• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast 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! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

April 2, 2017 — Ray Stanford

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
Sorry dude, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't drink anyone's kook-aid (including my own). I have seen his work. You have not. I have spoken to experts who have seen his work. You have not. You are making assumptions about a body of work that you have not examined, nor studied. I have supplied many here w/ Ray's contact information. If you REALLY cared and were really interested (and are NOT just breaking my balls, or being au contraire) you would have contacted him and struck up a relationship to find out more about his work. Instead, you sit back in that armchair and take pot shots because Ray's protection of his work doesn't conform to your sniffy expectations. If you REALLY wanted to know more, you'd contact him and ask. Doing anything less (bitching, moaning, groaning, chastising, etc) is lame and (IMO) lazy.
 

withoutlimits09

Paranormal Adept
Sorry dude, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't drink anyone's kook-aid (including my own). I have seen his work. You have not. I have spoken to experts who have seen his work. You have not. You are making assumptions about a body of work that you have not examined, nor studied. I have supplied many here w/ Ray's contact information. If you REALLY cared and were really interested (and are NOT just breaking my balls, or being au contraire) you would have contacted him and struck up a relationship to find out more about his work. Instead, you sit back in that armchair and take pot shots because Ray's protection of his work doesn't conform to your sniffy expectations. If you REALLY wanted to know more, you'd contact him and ask. Doing anything less (bitching, moaning, groaning, chastising, etc) is lame and (IMO) lazy.

LOL at "protection of his work" as he hypes it up on any "radio show" that will listen!

Did those interested in Ray's dinosaur bones have to sit on dinosaur forums, and get his e-mail via devotee surrogates, then contact him via e-mail, and ask permission to see them? Or did Ray work within the confines of academia and submit his findings and fossils to the relevant outfits? Again, I am not the one making the claims, Ray is, therefore it is incumbent on him to produce the evidence. I am not even asking for it directly, I am simply wondering why he can't work with a major University on this fascinating topic. Simply release a headline that says, "Today, I have turned over copies of my UFO film to MIT and Harvard University for further analysis." Let MIT release a statement that says they have received it and are examining it. That would bring instant credibility to his cause, far more credibility than talking about his films on fringe "alien podcasts" and showing devotees the footage in his living room under conditions he controls.

You are like a guy at the front row of a David Copperfield stage presentation swearing you saw him float....To really prove this, Copperfield would have to perform that in a neutral laboratory...not his home turf.
 

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
Listen to yourself! Academia? UFO films and analysis? Get real... A small example of his diagnostic work was presented in 2013 at an optical physics conference in Russia. It was the largest attended seminar/presentation. He's shown it privately to several Goddard scientists, at least one well-known physicist whose name you'd recognize, John Alexander, Richard Dolan, James Fox and a number of others have bothered to visit and sit w/ him and review the work. I put on a private conference (w/ 50 attendees) in Sedona that featured a whole day of Ray presenting. Unfortunately, much of his work is highly technical, so it's hard for the average person w/ a limited understanding of science to follow along at times. You go on an on about "credibility" when the entire subject lacks any in the eyes of science and academia, so please — get real!
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Sorry dude, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't drink anyone's kook-aid (including my own). I have seen his work. You have not. I have spoken to experts who have seen his work. You have not. You are making assumptions about a body of work that you have not examined, nor studied. I have supplied many here w/ Ray's contact information. If you REALLY cared and were really interested (and are NOT just breaking my balls, or being au contraire) you would have contacted him and struck up a relationship to find out more about his work. Instead, you sit back in that armchair and take pot shots because Ray's protection of his work doesn't conform to your sniffy expectations. If you REALLY wanted to know more, you'd contact him and ask. Doing anything less (bitching, moaning, groaning, chastising, etc) is lame and (IMO) lazy.

