4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford

[Randall]

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

It's only a "tempest in a teapot" if the teapot includes non-ufology issues, otherwise having UFO celebrities and their fans promoting an anti-ufology agenda should be a legitimate concern for the ufology community. Kean has been interviewed on major television networks ( Jay Leno, Daily Show, and the list goes on and on ). Plus she's had her book translated into several languages around the world, hardly a "teapot" sized problem. Her saving grace is that her commendable content makes up for most of the problem this particular issue is contributing to.

Also, whether or not I take it personally doesn't change the validity of the rationale I've put forward. It only changes the degree to which I'm prepared to engage the issue. If someone created some new term that actually solved all the problems we're discussing, it would take me an afternoon to change my avatar and adopt it. However the reality is that there is no better terminology than the one we're got for the reasons already stated, and which we'll go through again below:

1. The idea isn't to fool anybody. It's so that scientists can address the issue publicly and before their peers, without being automatically, unconsciously, laughed off the stage.

If the problem is with the laughter and ridicule, then the problem isn't with the name. It's not as though the name itself were funny. It's what it's about that evokes the hostility. Therefore changing the name without addressing the root causes will do nothing but migrate the same laughter and ridicule onto the new name. Therefore, given the advantages of keeping the name, we'd be better of solving the problem with the label we've already got.

2. This is the point I am making, but not only that it's established, but is established with half a century of association with ridicule and giggle factor. Take the word 'critter'. Likely it's derived from the word 'creature'. Yet unless one wants to use slang deliberately, one doesn't see it in common written texts. Think of the connotations, 'critter', unschooled, maybe frontier land lingo, pioneers with little or no education. Most of us don't break this down, it's automatic, it's associated with mountain men, Daniel Boone and his B'ar talk, no slur on Mr. Boone nor mountain men intended. The connotations are unconscious.

Not everyone automatically laughs or ridicules the field. Changing an established name to suit the detractors will simply move the laughter and ridicule to the new name. It's better to retain the label we have and work toward respectability than to abandon it just to suit a bunch of cynics.

3. Kean uses this term because narcap prefers it and it has little negative association. It's true that it's a lesser known identifier. But since its use by Kean, it's more recognized than before.

Kean also used the word UFO in big blue letters on the front of her book, it was bought by people interested in UFOs, and if it weren't for the ufology community her "recognition" would be minimal, it's only because of us in the ufology community and those interested in UFOs that she has gained any notoriety on the topic.

4. Agreed. Continue to use the common terms for searches. However, I doubt if these acronyms will be found where the incontrovertible data is stored, most likely in black-budget corporations, and they're more likely to use initials we'd never guess, just to obfuscate matters and provide for plausible deniability. Consider the word 'fastwalkers'. Would any of us associate it with UFOs? I wouldn't have if I hadn't read it in a blog somewhere.

Actually many formerly secret documents associated with official USAF studies use the word UFO ( because it was an official USAF designator ). Prior to the problems at the Blue Book Archive, you could have tested this yourself with actual microfilm copies. You can still go there and do it, but you get an OCR translation instead of the page scan ( unless they've fixed it ). This represents over 15,000 pages of USAF documents, and is only part of all the records out there. Clearly historical research ( over half a century now ) related to the word UFO represents a significant advantage to retaining the word UFO for serious research. Conversely, creating some new term out of fear that a bunch of cynics and misinformed skeptics are going to laugh is just plain ridiculous. If you can't take the criticism then don't get into the field.

5. Language is a living thing; it's always changing, words are added or dropped, definitions change or evolve, spellings become simplified, nouns become verbs (google it!), acronyms become words (ufology), and so on. Language evolves. By your logic we should still be using the words astrology as the study of the stars, and alchemy for the study of elements.

You're creating a straw man argument. We're not talking about astrology or alchemy. We're talking about UFOs and ufology. However to indulge your argument anyway, there are also plenty of words that have been around a long time and work just fine. If there isn't sufficient logical reason to change a word, then there's no need to change it. In the case of UFOs and ufology, cowering in fear of ridicule over a bunch of misinformed intellectual bullies isn't sufficient reason. The nerd that gets picked on at school isn't going to stop being picked on just by changing his or her name, it's going to happen by garnering respect for the name they already have. The possible exception might be the entertainment industry where pseudonyms are commonplace. But is selling the story what our focus is? Obviously if you're a UFO celebrity like Kean it is. So who's got the real dog in the fight ( as you put it ), the quiet researcher or the UFO celebrity who's trying to dodge the giggle factor to keep sales up? Think about it.

