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

pigfarmer · Oct 13, 2020

Double Nought Spy · Oct 13, 2020

I saw that image credit and thought, Aw crap! They were doing so well with this and here comes Ray.

Fortunately that didn't turn out to be the case. I do wonder about his name in the credits. Did he supply them with something they didn't use? We may never know.

pigfarmer · Oct 14, 2020

Double Nought Spy said: ↑

I saw that image credit and thought, Aw crap! They were doing so well with this and here comes Ray.

Fortunately that didn't turn out to be the case. I do wonder about his name in the credits. Did he supply them with something they didn't use? We may never know.
Click to expand...

Kevin Randle and Chris O'Brien got a nod too and that was nice. Don Schmitt was listed as an associate producer. As long as they didn't expect him to keep track of labeling anything he was probably just fine.

They've been in the game a long time like Ray and are part of the story in one way or another.

Pretty sure that allowing Ray to utter a single rapid fire mumble sentence on screen (regardless of content) would not be a ... ahhhhh .... ummmmm .... value added service.

nivek · Oct 14, 2020

nivek · Oct 14, 2020

wwkirk · Oct 14, 2020

I hate to say it, but Ray Sanford seems a lot like Bob Lazar. They both have made exceptional claims and gotten high profile people in the UFO community to back them. And, of course, the claims by both of them are suspect, to say the least.

Justice Fodor · Oct 19, 2020

With a little effort, you could probably get a hot four-way argument going between the people who agree that Stanford and Lazar are both proven frauds, the people who think that they are both prophets, the people who think it is a slander of Lazar to compare him to the fraud Stanford, and the people who think it is a slander of Stanford to compare him to the fraud Lazar. I have nothing to say about Lazar, so I'll sit that one out.

The shadow · Oct 14, 2020

Justice Fodor said: ↑

With a little effort, you could probably get a hot four-way argument going between the people who agree that Stanford and Lazar are both proven frauds, the people who think that they are both prophets, the people who think it is a slander of Lazar to compare him to the fraud Stanford, and the people who think it is a slander of Stanford to compare him to the fraud Lazar. I have nothing to say about Lazar, so I'll set that one out.
Click to expand...

Lazar is as bad as Mier. And Stanford is right behind them I can't believe C.O.B
Saw a photo that was a prossesor error and declared it legit.

nivek · Oct 14, 2020

Justice Fodor said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

I wanted to bump up this post since it now includes some updated information, I wonder if Chris O'Brien has seen these new revelations (he is a member here)...Ray Stanford appears to be an habitual liar, he can't stop himself from telling a new tale every bit as astounding as the other tales before the truth and facts become apparent...

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.
Click to expand...

...

nivek · Nov 13, 2020

nivek · Nov 13, 2020

Log in or Sign up

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

pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

Double Nought Spy Easily Amused

pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

nivek As Above So Below

nivek As Above So Below

wwkirk Celestial

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

The shadow The shadow knows!

nivek As Above So Below

nivek As Above So Below

nivek As Above So Below

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

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

pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

Double Nought Spy Easily Amused

pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

nivek As Above So Below

nivek As Above So Below

wwkirk Celestial

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

The shadow The shadow knows!

nivek As Above So Below

nivek As Above So Below

nivek As Above So Below

Share This Page

Useful Searches