Ray Stanford and His Ever-Receding Claims of World-Shaking UFO Evidences

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by Justice Fodor, Feb 8, 2019.

  1. Justice Fodor

    Justice Fodor "Nobody wants justice." -- Alan Dershowitz

    Messages:
    88
    I think I may have in my files some pertinent material on that Stanford claim, but I do not have time to dig it out today. I will try to get back with an answer when time permits. [My answer appears below under the heading, "Ray Stanford Close Up No. 10."]
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  2. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    4,129
    I look forward to seeing what you have!
    merry Christmas!
     
  3. Justice Fodor

    Justice Fodor "Nobody wants justice." -- Alan Dershowitz

    Messages:
    88
    Ray Stanford Close Up No. 10:

    Ray Stanford and the photographed, captured alien egg-craft of 1964

    [UPDATED Oct. 13, 2020, with an admission by Ray Stanford -- and a new unsubstantiated claim]


    The Shadow asked above about a Ray Stanford claim that relates, after a fashion, to the well-known Socorro, New Mexico UFO event of April 24, 1964. To summarize: policeman Lonnie Zamora, a credible witness, got close to a landed, wingless egg-shaped craft, with two humanoid figures on the ground nearby. The craft took off as Zamora approached. Ray Stanford arrived at the site only four days after the event, the same day that Prof. J. Alan Hynek arrived. Stanford much later (in 1976) had a book privately published about the case, Socorro 'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry, in which he made remarkable claims that mostly were convincingly debunked, which I wrote about here.

    On a subsequent visit to Socorro, months after Zamora's encounter, Stanford took some photos at the site of the Zamora event, including a photo of a dynamite shack. Many years later, as Stanford was examining (or manipulating) a photo of the dynamite shack, he believed that he saw something in the background sky that he had not seen when he took the photo, or in the intervening years -- small images of four UFOs in the distance, two of them egg-shaped like the object Zamora saw, one of which had landing gear extended (!).

    I do not know what year Stanford made this "discovery." It was not mentioned in his 1976 book, nor in the 1978 UK re-publication of that book under the title Socorro Saucer (but the UK edition did contain some other interesting new material, as discussed below).

    Here is how the dynamite-shack photo was described by Stanford enthusiast Chris O'Brien on a UFO forum in August 2015: "I have also witnessed step-by-step the complete process that Ray undertook to clean up and further clarify the images. I was asked not to talk about it, but since he has mentioned them on Martin Willis' show [I believe this probably referred to the "Podcast UFO" of July 23, 2015], I suppose it's now OK to talk about them. The photo was take some months after the Socorro incident and in the foreground is the dynamite shack that was located near the landing site. Off in the distance, at the edge of the photo, just above the horizon, are four small dots that Ray had never noticed before. When they are blown up in size, two of the dots look exactly like the Socorro object -- one even has its landing legs extended. I have Ray's complete analysis process. It will remain unposted until Ray OKs their release."

    Of course, as of this day in 2019, the image has not been released -- much less has the original negative been made available to any competent analyst not connected to Ray Stanford. [To learn why, see the October 13, 2020 update at the bottom of this post.)

    O'Brien's reference to Stanford working to "clean up and clarify the images" reminded me of a published interview with a person who was a very close associate of Ray Stanford during the 1970s, in which she described some of Stanford's methods of photo interpretation as follows: "He was looking at pictures he had taken of UFOs and stuff, and blowing them up to where the grain was very grainy, and seeing extraterrestrials...he was just crazier..."

    Be that as it may, I think there should be general agreement that the publication (should it ever occur) of a photograph which, after extreme enlargement and enhancement, shows four distant objects that Ray Stanford believed to be UFOs -- objects that, however, were not seen by him or reported by others at that time or place in 1964 -- would contribute nothing at all to the body of useful evidence on UFOs.

