Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by Justice Fodor, Feb 8, 2019.
That I agree with. Hoarding and hinting accomplishes nothing except to fuel a rumor mill
Yes, no matter what he has or thinks he has or doesn't have, that behavior only causes trouble.
Here are the seven "Ray Stanford Close-Up" threads posted so far. Anyone with a question, comment, or suggestion that he or she does not wish to post in public, is welcome to send it to me via e-mail. My address is my first name, followed by a single underscore, followed by my last name, @protonmail-dot-com
1. Ray Stanford Close Up No. 1:
Ray Stanford and His Ever-Receding Claims of World-Shaking UFO Evidences
2. Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 2:
Ray Stanford and His Super-Power-Inducing Time Machine (AKA "The Hilaron Accelerator")
3. Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 3:
Ray Stanford's Instructions for Greeting the Occupants of the UFO That Would Land (1973)
4. Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 4:
Ray Stanford and his NASA-Goddard UFO-Metal Cover-Up Claim (1964)
5. Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 5:
Ray Stanford's Claim to Have a Piece of a Gigantic Intergalactic Spacecraft (Space Material)(1971)
6. Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 6:
Ray Stanford Close-Up #6 - Audio Excerpts of Stanford Speaking & Channeling Aramda of "The Watchers"
7. Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 7:
Ray Stanford Close-Up No.7: Claims the U.S. Air Force Offered to Scramble Jets at Stanford Requests
Indeed and a reflection of how these cosmic god theories about UFOs seem to be bringing humanity yet another new barbaric religion, as if this world needs that...
I don't want to derail this thread, but the most common complaint about any "trickster" explanation for weird things in general and UFO reports specifically, is that they tend to simply replace "God's will" with "trickster", getting us precisely nowhere.
The various trickster traditions and myths are very interesting to study, and they can tell us an awful lot about human nature, but as with any such cultural artifacts it is important to keep them in context. The internet has turned out to be an extremely effective tool for stripping away context and leaving a lot of wildly misleading debris scattered at random. It gets really deep in some places.
I find the religious aspects entering UFO conversation problematic, worst are usually coming from the "UFOs are demons" crowd. What a load of horseshit. We didnt survive the dark ages to go right back into them.
Excellent work, truly you have covered the topic of Ray Stanford quite well...I have to ask though, because this one question cannot escape me, what if the images are real images of alien craft of some sort?...In other words, what if he's not making it up about the images?...Granted we may never know for sure, there may lay some proof in those images of something extraordinary and quite alien to us, its also hard to understand the rational of people sometimes...
well how do i understand something wich i don't even know what it is, its so blurry and ambiguous that it could be anything
i doubt it would be anything better than what we already have, but it still would be interesting
here's the golden rule: if various stories made by various people of all social categories contain similar elements wich they shouldn't know or contains reference to obscure mithology or occult symbolism, you know something is up
also obviously, an image is much more easier to analysis than a story
the fact that he only wants selected people to see it is a HUGE red flag IMO, and i have no idea how a veteran ufologist like you can't see this obvious element of the story
now you are making fun of my posting quantity? have you ever heard of something called free speech?
nivek, i never mentioned anything related to the cosmic trickster here, why are you and thomas derailing the thread? i have already talked about all this, but its pretty clear that its a senseless battle, neither of us will change your belief
i don't belong to that crowd
in fact i think alleged manifestations of angels and demons are the same thing, the phenomena can make itself sound good or evil to whoever it wants, thats why its so confusing, it isn't meant to make sense
Getting back to Ray Stanford: I have responded to issues raised above by Thomas R. Morrison, and by others elsewhere, in a new thread,
Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 8: Unearthly Crystal, Alien Pilot, Faraday Rings, and Magnetometer Data
On March 8, 2019, Ray Stanford gave a long interview on a podcast called UFO Classified, during which he discussed a few of the UFO-evidence claims that have been critiqued in my series of "Ray Stanford Close-Up" posts. My commentary on these new statements by Stanford are found in this post:
Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 9:
Stanford Swipes at His Critics; Plus Alien Fingers,
"A Major Government Operation," and
the Stanford-Goddard-NASA Connection
A very disappointing read.
Now, that is just the type of thoughtful, detailed critique that I have come to expect from you. But, thanks for the bump.
