Louis Jarvis

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm all for progress. Oh, and by the way, what search terms did you use to bring up that MUFON article on Stanford from Hall, and on what search page did it appear? Just wondering how much I can deliver in 60 seconds.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

All it would have taken was a 1 minute Google search to find it. Basic research, without even having to go into the "field".

Sure Paul, have your cake and eat it to. I believe everything I find on the net. It is gospel, right? Dick Hall and Ray Stanford had a running feud for over 40 years over the Socorro metal sample. It was Hall who arranged for the metal to be tested. Ray received preliminary test results and that's when the trouble started. Based on what I know, Hall's attitude about the whole thing was due to one of two possibilities: 1) He was embarrassed that the sample was stolen and Ray was lied to and spent the rest of his life in damage control around the subject, or 2) He was a part of the conspiracy to get Ray to to turn it over to begin with and spent the rest of his life denigrating Stanford because Ray really does know what he's talking about and Hall was covering his ass by dissing Stanford. Ray offered to publicly debate Hall at the MUFON International Symposium. And his response was totally silence. That speaks volumes. X-ray defraction is photographing the emissions from the metal that has been irradiated in Goddard's lab. It records the crystalline structure that becomes visible due to its re-emission of the radiation. Goddard claimed it was merely silica dioxide (quartz). That is not a metal alloy, however Ray was told that the alloy of zinc and iron did not show up as a known manufactured alloy and it looked as though it had been subjected to intense heat. Hynek and over five metallurgists agreed with Ray that their cover-up story was impossible. You haven't the faintest idea about Ray's hard-science work analyzing UFOs, yet you come across like you know everything there is to know about the man. Forget about Ray being psychic, it seems like you and others know better than the rest of us. Listen to the show about the White Sands Events July 1978, and review his data, magetometer, gravitometer read outs, photographs and audio clips---send the data to a physicist or two and see what they say about what may be history's most thoroughly documented publicly experienced UFO event. And this case is only one of several dozen that are impeccably documented by Stanford. Just the tip of the iceberg, as they say.

 

[FletcherMunson]

Listen to the show about the White Sands Events July 1978, and review his data, magetometer, gravitometer read outs, photographs and audio clips---send the data to a physicist or two and see what they say about what may be history's most thoroughly documented publicly experienced UFO event. And this case is only one of several dozen that are impeccably documented by Stanford. Just the tip of the iceberg, as they say.

Sorry, I know you weren't talking to me, Chris, but I would be interested in seeing Stanford's evidence and documentation. Is it available somewhere for us to view?

I will definitely look up the Paracast episode about the White Sands incident.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Sorry, I know you weren't talking to me, Chris, but I would be interested in seeing Stanford's evidence and documentation. Is it available somewhere for us to view?

Paul lumping Stanford in with Greer and Salla is hysterically funny to me! LOL Ray is "in the way" of real science and progress??? THAT's a good one!

I will be posting here on the forum (later today) the first slide detailing the hard data that Stanford's team was able to obtain during the sighting event. On Sunday, I will post the rest of the documentation including an audio clip recorded during the event where you can actually hear (for seven seconds) the rumble of the objects when they instantaneously reversed their direction of travel. During the show Ray explains scientifically how these sounds (they managed to record) were produced. This recording is not the first example of this effect that has been recorded by witnesses. Ray's in the way of scientific progress analyzing the hard-science of UFOs alright, uh-huh.

 

[tyder001]

First Christopher you have to understand a few things. We already know everything there is to know about Creation (sorry dirty word let me change that) about reality. The only thing left is for a chosen few magicians and historians and philosiphers to tie it all up in a single grand (Trumpets please) THEORY OF EVERYTHING!) After all we once thought science was a multi disipline conglomaration of human knowledge. You had medical knowledge and computer knowledge and dental knowledge. You had Jung and Freud and Dyer and Fennyman and Einstien. But, now we know better. Science is not a Method! It is an end unto itself. To think about silly stuff like Gods or why am I here? or to think Wow! Look at that night sky and the way the earth rotates and the way the sun and moon are just perfect for life on this planet. To think any of that has any purpose other than the primordial soup myth is anti-intelletucal. If a sceintist dare to speak up such as John Mack, Rupert Sheldrake or anybody out of the orthadoxy they are quickly brought to heel by a washed up old "horny magician" and a smirking "historian" So, just stop what you are doing right now. You are not allowed to think about esp (sorry Doctor Rhine) Silly stuff like reincarnation (sorry Doctor Stevenson) or even the big questions like is there meaning to my life? NO! There's not! So, anyway just to let you know that these "scientific" folks here on the interwebs already have life figured out for the rest of us morons.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Frankly, I don't give a damn about his analysis of the evidence. snip If he has real evidence, it would speak for itself. He doesn't.

