C2C, 2-22-15: Hrs 1-2, Jacques Vallee—Hrs 3-4 Ray Stanford!

[Christopher O'Brien]

Who woulda thunk it? George Knapp is having Jacques Vallee and then Ray Stanford on Coast to Coast this Sunday, late night. Go get 'em Ray! I don't know about you all, but I couldn't imagine a more distinguished opening act!

 

[ward]

Going to be a great show for sure.

After years of hearing Ray at this point i think Ray's "Evidence" is going to have to be reviewed posthumously. Chris do you know who will inherit these materials and if a chain of custody can be established?
Not being morbid just realistic.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

After years of hearing Ray at this point i think Ray's "Evidence" is going to have to be reviewed posthumously. Chris do you know who will inherit these materials and if a chain of custody can be established?

Ray is "on record" saying he will show his giant high flying UFO's someday, he shot near Corpus Christi, I think on a Paracast show, but I don't think he is going to keep his word either considering Chris O'brien or Chris Lambright can't get him to show these in some public setting or post to Youtube. Yoda would say: kind of a trickster is he.

Is he in good health? How is his wife? Often the wife will inherit everything unless he is super wealthy.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Thank God the host isn't George Noory. He could take the most amazing guest in the world and make it dull with NO informational content.

 

[boomerang]

Who woulda thunk it? George Knapp is having Jacques Vallee and then Ray Stanford on Coast to Coast this Sunday, late night. Go get 'em Ray! I don't know about you all, but I couldn't imagine a more distinguished opening act!

Thanks for the heads-up, Chris. I don't normally even bother to sample C2C these days, except on those nights when Knapp is hosting. I will tune in this one for sure.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Ray is "on record" saying he will show his giant high flying UFO's someday, he shot near Corpus Christi, I think on a Paracast show, but I don't think he is going to keep his word either considering Chris O'brien or Chris Lambright can't get him to show these in some public setting or post to Youtube. Yoda would say: kind of a trickster is he. Is he in good health? How is his wife? Often the wife will inherit everything unless he is super wealthy.

Opinions are like that particular body part—everybody has one. You obviously haven't tracked my comments on Ray's process. You don't publicize your data before you publish it for peer review. "...keep his word"? You don't know the man so how could you possibly comment from a place of authority on his honesty and veracity? I can assure you, when the time is right and the right scientists have been exposed to his work, he'll have the last laugh. This ufological world is not populated by Billy Meir Beam Ships or hokey craft from Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. The reality is far more complex and nuanced. Maybe you (and others) will understand when the goods are revealed for public consumption. As I have said many times: Unlike the twins-who-shall-not-be-named, Ray doesn't give a shit what you or I think, or how many web hits he generates, he is only interested in furthering humankind's understanding of the principles behind operation of these wondrous craft. He's a true scientist in the classical sense.

Thanks for your patience and understanding and please: Don't question the man's integrity. I can vouch for him and if that's not "good enough," meh, what can I say?

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

[...]You obviously haven't tracked my comments on Ray's process. You don't publicize your data before you publish it for peer review.

[...]he is only interested in furthering humankind's understanding of the principles behind operation of these wondrous craft. He's a true scientist in the classical sense.

[...]I can vouch for him and if that's not "good enough," meh, what can I say?

It's laughable to suggest or imply that Ray could submit his film as a scientist for peer review??? You wrote: "You don't publicize your data before you publish it for peer review." We both know that is simply impossible.

The Corpus Christi film is from 1985... that's 30 years ago! Film is also very poor quality to use as print photos. The film is very tiny compared to 35mm negatives, about 1/4 in size, so the image quality is going to be crap! This is either 8mm or Super 8mm film, right???

I'll let BurntState make my points for me:

"I just recently re-listened to the 2012 Lambright/Stanford Paracast episode that covers the book X-Descending. Again in this episode there is discussion regarding Stanford's reluctance to release images for reasons of civil defence, to not give hoaxers any ideas and because it's not the scientific thing to do. Yet, we have these incredibly detailed descriptions in the episode, & in the O'Brien interview material posted above, and then there are Lambright's reproductions of Stanford's 'vehicles.' I don't get it. If they're to stay secret why make reproductions, or even describe the supposed inferences and confirmations around propulsion systems that he so often declares? Doesn't that kind of wipe out all the reasons for not releasing actual images?

