Ray Stanford's Instructions for Greeting the Occupants of the UFO That Would Land (1973)

"Seeing one of them trying to hide the past is a bit disturbing." -- humanoidlord, Feb. 9, 2019, in this thread

"UFO-fan lists, they'd eat it with a spoon." -- Ray Stanford, July 24, 1998

Humanoidlord's quote above inspires me to start a new thread on the issue that he has raised, since it is somewhat distinct from the "Stanford ever-receding UFO evidences" theme of my earlier thread.

I have seen many occasions in which Ray Stanford has tried to hide -- in fact, has directly misrepresented -- his past activities. I have examples from radio and podcast interviews, postings on various internet sites, etc. Stanford is also prone to attack those who press such questions. Sometimes Stanford's followers throw questioners off forums and lists --I have seen it happen more than once.

What follows is just one example of what I am talking about.

Starting about 25 years ago, Stanford started to find some interesting dinosaur tracks. After a few years, some of his track discoveries began to attract notice from experts in that field. Since then, Stanford has found many tracks, and has earned a considerable measure of recognition among paleontologists and in the media because of his success in that field. In my earlier post regarding Stanford's many years of promoting construction of the "Hilaron Accelerator"--a machine that would induce super-human powers in suitable individuals, including abilities to physically teleport through both time and space -- I mentioned an internet mailing list (listserv) for people interested in scientific questions pertaining to dinosaurs. Stanford was a participant in this list. On the list, in July 22, 1998, a guy named Larry added this postscript to a post:

PS: Ray, are you the same Ray Stanford from Texas who was waiting for the UFO's in the 1970's? I'll bet you get asked that all the time. Your e-mail address made me suspect so. Do you recall this fellow, or are you him? If so, any luck?​

Another list member protested that such a topic should not be raised on the list; Larry defended his question, adding that he was "openminded" about "the scientific study of extraterrestrial life."

Then Stanford himself weighed in (July 24, 1998). Stanford strongly objected to Larry's language about Stanford's previous activities. Stanford said Larry's language was:

misleading about my studies. Why? I HAVE NOT BEEN TRYING TO STUDYING EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL LIFE. [Both the capitals and the spelling error are in the original.] My studies are only an instrumented search for any UFO PHYSICS that might be monitored during observation of seemingly anomalous sky objects. I have long stressed that the project is a straight-forward study of physics and has no data that would point to any specific area of origin (whether terrestrial, extra-terrestrial, or even from any speculative 'realm' incomprehensible to us). Now, Larry, if you, privately, have some knowledge that UFOs have an extra-terrestrial origin, fine. Post that to one of the many UFO-fan lists, they'd eat it with a spoon.​

". . .the many UFO-fan lists . . . they'd eat it with a spoon." There is a lot to chew on there, wouldn't you say?

If you have read earlier posts in this thread, you already know that back in the 1970's, Ray Stanford was at the center of an organization known as the Association for the Understanding of Man (A.U.M.). You also know that this organization was demonstrably directed, in large part, by "guidance" provided by "psychic readings" -- that is, by voices emanating from the vocal cords of the ostensibly unconscious Ray Stanford, ostensibly originating with "the Source" and "the Brothers." These spiritually elevated entities insisted that the organization make "Project Starlight International" a priority. At least one of the channeled "Brothers," Aramda, was himself represented as an extraterrestrial, a member of a wise race known as "The Watchers." The A.U.M. publications from 1974 through 1978 were replete with "psychic readings" and other material beating on the theme that Project Starlight would obtain conclusive proof of the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs, and also, if faithfully pursued and supported, would lead to direct contact with visiting extraterrestrials (not "the Watchers," but others). It was stressed again and again that this proof and this contact would have a hugely positive impact upon humanity, basically preventing the human race from coming to a bad end.

