What are you talking about? It's all carefully filed away in a large 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' style warehouse called 'Hangar 1' and every now and then they gather round a nice table there and make TV shows for the general public!
-
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!
September 27, 2015 — Nick Redfern with Curtis Collins
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
What are you talking about? It's all carefully filed away in a large 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' style warehouse called 'Hangar 1' and every now and then they gather round a nice table there and make TV shows for the general public!
DaveM
Paranormal Adept
Hangar 1 must be only sharing the data with the likes of Mike Barra and Richard Dolan.....
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Witty Gogg's. I like it
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Someone said that Ray Stanford is the warehouse manager for Hangar 1?
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
No. He's the Janitor
, and quite the interior decorator too ...
Ever notice the resemblance to Stan Lee ?
Last edited:
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Ok, that post just made me shoot my drink out of my mouth.No. He's the Janitor
Ever notice the resemblance to Stan Lee ?
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
I have dozens of ultra clear, daylight footage of a structured craft. Undeniable proof that other worldly craft exist and have been visiting Earth. The photo's and video's would pass muster under any type of evaluation. They are the real deal and authentic.
Except nobody can ever see them. Ever. But please take my advice on these forum's on how to photograph a genuine UFO.
Except nobody can ever see them. Ever. But please take my advice on these forum's on how to photograph a genuine UFO.
Are you calling me, James Fox, Ben Moss, several scientists from Goddard and a famous ex-SRI physicist liars? Or, are you just being your usual "creepy," irritatingly whiny self?
This reminds me Chris, when Ray was on with Chris Lambright, promoting the book, 'X-Descending', I seem to remember Ray saying he might make a single slide/still available to the Paracast for us to see - am I remembering this correctly and if so, was there ever any movement on the suggestion? I know Ray could care less about the unwashed masses of Ufology but there are people like myself and you, who are very interested in what Ray is doing and considering I just love looking at genuine UFO photographs, especially ones with the provenance of having been taken by Ray, well, I'd just love to examine one.
What do you think the chances are of persuading Ray to send a copy? (you can tell him it's for a private viewing and all nay-sayers will not be invited!)
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Why would you think I'm calling you or any of the people you mentioned liars? I believe everybody should have the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Can you at least see somewhat why dozens of people on these forums are skeptical, doubtful or even shun R.S.? I'm pretty sure nobody is doing it just to be callous or "creepy". It's great that there is an inner circle that got to see the evidence. But it's to the point where everyone is over hearing about it and never getting the opportunity themselves to look at the info. It'd be like me going on for 10+ years of how I have all this incredible, irrefutable Loch Ness Monster photo's - but nobody can see them. Just four of my bro's and that's it. Then to take it one step further I post "How to take the perfect Loch Ness Monster photo". I already know people at this point are probably skeptical & jaded (being they've never gotten a chance to see anything) but yet I'm going to post a "guide" to help them take the best photo they can of the beast. Well could they at least see what I've managed to capture on film myself before they start taking my photographic pointers??
If you weren't personal friends with him, you would be saying the same things as most of us on these forums. You wouldn't be nasty or malicious about it but your general attitude would be "I'm so tired of hearing about this...it's been years....either show me the proof or don't". And when you saw his name mentioned you would probably say "pfffffftttt" while SYH.
I don't know how you've been treated in the past. Maybe you've been falsely accused of being a liar before and are extra sensitive about it? Who knows. I know this though; if I genuinely thought you were a liar I wouldn't listen to the Paracast, I wouldn't subscribe to the P+ and I wouldn't have sent you an e-mail (a long time ago) asking where I could donate to your SLV camera project.