6. Yes, changing attitudes will cure the problem. But why add in having to fight off the 60 year negative, constantly reinforced, now socially integrated negative associations (now mostly unconscious for most people and so much harder to reach and undo, if it were possible)? I submit it's not a wise use of resources to spend such a great amount of time and effort to try to undo the damage done. It's best to start with a clean slate.
I hope I have clarified my opinions without offending you.

I simply don't agree for the same reasons as stated before. The simplistic "clean slate" approach leaves us without an established identity, confuses people as to what we're doing, complicates research and reporting, and will simply move the existing ridicule over to the new label. This "clean slate" will have mud on it before the paint dries, guaranteed. BTW, no worries about offending me with any of this. You've presented your views in a fair and respectful manner. At one point I actually had the same set of views as you. Only after doing the research into the history and spending a lot of time debating and reflecting on the topic did I come to the conclusion that it wasn't a new label that was needed, but an updated definition that serves as a solid foundation. Believe me I've endured my share of ridicule and when I tell you that changing the label won't change what those people think about the subject matter, I'm not kidding. If you doubt it, go on over to the JREF board and debate UAPs instead of UFOs. See how far you get.

 

[Sentry]

Comic books. The comic book industry faced a similar dilemma with terminology. The product had evolved beyond the name, as the product was originally a booklet of newspaper comic strips. Within a few years, the content was usually original, thematically diverse, and the physical product shrunk over time, no longer justifying the term "comic " or "book". The name remained in use because it was familiar, and had become tradition. As for respectability, you could read literature or go to an art gallery, but if you read works blending words and pictures, then you were a child or a sub-moron.

Attempts to come up with a replacement term failed. Fans were "Panelologists", vendors were retailers (not "dealers" with it's drug culture connotations), and fancy comics tricked out in a more expensive format became "graphic novels" (which had its own problems, as many civilians associated the term "graphic" with something kinda dirty). The best they could come up was to shorten the term to just "comics".

None of that stuff really worked because the people who dismissed comic books never cared what they were called, or would look beyond the surface to see any literary or artistic value. They just shrugged them off as being "funny books". The parallels between comics, science fiction or UFOs are obvious and depressing.

On a more positive note, I do think language can affect perception. Unfortunately, I believe it takes about 1.5 generations to take hold.

(Is this what they mean by thread drift?)​

 

[BrandonD]

(sorry, posted in wrong thread)

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

This was posted today in 2015 on another thread, but it is definitely ON-TOPIC for this thread...

Whatever the outcome of Myrabo's research, the question remaining is what further ideas or physical concepts concerning space flight Stanford's video inspired in Myrabo that were impossible to bring to fruition during his working life with the Air Force/MIC facilities. The advanced physics and technology represented in Stanford's fortuitous video-capture were evidently available to and employed over Corpus Christie in 1985 by some other species of intelligent life than ours. Not only the video but the other eyewitnesses present at the videotaping describe the same phenomena (in a sequence of manifestations), so what the video discloses can't have been an illusion.

1) We both know he has a very controversial history with UFO's and ESP type practices and was head of those organizations. Both of us should be reasoned enough to know we can not just take someone's word for any of this. WE all need the supporting evidence to go with "the words". Right?

2) We have no witness reports other than Stanford's report about it.

3) You need to answer this, please. Three years ago Mr. Stanford said "on air" [without ANY conditions whatsoever] he would provide the FAA audio. That is CLEARLY offered by Stanford on the Paracast. Is he a man that kept his word about this? The answer says much about his character, and you seem to ignore or deny this stating humans are denied such precious information from our government. Too bad you can not understand the clear hypocrisy that Stanford is withholding information he offered us years ago!!!

WHY are you going to trust someone that does that to all of us??? Please answer. Please do not ignore this glaring fact and issue and hypocrisy, and just give us all an explanation for this. He is now 75 years old. What is your excuse for such a man at this age?

4) Do you realize these are ONLY several IMAGES [from the missing thousands of images never provided] that were provided to Lambright??? Seriously. Lambright NEVER saw the Super 8mm film played through a movie projector. WHY not??? PLEASE answer. Lambright could have been allowed to at least see the Super 8 film played back digitally too on an HD display??? WHY not???