But there is a history here, and it is a long one. For the 2012 episode RPJ posted a great PDF of an Omni magazine excerpt, one of the Anti-matter segments of course (always my favourite section) that featured a small segment about Ray Stanford:

http://www.astralgia.com/pdf/ufoart.pdf

It's an interesting read as it positions Stanford as more of a footnote in the field, and highlights his focus on hard data collection, his claims of having spectacular footage of dyanic anomalous aerial objects doing incredible things, but he hadn't released any of it and then faded from the scene.

Now if it wasn't for the fact that some people have actually seen some of these images I would tend to see Mr. Stanford as a cousin of Adamski. At least that's the imprint that's around, that and really cool jumpsuits from Project Starlight International. Let's face it; they look slick. Their intentions and execution were head and shoulders above Greer and his flashlights in the field to make contact. Still, there remain these familiar parallels.

There are his books and some would have to have that same level of scrutinized detail that he brings to the stories of UFO's flying over his head, his conclusions about their propulsion systems, his paleontology etc.. But I can not help but leave him in the Ted Philips' camp and can even understand Muadib's comparison with Derrel Simms, as what we have are wild stories, suspect claims & confirmations with not a lot of real proof. Ray's descriptions are simply jaw dropping. And if you troll through the Paracast forum you will find more of the same - especially some fascinating mothership discussion with giant bio-domes. It's worth the search."

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

In the 2012 Lambright/Stanford Paracast episode that covers the book X-Descending Ray said he would release [SOON] -the audio was garbled here using the word "soon" with Gene voicing over Ray... so, again, Ray said he would release [soon] the audio recording he made of the air traffic radar controller at FAA headquarters in Dallas.

Well, that's about 3 years ago, so where is the FAA audio recording?

 

[Muadib]

Yeah that's probably never coming, just like the rest of Ray's supposed evidence. If you really want to get an idea of how Ray operates, just give his Radio Misterioso interview a listen sometime. The man comes across as a pompous jerk, blustering and sputtering at poor Walter Bosley, telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It was pretty surreal, considering the topic of conversation was the governments role in disinforming UFO researchers, something Walter, as a former AFOSI man, would probably know a lot more about than Ray, but instead of actually listening to what Walter said, Ray turned into a petulant child, screaming poor Walter down until he gave up in exasperation. This is the guy who's going to usher in a new era of UFO understanding? Yeah, right.

In the end, another 30 years will pass, and another 30 different excuses as to why he wont release his evidence will be added to the already growing list. Chris's nonsense about Ray not releasing his "evidence" before its peer reviewed (when, by who, in what journal?) is just that, nonsense. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that you don't go on nationwide radio shows and talk about evidence that you aren't willing to present, but Ray has no problem doing that.

Yes, people have supposedly seen some of Rays stuff, though I'm still waiting for someone besides Ray to say they've seen his footage of UFOs "so clear and close you can see inside the craft". Here's the thing, are we supposed to believe that none of these people could possibly be fooled? Given Rays level of intelligence, his years in the field, his observation skills, etc, I imagine he could put together a pretty compelling hoax, if he so chose. Cottingley fairies, anyone?

However, all of this is irrelevant, especially if we're going to talk science. The oldest known scientific body in the world is the Royal Society of London, founded in 1660. They have a motto that I would say is the very essence of the scientific method: "Nullius in verba". It means "on the word of no one" or "take nobody's word for it". NOBODY'S word, not Ray Stanford, not Chris O'brien, not Chris Lambright or Stanton Friedman or Darryl Simms. Nobody. If you're being asked to take someone's word for it, you're not talking science anymore. Period.

That's all we have from Ray so far, his word, and that's just not enough for me. If it happens to be enough for you, great, more power to you, just enough already with the Ray apologetics. Is it going to take another 30 years to convince some of you that this stuff is never coming? I guess time will tell.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

I can't possibly be the only one to notice the uncanny similarities between the Roswell Slides and the "Ray's gonna knock yer socks off someday" show.