It would not be difficult to pull out dozens of quotations out of the A.U.M. publications to demonstrate what I have just stated. But I will content myself with just two examples for today:

AUM Journal Vol. 2, No. 2 (pertinent pages uploaded here) contains a transcript of a Ray Stanford "work reading" given on October 21, 1973. Apparently this was called a "work reading" because it was through such trance-speaking guidance that the leadership of the organization was told what the higher powers wanted them to be working on, and why. The preface from the Journal editors (page 52) says that the P.S.I. was aimed at "getting significant UFO evidence and toward possible intelligent response from or contact with UFO operators." (italics added for emphasis here0 The editors apparently felt that publishing the explicit guidance from "the Source" would make its membership feel more comfortable with the fact that "considerable time and energies of A.U.M. have been invested in pursing the purposes of Project Starlight International. . ."

The entire thrust of the October 21, 1973 discourse by "the Source" was that those involved in P.S.I. must maintain proper focus and persistence, in order to become instrumental in establishing contact between humanity and some of the extraterrestrial visitors. The Source said, "Thus, Project Starlight International can grow to the point where it may be recognized worldwide for its work, its endeavor and even success in the ideals discussed and in communication with extraterrestrial civilizations." (p. 63) (italics in the original here)

Then, "the Source" proceeded to give the group very specific instructions on how Stanford and his P.S.I. team were to proceed on the day that it was promised would come ("if you persist") when an alien craft would land before them.

At the present time, according to the consciousness of those gathered, there are only two present that we can authorize to be active -- if you persist, we will say -- when that occasion occurs or arises to approach when the signal is given, once a craft has come and the beings have made themselves known. That is the one through whom we speak [Ray Stanford] and the one called Mary Kathryn [Stanford's wife in 1973; not his current wife]. Understand that we may speak of those times which are far away, or those which are near. . . . [italics in original]

When the craft comes, when such craft are seen, clearly, and known as such, it is satisfactory to film without flash equipment or auxiliary lighting equipment, even to the point that they have landed, even to the point of an opening of a hatch; but at that point, such [photography] is to cease, unless or until permission has become obvious from those with whom association or communication has been made [the aliens]. (page 65)​

So there you have it, Ray Stanford's instructions for the day that an alien craft would land and open its hatch: Stop taking pictures (apparently obtaining hard data was not, in this circumstance, the first priority), and keep your distance while Ray Stanford and his wife make the approach.

Material published by A.U.M. in 1973 and later (both printed and audio) contains a great deal of material on this theme --promoting the importance of Project Starlight International in establishing a bridge between humanity and galactic civilizations -- both in the discourses by "the Source" and "the Brothers," and it material written directly by Stanford and other A.U.M. personnel.

Notably, the P.S.I.-logo publications, papers, and press releases during the same period contained not a word of about psychic readings, "Brothers," or intent to contact aliens-- even though most of the same people were on the both the A.U.M. and P.S.I. mastheads (with Stanford, of course, at the top of both -- "Editor-in-Chief" of the A.U.M. Journal (the first journal masthead appeared in 1976), and "Director" of Project Starlight International. In the material put out under the P.S.I. logo -- intended mainly for a different audience than the A.U.M. material, it would seem -- P.S.I. was presented as an enterprise purely about getting "instrumented data" about UFOs.

However, while silent about the trance-reading guidance, the Project Starlight International publications definitely did promote that view that UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin. Multiple examples could be offered, but for now, look no farther than the A.U.M. newsletter no. 19, dated Nov. 11, 1978, uploaded here. This newsletter was written by Stanford, and appears over his signature. On page 3, Stanford speaks of unspecified physical evidences of UFOs, claimed to have been obtained by Stanford and his associates, "that . . . will, in my opinion, demonstrate rather conclusively that highly advanced technological devices, not of earthly origin visited this world last December and, again, in July 1978 . . . . There are some deep-set philosophical implications to extraterrestrial visitation. Then too, there are remarkable implications in the new evidence, concerning the use of energy. This world is in an energy crisis."