Nice to know you think I'm "irritating" and "whiny" to you. I'd love to see some specific examples on what brought you to that conclusion.
withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
I am convinced Stanford is never going to release anything. He knows how to use the proper channels to legitimize his research. He has shown this ability with his dino bones, where his contributions are cited in literature, albeit barely. So Stanford knows how to submit his findings, receive proper credit, and have real academics look at his work. Curiously, he has followed none of the same steps with his UFO material as he has previously done with his fossils. Instead he insulates himself and the supposed evidence from any real scrutiny while only showing it to a few handpicked devotees. I would argue if he took this same approach with his fossil research he would be even more unknown that he is today. That is say, if he locked all his findings in his cabin and only showed them to 4 or 5 people, he would have contributed nearly nothing to the cause and no reputable institution would deal with whispers about some old guy living in a dusty cabin who claims to have discovered new unseen evidence.
Ultimately, Stanford knows how to do this right and he is flat out refusing to take that path. Irritatingly enough, he still appears on UFO podcasts and talks up his evidence and brags how it is undeniable proof of flying saucers. I say irritating because when asked to present any of this evidence, he refuses saying he isn't in this for attention etc....if that is the case then simply shut up. Don't hype up the evidence, don't appear on podcasts, and don't give any interviews. Simply quietly sit in your cabin and show the films to your handpicked devotees. I would be totally fine with that.
Ultimately, Stanford knows how to do this right and he is flat out refusing to take that path. Irritatingly enough, he still appears on UFO podcasts and talks up his evidence and brags how it is undeniable proof of flying saucers. I say irritating because when asked to present any of this evidence, he refuses saying he isn't in this for attention etc....if that is the case then simply shut up. Don't hype up the evidence, don't appear on podcasts, and don't give any interviews. Simply quietly sit in your cabin and show the films to your handpicked devotees. I would be totally fine with that.
Oh, so he knows how to "use the proper channels" to legitimize and release his AAO research? That's interesting. So... where would you suggest he release his research? No, obviously not the "media," or "the Internet" before peer review, so where would you suggest he release his work in the scientific community? I'm sure your ideas will be greatly appreciated! Do you have any co-authors in mind for a scientific paper? What discipline, or field of research should be considered for publication? What scientific journals?
withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
Chris, sometimes you come across as a bright guy, which is why your position on this is irksome. Are you really suggesting, if you had irrefutable video and film of a flying saucer, you would struggle to find an outlet or institution to review it other than "the media" or "the internet?" Is that really the best you can do?
I am not suggesting either of those as being good outlets, nor would Stanford! Did he release his fossil finding to the media or to just "the internet" (what ever that is)? No, of course not, he went to reputable institutions that could verify his finds, this is what researchers do, this is what Ray himself did with his fossils.
Ironically enough your favorite whipping boy, Steven Greer showed the UFO community exactly what you do with a potential anomalous piece of evidence...are you ready to know? Wait for it...
You submit it to a major academic institution for study! Stanford claims he has video of a flying saucer shooting a "plasma beam" at him, perhaps he can submit the film to some plasma physicists at a major university! I am sure that will be more fruitful than showing the old film to some people in his cluttered living room.
Greer had his little alien creature, he thought it looked odd, so guess what he did? He took it to Stanford University for further study and was able to learn a hell of a lot more about his mummy than Stanford will every know about his films showing them to fellow devotees in middle of his dirty living room. In short, you take your evidence, you caucus academic and scientific institutions, and you let an unbiased 3rd party examine it.
Greer did this with his "alien"and Stanford University was very professional in their research and even happily participated in his documentary. Therefore, the notion that mainstream academia will not touch this subject has been rendered fallacious.
Of course you know this is the correct path to take with something like this. No intelligent researcher or author would suggest merely showing such films in a basement, or "releasing it to the Internet" would do much of anything...
I am not suggesting either of those as being good outlets, nor would Stanford! Did he release his fossil finding to the media or to just "the internet" (what ever that is)? No, of course not, he went to reputable institutions that could verify his finds, this is what researchers do, this is what Ray himself did with his fossils.
Ironically enough your favorite whipping boy, Steven Greer showed the UFO community exactly what you do with a potential anomalous piece of evidence...are you ready to know? Wait for it...
