'in the dessert' (as fun as that may be), and skew the data right outta the gates!
With that small but MAJOR first and possibly fatal flaw ( based on their 0$ funding for the project) out of the way, I'd like to commend Ray, Ed, Rosemary, Leo, and all others for putting together such an elaborate and comprehensive questionnaire that may just glean some results for us and help us link together important clues as to what we're dealing with here.
The answer has eluded us so far (ie- since the beginning of recorded history) so don't expect a miracle.
Does this sound pessimistic? I apologize, but I'm tired of folks who have a very good head on their shoulders make ridiculous claims when the data is just not there. Especially when there's an opportunity to collect some very intriguing data. I do hope that Mr. Hernandez takes your advice and brings it up with the board about that acronym- no matter how they're trying to redefine ET- it will always mean alien to all who read it. Let's hope, Chris, that he takes your lovely idea of changing that E in FREE to Extraordinary.
 
What's interesting about the FREE questionnaire is its scope and scale. Regardless of what one thinks about the miraculously healed dog or any of the very stunning visions Ray and his partner's side of the family have had, the study itself has great value. How it's interpreted or how space sweetness & brother light it is could be problematic. But at the very least they have a very detailed investigation of witnesses that runs many levels deep. It could provide a somewhat thorough look at one half or more of the equation when it comes to experiencing strange phenomenon. Focussing on who the witness is will drive ufology in better uncharted directions.
whowitness.gif

Is it all about aliens from their perspective - sure sounds like it. Is there a bunch of pseudoscience taking place amongst a bunch of doctorates - why not? At the very least their targeted data collection approach, that is availble in multiple languages for maximum possible responses, is all a strong stepping forward. Hopefully waves of this kind of data collection will continue in increasingly more rigorous manners, and there will be less confirmation up front that it's ET for those involved in the study. I suspect separating legitimate experiences with non-human intelligences from solely human generated experiences, or those in response to unknown external stimuli, will remain mostly impossible. It would be great if they make public the simple mass data results from the questionnaire.
 
Last edited:
What's interesting about the FREE questionnaire is its scope and scale. Regardless of what one thinks about the miraculously healed dog or any of the very stunning visions Ray and his partner's side of the family have had, the study itself has great value. How it's interpreted or how space sweetness & brother light it is could be problematic. But at the very least they have a very detailed investigation of witnesses that runs many levels deep. It could provide a somewhat thorough look at one half or more of the equation when it comes to experiencing strange phenomenon. Focussing on who the witness is will drive ufology in better uncharted directions.

Completely agree - its a huge step to undertake such a comprehensive survey to produce quantitative and qualitative data on the topic. In the process Im sure they'll learn a lot more about weeding out fabrication and psychosis. Hopefully it will lay the foundation for lots more work in the area.

The presupposition of extraterrestrialism is a worry - but the grilling he got from Chris will have found its mark. Im not sure Ray will ever come back to the Paracast :confused:

I listened last night to Dr Rick Strassman interviewed by Sariya on Where Did the Road Go on the topic of DMT. I wasnt aware of the the conceptually strong overlay between many of the reported DMT experiences and the classic abduction recounting. Nor was I aware that Dr Strassman met informally with John Mack to compare notes on the simlarities.

It serves to make the point that assuming extraterrestrial involvment, and all the mountains of baggage it carries, is unwarranted.
 
I listened last night to Dr Rick Strassman interviewed by Sariya on Where Did the Road Go on the topic of DMT. I wasnt aware of the the conceptually strong overlay between many of the reported DMT experiences and the classic abduction recounting. Nor was I aware that Dr Strassman met informally with John Mack to compare notes on the simlarities.

It serves to make the point that assuming extraterrestrial involvment, and all the mountains of baggage it carries, is unwarranted.
Beyond psychosis and fabrication I think a third option, that needs dismissing from actual contact with non-human intelligences, is just how common it might be for people to have spontaneous, repetitive visualizations that involve seeing the same damn goblins, ghosts, or greys that they did once before in their lives. Reading about that British cyclist who was seeing goblins again, following sleep deprived late night cycling across various countries, along with this repetition in the DMT event for people who see certain characters again and again there, suggests that there is a mind responding to previously established, co-created patterns of cultural encoding. Maybe we see the monsters that we do because of who we are and what it means to us at the time - for Ray's partner it was angels was it not?

Given how internal these experiences are, it strikes me that the threshold for proof of alien abduction will need to be extremely high and require actual physical concrete evidence of an external agent at work, for the discussion of altered internal or screen experiences created inside the minds of subjects will never be discernable from dreams. Generally speaking, the experience appears to have no real concrete exterior environment that exists for others to witness, with things that people say that they have touched, smelled, tasted as a real experience aboard an alien craft, where they heard things like voices but only mostly inside their heads. This has happened for a very select audience and these cases are more legendary in nature - and with them there has been very limited evidence, though the grill marks on Stephen Michalak certainly makes one sit up and take notice. But if there is no external, physical reality associated with the abducting greys, whom we also believe to operate the flying craft and come from other places in the stars, and the abduction experience is internal, than what is it people are seeing in the skies, and when they touch down on the ground the occupants may come out to invite one in to see the interior and get a quick exam. Are there many different things going on here and just how many of them are happening inside our heads? Is this experience, or the simulation of it, of value to humanity in any way? Or is it just a programmed childhood fear of being taken away from home by faeries, elves, goblins, ghosts or aliens?