Stanford WITHHOLDS his own movie from being seen even digitally. WHY??? Why is Mr. Stanford withholding from Lambright his movie? For god's sakes he wrote a book about this, BUT Stanford NEVER allowed Lambright to just SEE his movie.

5) A few images from a Super 8mm film do NOT provide ANY proof of ET or an ET UFO, especially, when the entire film is being withheld from everyone. I do NOT believe anyone has seen the entire film in movie playback format. WHY not???

Seriously, Constance, WHY are you so gullible to just believe??? Don't you want the real smoking gun hard evidence Stanford says he has? Then what about the FAA audio Stanford promised us years ago?

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

The advanced physics and technology represented in Stanford's fortuitous video-capture were evidently available to and employed over Corpus Christie in 1985 by some other species of intelligent life than ours. Not only the video but the other eyewitnesses present at the videotaping describe the same phenomena (in a sequence of manifestations), so what the video discloses can't have been an illusion.

Do you realize that Mr. Stanford himself suggested and acknowledged this might be HUMAN caused on this same Paracast show???

How are you going to explain that away as being an ET UFO, when Mr. Stanford indicates this could be HUMAN caused?

Of course, even though Stanford indicated this possibility he will not believe it. He's convinced it is ET-UFO's.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Whatever the outcome of Myrabo's research, the question remaining is what further ideas or physical concepts concerning space flight Stanford's video inspired in Myrabo that were impossible to bring to fruition during his working life with the Air Force/MIC facilities.

The easiest way to get that answer is to ask Dr. Myrabo himself. He has nothing to hide. Seriously.

Here are the two ideas Stanford claims he gave Myrabo:

1) Stanford explained in CLEAR MUMBO JUMBO terminology on the Paracast 2012 show that sounded as if he was completely "off his rocker" about giving Myrabo the necessary idea he needed to be able to land these craft with a landing gear.

I SWEAR TO YOU NOW, CONSTANCE, what Stanford said was sooooo CRAZY without ANY ability to understand RATIONALLY... that he was truly not speaking any science at all. No scientist would understand his mumbo-jumbo about the landing gear, BECAUSE it was NOT science at all. It was CLEARLY "crazy talk".

It was in FACT, clear proof, Mr. Stanford does NOT understand science relating to this "landing gear" and is VERY CONSPIRATORIAL too!

2) The other idea is Stanford claims he gave Myrabo the knowledge that his film clearly showed an electrical field that could be 30 times the diameter of the flying object out in front of it to allow it to fly/move that way, and that it was proof of an amazing new technology too.

Where is the proof of that? Because I can tell you Constance, this seems very iffy for Stanford to hang his hat on this paper as being some amazing breakthrough from the ET UFO -if you want to believe that. See my previous post above WHY you should NOT believe that. This is what seems to be Lambright's and Stanford's proof below...

Does ANYONE have this science paper Myrabo presented ???

Here: Experimental investigation of an electric arc air-spike in Mach 10 flow with preliminary drag measurements

Experimental investigation of an electric arc air-spike in Mach 10 flow with preliminary drag measurements

R. Bracken, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY; L. Myrabo, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY; H. Nagamatsu, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY; E. Meloney, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY; M. Shneider, Princeton Univ., NJ

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

On the 3-8-09 Radio Mysterioso Show, direct download here:


Ray said, without any conditions, that he would release audio tapes that would prove he was being contacted by the Air Force about his UFO watch near Austin, TX.

Why does Ray not keep his word about this? It's been 6 years, and Ray said he would do it within a couple of years or so, back then, and that is 'now' about 4 years ago when we should have had those audio tapes. Can Ray be trusted to do what he says "on air" ? Apparently, no!

Ray Stanford is another UNKNOWING FREE disinformation agent that is kept at arms length with no "open" or obvious paid direct connection to the US government. He is smoke and mirrors. He definitely has been affected and effected by "perception management" controls. Ray was a major mouthpiece for the UFO interest groups back in the '70's and '80's, so it's only natural he was targeted for this purpose. He is another very gullible believer that was clearly targeted based on his stories. Ray could "put the word out" to the UFO masses.