You submit it to a major academic institution for study! Stanford claims he has video of a flying saucer shooting a "plasma beam" at him, perhaps he can submit the film to some plasma physicists at a major university! I am sure that will be more fruitful than showing the old film to some people in his cluttered living room.
Greer had his little alien creature, he thought it looked odd, so guess what he did? He took it to Stanford University for further study and was able to learn a hell of a lot more about his mummy than Stanford will every know about his films showing them to fellow devotees in middle of his dirty living room. In short, you take your evidence, you caucus academic and scientific institutions, and you let an unbiased 3rd party examine it.
Greer did this with his "alien"and Stanford University was very professional in their research and even happily participated in his documentary. Therefore, the notion that mainstream academia will not touch this subject has been rendered fallacious.
Of course you know this is the correct path to take with something like this. No intelligent researcher or author would suggest merely showing such films in a basement, or "releasing it to the Internet" would do much of anything...
Last edited:
Ravensfee
Paranormal Maven
Do hope this isn't going to be the second thread I've bumped in recent months that, very soon after, turned into an angry discussion of Ray Stanford, providing an awful lot of heat and not much light.
(...and to drag the thread back on track)
Here's a good companion piece to this week's Paracast episode: Nick Redfern on Tim Binnall's BoA show.
Well worth a listen.
(...and to drag the thread back on track)
Here's a good companion piece to this week's Paracast episode: Nick Redfern on Tim Binnall's BoA show.
Well worth a listen.
Again, the question still stands: what outlet/venue/reputable institution would you suggest he approach to publish his "UFO" research/evidence? Simple question... Your answer?
UFOs are light years away from dinosaurs when it comes to academia (in case you didn't realize this) Why do you act as if I'm stooopid, and play naive w/ me?
withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
Again, the question still stands: what outlet/venue/reputable institution would you suggest he approach to publish his "UFO" research/evidence? Simple question... Your answer?
UFOs are light years away from dinosaurs when it comes to academia (in case you didn't realize this) Why do you act as if I'm stooopid, and play naive w/ me?
Did you bother to read my post? I am not asking Ray to publish anything, rather just submit his evidence to a real university with educated people from a variety of backgrounds to examine it against his supposed claims!
Steven Greer had no problem getting his desert alien mummy analyzed by Stanford University. Not only did they examine it they also participated in his documentary. So this idea that academia is turned off to this topic isn't honest, rather it is the lackluster evidence that has done little to inspire academia! However, Stanford is claiming some pretty remarkable evidence, evidence he claims will pass scientific muster. Ray claims he has film of a flying saucer that shoots a "plasma beam" at him in broad daylight! Certainly this would inspire academia beyond your average blurry lantern in the sky video. I am suggesting the self-proclaimed remarkable nature of Ray's evidence would easily open the doors to any academic institution. In the world today, there are probably thousands, I could list dozens of them, but I am sure you know how e-mail, google, and a telephone work.
So again, Ray could first have his film and photos authenticated, i.e., have them independently verified to be of real objects in the sky. There are probably hundreds of academic departments with curious optical physicists who would love to examine a daylight film of a flying saucer shooting a plasma beam at poor Ray Stanford. Simply having an accredited, reputable, and unbiased scientist say, "this is real unaltered footage" is a massive first step. For all we know he could be showing you all recaptured footage from some old sci-fi movie, so the film first needs to be examined and plenty of forensic places offer this kind of service, again, all easily re-searchable. Unfortunately Chris, it will take this first step. You and your fellow devotees can't determine the true authenticity of the film by merely watching them in his dirty living room. They need to be in a lab. Secondly, Ray makes some pretty detailed claims about the types of propulsion these saucers exhibit in his videos, again, there are countless Ph.D and department chairs in Universities all over the world who would love to get their hands on daylight footage of a flying saucer shooting beams. They could also weigh in on whether or not Ray's claims about the propulsion are accurate, again massive steps from where we are at now. Also, as I stated before, Ray says these crafts shoot plasma beams at him, I would be curious to see a real plasma physicist examine characteristics of the beam in Ray's film and see if they too agree the beam is "plasma." Again, I could list hundreds of Universities with various science departments, all of whom would love to see something as remarkable as the footage Ray brags he has.