In light of current digital social communications, where we pursue internal experiences with more vigour, I am surprised that more people do not talk about digital monsters - outside of the ones who are actual real, albeit disembodied people, who work to make other people's lives a living hell through various online stalking and torture techniques. As we start to spend more and more time indoors as a culture, will our narrative hallucinations simply flow in an out of our virtual online experiences, digital work activities and sleep stimulation aids? What will the monsters of the succeeding generation be? I really hope it's not going to be Slenderman or Black Eyed Children. What's that all about, that Black Eyed Children thing anyway - is that about a fear of being a bad absentee parent who created just another homeless street youth, who is now coming after you for revenge?

The DMT alien connection has had some discussion in various other threads here, which can be a resource environment with many tendrils:
Looking for doped-up ufologists | The Paracast Community Forums
Regarding abduction stories. | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums
This link really is expansive around the nature of perceiving the UFO stimulus and our relationship to hallucinations:
The UFO Stimulus | The Paracast Community Forums
 
Last edited:
In light of current digital social communications, where we pursue internal experiences with more vigour, I am surprised that more people do not talk about digital monsters - outside of the ones who are actual real, albeit disembodied people, who work to make other people's lives a living hell through various online stalking and torture techniques. As we start to spend more and more time indoors as a culture, will our narrative hallucinations simply flow in an out of our virtual online experiences, digital work activities and sleep stimulation aids? What will the monsters of the succeeding generation be? I really hope it's not going to be Slenderman or Black Eyed Children. What's that all about, that Black Eyed Children thing anyway - is that about a fear of being a bad absentee parent who created just another homeless street youth, who is now coming after you for revenge?

I think they make their entry through aggregation into a composite myth such as Bloody Mary which is doing the rounds of my children's primary school at the moment.

As an aside I recently purchased a second hand DK Collins kids encyclopedia of the paranormal for my two (10 and 8). Amidst alien abductions, sasquatch and the usual suspects, they immediately found the Bloody Mary myth and the invocation of her, an alleged infant killer, by repeating her name three times in the mirror. Both frightened themselves quite badly despite growing up in a household where from a young age they were making "reality distinctions" between Santa, tooth faeries, vampires and aliens based on available evidence - due to my and my partner's interest in this area.

They challenged me to invoke her after I explained the likely mythical nature of the story - hence nothing to fear. I refused to do so on the basis that I invite nothing unwanted into my life, irrespective of where it falls on the reality spectrum. Needless to say they found my position unhelpful in allaying their fears.

Would you invoke her?
 
Last edited:
I think they make their entry through aggregation into a composite myth such as Bloody Mary...Would you invoke her?
An interesting proposition, but I feel the invitation is as innocuous as its intentionality. If, when I am 7&8&9 years old I think stealing matches and lighting these in my sandbox is dealing with the devil, or that my endeavors to make teen videos with friends about darkness, death and the rising of the sun or that the videos later become experimental surreal polemics on hatred, automation and creation then what I invoke, as I get older and more experienced, I try to do so out of karma. But, if challenged in order to distill&define the value of the myth then I would do so for demonstration purposes only without much concern.
 
Here’s a perspective from someone vaguely acquainted with the relevant way of doing science (surveys, depth interviews) that Hernandez was talking about: it may be a long time before a peer-reviewed academic journal will sign off on the kind of research he is talking about. Either he is a poor spokesperson or the project itself is deeply flawed from a methodological perspective.

In terms of the academic credentials Hernandez cited, there doesn’t seem to be any training in research design for the social sciences, psychology or parapsychology. The FREE board of directors’ background doesn’t seem to make up for that lack of expertise in any substantial way. This left me wondering which, if any, survey or qualitative research consultants FREE drew upon to design their study.

In the spirit of “it’s not bad science because it’s about UFOs or ETs, it’s bad science because it’s bad science” here are some of the red flags I saw:

1. Problems with definitions. On the one hand, the FREE study wants to look at all kinds of different phenomena – ghosts, NDE, OBE, etc. – under the label of ET contact. FREE defines ET as a non-human, intelligent being associated with UFO contact. Danger, danger Will Robinson: risk of circular logic at work. Under pressure from Chris, Hernandez later says the FREE study is not about just any old anomalous contact experience; it’s focused only on UFO-related experiences. (What Would LAM Say?) All of this imposes a fake reality on categories that are themselves fluid and significantly culturally determined. It helps to front load the responses of participants in the research and fools few others.

Further into the interview, Hernandez makes it clear that the FREE team assumes that other forms of anomalous experience will fall into line with the ET experience model quickly enough. They already believe that different types of encounter can be explained by the quantum hologram theory of interdimensional physics. Hernandez himself knows this to be true because he received it in a “download” or telepathic contact message. Telepathic downloads or not, academic journals tend to frown on reasoning backwards from assumed findings.