So, look -- I do not make fun of it, that Ray Stanford and his associates sat out in the county at night, hoping to get some data but also waiting for a UFO to land, so that Ray Stanford could go over and shake an alien's hand, or whatever they have to shake. Nor do I argue that Stanford was under an obligation to blazon his hope that this would occur across all of his P.S.I. literature.

But I do have a problem with this:

After Stanford had spent 5 or 10 years of repeatedly telling his followers (on the A.U.M. side) that contacting extraterrestrial visitors was indeed the ultimate purpose of the Project Starlight International, and would help save the world; after publishing long trance discourses on that theme, complete with step-by-step instructions for alien-landing day; after sitting out there in the Texas hills watching and waiting for who knows how many nights -- along comes poor Larry, who asks Stanford "are you the same Ray Stanford from Texas who was waiting for the UFO’s in the 1970's?" The same Ray Stanford who was engaged in “the scientific study of extraterrestrial life"? And Stanford jumps down the poor guy's throat, as quoted above, but in essence: How dare you suggest such a thing, Larry! You do me wrong, you misrepresent my work -- P.S.I. was merely "a straight-forward study of physics." Extraterrestrial life? -- I know not of what you speak.

And after that came this condescending put down from Stanford -- clearly intended to dissuade anybody else on that list from further pursing an inquiry into Stanford past: "Now, Larry, if you, privately, have some knowledge that UFOs have an extra-terrestrial origin, fine. Post that to one of the many UFO-fan lists, they'd eat it with a spoon."

Well, Larry -- Stanford certainly should know what those "UFO-fan lists" will "eat." He has spooned out a truckload of it in his time.

-- Justice Fodor

PS. Again, this is far from the only example that I have encountered of dissembling by Stanford about his UFO history. But if other examples are to be examined, it must be on another day.

PPS. My e-mail address is my first name, followed by an underscore, followed by my last name, @protonmail-dot-com

 

wow the ego of this guy is massive!
i knew he was a jerk but i definitely din't expect this!

 

Yet C.O. is pals with him & claims his evidence is legit.

 

Stanford seems to me a case of a guy who would just be another crank, and an obnoxious one at that, stringing along those who hope for some juicy UFO revelation - except for the dinosaur tracks.

I'm still comfortable dismissing him, or mostly so, but the damn dinosaur tracks....

As I understand it / if I recall correctly, Stanford said he had found dinosaur tracks in some old riverbeds in, I forget, Maryland maybe. Virginia? I dunno.

He was mocked and mocked, but then paleontologists came around and said yep, you're right: ancient dinosaur tracks.

So now when it comes to his long and let me say colorful UFO career, there is always that little nagging doubt. Here is a guy who saw something no one else did, that others dismissed. But it turned out he was right.

What if he's right about at least some of his UFO claims? Or onto, I don't know, something there?

He seems like such an aggressive jerk though that I'm not really eager to hear him interviewed or the like, and prone to skepticism of those who stick up for him, assuming they are hoping to court his favor and see the evidence he can't bring himself to reveal yet, for no good reason really.

If someone out there knows him and has a different opinion, fair enough, but the image that has come across for me is neither flattering nor credible. Still. Those dinosaur tracks....

 

"Here is a guy who saw something no one else did, that others dismissed [dinosaur tracks, in Maryland]. . . . But it turned out he was right. What if he's right about at least some of his UFO claims?" -- goblin

Good point. Allow me to address it briefly.

I, at least, have said nothing in any of my posts to disparage Ray Stanford's accomplishments with respect to discovering dinosaur tracks. It appears that those discoveries have required a lot of toil and persistence. But as I understand it from reading various articles, once Stanford had succeeded in bringing the tracks and the discovery sites to the attention of experts, they were able to evaluate that physical evidence without having to rely on any human testimony or subjective interpretation by Stanford. That is the very sort of process -- expert review of unmodified evidence, independently of Stanford's subjective claims -- that Stanford has spent decades avoiding with respect to his claims of possessing very many extraordinary UFO images and other evidences.