Now if Ray does want to self-publish a detailed paper of his work and submit it along with his evidence to a multitude of places, .i.e., MIT, RIT, Stanford, etc...that would probably work too. It would be better than hiding this evidence in his basement.
I guarantee you, if Ray drove to his nearest University, walked into their physics department, asked to speak with a professor and properly presented his evidence, and...and...the evidence is as earth shattering as Ray claims, eyebrows would be raised, phone calls would be made, and you would see very interested people, with real academic backgrounds lining up to examine his work. In short, the ball would be rolling. Do you really find any of this arguable or even controversial? Honestly, put you devotee part of you aside, is anything I am suggesting here impossible? Did Stanford University not seriously examine Greer's alien? Could professors in that same University also examine Ray's films? I will sign a NDA and submit it for him!
Regardless, that is how research is done. Unfortunately, insulating evidence from knowledgeable unbiased 3rd parties, while trumping it up on fringe UFO message boards and niche podcasts is not going to get you anywhere. I would have thought you would have known that, but I guess you can now consider yourself educated on the subject.
Here is a good start:
A list of all United State's Universities, most of which have robust science departments
U.S. Universities, Alphabetic
Last edited:
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I think there's some less than logical thinking going on with respect to the idea that self-publishing on the Internet would somehow discredit any substantial evidence Ray may have. Look at it this way: If Ray had published all his fossil finds on the Internet, it may have stirred up some controversy, but in the end it also still would have resulted in the confirmation that his finds were genuine, because they are, and he would have had articles written up in all kinds of journals, maybe even had offers from some publishers, like National Geographic. Who knows?
The Internet allows the truth to will itself out by inciting investigation and challenging the naysayers, and since Ray's already got plenty of naysayers on the Internet with respect to his UFO evidence, he's got nothing to lose and everything to gain. That is, unless he's holding out for financial compensation, which I suppose he's entitled to. But if that's not a factor, then his attitude makes no sense, and we're left to assume he's just playing some kind of mind game, which harms his credibility more than self-publishing.
Anyway. I suspect you already know all this and have tried the same logic with him, so I guess it's just a waiting game, and as I've said before, I'm glad that we have you in a position to be able to move us forward on Ray's findings when he feels the time is right, which hopefully won't be in some distant post apocalyptic future when Ray's head-in-a jar is accidentally discovered.
Last edited:
@withoutlimits09 - I understand what you are suggesting to Chris about Ray and his work but if we forget about Ray just now, there have been many good photos/films and sightings of great provenance and by very credible witnesses and yet we do not see labs and universities falling over themselves to study the available data in an effort to tease possible secrets of advanced tech.
Yes the French Geipan group produced a report, there is the Hessdalen Project in Norway and a few South American countries have formed UFO investigation branches of their air forces but really, outside of these, science and academia seems intent to ignore the subject.
If they were interested, they wouldn't need to wait for someone like Ray to pass them photos and research, they'd be doing it themselves already - they would be collecting raw data themselves to analyse and posit theories etc to prove or disprove. They might collaborate with sister institutions worldwide to collect the maximum amount of data from the widest possible search net.
I mean, better for them to collect their own data so that they can have controls and procedures in place; safeguards against confirmation bias etc to ensure quality and validity. Also truthfulness to rigouressly exclude misidentifications.
An stationary object, estimated to be at least mile across, hovers over the English Channel island of Alderney in 2007. It was seen by a commercial pilot and his passengers, Air Traffic Control and also another pilot flying a different vector!