Oh but he does, dude. He has evidence, and lots of it. When was the last time you saw and analyzed magnetic and gravitational data from a UFO sighting? When was the last time someone came up with a hypothesis about UFO science and was able to show replication of data? Yeah, if Ray is a charlatan--perhaps you should call the Smithsonian Natural History Museum (where some of his groundbreaking scientific work is on permanent display) and tell them. Listen to the show and review the data, Lance, and then continue your debunkery--it'll be fun to see you squirm!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Oh but he does, dude. He has evidence, and lots of it. When was the last time you saw and analyzed magnetic and gravitational data from a UFO sighting? When was the last time someone came up with a hypothesis and was able to show replication of data?
Yeah, Ray is a charlatan--tell that to the Smithsonian natural History Museum where some of his groundbreaking scientific work is on permanent display.

Christopher, my problem is this - if he has such incredible evidence, why are we all still arguing about this? Also, his work on display at the Smithsonian is irrelevant has nothing to do with the quality of his evidence.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Christopher, my problem is this - if he has such incredible evidence, why are we all still arguing about this? Also, his work on display at the Smithsonian is irrelevant has nothing to do with the quality of his evidence.

You are absolutely wrong! His scientific work is his scientific work. He conducts amateur scientific work in several scientific fields. His Ichnology work proves he is a highly observant, astute man with a visual and observational abilities that are off the scale. Aurguably the top dinosaur expert in the world offered to co-author his paper on the discovery of a new species of nodorosaur. Hello?

What you are saying is ludicrous. We should assume he doesn't bring these considerable skills to bear on his other scientific work in other fields? Get real people, but please don't choke on your own kool-aid!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You are absolutely wrong! His scientific work is his scientific work. He conducts amateur scientific work in several scientific fields. His Ichnology work proves he is a highly observant, astute man with a visual and observational abilities that are off the scale. So, what you are saying is we should assume he doesn't bring these considerable skills to bear on his other scientific work in other fields? Get real people, but please don't choke on your own kool-aid!

I'm not choking on any kool-aid. If he has all this slam dunk evidence, he should show it. I'm not assuming anything other than the fact that if his evidence was so good, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, we can't see any of this evidence, so we'll never know.
Once he shows us this evidence, and it's as incredible as you say it is (unlike the Marley Woods photo), I'll gladly accept it.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I'm not choking on any kool-aid. If he has all this slam dunk evidence, he should show it. I'm not assuming anything other than the fact that if his evidence was so good, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, we can't see any of this evidence, so we'll never know.
Once he shows us this evidence, and it's as incredible as you say it is (unlike the Marley Woods photo), I'll gladly accept it.

Cool! A crack in the armor! FYI: Ray is putting the finishing touches on a 600 slide scientific presentation on UFOs that addresses an impressive list of scientific disciplines that include: magnetrohydrodynamic physics, optical physics, propulsion diagnostic physics, plus others. His work contains hypotheses suggested by the evidence. He shows repeated examples of each of the diagnostic phenomena recorded, from separate cases. You have not seen this data because a real scientist does not plaster their data on the internet or in the media before peer review and publication in refereed journals of science. That's how it is done in the big-leagues, and Ray is a big-leager (see: trace evidence paper he published in the Journal of Ichnology) Listen to the show, look and listen to his evidence and then we talk further--I'm done here---

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Cool! A crack in the armor! FYI: Ray is putting the finishing touches on a 600 slide scientific presentation on UFOs that addresses an impressive list of scientific disciplines that include: magnetrohydrodynamic physics, optical physics, propulsion diagnostic physics, plus others. His work contains hypotheses he makes and then shows replication of data and he has accumulated the data to back all this up. You have not seen this data because a real scientist does not plaster their data on the internet or in the media before peer review. That's how it is done in the big-leagues, and Ray is a big-leager (see: trace evidence papers he published in the Journal of Ichnology) Listen to the show, look and listen to his evidence and then we talk further--I'm done here---

Yeah, you really don't need to tell me how real science works, since people like me have been saying it for years that ufology doesn't like to play by those rules. I'm surprised and nice to hear that it's being peer-reviewed - what scientific journal will be presenting this paper, and so you know who reviewed it?

 

[Ron Collins]

Christopher, my problem is this - if he has such incredible evidence, why are we all still arguing about this? Also, his work on display at the Smithsonian is irrelevant has nothing to do with the quality of his evidence.

I's not irrelevant in a character discussion or a debate on his research capabilities. Both of which have been questioned here. Thus I can see a correlation drawn to the type of evidence that would be gathered if similar methodologies were undertaken in the new field of research.

I don't yet have a dog in this fight. I know next to nothing about him and almost nothing about Soccoro and the aftermath. I need to read up more on it but simply don't have the time now.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

Ray claims to have film evidence much more interesting than the stuff you are describing above (like daytime motion picture film of a saucer that is so close and detailed that you can see inside the craft, for instance).

I think anyone would say if he has such a video then it would be astounding. As i know nothing about him, can you point me to someplace where he makes this claim? Chris, have you heard of this and if so have you asked him about it?

 

[stphrz]

I wish we had this link yesterday, when we recorded the Stanford interview — even better, the one we did with him in 2009 when we focused on Socorro. It would have certainly served as a reality check with which to ask pointed questions. In any case, we'll be posting some of his purported evidence of the White Sands sightings for everyone's perusal.

Is it possible to have him on the show again sometime soon? You could bring this stuff up with him then.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I's not irrelevant in a character discussion or a debate on his research capabilities. Both of which have been questioned here. Thus I can see a correlation drawn to the type of evidence that would be gathered if similar methodologies were undertaken in the new field of research.

I don't yet have a dog in this fight. I know next to nothing about him and almost nothing about Soccoro and the aftermath. I need to read up more on it but simply don't have the time now.

I think I'm going to wait until I hear the interview and see the article in a peer-reviewed journal.

Hopefully he mentions what journal it will appear in. Luckily I have access to most scholarly journals at work.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Is it possible to have him on the show again sometime soon? You could bring this stuff up with him then.

It is possible. But it comes down to this: You know he'll deny the negative points raised by Hall. We no longer have Hall to back up his information with a current perspective. We'll see.

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

Oh, and by the way, I found a Google search string that would trigger a second page listing for that archive of a MUFON newsletter article from Richard Hall attacking Ray Stanford's honesty. It was "Richard Hall Versus Ran Stanford." It's definitely NOT basic, unless you were specifically looking into information about this long-standing feud, rather than Stanford's research.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Listen to the show, look and listen to his evidence...

The first slide detailing Stanford scientific data from the White Sands Proving Grounds UFO sighting event is located here: Ray Stanford: White Sands July 19, 1978 Scientific Evidence Thank you Ray for allowing us to post this data!
There will be more to follow on Sunday.

 

[Dave Murphy]

I'm very much looking forward to hearing Ray Stanford again on the Paracast. He is among the most unique and fascinating individuals I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. Glad he was willing to do it. Can't imagine what you'd be able to cover (i.e. a specific period in ufology) with Ray in just two hours.

 

[CapnG]

I know I'm late to the party this week but WOW.

I mean seriously, what the HELL am I listening to? I'm up to the point where he's rambling on about Fatima and a global NDE in 2012.

Question to Louis: when NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN, what explanation/excuse will people like yourself offer up? I'd like to know you see because I'm going to want to brace myself well ahead of time for the incoming tsunami of ludicrousness.

 

[rhcball]

The drama on this thread is getting me so hiiiiiiigh.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

But it's always been people like Jarvis and Stanford, Greer and Salla, that get in the way of any real progress and investigation, and it's why the UFO subject is still radioactive for the scienctific community, Kaku's occasional commentaries notwithstanding.

You would think that the above would be a good reason for the scientific community to get involved. Kaku doesn't seem to bothered about any ridicule, as you say.
This pre-occupation with the perceived toxicity of the UFO Field is ridiculous. The so called field has always been seen as a joke, way before people like Salla, Greer etc. were ever on the scene. It will never be seen otherwise. The subject, in itself, lends itself to ridicule by just being about UFOs or aliens.
In general the community at large have made up their own minds as to whether any of it is real or not. I think most of us believe that they are we just don't obsess about it.
Who cares if Stanford, Jarvis, Greer, Salla, or any one of the multitudes of others before are in there spruiking their wares. Take them out of the equation and you are still no closer to having the field receive more recognition from the scientific community. Lets face it people like Stanton Friedman have been around for decades and even with his qualifications he hasn't been able to sway them.
Most thinking people will be able to make up their own minds about those involved in the field. In fact most people don't give a flying fornication about the "field". They've got more important things on their minds rather than to obsess about whether UFOs will ever be taken seriously or not.
Kean, Friedman and Kaku are doing an admirable job but the so called field is not gaining any more credibility with them in it. You can blame the Sallas and Greers all you like but the very nature of the subject means that it will never, ever be taken as serious as you would like until a saucer lands in the middle of New York and a alien from Zeta Reticulii hops out and wants you to take him to your leader.