    However, in seeking an answer to The Shadow's question, I too made an unexpected discovery. I had previously overlooked the fact that the 1978 British edition of Stanford's book, published by Fontana/Collins under the title Socorro Saucer, contains a final chapter that did not appear in the original 1976 hardcover U.S. edition.

    This additional eight-page chapter (attached below) was titled "Multiple Leaks from the Pentagon Pantry." The added chapter begins with an explanation of sorts: "This most important-of-all chapters was deliberately deleted from the first USA edition of this book because of the great amount of time I felt it might take to obtain a congressional hearing wherein what I am about to describe could be proven. But, the political and scientific climate has now changed..."

    The gist of what followed was that Stanford had discovered "with some degree of reliability" that six days after the Zamora sighting, on April 30, 1964, an "elongated" UFO landed on the Holloman-White Sands range and was captured by the U.S. military. The captured craft was described as being very like what Zamora had described. (Careful readers of my posts about Ray Stanford will perhaps not be surprised to hear that Stanford implied that he may have seen that very same craft flying around earlier that day, before it was captured. It happened this way . . . oh, never mind.) Stanford said that he was told about the April 30 landing and capture by an unnamed friend who did work for NASA, who heard about it from an unnamed very high-up military intelligence officer, who told the NASA guy "we already know that the thing was not made by terrestrials." Also, Stanford knew the unnamed person who developed film of the event. And so on.

    Stanford wrapped up the British edition of the book with this: "I am prepared to help the US Congress (if it will request same) locate and, if necessary, subpoena at least five persons who have apparent knowledge of the 30 April [1964] capture of an alien craft on the integrated Holloman-White Sands range. . . . Every reader should actively and aggressively demand the facts."

    I think that Congress never called Stanford to get the subpoena list.

    [The original post of Dec. 15, 2019, ended here -- but in September, 2020, Ray Stanford made new public statements on this matter that are summarized in the update below.]
    ______________________________________________________

    IMPORTANT UPDATE (October 13, 2020): I would invite you to review, above, the detailed claims regarding a photo taken by Ray Stanford in 1964 at the Socorro dynamite shack -- why, on one of the four photographed "craft," you could even see what looked like the landing gear.

    Now, here's the update. On Sept. 15, 2020, during a YouTube live show hosted by Martin Willis, Ray Stanford phoned in (at 1:29) and repudiated all of those previous dynamite-shack-photo claims in about one minute. It turns out that (just as we thought) none of it was real -- what Stanford was "seeing," what Chris O'Brien described in such graphic detail, were just image artifacts-- ostensibly caused by dirt on the original negative, which Stanford had misplaced for years. Recently, Stanford said, he finally found the original negative, and there were no UFO images on it, just some kind of dirt (he refers to cleaning). "So, we can forget that," Stanford nonchalantly concluded.

    But then immediately, in trademark Stanford fashion, Stanford provided a new egg-UFO story. It seems that while driving north of Phoenix in 1978, Stanford saw a craft "shaped exactly like the Socorro craft" (but pitch black) rise out of a ravine "within a few hundred feet" of his vehicle, generate some sort of glowing blue-white field, and fly away. Stanford was in a van full of cameras and other instruments, but unfortunately, the rear van door was locked and no photos were obtained.

    And so it goes with Ray Stanford -- a claim to possess extraordinary UFO evidences is made public, becomes more elaborate in each telling over a period of years, receives endorsements from people invited to Stanford peep shows -- and then collapses, or is withdrawn, or is discredited, or just is allowed to fade away-- only to be replaced by a new extraordinary claim, or three.

    By the way, during his Sept. 15 drop in call, Stanford made no mention of this claim to have information on an egg-craft captured at Holloman AFB just six days after the Zamora event -- you know, the capture that Stanford described in the 1978 British edition of his Socorro book, the capture that he was eager to testify before Congress about. That, too, has gone into the Great Elephant Graveyard of Stanford stories.

    An audio file of the Sept. 15, 2020 Stanford drop-in call to the Martin Willis YouTube show has been uploaded with this update.