I've no doubt some small secretive branch of the British Military establishment did indeed follow this sighting up very closely indeed, although not being public while doing so, but that's par for the course. My point is that I'd bet not a single UK university or Government research lab publicly (or even privately) investigated the occurrence. Especially seeing as the pilot followed procedure and made an official report for the Airprox board, it's not like it was at all swept under the carpet by the airline involved. It fully supported the pilot in his actions. Very refreshing to hear of that too.
All I'm saying is that Ray Stanford providing evidence/research to science for peer review should be just one in a long line of research being done by mainstream science but it is not being done. I wonder how many scientific papers could we identify on the subject of UFOs that are already out for peer review, should we perform a search for such papers? Next to none I'd wager. The fact of the matter is that the subject of Ufology still has pseudo-science connotations at best and is effectively just lumped with topics such as Astrology and homeopathy by the mainstream.
To echo the challenge of Chris, I politely ask you disregard anything to do with Dr Greer etc and identify some university faculties/ research labs that are already conducting investigations into UFOs, or have done in the past, on record. My point is that I believe this will be a very difficult task, though believe me, I sincerely hope I am wrong and I'd be overjoyed to be proven wrong!
Yes the French Geipan group produced a report, there is the Hessdalen Project in Norway and a few South American countries have formed UFO investigation branches of their air forces but really, outside of these, science and academia seems intent to ignore the subject.
If they were interested, they wouldn't need to wait for someone like Ray to pass them photos and research, they'd be doing it themselves already - they would be collecting raw data themselves to analyse and posit theories etc to prove or disprove. They might collaborate with sister institutions worldwide to collect the maximum amount of data from the widest possible search net.
I mean, better for them to collect their own data so that they can have controls and procedures in place; safeguards against confirmation bias etc to ensure quality and validity. Also truthfulness to rigouressly exclude misidentifications.
An stationary object, estimated to be at least mile across, hovers over the English Channel island of Alderney in 2007. It was seen by a commercial pilot and his passengers, Air Traffic Control and also another pilot flying a different vector!
I've no doubt some small secretive branch of the British Military establishment did indeed follow this sighting up very closely indeed, although not being public while doing so, but that's par for the course. My point is that I'd bet not a single UK university or Government research lab publicly (or even privately) investigated the occurrence. Especially seeing as the pilot followed procedure and made an official report for the Airprox board, it's not like it was at all swept under the carpet by the airline involved. It fully supported the pilot in his actions. Very refreshing to hear of that too.
All I'm saying is that Ray Stanford providing evidence/research to science for peer review should be just one in a long line of research being done by mainstream science but it is not being done. I wonder how many scientific papers could we identify on the subject of UFOs that are already out for peer review, should we perform a search for such papers? Next to none I'd wager. The fact of the matter is that the subject of Ufology still has pseudo-science connotations at best and is effectively just lumped with topics such as Astrology and homeopathy by the mainstream.
To echo the challenge of Chris, I politely ask you disregard anything to do with Dr Greer etc and identify some university faculties/ research labs that are already conducting investigations into UFOs, or have done in the past, on record. My point is that I believe this will be a very difficult task, though believe me, I sincerely hope I am wrong and I'd be overjoyed to be proven wrong!
Last edited:
withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
Goggs, you seem like a nice guy. Chris and Gene let you come in and play co-host from time to time so I understand why you want to dig down deep, take the position you are taking, and essentially defend Chris and his guru Ray. This is the same reason Chris just buys everything Ray sells him, loyalty can sometimes be blind. With all do respect, I think you need to go back and re-read what I wrote.
You suggest there have been many good photos and films that universities are not falling over. I totally disagree here. I have not seen anything persuasive and certainly nothing close to what Ray claims he has. As I mentioned before, academia is not interested in UFOs and refuses to devote any time to it, because thus far the evidence...the evidence, has been very mundane and in my opinion weak. The whole "trickster" nature of this phenomena has been discussed as a possible explanation as to why good photos don't exist, and why the evidence seems to be lacking, so I am on firm footing when I suggest that the evidence is very weak. UFOologists have gone to great lengths to come up with theories as to why there aren't good videos, why the phenomena seems self-concealing and so forth. Let's not forget that.
