SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!
You don't listen very well, but I can HEAR YOUR yelling.So if this photo is discredited, and the Belguim UFO photo is discredited, Ed Walter's photos are discredited (and so forth), what are we left with in terms of photographic evidence? I keep hearing about some guy named Ray Stanford who has the "holy grail" of UFO videos, however until I actually see it, rather than hear about it on radio shows (which unsurprisingly promote...Ray Stanford), I remain unconvinced...
You don't listen very well, but I can HEAR YOUR yelling.
Ray DOES NOT HAVE ANY VIDEOS. Holy grail in quotes? I never said that and neither has Ray. Please be correct and accurate. He has analog films and still (film) photos and some physical evidence of various types, i.e., burnt paper and vitrified quartz from the Soccorro site, a glass and copper meteorite from TX, etc. And he has his analysis. What he has DOES NOT conform to the simplistic 50s sci-fi/Adamski/Billy Meir "flying saucer" You can ooh and ahh all you want over at Third Phase of Loon. Obviously, you don't trust my appraisal of Ray's scientific work. That's OK, you'll deal with it. Until he is ready, everyone will just have to continue being patient. If that's not good enough, go ahead email and bitch and moan to him yourself email@example.com
A major difference between Ray and Greer, for me anyway, is that Ray seems to work away by himself and isn't constantly self-promoting but Greer, IMO, is totally robbing people of large sums of cash and has put himself up as the person who trains others as an inter-stellar ambassador. There is a huge difference between those two, although I agree that a lot of Ray's former belief's and statements are extremely hard to swallow. I do wonder what he would say today when asked about such stuff?
OK, that was well put. However it's not like we're looking at a true side by side comparison. Once upon a time Greer came across as more respectable, and once upon a time Stanford came across as less respectable. Then over time, while Stanford has become more respectable, Greer has become less respectable. Therefore why should they both be treated equally now? Plus Chris has had personal experience with both people, seen some of the evidence for himself, and he has a reputation as an accomplished field investigator and author. So once again, Chris' opinion is worth some weight, and if he says the evidence Stanford has now is more deserving of serious consideration than Greer's, then that's probably how it is.I suppose I disagree, as this website points out, Ray Stanford did precisely the same things as Greer. He made little groups up of contactees and served as their "leader" he sold UFO "detection" devices, which at the time, would be on par to Greer's free energy jargon today. He claimed special abilities like vectoring vast distances and meeting various beings. He also swindled people in various "channeling" schemes, going as far as claiming Jesus Christ was talking through him. In all honestly, after reviewing all of this, and writing it right here, I think Stanford is actually WORSE than Greer. Standford had his hand in UFO's, channeling, religious cult leaders, selling various devices, a true snake oil salesman!
At least Greer was able to amass the group of witnesses for the first Disclosure project. Granted a few nut cases got in, but the overall core group of testimony presented at that press conference went on to make up the bulk of Leslie Kean's acclaimed and well respected best seller, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record. At the very least he did more for Ufology with that effort than anything Standford has done channeling Jesus, selling rudimentary UFO detectors, or setting up various UFO related businesses aimed at separating people from their money.
I wouldn't go so far as to agree that Chris "blindly supports" Stanford, or anyone else for that matter. Chris seems only to be defending his position with respect to some very specific things.Though you may think Chris's opinion is worth some weight regarding Ray Stanford, I beg to differ. Chris has always blindly supported the guy no matter what.
I respect your skepticism. I've also expressed my position about Stanford holding out on us more than once, and I've also seen mentions of Stanford's fringe activity elsewhere. But I've also seen articles on his recognized discoveries in paleontology as well. Does Ray's past pseudoscience nullify his recognized accomplishments? How do we know his UFO evidence doesn't deserve any merit when we haven't even seen it? So what if he's done some outside the box thinking in the past and actually tried it? Good for him. On the other hand, if you're saying his unorthodox experiments were actually intentional frauds on the public for the purpose of personal gain, then that's another story. Has he ever been charged with a related offense? If so when and for what? Let's make sure we have these accusations in their proper context and aren't simply character assassinations by biased skeptics.This is hardly the behavior of a true objective researcher. Though Chris may have done very good work in other areas, his position on Ray Stanford is, sadly a bit disappointing. I wish he put forward one percent of the skepticism towards Ray as he done 3/4 of the guests on his show. Many of which are not claiming anything near as fantastical of an account as Stanford. Since replying to this thread more than a few people have messaged me to tell me that they appreciated my firm position on Stanford. Others outlined even more troubling problems with him! Are you aware that:
Again ... Does Ray's past pseudoscience nullify his recognized accomplishments? Until we see the evidence for ourselves it could fall either way, so is it not fair to reserve judgment? And since we all know Chris, why shouldn't we give him some benefit of doubt when he says the evidence looks good? I seriously doubt Chris would say something just to string us along. He's not making any claims that Ray has the Holy Grail of ufology or anything like that, only that he's been impressed with what he's seen so far.At one time, Stanford promoted the construction of a machine that he called "the Hilarion Accelerator." This device, he claimed, would transport a living human being back in time. He told his followers that the device would physically teleport people to the distant past. The machine was described as a metallic egg-shaped chamber (echoes of the Socorro UFO) that housed a human subject. Stanford said that when the device was charged to "around three million volts electrostatic charge" it would enhance the subject's paranormal powers. He eventually abandoned the machine. apparently concerned that it would send people to ancient times and that they would die there because he might not be able to get them back.