2) Problems with research design.

A) Survey friendliness. Typically, social science researchers do not design 600+ item surveys that take hours to complete. 600 items suggests the researchers don’t really know what they’re looking for and that they don’t care about the response rate – they don’t really believe their targeted survey respondents have a life, as the saying goes. Hernandez says it takes respondents hours to fill out the survey, which will help guard against hoaxers. He doesn’t comment on how that might bias response rates and the data collected in general – which it definitely will. In real life, survey researchers try to cut down the time it takes to complete a survey in order to maximize response likelihood of responses from the population being sampled.


B) Sampling strategy. Findings that report a percentage of this or a percentage of that are meaningless without knowing the sampling universe, population and response rates. At one point Gene says, “This is a random poll?” Hernandez answers yes, which suggests he is ignorant about a crucial point. A random poll has a very specific meaning in terms of the sampling procedures that have been followed to represent the views of a broader population. The percentages Hernadez reports, e.g. abductions accounting for only 30 percent of UFO/ET contact, are completely meaningless in a statistical sense. Hernandez does not seem to understand that.


C) Ethics. Phase III - a detailed psychological profile aimed at least in part at ruling out psychiatric disorders which Hernandez jocularly comments the board of directors might not like to take themselves, and Phase IV - a days-long, probing, in-depth, formal, one-on-one interview – as described by Hernandez raise a couple of basic red flags. One red flag is that this sounds like the kind of research that has significant potential to harm the subjects involved. Will any conclusions reached by Phase III data analysis be matched against actual medical or treatment records to verify validity? What protocols will be followed for ensuring confidentiality and HIPPA protections? What institutional review board will ensure and be legally liable for ensuring protection of human research subjects?

C - The more fundamental red flag is that the research design is itself backwards. You don’t go from close-ended survey items to open-ended depth interviews. It’s the other way around. If you need your survey respondents to explain in depth why they answered the survey questions the way they did, you just put up a blinking neon sign that tells everyone within a 50 internet mile radius “I have no idea what I’m doing!”

In my experience as a former academic there are two fundamental problems involved in provoking academic or scientific interest UFOs and their cognate phenomena. There’s an unwillingness to accept that there may be a problem that is not solvable per se and there’s an unwillingness to accept that a problem may require an explanation outside of the scientific framework. Those are real obstacles and they should not be minimized. What can be minimized is doing really bad research on the assumption that no one is going to notice or care.

Throw out a subject-specific grant or scholarship to first or second year grad students in sociology, anthropology or psychology with provisos that they have to review certain literature and work with a certain board of advisors to conduct research. Then you’ll get cutting edge research design and methods put to work for a paper that could be published.
 
Here’s a perspective from someone vaguely acquainted with the relevant way of doing science .....


...all of which I'll summarise as intellectual rigour. Its that approach which demonstrates people like you should be on the board of FREE - in circumstances where you are:

a) risking your professional reputation following your gut feeling that something interesting might be going on; and

b) dedicating all that spare time, as a busy (former) academic, I'm sure you don't have.

Its a tough one.

If you havent sent them your short analysis, you probably should. Or let me :)
 
Last edited:
In my experience as a former academic there are two fundamental problems involved in provoking academic or scientific interest UFOs and their cognate phenomena. There’s an unwillingness to accept that there may be a problem that is not solvable per se and there’s an unwillingness to accept that a problem may require an explanation outside of the scientific framework. Those are real obstacles and they should not be minimized. What can be minimized is doing really bad research on the assumption that no one is going to notice or care

unwillingness to accept that there may be a problem that is not solvable per se - do they need to accept this before they go into UFO research? must they be convinced before hand that it is a problem that is solvable?

Why doesn't it operate as an invitation to intellectually curious people to rewrite the definition of a solution?
 
I think I just answered my own question - it depends on where you see yourself on the spectrum of hard science vs soft science ie physics all the way down to what...say the study of mythology...
 
Chris's badgering made this show difficult for me to listen to. Instead of the show showcasing the guest and his journey to get where he is with his investigations, I have to hear Chris's ARGUMENTS as to what is wrong with acronymns and the direction of investigation. One of the great things about Art Bell was his ability to be skeptical and empathetic at the same time. It's easy to cut someone to shreds with criticism. It's difficult to "lead them out" as it were, in an interview. I hear more about Chris, lately, in shows than the guest. It's sounding a lot like a combination of George Noory and Bill O'Reilly with an emphasis on O'Reilly!
As for the information exhumed from the show, I heard Hernandez do three things: First, he provided first hand examples of his own experiences; second, he described a GROUP EFFORT to MEASURE phenomenon, and finally, be FORCED to defend everything from acronymns to how FREE was conducting their business.
Really Chris?
Let the man speak and try to draw out what they are doing.
By the way, how is your camera thing going? Did you get your idea from the PARANORMAL franchise?
 
Back
Top