    During Stanford's call , Stanford devotees Ben Moss and Tony Angiola (sometimes seen on the History program Hanger 1), seemed to accept Stanford's adjustments without breaking stride. But on the YouTube page on which the show is posted, Martin Willis posted this comment on October 13, 2020:

    "I was flabbergasted when Ray Stanford at 1:29:29 [calls in] and tells a story of how the processing of the image I saw at his house was the result of bad developing. I felt 'thrown under the bus', I have been talking about that image for years. What Ray is doing is, trying to deflect people from contacting him to see it. What I saw with my own eyes is an image of the dynamite shack, and CLEARLY in the background sky, an egg-shaped craft with landing gear, and at least one other in the distance. This is no processing anomaly!! I know what I saw. Martin"​

    Of course, what Willis actually saw "with my own eyes" was just a print, most likely heavily manipulated by Stanford to enhance the artifacts, as previously discussed. Sadly, Willis would rather insist that Stanford is lying now about the matter, than admit that Stanford snookered him with ginned-up "evidence" for years. Don't take it so hard, Martin Willis -- Stanford's been snookering people since the 1950s.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  4. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    4,129
    An outstanding and well researched response! Thank you! Chris O'Brien when asked about the photo said "Ray will release it when it is ready."
    He also said that Ray wanted to eliminate any chance of fakery.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Justice Fodor

    Justice Fodor "Nobody wants justice." -- Alan Dershowitz

    Messages:
    88
    Of the many ludicrous and unfulfilled UFO-related claims made by Ray Stanford over the decades, this is one of the most silly.

    Eliminate any chance of fakery? That seems impossible. Ray Stanford took the photograph, more than 55 years ago. Stanford alone has controlled the negative. Stanford alone knows what unknown processes have been employed to "clean up and clarify the images" (O'Brien's language). O'Brien may think O'Brien knows, but actually all O'Brien knows about it is what Stanford has told him, which means he knows nothing.

    O'Brien, I remind you, is the man who, by his own testimony, spent more than 100 hours recording Stanford's stories --apparently believing everything or nearly so-- in the hope of publishing it all as Stanford's life story. O'Brien's conclusion: "It's so far beyond unbelievable, it could only be true." I have yet to see any evidence that O'Brien has made any serious effort to independently check key elements of Stanford's history, stories, and claims against available documents, independent witnesses, or other sources that are truly independent of Stanford and his endless narratives.

    As I think I have amply demonstrated in this series of "Ray Stanford Close Ups," Stanford is an individual who has often demonstrated an untrammeled imagination coupled with gross subjectivity, particularly about his own creations. He has also often demonstrated lapses of candor. This long record should be kept in mind in evaluating each and every claim.

    [October 15, 2020: Please scroll up to see the update under the original "Ray Stanford Close Up No. 10" post. As we surmised, the dynamite-shack UFO photo was another product of Ray Stanford's subjectivity, and the credulous nature of the enablers that he attracts to himself.]
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  6. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    4,129
    One thing I am unclear on is if COB ever saw the alleged photo. If he did see the photo and vouched for them then he is a party to a potential hoax.
    If he has NOT seen them and is stating what he thinks is on said photos then when the photos never surfice he can claim to be misinformed.
    It is possible that said photo does not exist.
     
  7. Standingstones

    Standingstones Celestial

    Messages:
    1,867
    One of the major problems is that Ray Stanford is now 81 years old. He has had ample decades to release whatever information and photos he may have. Time is running out for him. I do get tired of Chris O’Brien constantly defending Stanford. To what end?

    This is much like the so-called UFO researchers who tell everyone they have secret information about aliens but they can’t share it with anyone. That sort of thing is totally useless in my mind. Don’t bring it up if you aren’t going to release it.