Also, Ray proves he can get very upset and angry, spontaneously, and "fly off the handle". It shows he is irrational with anger well beyond what is called for to behave that way "on air". Just listen to the show after the 50 min point, when he talks with Greg's friend, Walter, a former Air Force OSI agent and intelligence officer "operations chief" in counter intelligence that admits to using "perception management" to protect highly classified and top secret aerial objects and aircraft called "platforms". I have no doubt Walter thinks Ray and his UFO watch location was targeted for perception management. Walter thinks Ray was used to document UFO's the Air Force controlled and wanted Ray to see. Ray got very angry and said Walter was acting as an intelligence disinformation agent right then "on air". Very interesting! Isn't it?

Furthermore, it is very remotely possible Ray Stanford became an undercover government/MIC agent too by the time he is meeting Hynek for Socorro. That is "out there" speculation on my part, a crazy wild hair, but it seems remotely possible to me. He was/is a perfect seemingly disinformation [FREE ?] agent from my POV, for certain special interests, but, instead, I very strongly believe Ray is just a higher IQ "creative thinker" that is also blinded by his beliefs, highly obsessive, an ET-UFO fanatic convert. Ray definitely sees things that "normal people" won't see. Seeing Mother Ships multiple times throughout one's entire life tells us Ray is extremely abnormal for even UFO believers.

While Ray was angry he said they documented in 1954 a giant Mother Ship in the sky, and he went into lots of details about the documentation that seemed unbelievable for a 12-13 year old child to be doing. [Edit: see last paragraph below. Age is more likely 15-16yo.] So, we know by Ray's own words he has been seeing gigantic Mother Ships since the age of about 15 years old. How far back does that go? At what age was Ray's first sighting of a Mother Ship? Remember, early childhood experiences can shape a person's entire life, and I think this obviously has happened with Ray about ET-UFO's. When he was a teenager in the 1950's he drove from Texas to California to hang-out with UFO people for months or ??? This just shows he has been driven obsessively about ET-UFO's his entire life.

Six years ago Ray said he was working 12-18 hours a day on his computer for his presentation. He invited Greg Bishop to his house to show him everything. Did that ever happen?

Ooops, Ray Stanford may be slightly older than I thought. Ray said he was 9 years old in 1947, and that is when he first became interested in UFO's. He said he jumped of the swing-set at the school playground to run up to the principal's wife to tell her he was going to solve the UFO mystery. Wow, wow, wow. What perfect timing "to capture" a true ET UFO believer. A male child at 9 years old is perfect for when this mythology got started in 1947. Just look what it did to Ray. At 77 years old in 2015 he still can't stop...

 

[Constance]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=_Md2Lxqidx5l1IM5tA3oQA&bvm=bv.89217033,d.cWc

. . . Does ANYONE have this science paper Myrabo presented ???

Here: Experimental investigation of an electric arc air-spike in Mach 10 flow with preliminary drag measurements

Experimental investigation of an electric arc air-spike in Mach 10 flow with preliminary drag measurements

R. Bracken, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY; L. Myrabo, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY; H. Nagamatsu, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY; E. Meloney, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY; M. Shneider, Princeton Univ., NJ

That paper does not seem to be available online. You could try to obtain a copy of it through Interlibrary Loan services at your library. You can also find and read online, at the link below, a paper describing subsequent Brazilian spaceflight research, citing Myrabo's and others' earlier work toward this goal of achieving hypervelocity flight through directed-energy air spikes.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CDcQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jatm.com.br%2Fojs%2Findex.php%2Fjatm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F180%2Fpdf&ei=yRITVaafIcPmsATfiYKAAg&usg=AFQjCNHjz2vp4Cw0csVlvpq5c7VJbmKAlA&sig2=_Md2Lxqidx5l1IM5tA3oQA&bvm=bv.89217033,d.cWc

At this google link you will find a long list of related sources:

Experimental investigation of an electric arc air-spike in Mach 10 flow with preliminary... - Google Search

This should keep you busy for awhile and give me/us a break from your constant barrage of questions, demands, and attacks on Ray Stanford.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

That paper does not seem to be available online. You could try to obtain a copy of it through Interlibrary Loan services at your library. You can also find and read online, at the link below, a paper describing subsequent Brazilian spaceflight research, citing Myrabo's and others' earlier work toward this goal of achieving hypervelocity flight through directed-energy air spikes.

