Ray Stanford has a photo of the Socorro craft & Martin Willis has seen it and is impressed but...

[Ben Moss]

Camera: Argus C3 with a 50MM Schneider Lens
Film: Black and white Kodak Tri-X
Suggested by a Scientist for better night shots, but unfortunately was used in the daytime.
Picture is clear not like whoever posted the fluff with star like dots in it.
I do not own nor have permission to post it. My goal is to get permission to release it at the Symposium so that we can get the original on the net for all to work and see.
The speculation about what it shows is way off base. And the more you shoot the messenger the less I will respond.

 

[JeanLucPicard]

Pretty sure the "game changer" revolutionary top secret and shocking PROOF will be nothing much better than this:

 

[Burnt State]

Camera: Argus C3 with a 50MM Schneider Lens
Film: Black and white Kodak Tri-X
Suggested by a Scientist for better night shots, but unfortunately was used in the daytime.
Picture is clear not like whoever posted the fluff with star like dots in it.
I do not own nor have permission to post it. My goal is to get permission to release it at the Symposium so that we can get the original on the net for all to work and see.
The speculation about what it shows is way off base. And the more you shoot the messenger the less I will respond.

A fast speed Tri X will be a very grainy product because of the iso, making it even less able to blow up anything with any great certainty of having anything more than odd artefacts.

What ISO was it?

 

[Honey-Pot]

A fast speed Tri X will be a very grainy product because of the iso, making it even less able to blow up anything with any great certainty of having anything more than odd artefacts.

What ISO was it?

Since it was for nighttime shots, then it was probably 400 ASA. During development it may have been "pushed" [for nighttime photos] to a higher ASA reading, but this type of film was never meant to be a high resolution fine grain film. Seriously, it is just the opposite, because it was designed for nighttime use that used a low-light sensitive film that requires a larger grain size. It is a large grain and low resolution film. Also, the 1964 technology for this film and camera would only be of lower quality vs professional grade cameras with a large film format.

No enhanced or altered photo can ever be trusted to show the real objects on the film. Only a high resolution digital scan that is not altered and not enhanced of the negative itself can be trusted, but it will be useless. The limitations of the grainy film and lens type and objects distances just make it impossible.

This thread is a PR campaign for MUFON to promote their Socorro presentations. It's amazing this kind of "unprovable claims" promotion happens just after the Roswell Slides, but it's no surprise this will continue to happen. Look what has happened with the Roswell Slide people that were involved in that fraud and scam. Those same "fraudsters" are back on the air promoting their [new] Roswell books all over again! They make excuses for their Roswell Slides madness, and the UFO community supports their promotion by giving them more air time and more promotion and more publication with new books. Crackpots are welcome and stirring the UFO media pot gets attention and makes money. The more controversial "the better" for all involved.

Just look at the length of this thread and how damaging and controversial it has been for proof that "controversy works".

 

[Burnt State]

Since it was for nighttime shots, then it was probably 400 ASA. During development it may have been "pushed" [for nighttime photos] to a higher ASA reading, but this type of film was never meant to be a high resolution fine grain film. Seriously, it is just the opposite, because it was designed for nighttime use that used a low-light sensitive film that requires a larger grain size. It is a large grain and low resolution film. Also, the 1964 technology for this film and camera would only be of lower quality vs professional grade cameras with a large film format.

No enhanced or altered photo can ever be trusted to show the real objects on the film. Only a high resolution digital scan that is not altered and not enhanced of the negative itself can be trusted, but it will be useless. The limitations of the grainy film and lens type and objects distances just make it impossible.

Exactly.

 

[JeanLucPicard]

This thread is a PR campaign for MUFON to promote their Socorro presentations. It's amazing this kind of "unprovable claims" promotion happens just after the Roswell Slides, but it's no surprise this will continue to happen. Look what has happened with the Roswell Slide people that were involved in that fraud and scam. Those same "fraudsters" are back on the air promoting their [new] Roswell books all over again! They make excuses for their Roswell Slides madness, and the UFO community supports their promotion by giving them more air time and more promotion and more publication with new books. Crackpots are welcome and stirring the UFO media pot gets attention and makes money. The more controversial "the better" for all involved.

Just look at the length of this thread and how damaging and controversial it has been for proof that "controversy works".

