• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

April 2, 2017 — Ray Stanford

I will not answer anymore of your questions since you refuse to answer mine. I'm done here, take it up w/ Ray.

I don't recall a direct question to me. I will answer it now if it is cogently presented. The only statement in your posts that had question marks after it was, "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..."

So other than "Comprendo" and "Grok it" do you have a real question I can try and answer?
I'm not much of a psychic, and I don't personally know anyone who has channeled Jesus Christ, but I do have an old email address from when we were on some advisory committee about taxes or something, so I sent Him a link to this thread and got a response! And Jesus said: "Jehoshaphat! This shit is fucking Hilarion!"
I understand Ray is very protective of his data.

In the April 2 show Ray said that his biggest criticism of Ufology is that UFO researchers are studying UFO reports, when they should be studying the objects, as he does. The problem is that other researchers have not been able to witness and record the enormous number of UFOs that Ray says he has. On the show (1:50:35 in Paracast+) Ray said that he has recorded, photographed, and filmed “thousands and thousands” of UFOs (he was actually referring to just the number of daylight UFOs he has captured).

I suspect Ray is following this thread. To address what he considers the biggest problem in Ufology, and for the good of this very important topic, I’d like to suggest to Ray that he provide to other researchers guidelines and assistance in teaching them how they could also record hundreds and thousands of UFOs as he has. Two recent guests of the Paracast, Robert Powell and Chase Kloetzke, are two researchers who come to mind. Marc D’Antonio is another. They are respected and prominent researchers of MUFON who I’m sure would desire such knowledge. This would not require the public release of Ray’s data.
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.
Listen Chris. With 100% respect.

The only reason I give him the time of day is because you are so adamant that he's legit. That's it.

Out of respect for you.

There is no disrespect intended here for you.
Chris, I doubt you're going to answer because you're annoyed with me, but on the off chance that you will...

You say Stanford did not NDA you. Can I ask what exactly did you see that had you so convinced the evidence was genuine? For example, did he actually have pictures of the Siccorro craft, and if so, how was it taken? Does it look real?

When you said 'twelve tesla rings' what was that in the context of?

Do you have any idea how he manages to obtain so many clear and unambiguous photos of these craft? If so, we could replicate the photos ourselves, and prove him right.

Or if not, and if he accepts a guy like me's invitation to view his presentation without being NDA'd, can you simply walk in and snap digital photos?

At least then we'd have some idea of what we're dealing with here.
You say Stanford did not NDA you.

After hearing Ben Moss, Tony Angiola and Martin Willis all mention a gentleman's agreement with Ray. I'm certain Mr. O'Brien is also going to honor such an agreement (if one were made). People with integrity don't need formal (NDA) documents honor the wishes of their friends and colleagues.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I just want to throw in my two cents regarding the strange experiences that come with research into weird things, as mentioned earlier in this thread. Been there, know what you're saying.

As regards Ray Stanford, it would be nice if someone would meet his requirements for releasing his photos and films. My questions are these (and if someone asked this stuff already, I apologize):

Has Ray himself made a gentleman's agreement with someone to not release the photos and film until the criteria are met? Is Ray actually honoring someone else' request with this? Could it be the source of these craft?
Intresting observation Walter and now the PTB are discussing theories of life forms under Saturns Moons for example small fish to maybe large types . Not forgetting the other intelligent life's forms already out there.
So that strikes me as a valid scientific prediction: Fry described a repulsive gravitational field effect acting at intergalactic distances, and that’s exactly what astronomers found, totally unexpectedly, 42 years later. I can’t think of another example in all of ufology of a scientific prediction like this being validated later. Can any of you?

Of course.

1) Bob Lazar preceded discovery of the element 115 by about 5-10 years.

2) Ray Stamford found in his films that UFOs squirt plasma beams ahead of themselves, just to reduce super-sonic bow shock. After visiting Ray's home plasma physicist Leik Myrabo experimentally reproduced the effect in air tunnels and, of course, never gave Stamford any credit.


article: Lightcraft Experiments Continue

That beam projection was described in several UFO cases, the most notably in the case: Cisco Grove, California, 1964. After cigar shaped craft left the scene witness had seen it projecting the beam.

3) As well, in the relatively recent case, mufon #74282, in south Canada, or maybe north US, an electrical engineer observed dumb-bell shaped UFO with some blue, green, red lasers scanning in semi-circular fashion, around the craft. Engineer didn't make any predictions, but its relatively easy to explain what these beams are used for. Engineer described beams as a highly monochromatic, laser light. So what UFO was doing? These lasers were stripping electrons from the air atoms and turning them into positive ions. These positive ions would than be pushed away by positively charged hull of the UFO. Practically UFOs are surrounding themselves by low air pressure volume. That's why we never hear sonic booms.

Now, I counted on this site cases where UFOs have similar devices, usually described as "windows" and its roughly more than 50% of UFOs that have them.Practically it is a standard aftermarket equipment for UFO ;-)
Last edited:
(Footnote: Mr. Stanford referred to Daniel Fry as a “psychotic liar” a few times, but I think he meant “pathological liar.” I don’t study psychology much but that doesn’t seem to fit this case. Sure, Daniel Fry definitely lied about the ufo images he made, and perhaps his whole story is a fabrication, but I think that pathological liars generally lie all the time about all kinds of things, compulsively, and I’ve never heard anything to indicate that about him (they also don't generally get nervous when they lie, from what I've read). It seems that if he was lying about his entire ufo experience then his lying was confined to that subject, as far as I’ve heard anyway. And he didn’t embellish his story over the years - he only said he encountered an unoccupied alien craft the one time, and that never changed/evolved, which is interesting. Assuming that he was lying about all of it though, still doesn't explain the kind of scientific features within his writings that we've touched on above, and man that still bugs me.)

Yeah, tell me more. With all the respect for Ray's work, I must say he's competitively jealous guy. He said for Adamsky that he told him, to impress him as a teenager, that he cooked up all the story about contacts. Adamsky's UFO films are 100% hand held models.

BUT, I found two other witnesses, one in US and one in UK who observed UFOs and who described them exactly as Adamsky's crafts. There was a case of a boy, Stephen Darbyshire Lake District, UK who went out with a friend to try his new camera and his first snap was Adamsky type UFO.


As well, extremely credible witness pilot commander Graham Bethune, had seen several Adamski style UFOs with whole of his family. Go directly to 22:53