• 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!

Shockingly Close to the Truth by James W. Moseley


The Darkroom

Skilled Investigator
Does anyone have access to this book?

Shockingly Close to the Truth: Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist - James W. Moseley, Karl T. Pflock

No, not the Google Book Limited View.
 
Please check pages 246 and 247 and 248, and at the bottom of 246 Jim begins writing about Ray Stanford titled: Another Crackpot in the Ufological Pantry. Please post what Jim wrote on pages 247 and 248 regarding Stanford. Just type out what was written, or you can digital photo if you prefer.

Also, please check page 137 and let us know what else Jim wrote about the Stanford's there too.

Thanks. I have no way to look this up online, so your help is greatly appreciated.
 
The sections you are looking for are available in an online preview at Amazon (at least in the USA). Used copies of the hardcover book are sold for as low as about $5.00.

The incident being described is one that Jim spoke about on at least one Paracast episode, a radio show where he and Stanford were both guests. During it, Stanford became angry (almost violent) and walked off the show.
 
Please check pages 246 and 247 and 248, and at the bottom of 246 Jim begins writing about Ray Stanford titled: Another Crackpot in the Ufological Pantry. Please post what Jim wrote on pages 247 and 248 regarding Stanford. Just type out what was written, or you can digital photo if you prefer.

Also, please check page 137 and let us know what else Jim wrote about the Stanford's there too.


Just curious. If you are so familiar with the location of these passages that you can recall their exact pages what is the point of having Sentry post them here in the forum ? Do you not remember the content only their exact location ?
 
Last edited:
If anyone on this forum want to write a book about how they think that Ray Stanford is a fraud or whatever, I think that would be a productive use of time instead of, let's say, starting a ruckus in this forum with people who are working with RS/proponents of his:confused:
 
TBH, I was being Sardonic, I gathered Darkroom's identity after post #2. the NEXT time he comes back he's welcome to use spookymulder or wade ridsdale , both those names are up for grabs

You know Wade, it does make me think; that someone is so intent on having their views exposed to a limited set of people they do not actually even 'know' in the normal sense of that word, that after being banned from a forum with said people, they create a sock puppet account just to continue to speak at those same people and no-one else.
Because to maintain a successful sock puppet account, one would have to ensure not all views are identical to banned account, and the language used also must look like it is coming from a different hand. I suggest keeping up such a pretence over even a few weeks must be difficult and the person behind the fake account must have to reign in their natural urge to let fly with their personal vision of the world, lest they 'let the cat out of the bag.'

So the very existence of a 2nd account at all speaks volumes of the self-control that is blatantly lacking in the individual and I further suggest that very, very few people would ever be able to successfully con a forum for very long before accidentally showing their hand, as was obviously the case very quickly with your good self. Without really giving it much thought I did immediately think, 'well, this Darkroom fella must be such a great pal of DS because he is willing to write a damn long post putting his 'friend' DS' views on being so harshly and unfairly treated, across to us all.....

Do you remember Tyder 101? Our one-time friendly catholic from Alabama? He was the first person I became aware of who was banned for a time and made a second account - Angelo however was onto him like a ferret up a drainpipe and had checked his IP address quicker than I can reach the spacebar from here!
 
If anyone on this forum want to write a book about how they think that Ray Stanford is a fraud or whatever, I think that would be a productive use of time instead of, let's say, starting a ruckus in this forum with people who are working with RS/proponents of his:confused:

Something that keeps me positive regarding Ray is the small but sizeable number of researchers who have actually seen some of his stuff at his house. I find it hard to think that guys like James Fox and our own Chris O'Brien have gone to Ray's house and been totally hoodwinked in whatever they did happen to be shown. So maybe Ray's evidence will not live up to many expectations but I still think there is absolutely merit to much of it and that it may indeed be pretty new material for the field to chew over for years to come...
 
Can someone indicate what proof they have that Darkroom is DissectionStalker? Is it IP address or a deduction based on writing style components or something else?
 
TBH, I was being Sardonic, I gathered Darkroom's identity after post #2. the NEXT time he comes back he's welcome to use spookymulder or wade ridsdale , both those names are up for grabs
How did I miss that switch?

You are really starting to pare down now aren't you - getting quite minimalist? Or no doubt you may be treading in the famous footsteps of those other single name heroes of the great decades, the 60's+ 70's + 80's, who rose up valiantly and confidently to be known only as Cher, Twiggy, Donovan, Liberace, Morrissey, Sting, Bono and now Wade. Or is this more like when Prince changed his name to that sign symbol thing? Is Wade more of a state of mind now?

Welcome, Wade.
 
so what would happen if everyone decided to be nice to DS Darkroom OMEarthling? would the collective will of the environment shift as we bask in the Mennonite ways of forgiveness, of ending antagonism in the name of rehabilitation, and then might even nameless come back, or at least Shane?
 
i'm going as spookymulder for Hallowe'en. he always wears the best costumes!

(meanwhile, Ray Standford should just write his own book instead of the slow motion unfolding across decades with mostly artistic renderings instead of prima facie evidence. if there was fire in the oven then the bread would have been made long ago.)

as a number thing for you Wade that was only post 3,666. see you at the coven tonight.
 
Did somebody say sock puppet??
homemade-christmas-gifts3.jpg
 
Something that keeps me positive regarding Ray is the small but sizeable number of researchers who have actually seen some of his stuff at his house. I find it hard to think that guys like James Fox and our own Chris O'Brien have gone to Ray's house and been totally hoodwinked in whatever they did happen to be shown. So maybe Ray's evidence will not live up to many expectations but I still think there is absolutely merit to much of it and that it may indeed be pretty new material for the field to chew over for years to come...

Yes. The point in my post is regardless whomever the Darkroom is, I am not sure there is much merit in dredging up who said what about whom some 40+ years ago, what is this, TMZ?
 
Last edited:
i'm going as spookymulder for Hallowe'en. he always wears the best costumes!

(meanwhile, Ray Standford should just write his own book instead of the slow motion unfolding across decades with mostly artistic renderings instead of prima facie evidence. if there was fire in the oven then the bread would have been made long ago.)

as a number thing for you Wade that was only post 3,666. see you at the coven tonight.


After the broom races ?
 
How did I miss that switch?

You are really starting to pare down now aren't you - getting quite minimalist? Or no doubt you may be treading in the famous footsteps of those other single name heroes of the great decades, the 60's+ 70's + 80's, who rose up valiantly and confidently to be known only as Cher, Twiggy, Donovan, Liberace, Morrissey, Sting, Bono and now Wade. Or is this more like when Prince changed his name to that sign symbol thing? Is Wade more of a state of mind now?

Welcome, Wade.

I think maybe I'll just post as"W" it has a certain ring to it.
 
Back
Top