You do know this Brazilian research is directly related to a former student of Myrabo? Another child protege thing is going on here with this Brazilian student. Just learn and listen to Myrabo about it. Considering the Brazil connection with UFO's too I would not be the least surprised that this was the same student that knew Ray Stanford as a UFO believer attending the University of Texas too. He would then be the same student that convinced Myrabo to meet Stanford too!

It's a PERFECT FIT if it fits. I'm loving this real possibility. Hopefully, it's true too!

(Btw, Hi Heidi. You likely likely too.)

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

The utter stupidity of Ray's supposed connection of his 1985 film to Myrabo is as follows:

Ray's film of the objects are at subsonic speeds; the 7 objects slow from a horizontal motion and appear to change direction upwards. Ray never said these were moving at incredible Mach X speeds. No mention of sonic booms.

Well, guess what, the hypersonic speeds that MAY work at less friction loads by casting an arced field of plasma in front of the hypersonic vehicle flying sub-orbital at tremendous Mach 6+ speeds has nothing to do with what Ray filmed at much slower speeds. Speeds that definitely slowed or were always below subsonic speeds.

These hypersonic flying aircraft have been talked about since Ronald Reagan showed on national television a model of this type of hypersonic aircraft in the 1980's. There are several newer design concepts in-play now too.

The HUMAN experiment [imo] Ray filmed was done at least partially or totally below subsonic speeds, so it really has nothing to do with Myrabo's Mach 6 wind-tunnel experiments.

Myrabo said he's been thinking about these ideas since 1968, and Ray said he knew about "beam ahead" in 1977. So, how does this bullshit get connected to 1985? That's only the date when Ray filmed these objects.

It's the intersection of a UFO U of T student and friend of Stanford in Austin that later goes to school where Myrabo teaches, and so this student drags his professor Myrabo to meet Ray years later. Myrabo was attending a conference at Goddard Space Flight Center, so that's why he was in the area to meet Stanford too with his UFO student. As best I can tell, this Myrabo meeting happened in 1993.

This whole thing is UFO "nuts". You can NOT get Myrabo to confirm any of Ray's and Lambright's story. Ray's film only shows slower subsonic [to maybe supersonic] moving objects vs the extremely high hypersonic Mach 6+ speeds in a wind tunnel. This is NOT a match-up to even suggest these are close to the same "beam ahead" techniques. No way. These are very different categories of flight speeds that have no direct relationship to each other.

Also, looking at the research paper's photos there is NO 30 diameter shift in plasma distance from the test probe. The plasma distance only appears to be maybe 1-3 diameters away, so these are clearly different phenomena being seen. In the Paracast, Ray clearly states the "beam ahead" technology goes out to 30 diameters beyond the flying objects.

The big issue that renders these "laser transport" ideas worthless and preposterous is as follows:

The HUGE problem with laser firing anything anywhere on Earth is the extreme dangers of missing the engine targets. What's unbelievably laughable is I never heard one word from Myrabo on how he will hit the engine target consistently to NEVER miss one time.

Do you understand anything about atmospheric conditions? Wind shear? Cross winds? Wind direction layers at different altitudes. The flying craft is constantly being "vibrated" and shifting position as it moves through the airstream. This is only the beginning of this list of problems to never miss when firing a laser. Only until it reaches high above the weather and nearing sub-orbital heights does the atmosphere fully stabilize.

How many birds would be fried? How many satellites might be vaporized? What about other flying aircraft? How about vaporizing holes in the atmosphere out into space too? Does that damage our atmospheric protection from outer space? The power surges needed to fire these lasers are beyond the capacity of regional surge capacity.

Also, these are multi-fuel flying or space craft too. You can not fly on laser alone to do any of this. That means there still has to be fuel on-board and engines too. This whole thing is total bullshit.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

I think this laser firing "transport idea" is just another sneaky or unwitting Star Wars MIC military application to deploy laser weapons. Another brilliant idea brought to you from our friendly neighborhood Kirkland Air Force Base???

Well, maybe not directly, but Myrabo did laser weapons related work there too, because he stopped doing Star Wars MIC research and tests when he left that weapons work sometime in 1983. He very likely continued some laser weapons related research at his university research position too. He still got research sponsored by the Air Force too.

Genius??? How stupid can we be...

