4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford

[mike]

. I am pretty thin-skinned by some of these responses and you "mike" are skating on thin ice w/ this post.

You threatening me with the ban hammer for expressing my honest opinion ?

Shove that up your arse, you twit. Hows that for an ice breaker

Not much point in contributing to this place or the UFO genre in general, since as you say "We dont need to know"

If thats your attitude then then kill my account

If im in the "dont need to know category" then i need not waste my time trying to find out.

If we dont need to know, then we dont need to bother listening to the podcast anymore either.

 

[Astrocat]

Maybe Ron Regehr would be a perfect guest for a future show.

 

[Berean]

Why publish science in peer-reviewed journals?

Why publish science in peer-reviewed journals? « Genomes Unzipped

It does seem like you can get as much science as you're willing to pay for these days. Scientists have to eat too. Still, the truth will out in time. I just wish the subject of our passion was as rich in benefactors as evidence.

"We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

You threatening me with the ban hammer for expressing my honest opinion ?
If we dont need to know, then we dont need to bother listening to the podcast anymore either.

Sorry--had the wrong Mike. Your posts have been fine and I agree with much of what you've said. And yes, you and I don't really have a need to know. It would be nice to know, sure, but we really don't have a need to know. If you want to leave--that's your business... but leave the rest of the Guinness.

 

[mike]

Not good enough you pompus asshat, how dare you denigrate the audience here as "Typical armchair thinkers" and "not having a need to know" ?

If thats how you view the paracast audience..........

This from a man who in scraping the bottom of the barrel brings us his brother as a guest who states the church puts granite stones over the dead to use them as batteries..... and "wow" is all you can muster as an response ?

And you have the temerity the fucking chutzpah to question our critical thinking ?

Where is the wheat from chaff integrity in that response.......

Hells bells

Why would any of us bother tuning in to a podcast where the co host relegates us to the lowly status of armchair thinkers without a need to know.......

And no you didnt get the wrong "mike", im the one who compared him to greer, and heres why

Stanford's UFOdetector had an "attractor" feature that include a circle of lights that was supposed to gain the attention of flying saucer aliens! Simple and child-like in design, Stanford's circle of spinning lights, which displayed on and off at different intervals, is reminiscent of Steven Greer's ridiculous attempts at attracting UFOs by shining flashlights up into the sky. Stanford also had a "Precision Monitoring UFO Magnetometer" for use in the home

You want to debate the merits or lack of them claimed in this link

The Truth Uncensored: Ray Stanford Uncensored

Then by all means do so, but show us where these claims are wrong, debate the data.
Not just my friend ray says these are lies

I get that hes your friend, and thats fine, but thats not a free pass when it comes to looking at and questioning his integrity as a guest.
The standard is no bloody different than that of any other guest, we are intitled to dig and ask the hard questions, friend of yours or otherwise.

If your attitude as has been most clearly stated is that "we" the audience are just lowly armchair thinkers without a need to know........

Good luck with that.

I think you owe the entire audience an apology.

I'm a mirror, my vitreol is a refelection of yours, but if you think i will take your denigration of me and the audience without a wimper..... then you are a couple of sandwiches short of a good picnic sport.

 

[Polterwurst]

Chris: It's good to hear that you see it's frustration rather than malevolence that is driving some of the posters here into the overly skeptic or even debunker attitude. I'm not too happy about Mr. Stanford's decision to not make his evidence public either. I'd very much like to see "real unexplainable" UFOs accepted by science and society. Not only would it show some people who have turned away from me personally because of my interest, that I'm not a kook, but it would also be at least a symbolic retribution for hundreds and thousands of honest witnesses over the decades who have been laughed at and ridiculed, lost friends and social standing because they didn't keep it to themselves. That's what bothers me. But I've got to accept this decision.

I agree that it's not the right way to go on and attack Mr Stanford personally or seek out details in his past which seem to be obscure (and accept them without looking at the source first) because of that frustration. But you'll understand that we have seen so many charlatans, attention seekers, compulsive liars and fast-buck-artists that it gets harder and harder to believe anything.

EDIT BUT again that's absolutely no excuse for personal attacks. How about we keep the discussion civil, mike?

Speaking for myself, I've personally got enough evidence that "paranormal" stuff is actually going on so that I can even consider the theory that Mr. Stanford got his evidence (while others never see a thing in their life) because he has some psi talent. Of course, it would be really nice to have confirmation. Maybe I should consider flying overseas to America in my next holidays to visit Mr Stanford...

 

[mike]

Nah screw him, the gloves are off now

Let the intellectual pygmy debate me or ban me i dont give a shit

 

[Polterwurst]

That's a damn shame you know. You aren't really giving him much of a choice if you insist on name-calling.

 

[mike]

Are you kidding me ?

The comedians response is

Sorry--had the wrong Mike

But you can go back through the thread and see where he quoted me........


mike said:↑

...Right now Rays claims are indistinguishable from a hoax.]​

Absolutely not true! I have seen the evidence, you have not. Don't make misinformed statements that verge on defamation.
mike said:↑

I dont mind people making a buck or two pursuing their passion, my issue is when it comes at a cost to the genre itself.​

When incidents like this are treated like carnival items, roll up roll up and pay your conference fees to see the amazing Ray stanford and his incredible UFO footage, with we the audience with a genuine interest in these things relegated to one born every minute status.​

Once the primary motivation becomes fame and money, you are just another steven greer​

Ray is not interested in fame, money or glory (well maybe a little glory) and your defaming statements are too much. Putting Ray and Greer in the same sentence is about as insulting as you can get. Ratchet back your frustration, dude, and phrase your comments better, please. I am pretty thin-skinned by some of these responses and you "mike" are skating on thin ice w/ this post. I know, it sucks, but YOU do not have a need to know. None of you do. Deal with it! Ray has extended an invitation to see his data at his convenience, I suggest you take him up on his offer before taking potshots at one of our true UFO pioneers and topshelf experts!

And he claims he got the "wrong" mike ?

He threatens me with the skating on thin ice comment, and when i call him out his response is not you, another mike.......

One of us is some change short of the vending machine, and its not me

but YOU do not have a need to know. None of you do..........

None of you do..........

By all means tune into the podcast, but never forget as far as the co host is concerned

YOU do not have a need to know. None of you do..........

Why fucking bother........

 

[Polterwurst]

Well, maybe that "wrong mike" remark was ironic? Like in "I was discussing with the reasonable guy who has these deep thoughts and insights on the UFO subject and always contributes valuable things, not with the other one who is using language that just doesn't belong in a good discussion". Think about it, man. Come to your senses.

About the "none of you have the need to know", I'm not personally offended by that, because I know he didn't mean it as an insult. Just in the sense of "you can't force the man to come out with his evidence if he decides otherwise".

 

[Voyager]

You threatening me with the ban hammer for expressing my honest opinion ?

Shove that up your arse, you twit. Hows that for an ice breaker

Not much point in contributing to this place or the UFO genre in general, since as you say "We dont need to know"

If thats your attitude then then kill my account

If im in the "dont need to know category" then i need not waste my time trying to find out.

If we dont need to know, then we dont need to bother listening to the podcast anymore either.

I'm not going to suggest everybody chill because hopefully everybody already has. I understand how you feel. Robert Dean is a good example of people riding the wave for their own benefit, as have many others. This is something you should consider about Ray Stanford. Back when Ray formed Project Starlight International, it wasn't the average, normal people spearheading this type of research, it required somebody who was out there in their way of thinking. Nobody is perfect, and Ray certainly has his idiosyncrasies. Time is not kind to any of us. Ray Stanford and Chris O'Brien have formed a close friendship and I understand where Chis is coming from. Should he carry that baggage into his professional life in this forum, probably not. We are only human.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I'm with Gene. With all due respect to Ray Stanford - PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

If he really has such good evidence why would you taunt the world with it by never showing it? Keep it to yourself Ray, that's what all the best people in UFOLOGY do.

 

[wwkirk]

The footage has been around for a long time without any peer review taking place, so who knows when, if ever, that will happen?The film is raw data. It does not undermine or preclude scientific analysis to make it available, regardless of whether doing so is customary. Not only that, the public at large includes experts of many varieties. Making it public will bring many eyes to scrutinize it, not just a few.

In general I think the Paracast listeners want to know and should be encouraged in that regard. Otherwise why are they listening? They of course don't have a "right" to the footage, but they are well within their right to encourage Ray to change his mind and release what he has. Its only fair of them to say that as he is making a point of proclaiming that he has it. He's voluntarily approaching the public by talking about it.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It would be interesting to hear from Ray on this subject, or others that have seen it. That Dave Murphy fellow seems to know Ray quite well.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

And no you didnt get the wrong "mike", im the one who compared him to greer, and heres why. You want to debate the merits or lack of them claimed in this link
The Truth Uncensored: Ray Stanford Uncensored
Then by all means do so, but show us where these claims are wrong, debate the data.

What? Debate or refute bald-faced lies that is a snakey disinfo hatchet job full of lies and inuendo? Dave Murphy already commented on a couple of the more ridiculous ones. Its not my job to defend Ray Stanford. Yesterday he offered to come on and answer everyone's questions about his past.

I get that hes your friend, and thats fine, but thats not a free pass when it comes to looking at and questioning his integrity as a guest. The standard is no bloody different than that of any other guest, we are intitled [sic] to dig and ask the hard questions, friend of yours or otherwise..

I have known Ray for almost 10 years and he has been a man of the highest integrity and honor. Anyone who has met him will say the same thing. Don't believe everything you read on the internet--if you have a particular question, just ask--don't assume!

If your attitude as has been most clearly stated is that "we" the audience are just lowly armchair thinkers without a need to know........

Yeah it is. Take away the lowly part--I never said that-- and that's my attitude. I put almost 300,000 miles on my truck in 6 years investigating a 10,000 sq mile area; wrote four books, helped field produce dozens of TV show segments, etc. If I come across in a way that reminds our listeners that I've spent years and thousands of $$$ doing the heavy lifting, so be it. What the fuck have you done in an attempt to be a proactive part of the solution?

This show is about educating and entertaining our audience. Ray's work is about more than that. Neither you nor I or Gene or anyone in the Paracast audience has "a need to know." You can go cry like a squalling baby, pound your little fists and tell me to shove ice up my ass, but that ain't gonna change the fact that Ray has spent almost 60 years on his work and he's not going to fuck up and spill the beans so you and others can get their gee-wiz cum-in-their-hand moment. Grow the fuck up. My wrong mike aside was meant to try and diffuse your misplaced rage and frustration. Even though I agree with much of what you've said on these forums over the years, the mike I've come to know is a civil, sober thinker that composes his responses with thoughtfulness and care---not the rabid, foaming at the mouth antagonist that's been on display in this thread. Go stick that up your arse! If you were on thin ice before--I'm not sure what to call this...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wow people. We need to be civil. Hopefully Ray does come on and answer these questions.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Wow people. We need to be civil. Hopefully Ray does come on and answer these questions.

I didn't start the name-calling nor did I invite such vitriol to be spewed in my direction.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Chris doesn't deserve these insults. Stop it now! If Stanford doesn't want to reveal his stuff, that's his decision. I'd like to see the film and some of his other material, but it's not that we have the right to demand it.

And if there are any more over-the-top insults against anyone in this forum, the offenders will be banned. I've already issued another warning.

I don't want to close this thread, but I will if necessary.

 

[Astrocat]

There are two sides to every story. Still there is no need to get vulgar about it. The field loses good thinkers and investigators because of infighting. Maybe this type of attitude is a sign somebody needs to take a break. We cant afford to lose anymore Don Ecker's. One more thing Mike, how can you post a video trying to discredit Ray? A reptilian, are you serious? It seems a bit paranoid.

 

[trainedobserver]

I wonder if this is a good place to start discussing what a reasonable expectation of forum behavior is within the context of the general purpose for the forum itself?

I don't think it is here to so that we can alienate guests and runoff the few who attempt to contribute to the discussion about the paranormal. In our zeal to filter the signal from the noise we must not invalidate the very purpose the existence of the show and the forum and that is to foster intelligent and thoughtful discussion on the topics covered. You can attract more bees with honey than vinegar. Rectifying statements and references can be made but no one can have an reasonable expectation of changing someone else's mind or proving some point to some irrefutable degree. The best we can do is state our case and let the other fellow do so as well.

We have to do our best to stay good natured about this business. I don't think anyone really wants to participate in some adolescent flame war atmosphere. Everyone looses it occasionally but I would challenge each and every one of you to reflect on why you participate in this forum and what you are wanting to get out of it. I'm here to talk to people who experience and believe the strangest damn things and to practice my chops.

Pull those panties out your cracks and discuss among yourselves in whatever psychic or technological manner you see fit.