THIS.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Since it was for nighttime shots, then it was probably 400 ASA. During development it may have been "pushed" [for nighttime photos] to a higher ASA reading, but this type of film was never meant to be a high resolution fine grain film. Seriously, it is just the opposite, because it was designed for nighttime use that used a low-light sensitive film that requires a larger grain size. It is a large grain and low resolution film. Also, the 1964 technology for this film and camera would only be of lower quality vs professional grade cameras with a large film format.

No enhanced or altered photo can ever be trusted to show the real objects on the film. Only a high resolution digital scan that is not altered and not enhanced of the negative itself can be trusted, but it will be useless. The limitations of the grainy film and lens type and objects distances just make it impossible.

This thread is a PR campaign for MUFON to promote their Socorro presentations. It's amazing this kind of "unprovable claims" promotion happens just after the Roswell Slides, but it's no surprise this will continue to happen. Look what has happened with the Roswell Slide people that were involved in that fraud and scam. Those same "fraudsters" are back on the air promoting their [new] Roswell books all over again! They make excuses for their Roswell Slides madness, and the UFO community supports their promotion by giving them more air time and more promotion and more publication with new books. Crackpots are welcome and stirring the UFO media pot gets attention and makes money. The more controversial "the better" for all involved.

Just look at the length of this thread and how damaging and controversial it has been for proof that "controversy works".

The other thing I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is how Ray has ANY credibility. If someone we didn't know came forward saying they have this incredible day time UFO footage/photo's we would be skeptical (as we should be - but we would also be hoping that this is finally it - the proof we've been waiting for). However, what would we think if the person said "Wait, before I show you my daytime UFO photo's, I wanted you to know this about me...I used to be housemates with a known hoaxer (Adamski), I used to speak with aliens telepathically, I used to be able to channel dead people including Jesus Christ, I not only traveled through time once, but twice in my car (once while enroute to the airport to pickup another known fraudster named Uri Gellar) & the way I traveled into the future was via assistance by an entity that I conjured named "Spectra", I invented a working a time machine that I call the Hilarion Accelerator, the UFO detector that I invented has a feature on it called an "attractor" (which does just what the name implies - attracts flying saucers)." etc.

I mean, really? If any of us had this kind of baggage we would be laughed right off these forums. It's completely baffling to me that when Ray's "never to be released proof" get's scrutinized that his defenders act as if he's the most solid witness there could be. Really?? The guy that can channel Jesus, invent time machines and can travel into the future with help of the entity Spectra gets the benefit of the doubt? Unbelievable.

 

[Honey-Pot]

The other thing I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is how Ray has ANY credibility. If someone we didn't know came forward saying they have this incredible day time UFO footage/photo's we would be skeptical (as we should be - but we would also be hoping that this is finally it - the proof we've been waiting for). However, what would we think if the person said "Wait, before I show you my daytime UFO photo's, I wanted you to know this about me...I used to be housemates with a known hoaxer (Adamski), I used to speak with aliens telepathically, I used to be able to channel dead people including Jesus Christ, I not only traveled through time once, but twice in my car (once while enroute to the airport to pickup another known fraudster named Uri Gellar) & the way I traveled into the future was via assistance by an entity that I conjured named "Spectra", I invented a working a time machine that I call the Hilarion Accelerator, the UFO detector that I invented has a feature on it called an "attractor" (which does just what the name implies - attracts flying saucers)." etc.

I mean, really? If any of us had this kind of baggage we would be laughed right off these forums. It's completely baffling to me that when Ray's "never to be released proof" get's scrutinized that his defenders act as if he's the most solid witness there could be. Really?? The guy that can channel Jesus, invent time machines and can travel into the future with help of the entity Spectra gets the benefit of the doubt? Unbelievable.

This is a great post that you "dare" to tread on.

Where did all those ideas and experiences that Ray promoted and believed in were sourced from? Who were his mentors? What reading materials did he learn from to give him this strange paranormal journey?

 

[matthew1977]

I hope that if any of us were fortunate enough to meet Ray Stanford that we would be respectful towards him. He is a valuable asset to the UFO field and deserves to be respected. Being rude in a forum behind his back is doing nothing to improve this field of research. You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.... think about sending positive energy outwards to improve the world.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Watson]

After nuch investigation I determined ray has little to no motivation to lie or hoax. Nor dose ben moss or Chris. All are responsible investigators. All have reputation in the field. I do not beleve a hoax is being done.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[kanakaris]

After nuch investigation I determined ray has little to no motivation to lie or hoax. Nor dose ben moss or Chris. All are responsible investigators. All have reputation in the field. I do not beleve a hoax is being done.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Good.And what about his 'strange' past ?You know , the things CGL mentioned ?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Everyone is different of course, but to me, Ray claiming to have real proof/evidence is the same as if Billy Meier was making the claim. Even if Meier had some real proof on camera, it is negated by his decades of hoaxes & lies. I'm not saying Ray is a bad person, I'm just saying it's hard to swallow his claims with what he has on his track record.