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Ray admitted he had inside contacts within the MIC and/or special interests within government too. He definitely had many military contacts too. Ray said this during his heated debate with Walter. See my audio link in previous post for details here:

4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford | Page 12 | The Paracast Community Forums

I now believe Ray was tipped-off this Human test was going to happen. He was told when and where. Ray did not film this by chance. Imo. The only other possibility, imo, is this is some kind of possible hoax. But I think Ray was cooperating with someone to do this in 1985. He admits the FAA man knew about this test by revealing his special knowledge about the two types of radar that was used to capture these objects from two different penetration views. Outside the plasma and underneath the plasma. AND, Ray claims some national security interests may be involved about these films too. Ray even used the words quoting: "I think he was saying it was some kind of a government operation because of what he just said." [referring to the FAA man's knowledge and comments].

Ray was identified by the FBI in the 1950's, when he went to Peru and to California too. He met Hynek at Socorro in 1964, knew lots of military people, including bluebook, on a first name basis, so by the time we get to 1985 Ray is being tipped-off about this Human test. I do NOT think it is completely top secret and classified [not anymore], because I think I've seen the archival film footage of only part of this test on TV.

Regardless, Super 8mm film under 10x power can not produce much detail of objects nearing a mile or two away. Even 35mm film can not produce much detail, and that is 4x the negative size and 4x the resolution as 8mm. These objects were much further away than one or two miles. My guess is these tests were conducted many miles away from 6-12 miles in distance.

If Ray had used a 6×9 cm (2¼×3½ inch) size of a Hasselblad camera under 10x power, then Ray would have some proof and excellent details of whatever he photographed.

 

[Constance]

Have you read Chris Lambright's X-Descending yet? Apparently not, or you could not continue to misunderstand the significance of Ray Stanford's Corpus Christie film and what Myrabo recognized in it and could not reproduce over the rest of his career with the Air Force/MIC.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Constance, there is no-way to compare what Ray filmed at subsonic speeds [also slowing to change directions] with the wind-tunnel experiment at Mach 6. No one has even seen the entire 8mm film. It seems to be only images of a film that Lambright saw too.

You can not draw any conclusions from a scientific point of view except that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever these "beam ahead" ideas are even related. Plus, Myrabo has "no comment" about any of this.

Dream on if you must...

Btw, Tracy Torme was on DMR last night with Decker. Tracy does not think Ray has "the goods", and he spoke with Ray directly too. Plus, it is very clear to Tracy too that Ray is not cooperative to help and prefers to argue about these subjects. Listen for yourself. Tracy even admitted Chris O'Brien was very upset about this too. Tracy said he is a friend of Chris, but he sure doesn't believe what Chris thinks about Ray. No way! And, Tracy is a big ETH supporter too.

It seems clear that Tracy does not think Ray is rational about this subject. That is made perfectly clear in that interview. It's all said at the very beginning of the DMR show too.

 

[Constance]

Myrabo has "no comment" about any of this.

I wouldn't expect someone like him to publicly associate himself with ufos and ufology, would you? So no comment is no surprise.

Your long laundry list of slurs and slanders concerning Ray Stanford also makes no never-mind. Tracy Torme's gossiping on the air about how he thinks Chris O'Brien feels about Ray Stanford is bad form, and so is your repeating it in a public forum. I think Chris would agree. Sometimes I feel like taking a fast boat out of this swamp of gossip. The only thing that matters is what shows up in Ray Stanford's films. The sensible and respectful thing to do is to wait and see. In the meantime, do read Chris Lambright's book.

 

[SolarSailor]

That said, rather than make dismissive judgments, perhaps simply reserve judgment it until you get more information and have a chance to see things for yourself.
...there is more than just this.
Chris L.

Perhaps we could reserve judgement until we had more information if that information was actually available. This smoking gun BS that never gets released is seriously tarnishing the Ufology field. People can say they have a Grey locked up in their cellar and feed it cheeto's for breakfast in return for information on the universe at large, but IMHO if you don't have evidence you don't have sweet FA. And evidence that is not disseminated out to the interested parties in a particular field is as good as not having evidence at all.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

The sensible and respectful thing to do is to wait and see. In the meantime, do read Chris Lambright's book.

Ray is 77 years old and has promised "on air" multiple times many years ago to release extremely valuable audio tapes that would at least support his claims. These were promised to be released years ago too. I've got Ray "on record" doing this on multiple "radio shows". Ray has opened himself to criticism by not keeping his own word. For someone that grew-up in Texas as Ray did it is just a shameful practice to do that sort of "breaking your word", when Ray "hand shakes" his audience with his word and does not keep it.