The only reason I give Stanford any credit at all is because of what you say. Also, if deciding not to spend the resources to make the trek from Calgary to Ray's place to substantiate his claims is considered being lazy, I guess I'm guilty. But that being said, the burden of proof on those who make claims like Ray's is on those who make the claims, not the people who call them into question, so criticizing listeners as lame and lazy isn't really fair to them. Maybe I have less of an excuse than the average listener because of my involvement in ufology, so tell you what:

Last time I looked into contacting Stanford, he was only interested in dealing with high profile people or those with some sort of academic credentials. As we both know, neither popularity nor credentials have kept people from making errors in the past. Do you think he'd be willing to deal with someone like me who is a ufologist who asks hard questions and applies more focused critical thinking to the analysis of claims? Or would he come up with some sort of excuse not to share it or require some sort of non-disclosure agreement?
 

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
WRITE HIM AND ASK! I'm not Ray's agent, apologist or fan-boy and I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. By lazy, I didn't mean go to DC, I meant strike up a friendship w/ the guy. Plus, I wasn't talking to you. If anyone wants to know about Ray's work, take the time to get to know Ray... I'm done here
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
WRITE HIM AND ASK! I'm not Ray's agent, apologist or fan-boy and I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. By lazy, I didn't mean go to DC, I meant strike up a friendship w/ the guy. Plus, I wasn't talking to you. If anyone wants to know about Ray's work, take the time to get to know Ray... I'm done here
I know you weren't referring to me as lazy. I was making the statement on my own behalf because compared to you I do feel lazy. I'm not half the field-guy you are. I am however pretty good at analysis and was basically hoping you might be able to offer a tip or two on how to approach him and a heads up as to what to expect. I guess I can figure that all out, but you do have experience so that's why I asked. BTW I don't consider you to be a Stanford "fan-boy" or apologist. I have a lot of faith in your ability to judge a situation. Remember this is me, not your average skeptic or critic.
 

withoutlimits09

Paranormal Adept
LOL.jpg
Listen to yourself! Academia? UFO films and analysis? Get real... A small example of his diagnostic work was presented in 2013 at an optical physics conference in Russia. It was the largest attended seminar/presentation. He's shown it privately to several Goddard scientists, at least one well-known physicist whose name you'd recognize, John Alexander, Richard Dolan, James Fox and a number of others have bothered to visit and sit w/ him and review the work. I put on a private conference (w/ 50 attendees) in Sedona that featured a whole day of Ray presenting. Unfortunately, much of his work is highly technical, so it's hard for the average person w/ a limited understanding of science to follow along at times. You go on an on about "credibility" when the entire subject lacks any in the eyes of science and academia, so please — get real!


Yes, Chris, please listen to me. Steven Greer, a guy who has less credibility than Ray Stanford (if such is possible), was able to get Stanford University (I hope you have heard of it) to not only examine his little mummy, but participate in his "UFO documentary" and give their conclusions. I am sorry, showing a video to Richard Dolan, isn't the same as submitting your evidence to Stanford University. Hysterically, Greer has more credibility with evidence than does your guru Stanford.

Just so we are clear, it is your claim that a major academic institution won't touch this subject, but I just gave a very good example to the contrary.

Do you have another weak pitch I can knock out of the park?

Sidenote: for someone who claims to not be his apologist you sure rush into these threads pretty quickly and get triggered faster than a liberal at a Trump rally, just my observation. :)
 
Last edited:

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
...for someone who claims to not be his apologist you sure rush into these threads pretty quickly and get triggered faster than a liberal at a Trump rally, just my observation.
I answered some direct questions and then you chimed in w/ your list w/ all the confabulated BS that's available for reputation slammers (such as you seem to be) to use as you see fit. I am not an apologist, but if you (or Marduck or whomever) attack any of my friends, I'll quickly jump to their defense. As for your lame analogy re: Greer. He had a small, cool-looking physical specimen. Ray has his visual films and his analysis. It would be much easier to produce a small body, pay some people off, and say "have a look," as opposed to a scenario such as we have w/ Ray. If you continue badgering me, I will not appreciate it and will react in not so nice a manner.
 

Han

piscator ψ
I won't pretend that I understand the situation and all the parties involved, but I think this has got too personal.

