4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford

[Angel of Ioren]

Just to clarify, the term "close footage" isn't something I think is accurate as a descriptive phrase...but it was a good camera and a good lens, so the vehicles are clearly visible and what is in the book is a decent representation. I need to point out that I did not ask Ray for actual pictures to put in the book because I was going strictly by my experience and what I have seen in the frames of the film...and I have said to everyone all along that you need to go see them and have Ray provide the details, then my illustrations will be moot, I suppose. So it was my decision to recreate what I have seen, but I stand by the illustrations having seen Ray's images several times. Again, I point to what Myrabo saw and did with his own experience seeing the images as evidence that none of this rests on my word alone.
I do understand the caution anyone might have, and the tendency toward disbelief...it goes with the territory. But what's in the book is presented as accurately and directly as I was able to do it, both in the information and the illustrations. There is far more in the actual images than I could reproduce, but there are still intriguing things in what I've illustrated if you examine it closely.

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.

Welcome to the forum Chris.
You have to understand that Ray has been talking about this footage for quite sometime and some forum members have even offered to help him sort it out. All the while, anytime he's questioned about it he gets combative.

 

[cottonzway]

Whenever someone has footage that they claim to be really relevant but refuse to release it to the general public I become skeptical. I think many people think in the same manner.

 

[mike]

I cant see why his other reservation that being he needs to explain the footage cant be done via youtube, all he has to do is Video one of his presentations, and then set the comments on YT to approval basis, ie he only approves and answers serious questions.

I honestly think his response has more to do with getting invites to present the footage at conferences etc than the reasons he has given

I'm guessing this as as close as we will get to the images for the time being

 

[Chris Lambright]

I cant see why his other reservation that being he needs to explain the footage cant be done via youtube, all he has to do is Video one of his presentations, and then set the comments on YT to approval basis, ie he only approves and answers serious questions.

I honestly think his response has more to do with getting invites to present the footage at conferences etc than the reasons he has given

I'm guessing this as as close as we will get to the images for the time being

It seems that rather than referring people to my site to see this graphic, you've decided to link the image here where you could drop it below your smug "I'm guessing this as as close as we will get to the images for the time being." quip. I'd rather you hadn't used this image to convey a negative impression in your comments for your own ends, when it was intended simply to show a sample of the images that are in the book. It obviously doesn't matter to you that what you "..honestly think..." is flat wrong, since it seems only intended to be a demeaning slant at Ray's motives, something you clearly no nothing of but choose not to believe what Ray says. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that seeing the way you've presented yourself and your opinions here is, ironically, a perfect example of why Ray, or anyone, might refrain from posting material on Youtube or elsewhere. (When did Youtube become the best forum for scientific analysis or fair assessment?)

Making an erroneous statement, and saying it as a slur, is obviously just an effort to demean Ray, and me if only by implication. I've only presented the facts for anyone who might be interested in reading what I've known and what the evidence is. It's the truth, and I understand that some people will have reservations, but you don't have to believe it or even think about it if you don't want to. If you don't like what's there or that you can't see things at your demand, that's your prerogative, but at least be fair and don't misrepresent things that you don't know.
-Chris L.

 

[coaster]

I've been following the Ray Stanford story from the sidelines for a long time. I want to believe that everything he says is true, but so far the information presented, and especially the manner in which it is presented, is indistinguishable form a hoax. The rationale for withholding the presumably incredible UFO footage seems contrived. If it's so good it should speak for itself. And the argument that it has national security implications is hard to swallow since it purportedly shows an unknown phenomena, not secret government aircraft/weapon.

As others have pointed out, one of the skeptics' standard arguments against the reality of UFOs (and all paranormal phenomena for that matter) is that there are never any good photos or videos. Stanford's refusal to release his presumably remarkable footage just reinforces this view. If he really wants the study of these phenomena to become a subject of legitimate scientific inquiry, he needs to reveal the evidence that he has rather than coyly dangling tantalizing clues in the manner of a hoaxer.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing Ray Stanford of perpetrating a hoax. What I am saying is that his method of presentation is indistinguishable from a hoax. He may honestly believe that he's serving a higher cause by withholding his best evidence, but I think most honest observers would disagree.

 

[mike]

It seems that rather than referring people to my site to see this graphic, you've decided to link the image here where you could drop it below your smug "I'm guessing this as as close as we will get to the images for the time being." quip. I'd rather you hadn't used this image to convey a negative impression in your comments for your own ends, when it was intended simply to show a sample of the images that are in the book. It obviously doesn't matter to you that what you "..honestly think..." is flat wrong, since it seems only intended to be a demeaning slant at Ray's motives, something you clearly no nothing of but choose not to believe what Ray says. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that seeing the way you've presented yourself and your opinions here is, ironically, a perfect example of why Ray, or anyone, might refrain from posting material on Youtube or elsewhere. (When did Youtube become the best forum for scientific analysis or fair assessment?)

Making an erroneous statement, and saying it as a slur, is obviously just an effort to demean Ray, and me if only by implication. I've only presented the facts for anyone who might be interested in reading what I've known and what the evidence is. It's the truth, and I understand that some people will have reservations, but you don't have to believe it or even think about it if you don't want to. If you don't like what's there or that you can't see things at your demand, that's your prerogative, but at least be fair and don't misrepresent things that you don't know.
-Chris L.

Your excuses like Ray's are lame, they are nothing short of dishonest dodges, the majority sentiment here including that of the shows host is that there are no good reasons not to present this footage.
It is pointless and frankly pathetic to make a claim, like ray did in the show, and you do in publishing it, and not backing it with anything of substance.

Its not a slur if its true..... the truth is neither of you can present any evidence to back your claims this is great footage.

This reeks of self interest and profiteering, you bleat about my posting a picture you have placed on the internet, where as anyone knows is makes it public domain.

I found the image as a direct result of your own recitation of your website addy, but somehow the fault is mine for reposting it here ?



I believe UFO's are real, i believe they are here, and i also give ray the benefit of the doubt that he's captured the real deal.
But he doesnt do himself or the genre any favours with these miserable excuses , parroted by you as to why he wont make them public.
Calling it like it is is NOT

a perfect example of why Ray, or anyone, might refrain from posting material on Youtube or elsewhere

You want to debate the merits or lack of them (regarding posting the images) with me you need to do better than that.

At the end of the day you come across with your last post as another micheal horn, promoting billy meier.... all bluff and no real stuff

The rationale for witholding the footage is contrived, it IS all about getting invites to conferences etc etc, hes wasted his time in this field, yours and ours......

You make the claim you provide the proof, otherwise its all noise

 

[Voyager]

Your excuses like Ray's are lame, they are nothing short of dishonest dodges, the majority sentiment here including that of the shows host is that there are no good reasons not to present this footage.
It is pointless and frankly pathetic to make a claim, like ray did in the show, and you do in publishing it, and not backing it with anything of substance.

Its not a slur if its true..... the truth is neither of you can present any evidence to back your claims this is great footage.

This reeks of self interest and profiteering, you bleat about my posting a picture you have placed on the internet, where as anyone knows is now public domain.

I found the image as a direct result of your own recitation of your website addy, but somehow the fault is mine for reposting it here ?

I believe UFO's are real, i believe they are here, and i also give ray the benefit of the doubt that he's captured the real deal.
But he doesnt do himself or the genre any favours with these miserable excuses , parroted by you as to why he wont make them public.
Calling it like it is is NOT


You want to debate the merits of lack of them (re posting the images) with me you need to do better than that.

At the end of the day you come across with your last post as another micheal horn, promoting billy meier.... all bluff and no real stuff

The rationale for witholding the footage is contrived, it IS all about getting invites to conferences etc etc, hes wasted his time in this field, yours and ours......

You make the claim you provide the proof, otherwise its all noise

I was reluctant to even comment about Stanford. For me it's like revisiting a ghost from the past. Most likely he captured a real UFO on film. As to the quality, and substantive value of the film, well, we can't make that determination without viewing it. My cousin in Arizona had kidney surgery, and a triple heart by pass within the last 2 weeks, so I'm trying to keep my mind occupied.

 

[Sentry]

...you bleat about my posting a picture you have placed on the internet, where as anyone knows is makes it public domain.

No. Here's a PSA for you:

Copyright law exists to protect the creators of a original work, whether than be an article, a photo or a drawing...

Preventing Image Theft & Copyright Violation

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Here's a thought: since Chris is so adamant that Ray should personally explain the evidence he's gathered, why not asking him to participate in one of the Alternative Universe i-Conference Walter Bosley is planning on a monthly basis?

I can already bet he'll refuse out of a deep concern that someone might record the conference and uploaded on Youtube without his permission --aaand because last time he was a guest at Radio Misterioso, he picked a fight with Walter...

But hey, you can't blame a Ufo buff for trying, right? After all, since I'm a nobody with no credentials whatsoever, I've a better chance to have a close encounter of my own, than winning an invitation to watch this legendary Power Presentation of his

 

[Argo7077]

Since I'm not that familiar with Ray Stanford, I had to back up to check some of the older forum discussion on the topic of his film.

Yeah, I'd like to see the material too, but it sounds like Ray's reasons are valid for limiting the availability. My only gripe is that Ray paid his kid only $10 for this monumental evidence!

The rational for not releasing the footage was because or in part , because Ray didn't want to provide the yokels and skeptics an avenue to ridicule his good work..The message was clear to me that the nutters and skeptics and yokels have won. They have proven bad behavior can be rewarded. He has silenced and censored himself. As a community we lose.Giving more power to the wrong people. It just sends the wrong message. Release your good work. It may have the profound effect of changing minds and getting the hard sciences finally involved in the field of Ufology.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

The rational for not releasing the footage was because or in part , because Ray didn't want to provide the yokels and skeptics an avenue to ridicule his good work..The message was clear to me that the nutters and skeptics and yokels have won. They have proven bad behavior can be rewarded. He has silenced and censored himself. As a community we lose.Giving more power to the wrong people. It just sends the wrong message. Release your good work. It may have the profound effect of changing minds and getting the hard sciences finally involved in the field of Ufology.

WRONG! You have it bass-ackwards. You allow for peer-review by the scientific community, THEN you release data.

 

[Argo7077]

Chris its about exposure..There are brilliant minds who will never see that film and be denied their ability to shed light on it. Right now a brilliant patent clerk in Austria is being denied the ability to see the profound footage.(wink).Not because he is unworthy...But because he is not exposed to you or Ray...Cast a bigger net...Catch more fish..Your a great addition to the show.

 

[Secretbanana]

Great show this Sunday!

Ray Stanford is always an interesting guest, but am I the only one to find his claims a little dubious?

I researched him a little on the Internet, and apparently he's been involved in quite a few outlandish ventures, such as channeling and promoting time machines. (!) The Truth Uncensored: Ray Stanford Uncensored

I wouldn't categorize myself as a sceptic per se, but claims like these sure make me arch an eyebrow, and approach the subject with extreme caution...

Now as for Stanford's claims on the Paracast, he apparently has amazing video footage and still pictures of UFOs. Footage and pictures that are so good, that they would pretty much qualify as proof of their existence, from the sounds of it.

Has anyone not closely associated with mr. Stanford seen these pictures? Have our dear hosts Gene and Chris seen any of this? Because Stanford's claims of "I have this amazing proof of UFOs, but I'm not going to show it to you, so you'll just have to take my word for it" sounds kinda dodgy.

As for his reasons for not showing any of his material on the Internet, on the surface it sounds reasonable: "I can't show it, because then people faking UFO footage will know exactly what and how to fake..."

Really? So according to Mr. Stanford, there's no way to present the footage without compromising it? He couldn't for example just publish a still picture, or edit out a part of the image? (For example, the rays shooting out from the craft, that was mentioned in Sundays show)

And as for all of his talk of science and the scientific method, Ive never heard of a scientist who never publishes anything, in order to foil possible fakers...

As entertaining as Mr. Stanford is, am I the only one who finds his claims to be extremely dubious?


PS: I've constructed a time machine in my basement, a WORKING, FUNCTIONAL time machine, but I'm afraid I can't say too much about how it works or operates. (Imagine if it fell in the wrong, irresponsible hands! Why, somebody could travel back in time and kidnap Jesus! Or catch live dinosaurs and sell them on eBay! But I'd be happy to appear on the show and discuss my amazing travels through the 4th dimension!)

 

[wwkirk]

Chris its about exposure..There are brilliant minds who will never see that film and be denied their ability to shed light on it. Right now a brilliant patent clerk in Austria is being denied the ability to see the profound footage.(wink).Not because he is unworthy...But because he is not exposed to you or Ray...Cast a bigger net...Catch more fish..Your a great addition to the show.

In support of this point consider how difficult it has been to get the exhaustive scientific review that is desired. If it were released, then lots of people, including skeptics, scientists, photo analysts etc. would have a shot at scrutinizing it. In saying this I'm operating on the assumption that the footage is very significant, not that its underwhelming. The way things are now, there is a limited amount of interest by established people to study it, or it would already be published with peer review. What I am suggesting is an "open source" strategy that could result literally in dozens of rigorous analyses by skilled people in many walks of life. That includes free lancing scientists, hobbyists, regular ufologists, etc.

As I mentioned before, what happens after Ray passes away? What good will the secrecy do anyone then?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

For our newer forum members, here's some interesting reading on previous Ray Stanford threads:

Ray Stanford: White Sands July 19, 1978 Scientific Evidence | The Paracast Community Forums

Potential Guest: Ray Stanford | The Paracast Community Forums

Interestingly, in that first thread, a few posts in Chris says:

Yes I am aware of this claim and have seen frames of the movie film (NOT video -- Ray has no videos of UFOs, only analog film footage/stills) I think he may have stated this while on Greg Bishop's Radio Mysteriouso program. Not sure if it was his first or second appearance on the show. I don't know, he might be persuaded to make the still frames available before he has had a chance to publish the analysis of the film, I'd have to ask him.

 

[Secretbanana]

There is a plethora of scientific journals out there. If Stanford wanted to get it published and reviewed by experts and scientists, he could easily write up a paper and have it published by one of the lesser known but still respected journals.

One can only speculate on his reasons for not going this route.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

If you go back to those old posts, you'll see that Ray has been touting his presentations for almost two years here - sadly, nothing has come of it. I was even told by someone close to him that I would be red-faced when he showed what he had... still waiting.

This is the post I'm talking about:

Look, Angelo, you appear foolish in implying that analog graphs of UFO-generated changes in acceleration due to gravity and of the extreme low-frequency magnetic fields emanating from the objects Stanford and his fellow lab crew members recorded (in case you didn't bother to read the captions) are, to quote you exactly, "no evidence".

Didn't you see what was posted on this forum and on Chris O'Brien's Our Strange Planet? That's not anecdote. It's quantitative as well a qualitative, and much more than that of it has been examined by several Ph.D. physicists and numerous engineers across the world, the names of whom Stanford has privately supplied to researchers known to me.

Stanford's pioneering instrumented UFO studies set a fine precedent in UFO research, and some of the gravimeter and magnetometer records were divulged as early as at the MUFON international symposium of 1980 and in its published proceedings. I've a copy, now, and have read it and seen the illustrations. There are 27 pages in that Proceedings, of hard evidence Stanford generously provided us. He discusses that evidence conservatively and intelligently. Read it and you might learn that Stanford is an objective and intelligent lay-scientist, contrary to the picture of him you seem to be trying to present to this form.

Have you bothered to read and study what he presented? Evidently not, or you'd not be carrying on as you've been doing here.

Oh, but I forgot. It's the amusement of hearing the UFO sound (produced in connection with very fast turns) Stanford said he'd try to get digitized for us to hear on the forum. Well, I believe that's coming, but keep in mind that Stanford is a very busy man. I'd guess he considers his scientific work in two different fields more important than the complaints of anyone like you who ignore the UFO evidence he has already released while negatively screaming, it seems, although you don't name it, to hear a UFO's roar! That's the ONLY thing which we've not as yet heard which Stanford suggested he MIGHT be able to digitize and let us experience. Such a sound recording happens to be very much less meaningful to physicists than the gravity and magnetic field effects he has recorded and shown quite openly for physicists to study, even showing a little bit of it here, where some like you clearly can't (or pretend you don't) appreciate it.

This time of year back in Stanford's part of the country, weather has probably moderated and I suspect he spends a lot of time outside in streams doing his paleontology work.

I believe he really wants to let us hear the UFO sound they recorded 1978, but will do it only as his busy life allows. He is, after all, 72 years old, has only about 85% of his heart left beating, and considers that before he passes on, the most important things must take priority. I don't think this forum's hearing a UFO roar should be a priority, and it would surprise me if he thinks that way.

We shouldn't blame him if he puts scientific work before the demanding shouts of an angry sounding guy like you, Angelo.

Don't ignore human nature. If you want something from any human, treat that person with respect and you might then be listened to and wishes granted.

So, in other words, 'Angel'. be more respectful to Mr. Stanford and of the evidence his project has obtained over more than three decades of time-consuming, difficult, and expensive UFO research.

Otherwise, a day may come when this forum sings to a familiar Christmas tune. It might go like, 'Angelo the Red-Faced Forum Dear...', and so on, but it surely wouldn't describe you as a hero, like Rudolph.:redface:

Arthur Dalvan

It's from September 2010.

 

[Secretbanana]

And I take it that he hasn't presented the readings, photos etc. that were being discussed in the other thread?

Oh well, I guess I can always pass the time until he decides to publish his material with some reading. Can anyone recommend one of his books? Which Ray Stanford classic is better: "Speak, Shining Stranger" or "What Your Aura Tells Me"?

Amazon.com: Ray Stanford: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

 

[Secretbanana]

Thanks for the read, Angelo...

I guess you're not the only one waiting. Stanford has apparently been collecting data since the 1970ies, as this material from his organization suggests: Ray Stanford and The Socorro 'Saucer'

Personally it's not so much Stanford's UFO data I'm looking forward to seeing. I'm far more interested in the ""important archeological finds" (including finds related to the life of Jesus, apparently!) that has "been made possible through Stanton's psychic readings"

 

[trainedobserver]

I find that although I continue to be willing to give Ray Stanford the benefit of the doubt, it begins to wear a little thin. The whole bit about it only being shown to the worthy is tiresome and bit insulting. Don Ecker is finally going to release his moon photo realizing that it isn't doing anyone any good locked in a drawer somewhere.