However, you missed the part where I said we need to take into consideration Ray's claims. He says he has motion picture footage of a daylight flying saucer shooting a plasma beam at him!!! Nothing, and I mean nothing of the sort exists in the cache of UFO evidence today. Moreover, he claims to have photographs of motherships and egg shape crafts with their "landing gear" visible. So again, I argue that evidence THIS compelling would open some doors and stir some curiosity. Just like the odd circumstances and appearance of the Atacama mummy led Greer to Stanford University and resulted in Stanford University doing solid analysis work, I am suggesting the sheer sensational nature of Ray's supposed evidence would create similar interest.
So again, we don't need a University to be currently studying UFO research or publishing UFO papers to be helpful here. Rather, we just need a University or credible institution that can first authenticate Ray's film and talk about the objects on that film. Was it altered, or are these objects just anomalies of the film, can we triangulate the distance and size of the objects etc....this is all dry science stuff that has nothing to do with UFOs. Same goes with the propulsion and plasma. Again, you don't need a "UFO department" to look at an odd flying object shooting lasers at a man holding a camera to be able to draw some real conclusions. Again. you simply have to go to the physics department and sit down with one of their particle or plasma professors. So again, this is all dry science stuff that is already being done daily, we just need it applied to Ray's evidence.
Outside of blind loyalty and bias, I am not sure how any reasonably intelligent person could even read this and disagree with it. What I am suggesting is standard operating procedure and head and shoulders above hiding the evidence and only showing it to a few trusted devotees who share the same thoughts on this subject as you...That is the stuff of cults not research.
The Roswell slide debacle should have shown everyone why you don't share evidence with only as small group of kool-aid drinkers while sheltering it from any unbiased 3rd party examination. Chris and company love to knock those involved in the Mexico City carnival, but fail to realize that is exactly what they are doing when it comes to Ray's work. Chris even uses the same excuses. Ultimately when pressed why Carrey and Schmidt didn't "release" the pictures to everyone, they both cried "well Adam Dew owned the photos, they are ultimately his property and he wanted to do it his way." That is the same line we hear from Chris, "oh well Ray is being Ray, it is his evidence and I can't force him to do anything." Meanwhile, both parties were all too happy to hype their evidence up on UFO podcasts and message forums, but suddenly go limp when someone suggests submitting it to a real institution for research, then the excuses flow. We now know why the Roswell group was shy of unbiased 3rd parties examining their slides, I am suggesting Ray probably has similar reason. The minute anyone with a lab and a brain can examine it, I would imagine the walls will come crashing down. Sometimes it is more fun to sit up on a pedestal with all the answers, all the evidence, and look down on everyone else. That's what is going on here. Ray, in his mind, gets to "know" while everyone else doesn't. To him, that makes him some authority and gives him insight others don't have. This is probably delusional, but no less intoxicating...
I am simply saying get the evidence in front of educated 3rd party researchers and let them have a go at it, otherwise, shut up.
Last edited:
Ravensfee
Paranormal Maven
*sigh*
...well, that's me out of here then.
Often feel like these discussions about Ray Stanford on the forums are much like the trench warfare of the first world war; positions dug in, lots of noisy artillery, nobody changes their position, carries on for several sodding years.
Personally, I think Stanford might have something to offer the UFO field and am willing to wait for him to publicise his goodies. But if he doesn't, so be it. That seems to be the nature of this subject; I decided we'd never get AN ANSWER to any of this stuff a long while back. Ray's Ray: no point getting angry, or antisocial about it.
Anyway , if any progress *is* made, or peace breaks out, send up a flare, or a Chinese lantern, and I'll come back and join in again.
Peace.
Last edited: