Looking down w/ analytical expertise is the same as looking up w/ analytical expertise, if you are an expert... IMO Ray Stanford is in a class beyond mere mortals when discussing human observation acuity and analytical prowess! As above/So below...
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
And Who Says Ray Doesn't Know What He's Looking At?
- Thread starter Christopher O'Brien
- Start date
Actually Chris, I've often heard you say about Ray, that 'his observational and visual acuity is off the scale' etc and I've never actually understood what exactly you mean by that.
Are you saying that for instance, if Ray is looking at a blue sky, he is more likely to see a distant object than the average person's eyesight or maybe that he sees things in a different way completely?
Can you please elaborate on this statement, as considering all the people you've come in contact with in the field, to give someone this accolade must mean there is something quite exceptional about him - but I'm not sure what you mean exactly and I'd really like to. I know Ray has been studying UFOs for a long time and had his project Starlight in Texas etc (saw it on Arthur C Clarke's 'Mysterious World').
Also, any headway in getting Ray to maybe release a picture or two? Do you recommend any publications by Ray in particular?
Are you saying that for instance, if Ray is looking at a blue sky, he is more likely to see a distant object than the average person's eyesight or maybe that he sees things in a different way completely?
Can you please elaborate on this statement, as considering all the people you've come in contact with in the field, to give someone this accolade must mean there is something quite exceptional about him - but I'm not sure what you mean exactly and I'd really like to. I know Ray has been studying UFOs for a long time and had his project Starlight in Texas etc (saw it on Arthur C Clarke's 'Mysterious World').
Also, any headway in getting Ray to maybe release a picture or two? Do you recommend any publications by Ray in particular?
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Stanford is cool. My dad was a geologist by profession and we used to go out fossil hunting from time to time. I never found much though, ( just a couple of ammonite shells ) and they still had some of the colorful mineralization on them.
Patience is a virtue grasshopper... Some of Ray's more relevant and important evidence was presented at a prestigious physics conference last August in Moscow.
As soon as Ray grants his permission, I'll tell you all about it. The paper was presented by a well-known physicist to a SRO audience and the reaction to the data was very positive.
As soon as Ray grants his permission, I'll tell you all about it. The paper was presented by a well-known physicist to a SRO audience and the reaction to the data was very positive.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I'm looking forward to seeing what Chris posts up. The other post he put up about Stanford finding a nodosaur footprint near NASA's GSFC campus was pretty cool: Nodosaur Dinosaur Footprint Found At NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center - Business Insider
Ray needs to obtain permission from the physicist (who presented the paper) to his reproduce proprietary material on-line. Sure, the conference was public, but the scientist who presented the paper owns the publishing rights to the material and I need to get permission to post it... Ray's optical data of a ufo optically generating 22 concentric Faraday rings was only a part of the overall presentation and as soon as this permission is granted , you all will be the first to see it on-line.
Don't want to get morbid or greedy, but people do die (RIP JIM) and imagine if Ray did die unpublished. Would he have made provisions for such an eventuality or would he be happy for it to stay locked away? Remember: Chris did say that Ray feels he should be present always to explain and give context to his work. That is fair enough up to a point and will that point will be the UFO legacy Ray eventually leaves?
It would be a crying shame if all his hard work and supposed ability/natural flair, went unseen by the majority of Ufology.
We keep hearing hints that something is in the pipeline and I try not to get excited, both cos it might not happen at all, or when it does it is very underwhelming in some way. I sincerely hope not and especially given the implied tone of the references to how the science was received by peers in science and of course, our own Chris O'Brien's endorsement of Ray in general.
I don't think anyone whatsoever questions Ray's commitment and standing in Ufological research but to be on this side is very 'Wizard of Oz-ish'!
It would be a crying shame if all his hard work and supposed ability/natural flair, went unseen by the majority of Ufology.
We keep hearing hints that something is in the pipeline and I try not to get excited, both cos it might not happen at all, or when it does it is very underwhelming in some way. I sincerely hope not and especially given the implied tone of the references to how the science was received by peers in science and of course, our own Chris O'Brien's endorsement of Ray in general.
I don't think anyone whatsoever questions Ray's commitment and standing in Ufological research but to be on this side is very 'Wizard of Oz-ish'!
Well Lance I'm pretty much with you until I see something. Either he has 'astonishing' photos and measurements or he does not. The longer we go without seeing a single drop of work, the harder it is have any faith whatsoever. Having said that - I'll hold judgement until I see some pics at least - I certainly don't think Ray would hoax anything. It will be either real, weird phenomena captured on camera and measured, or it will be something mundane and totally mis-identified.
But when do we get to see anything........drumming fingers............audible sighing........glancing at wristwatch.......ad nauseum!
But when do we get to see anything........drumming fingers............audible sighing........glancing at wristwatch.......ad nauseum!
bonaventura
Skilled Investigator
Thanks BV, I was hoping that Lance would take the time to find it, but obviously he'd much rather sit back take pot shots, criticize and belittle people like Ray.
Meesen's papers are worth noting because they do present the subject of UFOs to the scientific establishment in an unbiased objective manner. Ray's contributions to the scientific study of UFOs (AAOs --his term) are duly noted and acknowledged.
Pulsed EM Propulsion of Unconventional Flying ObjectsAuguste Meessen
PIERS Proceedings, 508 - 512, August 19-23, Moscow, RUSSIA 2012
Naw, Lance is a gentleman, he'll acknowledge that he is wrong about Ray and apologize, eventually...
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Naw, Lance is a gentleman, he'll acknowledge that he is wrong about Ray and apologize, eventually...
Well ... I wouldn't count on it ... not unless he just wants to go on record as being in opposition to me again. Having looked at the Meesen PDF, although it is interesting, it bears all the hallmarks of pseudoscience. In my opinion as a ufologist, this work should have been organized and presented in a way that makes it clear that in a informal way, certain valid scientific principles are being applied to theoretical, hypothetical and unproven claims surrounding the topic of "Unconventional Flying Objects of unknown origin". I seriously doubt that mainstream science would evaluate this work as having followed accepted scientific standards in order to reach its conclusion ( cringe ). However it is still interesting if we can set that issue aside and look at some of the content. I'd like to see the video. Has it ever been digitized?
bonaventura
Skilled Investigator
For more on Meessen, see page 9 of this issue of Sunlight. Apparently he is a longtime ufologist. It would be scads more interesting if a physicist not predisposed to belief in such things were to be convinced by Ray's evidence.
Sure, let's attack the scientist and ignore the science... 12 Faraday rings (actually there is visual evidence there may have been more) captured optically around an unknown object filmed outside an airliner in flight.
Explain this for us Lance.
Explain this for us Lance.
Yeah, pseudo-science... tell that to the Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium who chose to include Meesen's presentation that featured Ray's documented magnetic and optical evidence. Incidentally, Meesen's work was the third most downloaded paper of the entire symposium. Go figure! I find it interesting that the debunkers crow about UFO evidence never being taken seriously by mainstream science, yet here is an example of how that is changing and no longer holds true. Typical. Keep moving the bar and ignore the mounting evidence while attacking the pioneers who are slowly making progress toward mainstream recognition and acceptance.
I'll say again: "... tell that to the Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium who chose to include Meesen's presentation that featured Ray's documented magnetic and optical evidence. Incidentally, Meesen's work was the third most downloaded paper of the entire symposium. Go figure! I find it interesting that the debunkers crow about UFO evidence never being taken seriously by mainstream science, yet here is an example of how that is changing and no longer holds true. Typical. Keep moving the bar and ignore the mounting evidence while attacking the pioneers who are slowly making progress toward mainstream recognition and acceptance." YOU and your ilk are as much a part of the problem as the true-believers. Both sides choose to wear the blinders of their preconceived opinions. And yes, you're right... like me, you are no scientist—unlike the dozens of scientists who downloaded Meesen's papers.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
It's encouraging to know that serious attention is being paid to the topic by scientists with credentials, but that doesn't make Meesen's PDF appear to be any less pseudoscientific. Perhaps Ray's own information is presented differently and would not match the criteria set out for pseudoscience. When it comes to the issue of pseudoscience, It doesn't take a PhD. to be able to figure it out, and appeals to authority don't necessarily add any defensive weight against the claim.
Non scientists like you or I can evaluate most work well enough to see if it bears the hallmarks of pseudoscience. I'm not sure if Lance has any scientific credentials, but I suspect he would probably agree that it isn't necessary for us to be able to do the math or fully understand every concept, or as he put it, all the "big words". Rather, it is how the calculations, concepts, claims and theories are presented and how well they adhere to accepted standards of scientific practice that matters. Key issues such as the initial premise and the integrity of evidence can be easy to evaluate without any specialized knowledge.
All that being said, offhandedly condemning information on formatting and presentation technicalities alone would not be responsible. So what do we do? As usual, I suggest that we apply critical thinking and present our cases in an informal context such as well formed articles that make no scientific claims themselves, but that still offer serious food for thought. This has the potential to attract real scientists who might then study it using their standards and methods. In this way we remain at arms length and unbiased with respect to the scientific results. It also gives us the comparative freedom to explore contentious issues and make potentially important contributions without the risk of ruining our professional reputations.
Anyway ... Can you tell us any more about Ray's video? I'm really curious about that ! Can we view it anyplace? I found a July 25, 1959 film here but nothing for
December 4, 1980.
NOTE: The Hessdalen project has also been attacked by skeptics as pseudoscience, however I have been able to successfully refute that claim each time ( so far ) because the claims of pseudoscience against the Hesdallen Project have always been based on journalistic or third person reports about the project rather than the actual work. When I have asked skeptics to identify the hallmarks of pseudoscience in the actual work, they have not as of yet been able to provide any examples that stand up to scrutiny.
So if this is such "silly nonsense" why do you spend so much time attempting to debunk and belittle the subject? What is YOUR motivation? Why do YOU bother? What satisfaction do you derive from all your time spent as a debunking, damage controller here at this site and elsewhere? You Quixotic self-appointed role as UFO debunker cop and ridiculer suggests an agenda at work—either that or you have too much time on your hands...
I'm disappointed that you turned down today's extended invitation to appear as a guest on the show.
Whenever you are ready to accept our invitation to be a guest on the Paracast, I look forward to hearing about your motivations as a "Skeptic" (I say in your case, "debunker").
What drives a man to spend such time and energy disproving something they think is unreal? Inquiring minds (like mine) would be highly intrigued and more than interested in your thinking/motivation and agenda.