Also, as I have been demonstrating through my posts -- and I have barely scratched the surface -- Stanford has a history, which he has tried to bury, of making extraordinary UFO-related promises that went unfulfilled, and extraordinary claims that were unsubstantiated.

Nevertheless, I have not argued that any UFO evidence (movie film, whatever) associated with Stanford should be rejected simply based on that association. Rather, as I wrote at the conclusion of this thread:

Any claims by Ray Stanford to possess UFO photos, films, or other physical evidence should be disregarded, unless and until the original non-enhanced images and other pertinent data are made available for examination and analysis by persons with genuine expertise -- persons who are demonstrably independent of Stanford. After that, the images and analyses should be made public. This would make it possible to evaluate the Corpus Christi images (or any of the other extraordinary UFO evidences that Stanford has claimed to possess) in the light of all factors. Stanford's personal testimony and interpretations would be one factor that all could consider in evaluating such now-public evidence -- but in my view, any photo or other physical evidence must stand on its own two feet, independent of any reliance on Stanford's objectivity or personal credibility on these matters.​

 

OK, lets say this is all true. So what?

Ray Stanford and PSI team recorded the only instrumented multi-spectral data-stream of the fields around UFO. That single achievement puts him on the pedestal high above all other UFO researches. Real gravitational and electromagnetic data recorded in a real time.

All the cattle mutilations, imprints in the soil, rings in the grass etc. put together can not give us enough value as full gravitational and EM footprint. Period.

OK, Stanford had a funny side and he was egomaniac. Wow, exactly same as about 90% of adult males, who are either suppressing it in public or waiting for their 5 minutes to pounce. Anybody can do personality assassinations, it's easy and cheap.

Try going out and getting some scientific data on UFOs instead, like Stanford did. Than you can criticize him.

 

Ray Stanford and PSI team recorded the only instrumented multi-spectral data-stream of the fields around UFO. That single achievement puts him on the pedestal high above all other UFO researches. Real gravitational and electromagnetic data recorded in a real time. --Dejan Corovic

So you say. This appears to be yet another claim by Ray Stanford. A claim is not an "achievement." Even if it is a claim disseminated with much apparent detail, it is still just a claim unless subjected to truly independent, critical scrutiny. For reasons that should be obvious to anyone who reads the threads I have already posted, these cautionary principles should apply with particular force with respect to UFO-related claims put forward by Ray Stanford.

So, please post specifics, including directly or by link, the names of the technical experts (independent of Stanford) to which this purported data was provided, their qualifications and affiliations, the affiliations of the journals or technical publications (not UFO club monographs) that published the reports of the experts, the review process that was employed prior to such publication, and the other information that would be available as a matter of course on any important claim to "scientific data" of such consequence (or even for, say, a paper on a new dinosaur track).

 

EVIDENCE OF VERY STRONG LOW FREQUENCY MAGNETIC FIELDS
by A. Meessen
Abstract: We have shown why the propulsion of Unconventional Flying Objects of unknown origin can result from very intense low-frequency magnetic ¯elds and an adequately pulsed ion-ization of the ambient medium. We also found how these ¯elds could be produced, if the surface of these objects were superconducting. Now, we present evidence of the existence of these ¯elds. It results from traces left on the ground by induced currents, rotating compass needles, direct magnetometer recordings and very remarkable magneto-optical e®ects. They provide even proof of the required pulsed ionization.

This work is particularly valuable because it contains (pg. 2) rarely published graphs from Ray Stanford's instrumental data recordings (magnetometer and simultaneous gravimeter) collected back in 1978 from the edges of the White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico.
Dropbox - ufo.paper.phys.EM.Meessen - Evidence_Strong_LF_Magnetic_Fields.pdf

Dr. A. Meessen, Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Louvain, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium is professor of physics and expert in super-conducting at low temperatures. He's well recognized scientist who wouldn't give risk his carrier just to praise Stanford. Additionally he's from another continent, so not much under Stanford's influence.

What next? You are going to dig some rubbish on Dr. A. Messen and start another "character assassination"?

Apart from personal attacks, bitching and backstabbing, do you contribute to UFO research in any practical, rational or scientific way?

 

Even a cursory examination of the Meessen paper finds this: "We are grateful to Ray Stanford for providing extracts of these important recordings." Probably Meessen received from Stanford a written account of the claimed UFO encounter (which I have read about before), along with snippets represented by Stanford as corresponding to this or that (maybe even just images of paper printouts, not actual recordings?). If so, that would be a far cry from forensic examination of instrumented data, and really would rest once again entirely on Stanford's credibility and objectivity.

Still, I will examine the Meessen paper thoroughly in due course, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

My posts so far about Ray Stanford have cited virtually no sources other than Stanford's own writings and lectures, with direct quotes from Stanford making up a large portion of each post. You refer to this process as "dig[ging] up rubbish," and I agree that Stanford has made a great many UFO-related public claims that, when subjected to scrutiny, may be best described as "rubbish." You also refer to this exercise as "character assassination," but if so, it is Stanford's own words that are doing the character-damaging work -- I am just presenting them to a broader audience.

In response to your question, "do you contribute to UFO research in any practical, rational or scientific way?," I consider these posts to be just such a contribution.

 

One major difference though (in my mind) - it's common knowledge that dinosaurs did in fact exist. Kids learn about them in school, there are museums with entire skeletons of them, blah blah. However, nobody (yet) has proven that flying saucers exist. And we've all heard the saying a thousand times "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So if you had $100 to wager - would you go with A) Stanford is the one person on Earth that has 100% solid proof evidence of a flying saucer - including a film of one shooting out a particle beam or.........B) he's a quack & has no such proof (George Adamski will vouch for his quackness) I'm going with "B"

 

c.o is a interesting character in itself, specially in relation to his brief visit to this forum

 

scientific data wich we don't even know is real?
many people have tried to do a scientific study of UFOs but only jacques vallee and john keel had sucess in such an endeavour, but they are ignored thanks to their conclusions about the phenomena

 

is that photograph of rings from the actual san antonio UFO film? because it looks quite underwhelming

 

Obviously there was young Stanford who spent some time in wilderness and older more mature Stanford who soberly followed scientific method. You are trying to build distorted picture based on his youthful sins, at complete and purposefully avoidance of all the later good scientific work he'd done.

You make it sound as if Stanford some kind of criminal?

I wander where your high moral credentials come from so you can cast judgements on other people? Are you a district attorney, high Court judge or an well published scientist?

Such forensic analysis was done only a handful of times simply because it is very expensive. Only few times experts volunteered and done it for free.

Why not quote Stanford from his later period, when he proudly speaks of his successes in ufo research here

Redirect Notice

"There are a couple of things that, IMO, could use some tweaking, though, but only at your discretion, of course: In the section about the recording magnetometer, you have a heading: “Track and record moving ferrous objects overhead”. I’m glad you gave that link, but we had no thought of tracking ferrous objects overhead — unless, of course, a high nickel-iron meteor should pass overhead — because I kind of doubt than any advanced technology would be using much iron in construction. No. The reality is that UFOs — based on world-wide reports and, more reliably, upon the project’s own magnetometer recordings of filmed, daylight UFOs (and two nocturnal ones, too) producing quite strong electromagnetic effects in the extreme low-frequency range. What we have monitored are unquestionably not ferromagnetic fields, but an alternating dipolar magnetic field. On 12-12-77, I got an excellent daylight movie of a UFO approaching our Braniff Flight 9 (La Guardia-to-DFW, cruising at 39,000 feet), with the pulsing electromagnetic field beautifully visible due to light-emitting plasma contouring its magnetic lines of force. To add icing to that particular UFOlogical cake, there was a rather solid cloud layer below us at 11,000 feet (data from official record) onto which sunlight was casting the clear, pulsating refraction shadow of that powerful, plasma-contoured magnetic field, enabling calculation of the object’s size, speed, and even a ballpark figure of the field strength.
On November 16, 1989, while standing right in front of the Administration Building (Building 8) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Maryland, I got five 35 mm photos at 20-X (using a 1,000 mm catadioptric lens) of an approaching UFO. By the last two photos, the laminar plasma (making object appear to glow) was dispersing into the object’s dipolar magnetic field, that field becoming wondrously and beautifully visible around the object in photo # 5, after which the object vanished almost instantly.
So, UFOs do not need to contain any iron to be picked up at great distances, using our magnetometer. In fact, we’ve recorded their field effects from as far as over 90 miles away, and since dipolar fields drop off in proportion to the inverse CUBE (not square) of distance from the body of radiation, that tells us that their fields can be very powerful, indeed.
Speaking of which, I was disappointed by your put-down of the 1970s electronics of that to-this-day, highly reliable recording magnetometer. It was, after all, state-of-the-art when it was built, as was our video-modulated helium-neon laser, made by Liconix. What would you expect for such a device made back then? Furthermore, as I said, the magnetometer still works just as reliably today, over thirty years later, as it did when new. There was never any need to replace it, except the recording part being replaced by CD recording. I can’t help but wonder if a similar induction coil magnetometer built today with state-of-the-art electronics would still work reliably over thirty years later."

 

Here are my responses to statements made above by Dejan Corovic, which appear below in italics (although not in the same order that he presented them).

"You make it sound as if Stanford some kind of criminal?"

I have neither stated nor even faintly implied that I am aware of any criminal activity by Stanford; I am not so aware. Your crude attempt to impute to me something I have neither said nor implied is childish and tiresome.

"I wander where your high moral credentials come from so you can cast judgements on other people? Are you a district attorney, high Court judge or an well published scientist?"

I have claimed here no credentials at all, moral or otherwise. For all you know, I might be writing from a prison cell, or from a desk at some mysterious intelligence agency, or perhaps from a spaceship operated by Stanford's extraterrestrial friends, "The Watchers." It really does not matter. I present evidence and point to supporting documentation, including the various documents that I have uploaded along with my posts. So far, the bulk of that documentation has been in the form of transcripts of Stanford's own words, published under his authority, and newsletters that he himself wrote and signed. On some points, I have stated my personal conclusions, based on the evidence that I have presented. Each visitor here is, of course, free to assign those opinions exactly the weight he or she thinks they deserve, based on the evidence presented.

I also encourage each visitor here not to rely merely on my summaries and conclusions, but to download and review the underlying documents, to see for themselves whether they think I have fairly represented what they contain. Each visitor is also invited to raise questions about anything they read, either by way of public comment here, or private communication. (My email address is my first name, followed by an underscore, followed by my last name, at protonmail.com.)

"Obviously there was young Stanford who spent some time in wilderness and older more mature Stanford who soberly followed scientific method."

"Young Stanford"? The documents I have posted so far, in three different threads, are materials that Stanford said and wrote when he was in his mid-30's to age 40. I also quoted a misleading statement about his background that Stanford posted on an internet list in 1998, when he was age 60.

I doubt you have any real evidence that Stanford has "soberly followed the scientific method," with respect to UFO-related claims. What you have, it appears, is a collection of claims that Stanford has made about his methods and about the evidence that he claims to have gathered. Somehow in your mind, statements by Stanford about Stanford are self-validating. There is abundant evidence that this premise is flawed. Stanford's claims are not self-validating, and the number of remarkable claims that he has disseminated does not make any individual claim more convincing (the contrary may be true).

"Such forensic analysis was done only a handful of times simply because it is very expensive. Only few times experts volunteered and done it for free."

Some of these Stanford UFO evidence claims go back 40 years and more (see the upload). Do you really think money is the main problem here? Also, there are some types of useful analysis that are not unduly costly, but they would require access by persons with technical competence, independent of Stanford, to original films and ideally the cameras that were used to expose them, and to digital files there are not "computer enhanced," et cetera. As contrasted with reports from those who have been granted private viewings in the Stanford sanctum sanctorum, published images in books "drawn from memory," and endlessly repeated Stanford's unvalidated claims.