Can I?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

He who laughs last, laughs best...

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

He who laughs last, laughs best...

We'll see what Ray has to say tonight... I think we're going to laugh again. I hope not, but...

All it seems that Ray caught on film in 1985 was some "top secret" or NASA test for using some novel technique to open an airway or vacuum-way in front of a [supersonic?] craft. Otherwise, how in the hell did the FAA man know about the radar capture having 2 different ["plasma penetration" and normal] tracking methods to follow the test object. They aren't firing off two different types of that radar set-up 24/7 all the time to seek an ET flying that specific type of craft. No, this was a human experiment, imo.

One reason it never caught on outside a test environment is it was a "concept test" that always had a very limited application in mind. Meaning, it's non-commercial and designed for pure research and/or military use.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

All it seems that Ray caught on film in 1985 was some "top secret" or NASA test for using some novel technique to open an airway or vacuum-way in front of a [supersonic?] craft. Otherwise, how in the hell did the FAA man know about the radar capture having 2 different ["plasma penetration" and normal] tracking methods to follow the test object. They aren't firing off two different types of that radar set-up 24/7 all the time to seek an ET flying that specific type of craft. No, this was a human experiment, imo.

Pure speculation on your part, you obviously haven't a clue about the event where the plasma "beam ahead" event was filmed.

I'm not impressed: You sign up on the PC forum and the first thing you do is start slagging Ray Stanford in rather troll-like fashion. This is NOT a good way to introduce yourself and create a welcoming vibe w/ me and Gene and the rest of the PC Forum community. Second: YOU have never met Ray, read his Soccoro book (I'm assuming), reviewed his work nor are you offering anything more than the same tired, lame, frustrated, naysayer whining that has been aimed at Ray. And, again, I reiterate, you decided to anonymously come here in a insulting, trollish fashion to pontificate self-rightiously about the man and his work. You are not at all up2speed and it shows. If you are truly a "new" forum member, this is not a very good way to introduce yourself imo I would venture to guess that you are a former poster who has been lurking: just waiting for a chance to slag "Ray." If this is true, that is (by definition) trolling, and (as you know) we don't abide under-the-bridge-types here....

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Hey Chris, just listened to the show, is this the first time Ray publicly talks about the Soccoro pics?? If so I'm thinking he just trumped alien slides by miles and miles!!! Am I reading this right, not knowing his history in what he's revealed, that he's starting to lay out the new evidence? See, this is the stuff I'm loving, I just know all these people aren't making up shit in these reports all these years. To have photographic evidence of the ship that landed by two different camera's right after a major report....that's awesome.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Pure speculation on your part, you obviously haven't a clue about the event where the plasma "beam ahead" event was filmed.

Anyone can listen to the 4-1-12 Paracast show. IMO, Chris, you're shooting off your mouth, since Ray says these objects were filmed at a pier in/near Corpus Christi in 1985. Will you correct yourself now, say you stand corrected, or be quiet now after what you already said about my previous post by "shouting out" that it is being rude, attacking Ray, being too personal, etc. I mean, I don't want to be "mean spirited" or overly critical about Ray in a personal way. He may be a nice person in many respects, but I just totally disagree with how he controls his films and photos. Especially, since he uses public forums like C2C and Paracast to advertise what he says he has, BUT then he withholds all of it too from the public. It's only you, the insider, Chris O'Brien, his true believer, that gets the privileged information and not us. Stop shooting "the finger" at us, because we're "not qualified" or "good enough" to understand the meaning of what he has. That's very condescending and snobbish, imo.

Ray mentions "plasma" "beams" "beam ahead" "pulsing the beams" "ahead of it" "out the side of it"... blah blah blah... yes, Chris, it all has to do with that same 1985 sighting near Corpus Christi. Btw, I've seen a NASA film of domed concave disc "test objects" dropped from high altitude that match most of Ray's verbal description of the "identical objects" Ray is describing too. Star Wars under Reagan was in full swing, and the military and NASA often test "concept craft" and "test propulsion" and "test objects" that are 50+ years ahead of any production end products. This was pure research. IMO.