    My guess is that when the time comes Stanford will destroy whatever information he has accumulated just because no one is worthy of seeing it and just to be belligerent.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Justice Fodor

    Justice Fodor "Nobody wants justice." -- Alan Dershowitz

    Messages:
    88
    If Stanford orders his "UFO evidence" destroyed, it will not be "because no one is worthy of seeing it," nor "just to be belligerent." It will be for the same reason that almost none of his peep-show collection has ever been placed in the hands of competent independent analysts: When divorced from Stanford's stories and imaginative interpretations, most if not all of the images and artifacts probably lack any intrinsic evidential value. Once the storyteller is gone, all you will have is a collection of props that will prove nothing, except to disciples of the departed visionary.

    As I explained earlier in this thread, in the only two instances of which I am aware, in which Stanford actually did submit "raw" data to independent authorities -- the 1959 Corpus Christi movie films, and the tiny metal samples that he found at the site of the 1964 Lonnie Zamora UFO event in Socorro, New Mexico -- Stanford's claims were not substantiated. I think it is fair to say that a number of his other wild claims -- for example, regarding the time-machine that he raised money to build, until nearly age 40 -- were not well founded.

    Some people get excited about some of Stanford's images and artifacts because they believe the stories he tells about their origins, and his interpretations about what they show. Yet in this series of "Ray Stanford Close Up" posts, I have shown ample evidence (selected from a much larger body of material) that Stanford has a long history of making grandiose self-centered predictions, ultimately unfulfilled or disproved; promoting UFO-related claims permeated by gross subjectivity and unbridled imagination; demonstrating a proclivity for exaggeration; often manifesting lack of candor; and so forth. Therefore, no reliance should be placed on his stories about or interpretations of his "UFO" images and artifacts. As somebody else said, when it is discovered that a long-serving police detective tampered with or mischaracterized evidence in a some past cases, such a discovery not only discredits the detective's testimony in those specific past cases, but in every other case in which his testimony was a critical part of the evidence, and in every future case in which he might have been scheduled to testify. Some of the detective's work may have been solid, some of his testimony accurate -- but there is no way to know. It is all tainted.

    For these reasons, I think that if Stanford in fact instructs that his collection of images and artifacts should be destroyed, probably it would be no loss at all to the serious study of UFOs. In fact, it would probably be a good thing for UFO studies, curtailing further dissemination of Stanford-originated mythology by the final generation of Stanford true-believers.

    Still, as I have written before, I must remain open to the theoretical possibility that Stanford might have obtained or come into possession of some item of UFO-related evidence that could actually stand on its own, independent of Stanford's testimony, somehow uncorrupted by its association with Stanford. That could only be established, however, if Stanford placed such evidence (film and camera, "space material," whatever) in the hands of truly independent persons who are capable of conducting a competent analysis, an analysis that did not depend on the claims or interpretations of Stanford. A good model would be the analysis of the strange-looking 15 cm-long skeleton dubbed "Ata," conducted by a team led by Dr. Garry Nolan of Stanford University. Some had proclaimed Ata to be the skeleton of an alien, but the Nolan team's genetic study, published in 2018, established that the skeleton was of a human (probably a pre-term birth), with mutations.

    By "independent persons," I surely do not mean a Stanford disciple-stenographer such as Chris O'Brien, whose stated standard of truth for the Stanford storybook is, "It's so far beyond unbelievable, it could only be true."

    With respect to Stanford's "UFO" collection: Whatever conclusions are drawn based on competent independent analysis of unaltered images or other tangible data (independently of Stanford's claims and overlays) should be made public for commentary. If it should happen that a specific piece of evidence -- after having been subjected to such independent, competent, skeptical but honest analysis and subsequent wider commentary -- is widely judged to be evidential of anomalous technological flying objects, then but only then should Stanford get appropriate credit for whatever constructive role he played in obtaining that specific evidence.

    I do not really expect anything like that to happen.

    [Please scroll up to the original "Ray Stanford Close-Up No. 10" post and read the update of Oct. 13, 2020, which reports how Ray Stanford has admitted that there were no UFOs in the dynamite-shack photo after all -- just a misinterpretation of some dirt on the negative. But he has another exciting story for you...]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Oct 13, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    4,129
    did he really find a T Rex footprint or a tall tale?
     
  10. Justice Fodor

    Justice Fodor "Nobody wants justice." -- Alan Dershowitz

    Messages:
    88
    Over the past quarter century, Ray Stanford has found many dinosaur tracks in Maryland. By far his most famous discovery was a large (8.5 x 3 foot) slab of sandstone containing the tracks of many species of mammals and dinosaurs, deposited during the Lower Cretaceous, including theropods, which are of the same family as Tyranneousaurs rex (but only the size of the crow).

    The rock and its tracks were the subject of a paper in Scientific Reports (January 31, 2018), which Stanford co-authored with several scientists and his wife.

    The rock was on the grounds of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland (the very site of Stanford's 1964 adventure, discussed here). Scientists and others had been walking past a small exposed outcropping of the stone for decades before Stanford made his discovery in 2012. On the exposed surface, Stanford saw the track of a nodosaur -- a large armored dinosaur. Excavation revealed more than 70 dinosaur and mammal tracks from eight species. Noted paleontologist Martin Lockley, with the University of Colorado, Denver, said, "This is the Cretaceous equivalent of the Rosetta stone."

    Dinosaur Age Meets the Space Age at NASA Goddard

    “It’s a time machine,” Stanford said. (Really, he did say that -- just google "Ray Stanford"+"time machine".)

    Getting back to your question: If Stanford has ever found a track of a Tyranneousaus rex, I am not aware of it. However, Ray Stanford does have an identical twin brother who is named Rex.

    (Rex Stanford apparently has had a very distinguished career as a parapsychologist.)
     

    Attached Files:

  11. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    4,129
  12. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,160
    Bump...

    ...
     
  13. wwkirk

    wwkirk Celestial

    Messages:
    2,389
    I wish him well, but how old is he now?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  14. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,160
    I'm not sure how old he is, I tried to look it up and didn't find anything...I didn't search on Google though, I haven't used Google search for many weeks now, I use the duck now lol...

    ...
     
  15. Standingstones

    Standingstones Celestial

    Messages:
    1,867
    Ray Stanford is 82 years old from the articles I see.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  16. wwkirk

    wwkirk Celestial

    Messages:
    2,389
    Hmm. That's old. But not that old.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,160
    I bumped up all the Ray Stanford threads today because one of them was referenced in a social media discussion earlier that I was reading, this way the threads would be easy to find for those in that discussion...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,681
    Mercifully no mention of Ray in Phenomenon that I can recall.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,160
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Justice Fodor

    Justice Fodor "Nobody wants justice." -- Alan Dershowitz

    Messages:
    88
    Ray Stanford is listed in the film credits as one of 10 "associate producers."

    Also, during the Socorro-Zamora segment, a caption credited Stanford for a watercolor depicting Zamora's account of humanoids outside the landed device. However, the film did not mention any of Stanford's novel and unsubstantiated claims regarding the Socorro incident, such as the claim that Stanford had recovered non-earthly metal shavings from the site (later stolen by NASA); that Stanford had personally photographed four UFOs from the Zamora-incident site at a later date (one with landing gear extended); and that the military had captured a Socorro-like craft at Holloman Air Force Base six days after the Zamora incident.

    [Update: Please see the Oct. 13, 2020 update in the original "Ray Stanford Close Up No. 10" post above, reporting on how Stanford on Sept. 15, 2020, withdrew his previous claims that his 1964 dynamite-shack photo showed Socorro-like UFOs. That claim had been heavily promoted for years by Chris O'Brien and Martin Willis, among others.]

    I have addressed Stanford's debunked/unsubstantiated Socorro-related claims in several past posts, including these:

    Ray Stanford and his NASA-Goddard UFO-Metal Cover-Up Claim (1964)

    Ray Stanford and His Ever-Receding Claims of World-Shaking UFO Evidences
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1

Share This Page