This sort of thing makes Steven Greer look like an honest broker in comparison. An objective researcher, like Chris O'brian should be bright enough to see through this latest hype from Stanford, and deem it more of the same. The guy literally has a 30-40 year history of propagating unreliable and unverifiable junk.
I'm confident that Chris can tell good evidence when he sees it. Let's also not forget that Chris has said he's suggested to Ray that he come forward, but Ray has chosen not to. So what else do you expect Chris to do? Wrestle the guy to the ground? Or steal it and disclose it himself? As for Chris' sense of "objective journalism". Have you ever read any of his books? That's where Chris' journalism is found. What we see here on the forum and on the show, are glimpses into his journey as an author. He hasn't written a book on Stanford's evidence yet, so you might want to reserve your judgment on that until he does.Standing behind a guy with credibility issues as troubling as Stanford should cast one's objective sense of journalism into question.
It's not that I object to your skepticism. I even think that your doubts are reasonable given the evidence you've cited. But if you want to turn this into a character attack on Stanford and Chris you're going to have to produce something far more substantial and relevant for today. So far as I'm concerned Chris is doing commendable work, and I'd like to think that Ray could consider the Paracast as a place he could disclose his evidence without being treated in a prejudicial and hostile manner. If he's as hard on his own evidence as he is on the 1971 Lago de Cote, Costa Rican UFO photo, then I'd more than welcome him here to share it with us.Frankly, I can't see how anyone even objects to my position.
No dude, I don't worship anything or anybody. If you'd read my books and listened to me on the show, you'd no better than to make such a ridiculous statement. I respect Ray because I have seen his amazing analytical work and I don't care what you or anyone else says about this. YOU are an anonymous poster w/ trollish tendencies. Its a personal problem and I empathize with your apparent angst.Chris, we all know you worship Ray....
Yeah, you read it on the Internet so it MUST be true, right? I would suggest that unless you get to know someone (and their work) think twice about making assumptions and casting aspersions. I have known Greer for 20 years. I have known Ray for 12 years. I know them as people and I know their work well. I don't know you but I can say that perhaps you might be better off (and come across more mature) if you took the time to get to know people and their work before whining so loud and slandering them with insults and innuendo. It's so easy to be a tough guy and all puffed up when you cower behind anonymous avatars. Without limits? That speaks volumes...around here, we have limits and calling someone a "charlatan" without presenting proof potentially violates our forum rules.The only thing I can dig up about the guy (aside from his self promotions) are instances of him being in UFO cults, claims of being a contacee, and other assorted nonsense that void him of any credibility (see below).
...the stuff you all knock Steven Greer over the head with daily (and rightfully so) however, Ray is one of the "cool kids" and "we like him" so he gets a pass on all of his ridiculous claims!
- In 1954, Stanford began to receive "telepathic messages from Space People" he stated. At the time, he was associated with George Hunt Williamson, an alleged fraud and "contactee." Williamson was closely allied with "contactee" George Adamski. (Williamson was the one who took the "plaster casts" of the Venusian footprints that Adamski said he found in the desert.)"
- "Stanford stated that in the autumn of 1973 his car was, not once, but twice, teleported large distances while driving to the airport to pick up Uri Geller. Stanford stated that he (along with the car!) was transported some 30 miles in the blink of an eye. Stanford said that an entity that he had conjured called "Spectra" assisted in moving him and his vehicle instantaneously down a highway."
- "Stanford fancies himself a UFO scientist. He started up yet another group (the time called Project Starlight International, or PSI) with the aim to attract and detect UFOs.
- 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"
I'm not defending Ray Stanford, I'm stating my personal opinion of his work which I have seen. You have not.Another aggressive defense of Ray Stanford, this pretty much makes my point for me.
So, you do believe everything you read on the 'net. I have seen multiple frames of the "beam ahead" footage. So did Leke Mirabeau from Rensselear Poly Tech who patented technology which duplicates what the Corpus Christi footage shows—shortly after visiting Ray and seeing his groundbreaking FILM footage. Instead of merely reading and gullably believing unfounded character assassinations of Ray on the 'net—do some real research and get yourself up2speed about how real research and paradigm shifting discoveries are conducted. Read Chris Lambright's book XDescending, the complete, documented story of the importance of the Corpus Christi footage is there.It does not matter what I have and have not done. I am not claiming to have time machines or UFO footage showing an object shooting plasma beams at me in broad daylight.
Oh great, here we go you read it on the 'net so it MUST be true! The truth comes out! Finally you admit you are nothing more than a person pretending to NOT be a troll. Your venomous disdain (and your languaging) speaks volumes. You are a complete time-waster and you will not receive another minute of my precious time. Put on your hiking shoes and use 'em.I am not a UFO researcher (nor would I ever waste that much of my time with this subject matter). I am simply a person engaging a topic on a public forum while pointing out what should be rather obvious about a guy with a 30 year record of making unsubstantiated and outlandish claims.
Maybe ... but you've also overlooked some key points in my last post and have instead started to repeat the same rationale you started with as though it's still just as relevant. It's not. The principle of equivalency that you are trying to make between Stanford and Greer is not supportable by virtue of the fact that you're not taking into account the context of time or the proven accomplishments of Stanford that indicate that there is a scientifically legitimate side to some of his explorations. You've also failed to prove how Stanford deliberately misled or defrauded people rather than engaging in some out of the box thinking and experimentation that he has since given up on. Until you can address those issues, your concerns are only partially justified, and continuing to press them in that state is starting to come across more as a series of character attacks than valid counterpoint.I will end by saying, those of you out there "holding on" for Ray to produce something will be sadly disappointed ...