The Perfect Balance...The Lance Moody Interview

[Burnt State]

Skeptics deny the evidence of other people's senses and will even deny their own. In the end, a die-hard skeptic doubts everything. How far would Lance go? I don't know, but I suspect that a mother ship cruise would probably convince most skeptics of something ... like that they'd gone completely insane. Perhaps that's the real reason there's no disclosure. Not because the powers that be are afraid ordinary people couldn't handle the truth, but because all the skeptics heads would explode.

I have a dual confession: my takeaway from the show, combined with reading some other forum threads featuring Lance Moody's criticisms on Ufology & the great number of famous, scientifically verified UFO photos that were later found to be hoaxes - it all leaves me doubting anything anyone calls proof in the field outside of the anomalous experience of the witness.

But like vesvehighfolk, i saw a UFO and it was not an experimental craft. I share in that personal vision of crafts up close that then disappeared upwards, leaving me in awe. I can still see their two points of light tracing up into the stars and then further still before blinking out. I don't know where they came from but that experience left a pretty big impression and a desire to want to know the answer to the mystery.

The best thing I have read here in this forum that makes sense to me about ufology is boomerang's comment from the fake Belgian triangle photo:

"On the subject of hoaxed photos combined with testimony from seemingly credible witnesses, I would defer to Jacques Vallee. This is, and always has been, an essentially sociological rather than technological phenomenon. "Sociological' in this case refers to something deeper and more profound than misidentification, confabultion of hoaxing. What, we do not know.

In this sense ufology has always had the historical characteristics of an unfolding religion. Sane people witness incredible, mind bending things, become fundamentally changed in ways they cannot rationally understand, and thereby affect societal values over time. This is my takeaway from the work of Vallee.

This is also why is I pay so little attention to films and photographs. The close encounter is a deeply PERSONAL process. There is no one "best" or defining ufo sighting. It's a matter of countless profound experiences over time that leave society's values changed."

 

[Randall]

The close encounter is a deeply PERSONAL process. There is no one "best" or defining ufo sighting. It's a matter of countless profound experiences over time that leave society's values changed."

• We can reduce any issue to the context of a "deeply PERSONAL process", but like many other topics, it's not the only context that applies.
• Based on pre-established parameters, it's entirely possible that there could be one best or defining UFO sighting. But determining that would involve a lot of variables ( not to mention work ).
• There is little doubt that a UFO experience ( the sighting or encounter of an alien craft ) can have a profound effect on the worldview of the witness.
• The main "value" that a UFO experiences changes within a witness is the importance of truth regarding what they are. But the values of society as a whole are more nebulous. Perhaps you could elaborate on that?

 

[Burnt State]

What history has taught me, ufology, is that the one defining UFO sighting is either found to be a hoax, in constant evidence flux or so cluttered with lack of concrete material that we move on to the next defining one. We have no real James E. McDonald's around anymore to humbly just present educated opinions on evaluated evidence - or maybe i don't read enough. IMHO We only have a lot of oneupmanship trying to lay claim to the 'holy grail' of what remains to be an inexplicable field. Language like what the "core phenomenon says" is really a Jerome Clark collection of powerful stories. Like any developing religion, or cult depending on where your spectrum of belief resides, it is more abstract and based mostly on just repeating the features of the tale, like a '3 day dead then risen savior who died on the cross' set of stories. If you repeat these incredible things enough they will believe, or as some say, 'it all fits the pattern.'

This new mythology is a nebulous thing producing a heck of a lot of nebulous beliefs - some kill themselves for it, and others stick around just to tell the others that they are wrong, that what they believe is just plain silly. Either way, we all seem to love a great mystery, and so goes the talk and the stories of greys, little green men, gnomes etc. Perhaps, when we are on our own, we all just commune with our own secret belief of who or what our 'god/no-god' is - it's a very personal process.

Pleade keep in mind that's just my interpretation of boomerang's excellent, sensible points from a previous post.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

That would at least be honest and understandable, frustrating but forgiveable. So what's the best way to lobby a curmudgeon? None of the standard fare ( dump trucks full of money, ethics, logic ) seem to apply ... does anyone have any dinosaur tracks we can trade?