Yeah, you're damn right it's speculation on my part, and it's 10x better to be open about one's thinking than hide film and pictures for DECADES shooting "the finger" at those of us interested in UFO's. Ray plays "insider games" with "insiders" like you, and WE don't deserve "the truth" about it... WHY??? We're not qualified to judge for ourselves? We MUST HAVE Ray explain it to us! Bah! Humbug! Ray is "a scrooge". It's condescending to those of us willing to judge for ourselves what Ray claims to have. IMO.

The FAA audio Ray said would be released [soon] is still NOT released 3 years later. Whaaat?

Ray can explain it all in a video AND show the objects too AND present it to a public forum or online too. Instead, we'll continue to get "the finger" from you too simply for pointing out Ray doesn't have a "decent leg" to stand on. We have to engage in pissing contests, because WE don't deserve to see his evidence. I, for one, will criticize those Ray "cult member" supporters that make excuses for Ray's methods of "scrooging us" by supporting Ray's "controlling idea" that we "the UFO people" can not judge for ourselves "the truth" within everyone's limited abilities. Ray does NOT know "the truth" either!!!

Get REAL Chris. You're on the wrong side of this issue, but I guess you have some agenda to be on the good side of Ray too! Otherwise, you will have "no access" and "insider knowledge" to feed the poor and outcast "we" the UFO people.

I suppose Ray will say next that you Chris O'brien or Chris Lambright are not qualified to explain and show in a public forum what Ray has, and you will not get the last laugh. Ray will laugh, when he dies, and all his films/photos will go UNEXPLAINED by Ray himself too!!! I guess you "insiders" are his "cult of the few" and not "the many", but you're heading for a lock-out too!

Yoda: A coffin he will be in. Silent with ET he is.

Chris, you had better haul ass and get Ray on video to explain everything BEFORE he dies, with all his photos/film on camera too, in super-high HD, otherwise I see another UFO LEGEND in the making. More Vapor Ware and Tin Hats for the poor and deprived "we" the UFO people.

Only time will tell...

How old is Ray??? What's worse is Ray can fall prey to illness too; he may live longer but become too frail or ill to do anything with his UFO films and photos.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

If you are indeed a new poster here (doubtful) you are being overly antagonistic and condescending towards me and you appeared to attack an important member of the ufological community. Since you have decided to remain anonymous, you are a troll until proven otherwise and I suggest that you contact me privately and introduce yourself. As for the Corpus Christi sighting, here is why I said you do not know what you are talking about. There is no way in hell the following description could be of a Star Wars" project. It's funny how so many purely anecdotal cases get a free pass, but when Ray doesn't make his visual evidence public, people immediately attempt to crucify him. All I can say is if you have a problem w/ Ray's MO, TALK TO RAY! Don't whine at me. I'll even give you his address! Stop w/ the kick-the-messenger routine. It's getting old and I'm getting thin skinned!
Now, I'll let Ray continue to shoot off his mouth—sorry if you have a problem w/ it. It's your personal problem and you'll have to fucking deal with it...

From the unpublished book; ...and my dog sings Chopin: The Ray Stanford Interview part 1

[Ray Stanford:]Both of them [his two kids] simultaneously said “Daddy, Look at that! What’s that object?” They both pointed to the same place in the sky, about 50 degrees above the northeastern horizon at what I subsequently judged to be about the 5,000-foot level. About a mile high there was a strange object coming across.
Understand, I grew up in the Corpus Christi area and I was familiar with the air traffic [patterns]. For instance the Naval Air Station to the south of us. And there was the International Airport off to the northwest and a few small 0airfields in the area. This didn’t have any resemblance to any conventional aircraft. So immediately I started to get out my Super-eight movie camera (with a high-quality Canon ten-power zoom telephoto) to film it. I checked to make sure the lens was still set at maximum telephoto . . .

[Christopher O'Brien]. . . and made sure the lens cap was off [chuckles] . . .

Like a good hunter I was very experienced at aiming this ten-power telephoto lens and it was no problem getting it [quickly centered] on the object. Of course, at ten-power I could see much more than with the naked eye and it was immediately obvious that I was looking at and filming a real UFO.