From my point of view Mr Stanford doesn't have to do anything, he could destroy all his evidence if he wants to. It is his work.

I can say with great confidence that important works have been deliberately or accidentally destroyed by their creators.

And sometimes fantastic theories or ideas are never published.

Only Mr Stanford can decide to publish or not, and I don't think he will be "forced" into it, especially by people "online" (myself included).

I hope that he does decide to make his work public.

Until he does I can't make any kind of judgement.

In other words I am not trying to denounce or promote his evidence, but I do understand his position, but I also understand the frustration of others.

It's a bit of a vicious circle: Mr Stanford not sharing his evidence has caused scepticism, and why would Mr Stanford show his evidence to people that have already made up their minds?

It could be argued that the evidence should stand up for itself, but without seeing it, no informed judgement can be made either way.

What I am trying to say is that it doesn't make any difference if I want him to publish, it is up to him.

There is no point in getting angry about it, in fact antagonism will probably make it less likely for him to ever publish.

Just to be crystal clear I am not defending Mr Stanford, just his position.

I don't think there is anyone on this forum who has not at some point be dismayed at how toxic "Ufology" can be, people get very angry and upset over the implications of UFOS (again myself included) but if any subject deserved to be explored with a calm and rational mind it is this one.

As an outsider looking in, maybe this situation is a microcosm of the field in general, and part of the reason it is difficult to get academia to engage and invest as much as it should.

We have a tendency to forget that we all have the same goal, and that is to see evidence of UFOS, isn't it?

I am a sceptic, but i believe it is impossible to prove that UFOS don't exist, therefore they must exist, unless they can exist and not exist at the same time?

We should all be as sceptical of something as possible, until we are convinced of it, but to expect everyone to have the same standards and interpretations is naive, especially when we are talking about a topic as loaded as UFOS, its too big and complicated for one person to comprehend so we need to work together rather than argue about evidence not everybody can see, regardless of the reasons or motives.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
From my point of view Mr Stanford doesn't have to do anything, he could destroy all his evidence if he wants to. It is his work.
^ This. I struggle with it too, because of my personal motives for studying this subject, but where the rubber meets the road, the corollary principle to the “freedom of speech” is the “freedom of silence.” Ray Stanford has every right to do whatever he chooses with his own work.

The water is muddled considerably by promoting his work publicly without making it available to the public in some manner, because that invites the kind of frustration that we see in this thread. But I can’t hold it against him: I support any effort to investigate this phenomenon, private or public, and he has shown it to a select group of others, which is far more than he’s obligated to do.

I decided long ago that I’d share any of my own findings that might help us move closer to replicating the propulsion method exhibited by some/most/or all these craft, because I can clearly see the birth of a new and inspiring Renaissance in human civilization once we understand the field propulsion principle at work with these devices. It’s nothing less than what Michio Kaku calls “the passport to the universe.” And that’s far bigger than any personal concerns, including my own life. I only hope that by the time my lights are going out, we humans will be set on a clear path to manned interstellar spaceflight, because I believe that even the inevitability of that achievement will transform human consciousness in ways that we can scarcely imagine.

But that quixotic altruism is not mandatory.

A small example of his diagnostic work was presented in 2013 at an optical physics conference in Russia. It was the largest attended seminar/presentation. He's shown it privately to several Goddard scientists, at least one well-known physicist whose name you'd recognize, John Alexander, Richard Dolan, James Fox and a number of others have bothered to visit and sit w/ him and review the work. I put on a private conference (w/ 50 attendees) in Sedona that featured a whole day of Ray presenting. Unfortunately, much of his work is highly technical, so it's hard for the average person w/ a limited understanding of science to follow along at times.
Chris – do you know if anyone has spoken or written about these presentations? Perhaps they’re subject to a nondisclosure agreement; I don’t know. But I’d love to hear what any of these people have to say about Ray Stanford’s presentations. It’s hard to say exactly what kind of technical detail might trigger that “eureka!” moment that ties the right observational details in with the right theoretical concept that opens the door to a revolutionary experiment, so I’m always on the lookout for new technical clues.
 