By the way, as I promised in my reply to you on February 12, 2019, I did delve somewhat deeper into the citation by Dr. Meessen of purported instrumented readings of a UFO event that he had received from Ray Stanford. Meessen was unable or unwilling to produce any evidence that he (Meessen) had any access whatever to the original instrumented data on the purported event. It appears that my initial impression was correct -- apparently Meessen just gullably regurgitated what Stanford sent him, probably images of a printout or such. As Meessen put it in his paper, in which you put so much stock, "We are grateful to Ray Stanford for providing extracts of these important recordings." In other words, another unsubstantiated claim by Stanford.
Despite Stanford's great number of claims to have obtained extraordinary UFO-related evidences, claims made over a period of more than 60 years, I am aware of only two instances in which Stanford submitted raw data to truly independent authorities. One example was an episode in 1959 during which Stanford obtained two movie films; he rather promptly submitted the undeveloped film to an independent photo processor. Stanford apparently later provided the original developed movie film to NICAP for analysis. NICAP said the films "do not substantiate the verbal report and do not constitute significant evidence of UFOs as the matter now stands." I wrote about this here.
The second example was Stanford's submission of small metallic scrapings, purportedly from the object that was witnessed by Lonnie Zamora at Socorro, New Mexico, in 1964, which Stanford submitted to Goddard scientists for analysis. When Stanford's sample was found to be unremarkable, he concocted an elaborate conspiracy theory, which he many years later he produced as a book, rejected as highly subjective and inaccurate by others who had been directly involved, including NICAP's Richard Hall. I wrote about this here.
The second episode was 55 years ago. Since then, Stanford has found, in each generation, persons such as yourself, who are willing to defend his extraordinary claims based on nothing more substantive than what Stanford himself says about this or that image or artifact. One fellow even wrote half a book interpreting images that he was not even allowed to reproduce in the book.
Although you found my posts "disappointing," feedback I've received tells me that many others have found the posts, and the documents and recordings uploaded with them, to be illuminating. Those who wish to submit additional feedback or questions in private may do so by sending me email. My email address is my first name, followed by a single underscore, followed by my last name, at protonmail, dot, com.
has anyone ever had a look at the alleged photo of a craft over the dynamite shack near the Zamoia sighting site in Ray's possession?
Just to disambiguate. I was disappointed in Standford not you. You've done a phenomenal job.
But you should had published these citations much earlier.
I accept information in a good fate. How much time in a world would one need if he followed each rabbit hole?
That could easily be a timeless pursuit...
This forum served well the purpose of sharing information and coming up with new insights based on that. I would had never found by myself all the good information other people contributed. I hope that others learned something from info I brought in.
Well done AlienExpanse forum
Thank you for this clarification. Perhaps I may be forgiven for misunderstanding your comment above, since I think that the last comments that I had received from you regarding my posts on Ray Stanford, were your posts back in February, in which you said that I was engaged in criticizing Stanford for "youthful sins" (in fact, I had quoted mostly things Stanford said after age 35, and up into his 70s), and accused me of "character assassination" (to which I responded that if so, the character-damaging words and actions were those of Stanford himself -- I was merely presenting them to a wider audience).
Sorry, I was busy.
But, a lot of this information that I have posted was not that hard to find. Stanford apparently has a way with words, and it seems that some people find his stories and peep-shows too enjoyable to check.
(Some of it, however, took some work to find. At this point, I have a lot of material that I haven't written on, but may turn to again in the future, if circumstances justify the investment of time.)
Stanford has a pattern of surfacing with extraordinary UFO claims, getting a bunch of people excited about them, and then fading into obscurity without any of the extraordinary claims being validated (and often, they have been disproved), leaving behind disillusioned followers. He has repeated this pattern on multiple occasions since the mid-1950s (he is now 81 years old). On each re-appearance, he gains a new following who accept his representations regarding his history, his photos, his artifacts.
In 2011, Stanford proclaimed himself to be "the most seasoned researcher into these [UFO] phenomena alive today." If so, it shouldn't be hard to find UFO researchers who knew Stanford in the UFO context 30 or 40 years ago, who now hold Stanford in high regard as a source of credible UFO evidence, right? If you find one, let me know. My email address is my first name, followed by a single underscore, followed by my last name, at protonmail, dot, com.
See my previous answer.
Separate names with a comma.