This thing was odd, something totally strange. Even odd in relation to what we normally think of as a “UFO,” because most of us (probably because of cartoons [chuckles]) think of a UFO as a disc---often with a dome on it. We think of the dome as being on the top with the flange pretty-much horizontal. Maybe somewhat tilted. But in this case this object was flying out of the northeast toward the southwest. Its course took it almost directly straight over us. Instead of the way we might normally think of UFOs flying, this disc was traveling with its plane of radial symmetry, its flange (in other words), with the dome pointing in the opposite direction of its direction of travel.

So the kids caught sight of it as it was approaching . . .

That is correct. I don’t know if the woman, her daughter and the man had already spotted it before my kids shouted about it and pointed it out to me or not, but at this point they were watching it just like we were . . . So I started filming it. The whole thing was glowing and around the dome and flange had a kind of mother-of-pearl look with these pink and turquoisey-blue/whitish, iridescent colors revolving around the dome and across the flange. But right at the edge of the flange there seemed to be six emitters. When you look at the film (because of the telephoto and I was shooting at the highest film speed), around the edge were these six things you could occasionally make out (in the sharpest frames) these dark shovel things sticking out at six positions around the rim. They are emitting blue-green flames . . . What most people would think of as the bottom of the disc (that's pointed in the direction of travel) there is an area of pink that is also six-sided that is glowing a radiant pink. In the middle of this six-sided area is what looks like (and the super-eight millimeter film shows this with remarkable clarity) a tower. It looks like (although it may not be) a girded tower. It's on the axis of radial symmetry.

I've never heard of that description before.

I've made a deliberate attempt to locate such cases and there are several excellent multi-witnessed cases with girded towers. Believe-it-or-not. When I first started filming, suddenly this object appeared to increase its diameter by maybe three times which would probably be about nine times the area. This upset me.
You know how you always think the worst is going to happen, well I thought one of the twenty-two elements of glass [in the lens] had separated and dropped out to give me an artificial magnification! I had checked before I had put the camera up to my eye and it was on maximum telephoto so how could the thing suddenly have become substantially larger? And so I probably let out an explicative that "my dang camera lens had broken" and I put the camera down from my eye and shook it to see if I could hear the lens elements rattling. [chuckles]

My daughter (who is very intuitive even though she was only seven years-old) asked "Daddy, what's wrong?" I told her "my lens had broken and made [the object] artificially magnified" and she said, "we saw it instantly get bigger." This [enlarging effect] was confirmed by the woman, her twenty-one year-old daughter [standing at the end of the pier], and her husband [who was now back at the beginning of the pier]. So I put my camera back up and resumed filming--relieved that my lens was in good shape.

After I had run out of film after the fourth of this procession of seven or eight objects [had flown over] all six of us on the pier discussed [the apparent momentary increase in size]. We all had a good parallax separation [on the pier] and I asked the man if he thought the thing had dropped down toward us and he said, "no it just enlarged." His wife said, "it just enlarged to me," and her daughter [said] "that's the way I saw it too."

And you got this all on film?

Yes. So apparently it hadn't shot toward us, it had optically--or by some other means, enlarged itself. I don't know if it had somehow (by a process unknown to us) increased the effect of the strong and weak forces within the atom. If it were able to control or compress (relative to the outside) its passage of time, time would then effect the action of the strong and weak forces and therefor it could change its size. But it had the complete appearance of changing size, three times its diameter so it would have had to come one-third its former distance straight down toward us. But it hadn't--we had all that separation and we could tell it hadn't dashed down.
I have probably seen, maybe several hundred reports describing this effect. Even then, when you see it yourself your gut reaction is that it zoomed down toward me instead of enlarged. [chuckles]

I've actually seen that effect too. [New Paltz, NY September 1979] We could have sworn the objects were hurtling down toward us.

They might have been. [chuckles] What was fortunate was that we had the separation with our relative positions on the pier and the parallax from being spread out. We were at the beginning, middle and the end. I have a satellite or high-altitude photograph of it in my photo archive (that I've picked up off the Internet). It's quite a long pier. Anyway, I continued filming and while I'm filming this [first object] the kids began to shout again that another one was coming, on the same course, from the northeast. Thank God for kid's observational abilities. In each case [the procession of objects] were coming from the direction of Eagleside, TX. The Bay of Corpus Christi curves around and you have this little town over to the northeast called Eagleside and I knew there was a Coast Guard base over there. You have to cover all your bases so even if you saw a little green man winking out the window, you still want to check [all prosaic explanations] in case you have a film of a balloon. I checked with the Coast Guard Station and they had released absolutely nothing and they had no idea what these things might have been. So then first object changed its course when it was a little bit southeast of overhead, then it started climbing. Not straight up but at a very steep angle of about 85 to 87 degrees--within three to five degrees of vertical. Instead of continuing on toward the southwest, this thing started to climb like it was going into outer space and disappeared.

How long did this take?

I don't know. I would occasionally glance over and watch it but I had turned my camera to film the other one coming out of the northeast because at that point it was closer and you're going to get better resolution on the one that is closer. And indeed, they appeared to be identical-type objects. So anyway the second one came out of the northeast and I started filming it. It didn't pull any shenanigans like artificially magnifying itself. So I got the second one, then I got a third one and part of a fourth one before I ran out of film. What is neat about this footage is that while they are in different positions in the sky I've got them edge on; I've got them to where what we would normally think of as the bottom part of the flange. The tower on it is tilted almost at a 40-degree angle toward the camera so you can see that girder-like structure. And then I've got them where you see fully the dome and the slope of the flange. So I've got an excellent number of perspectives where the plane of radial symmetry is turned to different positions so you get a good total look at these objects.

So they all seemed identical?

The [first seven] seemed identical. So the first object changed its course when it was a little bit southeast of overhead and then it started to climb like it was going into outer space and disappeared. If I recall correctly, after I ran out of film (after filming four of the objects}. It was either the fourth or the fifth object that stopped just a little southeast of overhead. The others had not stopped. They had gone almost vertical at that location and this one stopped and we wondered why. Then the kids began to shout again, "Daddy, there's another one!" Sure enough, another one approached until it got within a few diameters (beside and to the east) [of the stopped object] and then they flew up together. I wish I had filmed the two of them. You wonder why, when they have been going singly, one waits for the other and they go up together.

Go figure . . .

After six or 7 of these identical objects the last came along on exactly the same course and when each one got to that position (almost directly overhead), it would go almost straight up--disappearing into the distance into outer space. But the last one was totally different. From our position it was shaped exactly like if you took an hour-glass and removed the wood portion and leave only the glass three-dimensional figure-eight-shape. Something like that. Now place that to where it is revolving around that thin point of it in a horizontal plane. And as you're looking up at it it's revolving counter-clockwise. This little sound effect I'll make is the duration or the rate it took to turn one revolution. [He makes a trilling, bird-like sound that repeats after a one-second duration] That's the way I think of it [sonically]. It did the same thing as the other objects. When it got to that point overhead it went up just like the others. That was the end of that experience.

The film turned out even better than I anticipated because as you know, if you take a ten-power lens and hand hold the camera you are going to have some smear due to hand-motion. But because of the high shutter speed I was using, (that freezes the hand-motion very nicely) I had sharper images than I could see with the naked eye.

So this film shows structure . . .

It does indeed--it's shows excellent structure. I would mention that (after examining the film) the six emitters along the side seemed to fire around the side faster [at times]. When they fired in sequence it was kind of like a theater marquee. You almost get the feeling it's spinning around. Although I don't think the objects were spinning--judging from the film.

That reminds me of the Salida footage where you have that apparent effect of lights circling around an object, or the object spinning with lights lit on it . . .

. . . which I believe to be sequencing also--having seen the footage. In this case, when the sequencing seemed to be occurring very fast, the object appears to be round, but at times when it's slower you get the impression the edge of the flange (instead of actually being round) that it is six-sided. On the bottom where the so-called tower structure was (I suspect this was a physical structure) you can see certain things that seemed to be attached to that tower. One of them is a triangular structure--seemingly attached on to the tower.

Now I realize the six-side effect could be what I call the "geometric surround." There is an energy field around [some UFOs] that can actually distort the shape of the object. I am reminded of a case where a whole family saw [and photographed] what they described to everyone as a "flying saucer." They said it was round and had a dome on top of it, but when the pictures came out they had apparently froze this effect and you've got images of a square (or diamond-shaped) object with a dome on it.

There's the famous Japanese excellent videotape of a bona fide UFO taken by Kanazawa That shows an object that looks like the round energetic surround of it becomes distorted at times into a diamond shape just like the images from the several photographs taken by the Minnesota schoolteacher and his wife in Hawaii several years ago. You see exactly the same thing. I believe that to be the effect of what I call an energy field that has optical properties that are geometric. This can make it appear that the object has four, six or different angles. Anyway, this is thrillingly well resolved on my film. One would always love better, but still (considering this is a Super-Eight) film the camera lens system did a beautiful job.

We also have evidence within this film of the existence of a dipolar magnetic field around the object [effecting] the atmosphere around and ahead of this object to the extent that I describe this film as being "propulsion diagnostic". At least for that type of UFO. What we have on that film, in my opinion (and in the opinion of aerospace engineers who have likewise examined images from the film) could explain how UFOs could travel at hypersonic speed and not produce a shock wave. I'll leave the details [of this analysis] for the time of the publication of this film and its analysis. All who have seen the Corpus Christi film think it is hands-down the best movie or video ever taken of authentic UFOs. It is in fact propulsion diagnostic.

Were you able to follow-up on this sighting and check to see if anyone from nearby airfields got radar returns from the objects? Were there any other additional witnesses?

I checked all possible sources in the area. I knew, of course, that what we had seen were not balloons, but on the other hand because of people like Phil Klass and other skeptics out there, you want to cover all your bases. So I called the Naval Air Station, I called the Air Force, I called the Coast Guard Station, and I even called up to the Balloon Launch Center in Palestine [TX] where these huge skyhook-type balloons are launched . . .

. . . which coincidentally is where the Space Shuttle Columbia went down.

They all said they had no balloons [in the air at the time] that could account for these observations. [chuckles] Of course I didn't see how any balloons could account for these sightings anyway, but I wanted to cover all the bases. I knew at that point that most UFOs are "stealthy" shaped and I had some sense about "stealth" back then even though at that time "stealth aircraft" were not known about publicly. I realized they probably hadn't been tracked on radar but I did call the FAA to inquire about getting the records [for the time period when the sightings took place]. [END OF EXCERPT]

You are welcome....

 

[manxman]

Interesting that.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Well, Chris, the problem with all that detail "above" is at the very end of your post Ray says nothing about having audio taped that FAA phone call wherein the FAA man mentions he has Two Types of radar capture for this "test" or "object"... sure, let's call it a UFO [and imply it's ET BS???], BUT that is NOT what Ray indicated on the Paracast show. Ray suspected it was some kind of government operation too based on the FAA man's response! It must be a human test. IMO. After all, FAA man already knows they did two kinds of radar capture paints to also penetrate "the plasma" crapola. Whatever 'that' is.

Anyway, where is that FAA audio? Ray said it would be made available [soon], three years ago, so everyone could hear it too. That taped audio could be fed into software and cleaned-up in less than an hour. No harm would come to the original tape, so Ray can hold-on to it.

Btw, I'll state again based on Ray's verbal description and what you quoted too that I think this was a NASA or military test, and I've definitely seen video footage that shows similar objects being dropped at high altitude. This has been broadcast on TV for gosh sakes!!!

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

As for the Corpus Christi sighting, here is why I said you do not know what you are talking about. There is no way in hell the following description could be of a Star Wars" project.

I never said it was a Star Wars project. My point was/is that very advanced projects were being done back in 1985 including Star Wars... tests by NASA and the military that would be "proof of concept" type tests that would be 50+ years ahead of any finished "aircraft". It's pure research and R&D tests. IMO.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I'll ask Ray about his promise to provide the audio of the call.
BTW, I realize you don't care, but from what I hear from a few who tuned in, Ray's appearance on C2C last night went smashingly well. Knapp emailed him after the show w/ a wonderful thank you note and an offer to help out w/ one of Ray's projects. Ray is changing the scientific world of ichnology when he looks down, I can't wait to see what happens when he releases the results of his true scientific passion: looking up!