"You are trying to build distorted picture based on his youthful sins, at complete and purposefully avoidance of all the later good scientific work he'd done. Why not quote Stanford from his later period, when he proudly speaks of his successes in ufo research here . . ."

Again, these "youthful sins," as you call them, were by a man approaching age 40, and occurred in the same time period that he was first attracting national attention for his claims to be pioneering "scientific" UFO research through Project Starlight International. I have already demonstrated here that there were was a hidden side (hidden to many) to Project Starlight from the start -- the operation was guided by messages from ostensible extraterrestrials and others (speaking through Stanford while he was in an claimed trance), had as its ultimate goal to establish physical contact with aliens from landed craft and transform planetary consciousness, etc. This was not youthful folly -- a man of mature years had an organization built on these premises.

Also, assuming here that we talking about UFO-related evidences and not dinosaur tracks, you continue to confuse Stanford's claims to "scientific work" with actual evidence, evaluated by genuine scientific methods. It is well established that Stanford is proficient in making claims to remarkable UFO-related evidence, and proficient in speaking in scientific-sounding jargon.

Now, you multiple the examples of that, by posting another set of UFO evidence claims by Stanford that, as far as I can see, have not been subjected to critical scrutiny. The December 1977 movie taken from an airliner is apparently one of the eight (8) color UFO movies that Stanford claimed, in 1980, to have obtained during the period November 1977 through March 1980 (see the attached letter, signed by Stanford, dated April, 1980). In a post some days ago, I inquired if anyone was aware that any of those eight (8) color UFO movies had been made available for critical scrutiny -- so far, no affirmative responses.

Some of us, unlike you, are unwilling to accept such claims without independent validation. It is my opinion that based on Stanford's documented history with respect to UFO claims, time-machine claims, and so forth (only a small part of which has so far been presented here), any UFO-related claims that he puts forth -- no matter how thickly laden with technical jargon and layers of verbal detail -- definitely should be subjected to an especially high level of scrutiny. Not rejected out of hand, but reviewed in a hard-headed manner, without placing reliance on Stanford's objectivity or candor.

I understand, you don't like reading things Stanford said during his time at the center of the Association for the Understanding of Man and Project Starlight International. Please, be patient. I may get around to taking a much closer look at some of Stanford's more recent UFO-related public statements, unless I get bored with this subject -- but posts such as yours help to keep me interested, so please don't hold back.

 

Great work along and a lot of good, valid points. It's mind boggling to me to that anyone would take RS seriously.

 

Creepy Green Light said: "It's mind boggling to me to that anyone would take RS seriously."

It appears that he has a way with words.

 

the shadow said: "I respect and admire C.O.B. so my question is when he says he seen all the evidence can we discount it?"

On another forum, in 2016, Chris O'Brien said that during the period 2002-2007, he conducted roughly 100 hours of interviews (mostly telephone) with Ray Stanford, about Stanford's "ufological life," with intent to publish the material as a book, sometime. O'Brien wrote, "The entire story is in Ray's own words, edited for brevity" -- language that seemed to imply that O'Brien had not checked out any or all of Stanford's stories against available historical documents or other non-Stanford-endorsed sources.

Regarding the entire body of unpublished interviews, O'Brien wrote, "It's so far beyond unbelievable, it could only be true, IMO."

Regarding specific items of purported UFO evidence linked to Stanford, I am not sure what you mean by "discount it." If you mean, "Should we reject in total, a priori, any UFO-related claim simply because it is linked to Stanford?," I would not endorse that. I say again, however, that any Stanford-linked UFO claim -- no matter how thickly laden with technical jargon and layers of verbal detail -- should be subjected to an especially high level of scrutiny, and evaluated without placing reliance on Stanford's objectivity or candor.

 

That's good advice - and doesn't apply to just RS. There are others that use that technique to "awe the crowd".