Ray set the "time limits" not me, so I do not have to be respectful towards Ray about that. Why do you defend that behavior?

You know what happens when Ray does that? Read below:

Tracy Torme's gossiping on the air about how he thinks Chris O'Brien feels about Ray Stanford is bad form, and so is your repeating it in a public forum. I think Chris would agree. Sometimes I feel like taking a fast boat out of this swamp of gossip. The only thing that matters is what shows up in Ray Stanford's films.

Well, well, it's not surprising people will start calling Ray out for not doing what he said he would do. Also, "gossip" thrives in Ufology, since there are a lot of bizarre events and very unusual "characters" in this "anything goes" area of interest. Ray creates "the gossip" because of his claims that are NEVER verified with the proofs he promises.

Every ET UFO show thrives on gossip. Ufology thrives on gossip. Saucer Smear was produced by Gene's great friend Jim Moseley, so there is a long history to do this going back decades. The MIC, military, and all the UFO personalities produce gossip and disinformation. That is probably 98% of the information, because so little "proof" and "hard evidence" is out there. Ray is a huge part of that problem.

I've enjoyed Greg Bishop's two interviews with Ray Stanford, because Ray is a very interesting character and he did 99% of the talking. He told his own story with little interruption or debate.

I waited to read Lambright's book, because I wanted to find the "supporting evidence" for his claims from the research and Myrabo himself. I learned Myrabo's ideas are so "out there" crazy for "laser transport" that I can't take any of these extremely dangerous and ridiculous ideas seriously. It's crazy talk for the applications he supports.

If what Myrabo wants to do is essentially "insane" and extremely dangerous, see my previous reasons in this thread, then it's hard to consider Ray's missing film as evidence or proof of anything too.

I want to see Ray's photos of Mother Ships that are thousands of feet long. Photos of Mother Ships that were taken over many decades. Photos so clear and up close you can see the alien pilot inside. These are Ray's own words -not mine. He has this "smoking gun" evidence that never materializes...

No wonder Trace Torme will speak out against Ray for doing this. Gossip? It's just Ray!

Personally, I think it's just disinformation given to us from a disinformation [free?] agent that knows exactly how to play this evaporation game.

Here's some more gossip for you Constance: Back in 2009 Ray said he took a photo of a giant Mother Ship on December 1, 2007. He took more photos of two giant docking Mother Ships [or Star Gates] over Andrews Air Force Base near DC on February 16, 1985, and later that day he went to have dinner with the Colonel at the same AF base. Btw, both Ray and his wife passed-out when the object approached them.

Gee wiz, now there's some real gossip for you Constance. Ray creates it doesn't he? No evidence = Gossip. Ray Stanford is a expert at producing gossip. No way can I beat that! I just repeat Ray's own gossip!!!

LOL.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

The Laugh Factor of using Super 8mm film to take "pictures" of objects over a mile away...

CORRECTION: I was double checking my numbers today between the "negative size" of Super 8mm film vs 35mm picture film, and I am shocked at the difference in "area size". My previous calculation [of 4x difference] was WAY OFF and COMPLETELY WRONG.

Here are the actual sizes:

Super 8mm film is 4.01mm x 5.79mm = 23.22mm Total Area [rounding up to two decimals]

35mm Picture size is 36mm x 24mm = 864mm Total Area

Now, divide 864mm by 23.22mm = 37.21 difference in area sizes [rounding up to two decimals]

This means there is a 37 times increase in resolution when using 35mm camera picture film vs Super 8mm film.

I NOW CALL RAY STANFORD'S STILL IMAGES TOTAL CRAP. I have plenty of 35mm photography experience to know that Super 8mm film image size is a disaster to be using it for anything being filmed over a mile away. Even with a 10x power lens Ray Standford is scamming everyone to be using such a small Image Size to enhance on computer to ONLY show STILL IMAGES of this film footage.

This is pure and simple BS. The STILL IMAGES taken from the Super 8mm film footage is a scam when viewed this way. Why?

The only way to determine the real value of this film footage is to see the ENTIRE film footage in FULL PLAYBACK MOTION with NO ENHANCEMENT. To "cherry pick" just a few Still Images is a PURE DECEPTION. This is not depicting in the least what Ray really filmed. This is at the level of a HOAX and SCAM, imo.

I know what I'm talking about. I have thousands of hours in doing photography and have developed and printed thousands of images in the darkroom using 35mm film.