Ray doesn't give one hoot what any of us think about his life-long analytical process concerning UFOs (or anomalous aerial objects—AAOs —his acronym). We are laboring under our preconceived notions. Ray is engaged in a very intense, (and IMO an amazingly—) astute, personal process of scientific understanding. And he has been doggedly working at it for almost 60 years. I try, but no matter how much I push and prod him to officially cast his UFO pearls before the public (and the I want-to-believe types—piggy me included ) , Ray sticks to his guns. He doesn't care what you or I think about his work—paleo, spiritual or otherwise. He is a man on an intensely personal mission of discovery and understanding that spans many disciplines. In private, he is willing to present his work to vetted inquiry. Publicly? He doesn't care in the least! He is not interested in fame, glory or notoriety—in fact, this is what makes him reticent to go prematurely public w/ his "AAO" work. IMO his observational acuity is off-the-charts. As an amateur scientist, his groundbreaking ichnology trace evidence work is acknowledged as world-class and that demands respect. As above/So below. I will continue to be patient, as best I can. I can only hope that someday his work (AAO, parapsychological and otherwise) will be fully revealed to (at least) a select public. I am pushing for an "AAO" pre-briefing of the good-stuff for us Paracasters, who are IMO among the great soapy bubbles cleansing the 'unwashed' masses...

 

[Randall]

What history has taught me, ufology, is that the one defining UFO sighting is either found to be a hoax, in constant evidence flux or so cluttered with lack of concrete material that we move on to the next defining one.

You make a valid observation, but "concrete material" isn't everything it's cracked up to be, and there are less cynical ways to look at the issues. In that spirit I was hoping you might elaborate on what you said about UFO experiences influencing societal values. That sounds like it could be quite interesting.

 

[Burnt State]

I think the shift in societal values is that double shift towards two contending belief systems, that can be faithfully intense as religious cults and the cult of rationality often can be. There are those who believe in space brothers and others that tend to the seams of the curtain of laughter. This tension between the rational vs. irrational is age old: round up the fools, the ugly, the crazy, the lame & the mute and ship them downstream. And, in the name of science, or rationality, it was said and believed by many that only the 'pure race' should procreate. What is lost to the world when we say Van Gogh, Artaud, Tesla, Pythagorus, Blake are mad and must be silenced?

Perhaps there is a third bank to the river, and emerging up the middle might be an expansion on our limited appreciation of consciousness and what is associated with quantum reality. Life (reality), IMO is much stranger than we perceive it to be. I hope the more we try to reconcile these tensions we will come to embrace "spooky action at a distance" as not so spooky at all and just another part of reality.

 

[Randall]

Ray doesn't give one hoot what any of us think about his life-long analytical process concerning UFOs (or anomalous aerial objects—AAOs —his acronym). We are laboring under our preconceived notions ...

Stanford is far from being the only researcher who has made a valid contribution. Everyone who possesses a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon and makes an honest effort, including yourself and Gene, the excellent guests on the show, those who participate in this forum, and and everyone else out there who openly participates in some positive way, even as small a way as simply lending moral support for the cause, all deserve some credit. Even skeptics like Lance deserve some credit. But some guy who hoards valuable evidence and refuses to share it because of his self-absorbed ignorance for the benefit the knowledge would be to others deserves some criticism, especially if the evidence is actually valuable. I'm even less impressed now than I was before. Quite frankly, so far as I'm concerned, if that's how he's going to be about it, he can take his evidence and light a bonfire with it.

 

[Randall]

I think the shift in societal values is that double shift towards two contending belief systems, that can be faithfully intense as religious cults and the cult of rationality often can be. There are those who believe in space brothers and others that tend to the seams of the curtain of laughter. This tension between the rational vs. irrational is age old: round up the fools, the ugly, the crazy, the lame & the mute and ship them downstream. And, in the name of science, or rationality, it was said and believed by many that only the 'pure race' should procreate. What is lost to the world when we say Van Gogh, Artaud, Tesla, Pythagorus, Blake are mad and must be silenced?

Perhaps there is a third bank to the river, and emerging up the middle might be an expansion on our limited appreciation of consciousness and what is associated with quantum reality. Life (reality), IMO is much stranger than we perceive it to be. I hope the more we try to reconcile these tensions we will come to embrace "spooky action at a distance" as not so spooky at all and just another part of reality.

So let me rephrase this to see if I've got this straight. It seems to me that what you are saying is that UFO experiences act like a catalyst that increases the rate at which society explores the associated value based implications e.g. how much value we place in faith vs rational thought?