Constance

Paranormal Adept
As an outsider looking in, maybe this situation is a microcosm of the field in general, and part of the reason it is difficult to get academia to engage and invest as much as it should.

I think that's right on the money, Han, and I also agree with the rest of what you say in your post. I've hoped that Ray Stanford would be able to locate an academically recognized physicist open-minded enough, and willing, to engage Stanford's evidence and speak for it to the public. That not easy to do given Stanford's early engagement with psi experiences and theories [to which institutional science has always responded negatively, indeed ruling it out for consideration], and also given the reluctance of academic scientists to engage with the ufo subject and data. Until he finds an academic scientist courageous enough (and independent enough) to engage with his work, it's certainly understandable that he is reluctant to lay it all out for 'the ufo community' we encounter on the internet and indeed in unreasonable reactions to Stanford in this thread.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
You go on an on about "credibility" when the entire subject lacks any in the eyes of science and academia, so please — get real!
I'd just like to add: that's subject to change at a moment's notice. The study of ufos has been so intensely oppressed by a concerted PsyOps campaign against the subject for decades, that it's hard to even imagine a drastic shift toward real scientific credibility. But the moment that someone demonstrates a modest proof-of-principle experiment that exhibits 1/10,000th of the performance characteristics of these unexplained craft, you can bet your house that the scientific community will be set ablaze, and public perception will quickly shift to widespread acceptance of these sightings as a real phenomenon. We humans are a stubborn lot - we don't believe that anything is possible, until we can do it ourselves on a lab bench (or verify it independently through multiple observations by trained scientists all around the world, as in the case with astronomical findings). But once -we- can do it, we'll quickly accept that other exosolar civilizations can do it too, and probably already have, right here in our own atmosphere.
 
Last edited:

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
Chris – do you know if anyone has spoken or written about these presentations? Perhaps they’re subject to a nondisclosure agreement; I don’t know. But I’d love to hear what any of these people have to say about Ray Stanford’s presentations.
No, there have been no NDAs asked for or signed to my knowledge. I never signed one. As for people commenting on Ray's work, Ben Moss and Tony Angiola, James Fox, John Alexander and some others have commented on his work.
It’s hard to say exactly what kind of technical detail might trigger that “eureka!” moment that ties the right observational details in with the right theoretical concept that opens the door to a revolutionary experiment, so I’m always on the lookout for new technical clues.
Clues? How about various ghost imaging of craft found in true-fo photos that appear to indicate some sort of time compression process at work?
 

matthew1977

Paranormal Maven
. Why would one become emotional over having a sketch authenticate their story....

Clearly you have not had major synchronicities in/while reasearching the ufo phenomena. Trust me it can be a very exciting and emotional experience.

After all the negative comments I can see why Ray is reserved in (not) wanting to share his wealth of information....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 

withoutlimits09

Paranormal Adept
I answered some direct questions and then you chimed in w/ your list w/ all the confabulated BS that's available for reputation slammers (such as you seem to be) to use as you see fit. I am not an apologist, but if you (or Marduck or whomever) attack any of my friends, I'll quickly jump to their defense. As for your lame analogy re: Greer. He had a small, cool-looking physical specimen. Ray has his visual films and his analysis. It would be much easier to produce a small body, pay some people off, and say "have a look," as opposed to a scenario such as we have w/ Ray. If you continue badgering me, I will not appreciate it and will react in not so nice a manner.

I don't understand why suggesting Ray Stanford submit his film to a major academic institution as opposed to an "event in Russia with Richard Dolan" should be called BS (I personally liked Richard Dolan's Mexico mummy event LOL). Again, the point still stands, you made the claim that academia will not touch this subject, you never qualified that, you simply laughed at the idea that a major University would participate in something involving UFOs or a UFO researcher. I simply gave a rebuttal, by pointing out Stanford University not only examined Greer's specimen, but also participated in his documentary. Again, I don't know why that would be considered BS.

You are purely speculating when you claim that because Greer's specimen, "looked cool" that's why Stanford University was eager to work with it. You then suggest that Ray's film are too dry and technical, I think this is laughable. There is nothing boring about film footage of a UFO, in broad daylight, shooting a plasma beam at Ray Stanford as he hold his camera. That is what Ray claims he has. That is far more interesting than Greer's little mummy.
 
Last edited:

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
No, there have been no NDAs asked for or signed to my knowledge. I never signed one. As for people commenting on Ray's work, Ben Moss and Tony Angiola, James Fox, John Alexander and some others have commented on his work.
Thank you for the leads Chris; I'll start trying to track down those comments. If anyone has any links, you'll have the mucho in my gracias. I'll come back and post here any relevant links that I find as I dig around online.

Clues? How about various ghost imaging of craft found in true-fo photos that appear to indicate some sort of time compression process at work?
I'm having trouble understanding how time dilation can be captured in a photo, but I can state that gravitational fields are manifestations of time and space distortion - within an ordinary gravitational field, time, as seen by an external observer, would appear to move more slowly. For example, if you were within the center of gravitational field right next to a clock, and I was filming at some distance, you would appear to be red-shifted and the clock beside you would appear to tick more slowly. The opposite effect would be evident in an inverse, aka negative, gravitational field - blue-shifting with accelerated time within such a field.
 
Last edited:

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
I don't understand why suggesting Ray Stanford submit his film to a major academic institution as opposed to an "event in Russia with Richard Dolan" should be called BS (I personally liked Richard Dolan's Mexico mummy event LOL). Again, the point still stands, you made the claim that academia will not touch this subject, you never qualified that, you simply laughed at the idea that a major University would participate in something involving UFOs or a UFO researcher. I simply gave a rebuttal, by pointing out Stanford University not only examined Greer's specimen, but also participated in his documentary. Again, I don't know why that would be considered BS.

You are purely speculating when you claim that because Greer's specimen, "looked cool" that's why Stanford University was eager to work with it. You then suggest that Ray's film are too dry and technical, I think this is laughable. There is nothing boring about film footage of a UFO, in broad daylight, shooting a plasma beam at Ray Stanford as he hold his camera. That is what Ray claims he has. That is far more interesting than Greer's little mummy.
Dude, you really don't know what you are talking about! You don't "submit a film" to an academic institution for them to comment on. Get real, please. I understand your frustrated and eager to experience what he's working on. Think about how I feel! 15 years of trying to get him to finish up and publish already. You are pissing me off, so knock it off already.

So, for the LAST TIME. If you want to know more about Ray and his work. CONTACT HIM yourself like I did 15 years ago and stop dogging me about him, ok? Capice'? Understand? Comprendo? Grok it? Get it? Good...
 

withoutlimits09

Paranormal Adept
"Dude" are you 12?

Did Stanford University steal Steven Greer's specimen and just decide to study it or did Greer "submit it" to them for study? Please answer that question.

Did the Smithsonian steal Ray Stanford's fossils and display them, or did he submit them through the proper channels for confirmation? Please answer that question.

I have said, I don't want to know anymore about Ray, other than the fact he is seriously pursing a route that will get this information into the hands of people who are useful. I am sorry, I don't think Martin Willis, Richard Dolan, or Jamie Fox are those people. Perhaps we disagree there.

Just recently I read an article where a man in Wisconsin filmed a meteor and recovered parts of it, do you know what he did with it after he recovered the fragments?...Are you ready for this, you won't believe it..."The man who found the fragment lent it to UW-Madison scientists for analysis." WHAT!!!!!!!

So again, you have a totally skewed view of how research is done. Ray Stanford could easily contact a department at a major University, highlight his work with Goddard, and his "Russia Event" and easily get the ball rolling. You believe Ray Stanford has film of a UFO shooting plasma beams at him, but don't believe there is a mechanism available to get this information in front of non-kool aid drinking devotees like Dolan etc...Stanford is merely preaching to choir, not achieving anything. I don't even see how anyone could find my position on this controversial.
 

Top