One Super 8mm film cartridge of 2.5 minutes at 24f/s will have 3,600 images vs the VERY FEW extremely tiny 'cherry picked' and computer enhanced Still Images that Ray has allowed anyone to see. I call this BS. What Ray has done is control the information to TRICK PEOPLE about what he really has -> truly these are very low resolution images of objects at a great distance of miles away. Ray can NOT be trusted, imo. These cherry picked Still Images are 37 times lower in resolution than 35mm picture film.

This is a scam and/or real life proof of disinformation! Period. Imo.

Super 8mm film under 10x power can not produce much detail of objects nearing a mile or two away. Even 35mm film can not produce much detail with a telephoto lens. These objects were much further away than one or two miles. My guess is these tests were conducted many miles away from 6-12 miles in distance.

If Ray had used a 6×9 cm (2¼×3½ inch) size of a Hasselblad camera under 10x power, then Ray would have some proof and excellent details of whatever he photographed.

Btw, the Hasselblad is about 6.25 times the film area size of a 35mm picture camera, negative area size difference 5400mm vs 864mm, and that is what it really takes to get clear high-resolution images of objects that are miles away. That's about 232 times the resolution of Super 8mm film with everything else being equal.

Promo Plug:

Here is the latest on the 701 Film by Tracy Torme and James Fox:

Be certain to check-out the 2 different audio "on air" shows too. Direct download links are provided in the thread below...

Torme will be on DMR | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Here's what Super 8mm film looks like at EXTREMELY close range with the same 10x Canon Super 8mm camera Ray Stanford was using. Just imagine what the WORTHLESS image quality would be at 1-2 miles range. Now imagine at 5 miles distance. Absolutely worthless!

This last Super 8mm film is total proof about what I'm showing. It's a rocket launch with an object that is much bigger than the airplanes, a Saturn Rocket, and the audio voice counts out the down range distance as the rocket climbs. Just simply observe how small it is at 6 miles.

Apollo Soyus launch: " REAL SOUND " Bill Cummings LIVE, on WRMF-AM 1060, July 15, 1975 - YouTube

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

The final proof Ray Stanford [and Chris Lambright] are BS [BigStories] Artists:

Ufology: A Major Breakthrough in the Scientific Understanding of Unidentified Flying Objects By James M. McCampbell Published in 1976. That's one year before Ray said he learned about this "beam ahead" idea! Plus, McCampbell wrote a paper about this idea in 1973. James M. McCampbell Electromagnetic Method of Reducing Drag In Fluids, Disclosure of Invention, December 26, 1973.

These UFO people were NOT onto anything "new". Just look at the history below:

Ufology-Chapter 7

This is proof it was KNOWN SCIENCE being experimented with by the 1960's.

The technological achievement represented by UFOs in supersonic flight should certainly inspire awe and envy. It not only offers a means of avoiding sonic booms, but it implies a vast improvement in efficiency, since all the energy in sonic booms is a total waste. UFOs obviously suppress the formation of shock waves. Details are not available, but several points are clear. The presence of an approaching UFO must be "telegraphed" ahead to the gas molecules in the air. While yet some distance away, a small force must be exerted by the UFO to begin moving air molecules out of the way, becoming stronger as it comes nearer. After passage of the UFO, the air closes in behind. By such means, the UFO could slip through the atmosphere with little expenditure of energy, and no shock wave would be created on its leading edges. Apparently, the plasma on the surface of UFOs, or the radiant energy that stimulates it, is responsible.

In 1968, Northrup Corporation was reportedly experimenting with electromagnetic fields to modify the air stream around supersonic aircraft to prevent shock waves. (15) Because the nose cone of an intercontinental ballistic missile generates a surrounding plasma upon reentering the atmosphere, the interaction between ICBMs and plasmas has been extensively researched, although the results are mostly classified. In a paper presented in 1968 to the Congressional Committee on Science and Astronautics, a scientist emphasized the extent of this literature. One reference alone abstracted over 800 publications on the subject. (16) He concluded that

......there is a body of technology which I have studied and which leads me to believe that an entirely new approach to high speed air and space propulsion could be developed using the interactions between magnetic and electric fields with electrically conducting fluids adjacent to the vehicles to produce thrust or lift and reduce or eliminate such other hypersonic flight problems as drag, sonic boom, heating, etc. (17)