If I'm on the right track there, perhaps we might also add that there has been an increased amount of study in the implications of alien contact. The values we might encounter there include concepts like planetary ownership, rules of engagement, exploration of space, interspecies rights, and the right to disclosure.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Ray doesn't give one hoot what any of us think about his life-long analytical process concerning UFOs (or anomalous aerial objects—AAOs —his acronym). We are laboring under our preconceived notions. Ray is engaged in a very intense, (and IMO an amazingly—) astute, personal process of scientific understanding. And he has been doggedly working at it for almost 60 years. I try, but no matter how much I push and prod him to officially cast his UFO pearls before the public (and the I want-to-believe types—piggy me included ) , Ray sticks to his guns. He doesn't care what you or I think about his work—paleo, spiritual or otherwise. He is a man on an intensely personal mission of discovery and understanding that spans many disciplines. In private, he is willing to present his work to vetted inquiry. Publicly? He doesn't care in the least! He is not interested in fame, glory or notoriety—in fact, this is what makes him reticent to go prematurely public w/ his "AAO" work. IMO his observational acuity is off-the-charts. As an amateur scientist, his groundbreaking ichnology trace evidence work is acknowledged as world-class and that demands respect. As above/So below. I will continue to be patient, as best I can. I can only hope that someday his work (AAO, parapsychological and otherwise) will be fully revealed to (at least) a select public. I am pushing for an "AAO" pre-briefing of the good-stuff for us Paracasters, who are IMO among the great soapy bubbles cleansing the 'unwashed' masses...

One would think, being he is so passionate about this subject, he would want to release any and all evidence- considering how little we currently have.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris and I deeply disagree about Stanford.We will NEVER see the films of space ships so close that you can see inside the windows (as he claims to have) because, I submit, they don't exist. Making Stanford's claims even sillier is the fact that he has released other footage of UFOs but it is horrible handheld out of focus crap that shows a very distant out of focus blob. So the crap stuff he releases. Stanford's pretend scientific reasons for holding onto the good stuff are hilarious, for sure, but they are also an insult to any thinking person. Stanford thinks you are stupid.

And I don't give one flying f**ck what you think!

 

[boomerang]

• We can reduce any issue to the context of a "deeply PERSONAL process", but like many other topics, it's not the only context that applies.
• Based on pre-established parameters, it's entirely possible that there could be one best or defining UFO sighting. But determining that would involve a lot of variables ( not to mention work ).
• There is little doubt that a UFO experience ( the sighting or encounter of an alien craft ) can have a profound effect on the worldview of the witness.
• The main "value" that a UFO experiences changes within a witness is the importance of truth regarding what they are. But the values of society as a whole are more nebulous. Perhaps you could elaborate on that?

Some incdents are obviously more credible and more profound, i.e. "better" than others. The only rating sytem of which I am aware appeared in some of Hynek's earlier works where he atttempts to compare and graph credibility of witnesses and sightings vs strangeness factors for sightings. There may well be other and better ways to crunch the data of which I am unaware.

As for effects of the UFO experience on society and mankind over thousands of years--I will need more sleep and time to get that one even half-right. For what it is worth, I have at least an intuitive feeling that this phenomenon, if it has purpose relevant to humanity at all, is out to in some way shape the way in which we model our universe at both conscious and sub-conscious levels. This is the underlying thesis of Vallee that I still find compelling after so many decades of discarding others.
Something seemingly in control of time and space has been "meddling" with the human psyche since time immemorial. On the conscious and material level, it steadfastly maintains itself on the ragged edge of credibility, while persistantly intruding on our reality in ways that leave individuals permanently changed and society OVERTLY frustrated largely to the point of indifference.

Not a very good answer to your thoughtful question, I'm afraid. But I think if we take the historical view of religions being founded by average people transformed into crusading zealots by encounters with superior beings, and then collecting followers who assimilate the depth of their experience as faith and tradition, a kind of pattern may emerge.

 

[Burnt State]

So let me rephrase this to see if I've got this straight. It seems to me that what you are saying is that UFO experiences act like a catalyst that increases the rate at which society explores the associated value based implications e.g. how much value we place in faith vs rational thought?

If I'm on the right track there, perhaps we might also add that there has been an increased amount of study in the implications of alien contact. The values we might encounter there include concepts like planetary ownership, rules of engagement, exploration of space, interspecies rights, and the right to disclosure.

i think that the UFO event is merely one in a chain of odd human experiences that are perhaps at best a manifestation of a part of our experience of consciousness that helps to magnify the ongoing tension between raional and irrational thought. I think that both are valuable, both are fallible and that there is a need for a third way that can embrace both sides of our brain and potential so that our conscious experience of reality can be enhanced, possibly to be even more accurate than with only one dominant approach to interpreting sensory experienced reality.

Those other points that you mention i think do belong a little more to the 'regligious' aspects of Ufology and are suppositions and possibilities in the same way that we specualte about whether or not there are rules of engagement with gnomes etc. I'm not being dismissive here on this point, as it is the type of specualtion that has produced a lot of productive thought on earth, some brilliant fiction, and other forms of artistic expression and even original scientific investigation.

If anything, i hope expansive thought allows us to learn to care more for the planet and the diversity of her species a little more than how we currently damn all life on this planet because we think we humans own the place.

 

[pixelsmith]

those of us who have seen strange unidentified craft that are not just lights in the sky could care less what anyone thinks. lance's comments mean nothing to us.

 

[Randall]

... Those other points that you mention i think do belong a little more to the 'regligious' aspects of Ufology and are suppositions and possibilities in the same way that we specualte about whether or not there are rules of engagement with gnomes etc ...

Perhaps I should clarify something here in regard to religion and ufology. The word "ufology" is simply a title used for the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. Therefore ufology itself is neither a religion nor a cult and to categorize it or associate it with such is not accurate. Religion as it pertains to ufology is a subset of ufology studies and is treated objectively the same way as mythology, history, and culture are studied in relation to the topic of UFOs in general. Ufology demands no adherence to any supernatural belief and does not expect worship or devotion to any deity. Groups like USI only require members to possess a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon, and it's purpose is to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth. To accomplish this task the process of critical thinking and the use of science are encouraged. Modern ufology views UFO religions such as Heaven's Gate or Raëlism as a cultural phenomena. To clarify further, being a Raëlian in no way makes one a ufologist any more than being a Catholic makes one a historian. Furthermore, ufologists who are religious doesn't make ufology a religion any more than scientists who are religious makes science a religion. On it's own ufology is an entirely objective topic. The only subjective elements are those that are brought into it by those who have taken an interest in it.

 

[Burnt State]

Modern ufology views UFO religions such as Heaven's Gate or Raëlism as a cultural phenomena. To clarify further, being a Raëlian in no way makes one a ufologist any more than being a Catholic makes one a historian. Furthermore, ufologists who are religious doesn't make ufology a religion any more than scientists who are religious makes science a religion. On it's own ufology is an entirely objective topic. The only subjective elements are those that are brought into it by those who have taken an interest in it.

In previous posts i was referencing some of the fervor people have for certain positions associated with the field of ufology, both the believers and non-believers share in this god/no-god type of thinking. Religion is mostly metaphor and patterns that require followers to know their lines, pay their tithing and heed what the person in the pulpit speaks. They speak with a conviction that often insists on their version of reality and is very dismissive of the contrarian or heathens. So while I would not say that there is a specific place of worship that people attend, unless you count UFO conventions, they still do pay out their tithing in the books they buy, and on the forums, in the podcasts we hear the battle for the hearts and minds of the congregation.

Whitley Strieber calls his book "Communion" and now, apparently, his latest venture is receiving visits from a strange mystical figure, who stands outside time and has all the answers for Whitley to relay to his congregation of believers. He is positioning himself as prophet, no? In this new paradigm we see a meeting of Moses and the burning bush in a clandestine hotel room - please. I think he's just there for the profit and my main criticism of the field is not the objective study that should be there, but that it is rife with this type of profiteering from Greer-like-pulpiteers and wannbe puppeteers who see a means to make some $$$ while selling their snakeoil. I'm just as critical of a skeptic who also blindly pulls at any dismissive string they can find.

I would like to see the field filled with nothing but objective, as well as creative thinking, that tries to arrive at a source, or at least an outline of what is happening without jumping to the "must be aliens" meme. But where are those voices? Do you see how the field is clogged up this way - in fact that's a lot of what I hear on the podcasts: discussion of believers, true-believers, and true-blue koolaid drinking believers. It's lost objectivity and mocks itself with frequent missteps and claims of truth, which IMO deserve to be trounced by the skeptic.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris wrote:"And I don't give one flying f**ck what you think!" Understood...I was writing for the more discerning reader not Stanford's target audience.

... and I don't give one flying f**k about any smarmy, uninformed, passive/aggressive, holier-than-thou opinion you may have about Ray and his work.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

... I'm just as critical of a skeptic who also blindly pulls at any dismissive string they can find...

Especially when they use passive/aggressive baiting techniques designed to make them feel "holier-than-thou" and elevated above the rest of us, who they dismiss at best to be misguided, clueless, imbecilic idiots.

 

[Muadib]

... and I don't give one flying f**k about any smarmy, uninformed, passive/aggressive, holier-than-thou opinion you may have about Ray and his work.

We get it. My word, you really do come across as a supplicant worshiping at the altar of Ray Stanford. Is it any wonder people question your objectivity when it comes to this matter? Let's try putting this a different way, what has Ray Stanford done for the field of Ufology lately? Here's the answer: not a damn thing. He can pretend to be high and mighty all he wants but until he provides the evidence to support his rather outlandish claims, he's no better than anyone else in this field who makes crazy claims and then refuses to support those claims with actual evidence. How many of these people have you ripped to shreds on the Paracast? Why does Ray deserve a free pass? Because he's your "bud"?

In the end, his reasoning is completely irrelevant, when you make a claim you have an obligation to back it up, if you can't do that, as far as I'm concerned, it's open season.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

We get it. My word, you really do come across as a supplicant worshiping at the altar of Ray Stanford.

No at all. I am privy to his work and I respect it. The fact that you and others haven't yet been brought up2speed is unfortunate but this will change...

Is it any wonder people question your objectivity when it comes to this matter? Let's try putting this a different way, what has Ray Stanford done for the field of Ufology lately? Here's the answer: not a damn thing.

Oh yeah? And how exactly do you know this? By work, are you referring to his public work, or his tireless work being done in private?

He can pretend to be high and mighty all he wants but until he provides the evidence to support his rather outlandish claims, he's no better than anyone else in this field who makes crazy claims and then refuses to support those claims with actual evidence.

High and mighty? Define what you mean by "high and mighty." Ray isn't making any claims—he's excited and has tossed up a few hints. He's methodically analyzing his evidence and will present his conclusions when he's ready. Its a process. Evidently you, Lance and others have a personal problem w/ that and that's OK—you need something to attack and dog so you can feel "high and mighty" and project your frustrations on Ray (and anyone else that you desire)

How many of these people have you ripped to shreds on the Paracast?

More than a few. Go back and revisit our archive and listen to this upcoming Sunday's show.

Why does Ray deserve a free pass? Because he's your "bud"?

Huh? Ray doesn't deserve a pass! I am a thorn in his side! I dog him relentlessly to go public and publish already. YOU don't have a clue about Ray, my relationship w/ Ray, or what he and his work is all about. I suspect that someday Ray will decide he's ready and (finally) go public... until then, all I can do is support his efforts and relentlessly dog him to prove all the nay sayin, whiny-ass boo-birds wrong.

 

[Muadib]

No at all. I am privy to his work and I respect it. The fact that you don't is YOUR issue. Oh yeah? And how exactly do you know this? By work, are you referring to his public work, or his tireless work being done in private?
High and mighty? Crazy claims? Please show us your examples of his "crazy claims" and define what you mean by "high and mighty." Ray isn't making any claims—he's methodically analyzing his evidence. Its a process. Evidently you, Lance and others have a personal problem w/ that and that's OK, you might get over it eventually. More than a few. Go back and revisit our archive and listen to this upcoming Sunday's show. Huh? Ray doesn't deserve a pass! I am a thorn in his side! I dog him relentlessly to go public and publish already. YOU don't have a clue about Ray, my relationship w/ Ray, or what he and his work is all about. I suspect that someday Ray will decide he's ready and (finally) go public... until then, all I can do is support his efforts and relentlessly dog him to prove all the nay sayin, whiny-ass boo-birds wrong.

How do I know it? What are we talking about here? Ray's refusal to put up or shut up. His excuses on why he doesn't produce what he has claimed to have are what I'm referring to when I say high and mighty. Crazy claims? Yeah, how about pictures of flying saucers so close you can see inside. You saying he's not making any claims is just plain old bullshit, sir. He made plenty of them on your show and has yet to produce a scintilla of evidence for any of them. Let's combine that with the claims you've made on his behalf of groundbreaking work that is going to turn the scientific community on it's ear, when is that going to happen? When I say you're giving him a pass, I'm referring to your overwhelmingly childish attitude towards anyone who would dare question the mighty Ray Stanford. There's a difference between blind devotion and support and I'm afraid it's plain to anyone who takes the time to look at the facts that you've crossed the line on this one. If Ray truly has what he says he has, he has an obligation not only to support his claims, but to everyone who ever stood up for the field of Ufology and has been yelled down by a resounding chorus of ridicule. The man claims he has evidence that could validate the entire field, the longer he goes without releasing it, the more I'm convinced, and I'm sure others are as well, that Lance and others like him have him pegged. The fact that you don't recognize his obligation to support his own claims shows just how far away from objective you are when it comes to Ray. The name calling and I don't give a f*cks just make you look childish.