 

[Bob Watson]

What about chris ? Do you think he was fooled? I think he can spot a hoax a mile away..

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[IsaacKoi]

... what about his 'strange' past ?You know , the things CGL mentioned ?

A good question, but I think it is worth noting that CGL only covered some of the highlights regarding Ray Stanford previous claims (and the dismissal of them by many in the UFO community from the 1960s onwards).

 

[Bob Watson]

Again I ask. .Chris seen the pics. .he has my respect. .so chris fell for a hoax? I doubt it

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Honey-Pot]

I can assure you that Chris has not seen under analysis the original negative of this photograph. Again, unless a high resolution scan is released of the original negative with no alterations and no enhancements, then you're just barking at the moon. Howl all you want. There is already a rumor that Goddard has enhanced this photo.

The experts already played this con game with the Roswell Slides. My gosh, they said Adobe and the Pentagon analyzed those alien slides. Fascinating isn't it?

The con game is to start presenting an enhanced photo of these 4 objects at MUFON and never release a high resolution scan of the original negative with no enhancements and no alterations. That's already been admitted to using different wording, of course, and I can quote it from this thread.

A little Internet research on the limits of this film, lens, and camera can be done to solve this within a day or less. We don't need any UFO investigator's opinion no matter how much respected by someone. Any professional photographer having experience photographing same size objects at a distance [a mile or more away] with the darkroom experience and enlarging same size objects at these distances with the same film specs already knows this is not possible.

But, you just want to believe? You just want to take someone's word? Are you that gullible?

A high resolution scan of the original negative can be done easily near where Ray lives and released to the MUFON website the same day. Is it any wonder why this has not happened already? This controversy and this poison thread would have ended last year if that had happened in 2015. Why didn't Tony already do that?

 

[Honey-Pot]

After nuch investigation I determined ray has little to no motivation to lie or hoax. [..,]

Please share the specifics about your investigation. Thanks.

 

[Bob Watson]

I can assure you that Chris has not seen under analysis the original negative of this photograph. Again, unless a high resolution scan is released of the original negative with no alterations and no enhancements, then you're just barking at the moon. Howl all you want. There is already a rumor that Goddard has enhanced this photo.

The experts already played this con game with the Roswell Slides. My gosh, they said Adobe and the Pentagon analyzed those alien slides. Fascinating isn't it?

The con game is to start presenting an enhanced photo of these 4 objects at MUFON and never release a high resolution scan of the original negative with no enhancements and no alterations. That's already been admitted to, and I can quote it from this thread.

A little research on the limits of this film, lens, and camera can be done to solve this within a day or less. We don't need any UFO investigator's opinion no matter how much respected by someone. Any professional photographer having experience photographing same size objects at a distance [a mile or more away] with the darkroom experience and enlarging same size objects at these distances with the same film specs already knows this is not possible.

But, you just want to believe? You just want to take someone's word? Are you that gullible?

Back at you..how do you know that as a fact..



Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Honey-Pot]

Back at you..how do you know that as a fact..

I asked you first, so I hope you're going to provide the details of your investigation. I will answer you below...

I do not have to investigate, because I have the photography background to know the limitations of exactly what this negative can show in detail with objects this size at 5-6 or more miles away. You can go online and research this yourself to know the truth about this if you have the ability to do so.

Neither Ray or Chris has the professional photography and darkroom experience to understand these limitations, but let them debate this with some professional photographers. The burden of proof is on them! It is Ray that makes these claims with his supporters.

This doesn't take a genius to solve this issue. Here is the simple solution...

A high resolution scan of the original negative can be done easily near where Ray lives and released to the MUFON website the same day. Is it any wonder why this has not happened already? This controversy and this poison thread would have ended last year if that had happened in 2015. Why didn't Tony already do that?

 

[Bob Watson]

Tell you what I will allow Chris and Ben moss tell you what they saw and report in detail why the pic is real.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk