A leading UFO journalist asked me if there was a transcript of this Strange Days Indeed radio and internet program.
There wasn't - so I made one because it seems to me that the kind of evidence Ray claims to have on his films might prove of great importance in finally validating this subject.
Thanks to Ray and Errol for help with place names and tape sections difficult to hear and transcribe.
'Strange Days... Indeed' Program #234 Broadcast 9:00 p.m. March 29, 2003 NewsTalk 1010 CFRB - Toronto & The Web @ www.cfrb.com
Guest: Ray Stanford
Host: Errol Bruce-Knapp
Co-Host: Ian Rogers
Contributing Editor: John Velez
Errol: Our feature guest tonight is Ray Stanford who, during his teenage years was, as he says, was taken in by George Adamski and by what he says was his own youthful will to believe the incredible.
Ray Stanford was also involved from 1960 to 78 in the study of the reach of his own psychic ability. But he now repudiates the majority of that work as subjective and expresses caution about following such psychic readings as he did during that 18-year period.
And during that period Ray Stanford founded the Laboratory for Instrumented UFO Studies, in 1973, assembling a $2 million dollar system of optical and electronic instruments for recording high resolution optical images of UFOs, along with extreme low frequency magnetic effects, gravity waves, light spectra, sound effects, etc. He reports that all such instruments have now been used successfully by his project with the results for example, that gravity waves from UFOs recorded and documented.
Joining us on the phone, from the Washington DC area, is Raymond Stanford who's agreed to talk to us tonight, to set the record straight about his life and research, and to share some information about his project's instrumented study of UFOs, which he has finally concluded is the most productive approach to UFO studies - the scientific method. Ray Stanford, good evening and welcome to the program.
Ray: Hello Errol!
Errol: How did you get involved with UFOs? It's a question we often ask our guests and it's intriguing for our listeners to find that out.
Ray: OK. When I first heard of UFOs I was nine years old in 1947, when Kenneth Arnold's sighting occurred, on June 24, and I was immediately fascinated and when the next September came I was a school kid in Odem, Texas... a grade school there - I jumped out of my swing and went over to the principal's wife who was standing there and I said, "Mrs Shelton, when I grow up I'm going to find out what these flying saucers people are talking about, are, and I'm going to tell the whole world."
She did an about face, without saying as much as a 'hurrumpf' and pranced off without acknowledging me. And of course, that made me even more determined. So here I am today.....
Errol: You've been around all of this for a very long time. I guess, in some way, Adamski had some kind of influence on you when you were a youngster?
Ray: He sure did. When I first saw an article about his book Flying Saucers Have Landed in the newspaper in Texas..... You know I was 15 when that came out in the newspaper, in Oct 15 1953 I believe it was, I went down and got the book and pretty soon became a believer.
I was at the stage when you tend to rebel against your parental beliefs and find your own way.
And I was temporarily misled by Adamski. I had initially believed UFOs might be extra-terrestrial in origin, then I had switched over before 1953 and had decided they were secret weapons either of the US government or the Soviet Union. Then I came back to the ET hypothesis... finally, I went to Adamski in California, visited with him several times and he, believe it or not, he confessed his hoaxes to me. And he liked me and he saw that I was selling my life out for this and talked to me about what he had done and he had done it for money, and so on. I quickly pulled away from Adamski.
We had some incredible encounters with UFOs on Padre Island with eleven others present, including three police officers who swore affidavits, and that was on the night of November 6, I guess, in 1954... and I had an incredibly close encounter on Sunday night Oct 21, '56, in which an object passed four feet, maybe six feet, above our heads, landed about 175 feet from us. There were four of us present as witnesses.....
But, because of the strong influence of Adamski at that time I really believed I misinterpreted these things as being psi- mediated. In other words, we were out on the salt flats north east of Brownsville for that last experience on Oct21st that I talked about... I interpreted the fact that we were down there in the salt flats, that we had been influenced by ESP somehow to be down there.
But, I now think there was no objective basis for that. That it was merely my belief and my wishful thinking. But, the experience itself was quite remarkable... and as with any close encounter of that kind, if you flush out the youthful exuberance to interpret it, that we had somehow... we had become buddy buddy with extra-terrestrial space brothers... which I no longer hold that concept at all.
Errol: And for those listeners who haven't listened to the program on a regular basis, Adamski was the king of the 'contactees', as they were known back in the 50s, and weren't necessarily contactees - but nevertheless that's how they styled themselves.
How old were you when this thing flew just a few feet above your head?
Ray: Let's see, that was 1956 Oct 21... so I was 18.
Errol: Did that leave any physical effects with you guys when you were there?
Ray: Yes it did....
Now, first let me talk about the effect it had on the plants in the area. One of the witnesses that was there took h is wife to see it. I'm talking about 30 years later and the place where the object landed about 175 feet from us was still there, a circle about 35 feet in diameter, where the plant growth was totally stunted and almost non-existent compared to the areas outside of where it had landed. Perhaps this was due to the fact that when the thing took off it suddenly, I mean, incredibly in a fraction of a second, left a glowing column of what I presume to be ions all the way up from the ground to what I presume would be the stratosphere, just in a fraction of a second, it went up that fast. And perhaps some of the energy involved in that fast take- off did something either to the soil, made it more water repellent or something - I have no real idea, I'm guessing - but that was the effect on the ground.
Now it also did affect us in a strange kind of way - maybe it was excitement, maybe the effect was subjective. But we had a bizarre feeling after we headed home from this thing as the four of us rode in the car and went back into Brownsville - this was on the salt flats between Brownsville and Port Isabel, Texas -- we had the impression that it wasn't necessary to talk to each other to communicate. We seemed to be or imagined that we were exchanging data with each other. Now whether that was real or just some kind of excitement and the four of teenagers were letting our imaginations run away with us, I don't know. There was that sense anyhow and I've certainly read, even in alleged abduction cases, of something similar to this where the persons involved seem to be under an influence which made them at least feel they were communicating with each other in a paranormal kind of way.
Errol: I've also come across that in witnesses - not necessarily involved in an abduction experience - who felt that they didn't need to say anything to each other, they had just shared an experience, and I've seen it quoted, 'vibed' at one another about it.
The water-repellent state of the soil is a fairly common occurrence after close contact with UFOs.
Ray: I'm not really surprised. There are a number of things you can do to soil that will change the surface tension of the soil or certain areas of the soil enough that it tends to repel water.
Errol: Yea well Budd Hopkins has reported that, Ted Phillips has reported it, the BLT team who've been studying crop circles have all talked about that, many instances of that.
That experience when you were 18 - did that start you off on what turned into the psychic thing for you?
Ray: Not really. I don't think that did. I was trying to move in the direction of a career in the engineering of rocket engines.I was very interested in the future of space travel. In fact in 1955 I had entered the state wide competition among high schools , with The Texas Junior Academy of Science, and presented a paper called Studies in the Multiple Stage Principals of Rocketry and had received the first place for research in the physical sciences for the state of Texas in that year and I was heading in that direction [rocket engineering]. But because of this experience I came to the conclusion that I could no longer spend my life designing something based on purely reaction propulsion, but what we had seen that night and closely had encountered it, was something beyond mere rocket propulsion and it would be foolish for me to spend my life that way. So I began to toy with the idea of somehow, some day getting together the funds to put together a really good system of instruments. I didn't really act on that much except to get a couple of cameras until after George Adamski confessed to us that he was not telling the truth and saw strong evidence first hand that Dan Fry was not telling the truth, and I decided to pull completely away from my former scene of contacteeism and to try to get into an objective approach, which I think instruments are - probably about as cold hard objective as you can get, of course you have to interpret the data.
The experience that night really launched me, over a period of the next several years, in the direction that in 1973 ended up with the real beginnings of a fully fledged instrument system down in Texas at a 400 acre research site that we had with a non-profit organisation there.
Errol: From the sound of things you had some very phenomenal equipment down there. Somehow you'd managed to raise a lot of money in order to get hold of all that technology back in the 70s?
Ray: Yes indeed. It was quite funny because we would get letters. For example I remember one letter from Brazil in which someone alleged that we were being financed by the CIA. Well of course our response to that was 'What in the world would the Central Intelligence Agency want to finance research that could obtain hard data that if in fact we should monitor alien technology in our atmosphere, would basically put the lie on the UFO cover up that had been fostered for years?"
Actually we were financed, believe it or not, by some bachelors that had plenty of money. One of them was a hydraulics engineer who worked in the Middle East. He at times was working in Saudi Arabia, he was working in Iraq and every month he would send us substantial sums of money to finance this research.
Also there was a commercial real estate agent in Austin who could make very nice sums of money as commissions on commercial real estate transactions and he was very, very kind and very generous. There were other persons as well but mainly most of our finances came from well-to-do bachelors and that made me appreciate bachelors considerably.
Errol: If people are supplying you with the technology you need to do the work you need to do, I guess there's a degree of appreciation there.
Ray: Yes there is. It was so wonderful. It was a dream come true for me because we had in hand the equipment that finally was able to get a handle on the physics of UFO propulsion. We did get results and by the way, these results have been quietly studied all these years, and I decided last November that it was time to finally begin work, coming out and publishing the results that our project obtained. The reason for this was not only that it's high time, but it was also that I had a near fatal heart attack in November, on November 19, and after undergoing a scan and medications and so on I realised my time may be more limited than I might like and I need to get busy and put this forward. So I'm beginning to move in that direction. That's one reason I decided to come of the closet and talk with you tonight.
Errol: And we're grateful that you are Ray.
You spent a fair amount of time looking into the Socorro incident down there in New Mexico where police officer Lonnie Zamora saw something land and had a fairly rough few minutes for his sighting.
Ray: Yes I in fact authored a book called The Socorro Saucer. It was an attempt to very thoroughly cover this case from every angle. Now in hindsight there may be a few things which could have been better covered or that I might have missed, but basically it's a very thorough coverage on that subject. And it was a well documented case and my book was about the apparent government cover up of some physical evidence of the landing and I want to say that there is a possibility, I learned recently, that there may be still some evidence related to that case that might throw some light on the propulsive force of that object that I will be getting into further well beyond what was in the book.
Errol: What were your conclusions about that case, the landing outside Socorro?
Ray: It certainly did not have any ordinary explanation. It certainly was not as Phil Klass initially claimed, plasma that it ripped off nearby power lines and landed in the ravine and took off and it was certainly not as Phil's second hypothesis, a hoax in order to promote tourism to a town that is probably not the biggest tourist attraction in the West.
Errol: It's a very long narrow little town as I recall.
Ray: Oh yes. The Air Force admitted they couldn't explain it, the intelligence community got involved, I think everybody got involved but no-one has come up with a valid explanation. There has been the claim that it was a balloon...
Errol: Yes that was one that was around a couple of years ago Ray: Yes that is completely absurd from a host of different angles. I don't really want to take time by going into the details of it. It really didn't hold any water.
Errol: I wanted to mention that because we had discussed the Socorro case on this program in the past and I just wanted to let the listeners know that you were involved with that, and a lot of the conclusions that came out of that.
Let's go back to the technology that you've been working with for several years.....
Ray: Yes, the project was called Project Starlight International and that's not to be confused with the so-called Project Starlight that Greer has in relationship to his organisation which is something totally different. We were a subsidiary of the Association for the Understanding of Man Incorporated, a non-profit research corporation headquartered there is Austin, Texas.
The first breakthrough came when I had been to New York to be on a old TV show called To Tell The Truth back in the days when Joe Garigiola was host and (one of) the people who were trying to guess was the guy who headed up a UFO tracking laboratory. And on the way back from New York on 12-12-77, in the middle of the afternoon my wife and I observed a small object that was passing the airliner and I started filming it and the plane bounced or something and I was on telephoto and I lost it, so I took my eyes out of the viewfinder and looked and there was a gigantic object out there [that on the narrow angle]on telephoto I hadn't noticed. So, I went back to wider angle... and zoomed in on it and it was a very large needle shaped object incredibly brilliant that was pulsing light, it could pulse it off the left end or the right end, and objects were moving to and from it, spherical objects with a kind of dome like effect on the top like the one I had first seen and started filming and then there were approximately triangular shaped objects that would come around and dock point down onto the bottom of this thing. There were also some discoidal objects connected with it. And I recorded all of this on Super 8 millimeter film.
There were over1400 movie frames and this turned out to be quite an important film and I published some of it that will be reissued in an updated version on the NICAP Network that Francis Ridge has on the internet.
But that was only the beginning and it really got us fired up.
We took our system of instruments which was mobile, except for the radar which we also had and it was licensed and in operation, we took the rest of the equipment on a field trip to West Texas and New Mexico and Arizona in July of 1978. This was because I had received a tip from a lady who lived in Austin whose brother was a physical scientist working at White Sands.
She had seen me on my appearance on the Phil Donohue Show and told her brother about it who was out of White Sands and he said, "...Listen, have them sneak around White Sands. There is a directive out here. We are being plagued by these objects and we have a directive to use every means possible to obtain hard data on these things, and if they sneak around they might be able to have some success too." That's exactly what we did and on that trip for the first time of any non-government organisation, we recorded while filming UFOs in broad daylight, we recorded ELF magnetic waves from the two objects. Later on we also recorded from a mountain top outside of Prescott, Arizona we recorded while filming a gigantic, what looked like a carrier vehicle with smaller objects going to and from it, we recorded not only ELF waves but gravity waves with a recording gravimeter, [waves] that were directly correlated with the functions of the magnetic waves which itself is of course quite striking and interesting from the standpoint of theory.
Errol: ELF - extra low frequency?
Ray: Extreme Low-Frequency.
Errol: And how does that register?
Ray: They were very low frequency right down in the area of...for example the wave that was recorded...we presumed the objects that were docking with this thing were so far away...we presume we didn't receive a major signal from them but this very powerful wave that we were recording was coming from the huge object that they were going to and from. And if I remember the data correctly there was eleven hertz - eleven cycles per second for six seconds and then oddly enough there would be about six cycles per second for eleven seconds and then again eleven hertz for six seconds and then six hertz for eleven seconds. It was really quite bizarre. But at the same time we were recording along with a binary coded time signal being broadcast from Fort Colling, Colorado for correlation, we were recording off the gravity meter and we were receiving a signal that had exactly the same frequency and it had the same function of the magnetic wave. This is quite striking. Einstein had looked in an attempt to find a Unifying Field Theory, he'd looked for a relationship between electro-magnetism and gravity. It wasn't found, but I would suspect that whoever was generating these signals that we recorded that day while making a film of the whole event in broad daylight, must have come across such a unifying concept or they wouldn't have been seeing gravity and magnetic waves that had the exact same functionality.
Errol: That takes the average guy like me a moment or three to wrap my brain around that.
You have been shooting and using instruments to record the effects of UFOs for more than a couple of years.
Have you noticed this effect in other sightings?
Ray: Yes indeed. There is a wonderful example of it..... My former wife and I - not my present wife - my former wife and I and my daughter were flying back from Mexico City on December 4, 1980 in daylight. We were north of Mexico City. We were north of the Teothuacan pyramid system there, we were above what's called the Tizayuca the radio beacon.
There was a gigantic object in the west that had a small object that was approaching from the north. This object was quite bizarre - I won't try to take time to describe it here. But it was approaching this gigantic object that had two beam like effects off the left end of it that were kind of vibrating and another effect on the end in the direction from which the small object was approaching as I filmed this thing. And off to the left of this tubular shaped thing, was a triangular object which looked like what I would guess to be maybe be a kind of ion vapour or something turning around it, a big triangular thing. I didn't see [what I'm about to mention] with the naked eye, but once we had the film you can actually see what appears to be totally parallel-sided or columnated bright beams that are exchanged at times between these objects as if some kind of 'communication' were going on.
But relative to your question regarding gravity, it happens we were up at, I think it was about 16, I forget, or 26,000 feet and you could see on the western horizon clouds were covering the ground but mountains were sticking through the clouds right at the horizon and this was very neat because directly underneath this big object that I call a carrier vehicle or mothership whatever you prefer (I was filming at 50 or 54 frames per second), during five frames at that speed the mountains would optically become warped as though by a gravity like effect - Einstein has shown that gravity affects the path of light -and they collapse during five frames and then 15 frames optically come back up to their normal height and throughout this long film the mountains collapse and raise back up repeatedly again and again and again.
Now this in itself would be possibly dramatic evidence of a gravity like effect warping the back lighting coming from the horizon, but beyond that, what is absolutely startling is that you see the horizon with mountains all along it, the mountains collapse most completely - when I say collapse I'm talking about an optical warping until they become flattened - they collapse most completely directly under this gigantic carrier craft and the further you get out from it to the sides, they collapse less. This happens hundreds of time. This phenomenon repeats in those cycles each time. You see that, in other words, that the warping effect is radial to this big object in toward which the smaller object had been manoeuvering. So here we have electronic recordings of gravity waves with a recording gravity meter and we have optical recording of the effects of gravity waves upon horizon structure beneath this big object.
Errol: And you've held onto all of this for all of this time and really haven't put it out there. A kind of a smoking gun you've just shot off there Ray Stanford!
Ray: I'd say so. And by the way Errol, this is a first for your show because that has never been told publicly before.
Errol: Ian and I were sitting here discussing that, looking at each other and asking 'Well, have you heard that before? No - have you?'
Ian: No - it's a first time for me. I'd love to see a copy of that film.
Ray: Well you will someday, believe me. It's quite striking - quite startling. But you know there is another colour daylight movie film that I got that is even more important than that one.
Ray: Yes this occurred on Oct 5th 1985 in the middle of the afternoon - a beautiful sunshiny October afternoon on the bay front in Corpus Christi, Texas. My two eldest children and three other adults, were on a pier called the Emerald Cove Breakwater that juts out of the north end of the E.B. Cole Park on the Corpus Christie bay front.
There were hundreds of people at the park. And I had an agreement with my kids that if they saw a UFO and pointed it out to me and I succeeded in getting a film of it and it did turn out to be the real thing, that whoever did so would get ten dollars.
Now unfortunately we walking out there on the pier and I'm more concerned about them falling off onto the rocks and the water and these kids are looking up and both of them unfortunately at the same time say 'Daddy look at that!' Errol: Five dollars each.....
Ray: Ten dollars each! And I got the film of a lifetime. I got so much film that I ran out of film and after filming, a total of eight objects, I believe in the event... but I only had film to record four of them. It was startling. I don't at this point want to go into the details of what was filmed because it gives us some very sophisticated physics, but the film - and believe me I wouldn't say this unless it will be demonstrated absolutely when this is published scientifically that is, the film is absolutely diagnostic of UFO propulsion in the atmosphere. It absolutely and completely demonstrates that magneto-hydrodynamic propulsion is involved, that is to say that the atmosphere around the objects is being by some means ionised or plasma is being formed and it is being moved around the object for propulsion.
And I'll show you how the media are about this.
After I had gotten the film processed and saw how really wonderful it was - I filmed it at ten-power telephoto - I called the newspaper in Corpus Christi and I said I'd like your co-operation and asked them to ask for persons who may have seen these objects on that date to come forward and there may be others who got pictures.
And the guy said 'well you're going to have to let me have frames from the movie to publish or I'm not going to carry it' And I said "wait a minute this is ridiculous. If we release frames from the movie, anybody can hoax a sighting because they'll know what the object looked like."
But he admitted to me that a young boy - I think he said 14 but I could be wrong about that after these many years -had called and said that he had seen an object or objects passing over and had taken (relative to my telephoto shots) low resolution pictures and the reporter told him, "Well, don't you know you must have photographed a satellite...", and the young man came down with his mother and they saw the pictures but he said you know it's a spot of light in the sky, it must be a satellite.
Yes at three in the afternoon it was a satellite, so bright? Not back in 1985! I don't think so.
But his time [of his photo] coincided precisely with the time all of us had seen the marvelous procession of objects, the last of which appeared quite different than the others. I will describe the last one. The last one...if you took the glass out of an hour glass and put it in a horizontal plane rotating around that little narrow glass area and turning counter clockwise at this rate - "bbbbbrrrrtttt bbbbbrrttttt' - each one of those is one rotation in a horizontal plane, and covered it with a electrical plasma that would give the pretty mother of pearl colours such as pink and turquoise and changing and moving, that's what the last object looked like. But it was quite different from the others. I guess there were seven other in total.
Errol: There have been a lot of descriptions of objects seen in the sky over the years in which the witnesses said it looked like plasma around this thing. I've seen footage shot in downtown Toronto at night of an object that is flashing those mother of pearl colours. Either it is spinning or whatever is surrounding it with the plasma, is spinning.
Ray: Yes. What appears to happen according to the films that we've got, is that there are devices around the periphery of these objects - they may be microwave devices, they may be something else, they may be some very sophisticated high energy electrodes - but they ionize columns of air or air adjacent to the object. But the (emission pattern) is not continuous. It is segmented. And they fire in sequence so one can get the false impression that the object is revolving just as it may look like a theater marquee that is (by illusion) revolving, when it's not. But what this is doing is creating plasma and this plasma is moved by a dipole magnetic field along the axis of radial symmetry of the object. I base this on the study of thousands of frames of movie films from the one I mentioned and from 12/12/77 and from quite a few others. We actually will be publishing frames from motion pictures that show the complete inner core of the magnetic field with ions moving along the lines of force where you can actually see a three dimensional bipolar magnetic field visible due to the ions, the plasma contouring (and emitting light as photons) and it's just marvelous.
Also the 12/12/77 film has a series where a disc approaches the airliner with this effect in pulsations around it and the sunlight - the sun is up above and slightly off from vertical - and the sunlight is projecting a refraction shadow, projecting the high energy magnetic field refraction pattern down onto the clouds and you actually have what appears to be the refraction shadow through this field on the clouds below enabling you to calculate the actual size and velocity of the object that was approaching the airliner.
Errol: Ohhh... my brains boggling somewhat. Incredible stuff Ray Stanford.
I have to ask you this. I would be remiss not to, and I know a lot of UFO people listen to this program via the world wide web; Why would you hang on to the evidence you have and not put it out there?
Ray: Well one reason is that in the first place.....I have been head of this operation... and I found it so satisfying that I no longer had the compulsion - that is,you want to convince people because you wanna believe yourself. Sometimes when you get people to believe you they are a help to you in believing what you're convincing them to believe. And once we began to see this and the more evidence we got with films and electronic recordings, the more it added to the picture. So it gave me a kind of inner peace to not want to compulsively try to convince other people (probably) in order to convince myself because I didn't need it.
And as worked I slowly and have worked more and more over the years there have been - I can't tell you how much money spend (on the effort). For example the one film, the 12/12/77 film that I mentioned taking from the airline flight from New York...we spent over $89,000 studying that film alone.
But each time we've added more to the picture and we didn't want to be accused of rushing to judgement, rushing to interpretation, because events continued and have continued and we've gotten more and more.....there was the desire to wait until you've got a fairly coherent picture of the phenomena from the standpoint of physics.
That has been my goal even though I'm not professionally educated as a physicist - that's been my goal and I've worked with numbers of physicists and aerospace engineers in interpreting this.
But not only because of the heart attack I had, but because finally we got to the stage of processing more and more data from these films and from electronic recordings, now is the time to come out with it. Rome wasn't built in a night. This is a big story.
And one thing for sure - no-one can accuse us of rushing for attention or publicity or anything like that. That's not the desire. It's to present the real story as completely as possible when it's done and not present it piecemeal, because sometimes if you have to tell a story that is controversial in a piecemeal way, it leads only to confusion and it leads the media to come out to begin to say things about your data that they wouldn't if you'd been able to publish it as a total picture and explain in detail before they got a hold of it as segments. Can you understand that Errol?
Errol: I understand that, yes. But for instance, Ian Rogers sitting across the desk from me is looking puzzled.
Ian Rogers: I am just kinda wondering..... Say you decide to release it tomorrow, say you decide to take it to the press and television stations.... Don't you think they might have the same opinion as if you'd rushed there and say 'well why did you wait 20 years to show us?'
Ray: Let me say that the media are not the people who are in a position to evaluate evidence. The media have given wide scale publicity to many cases, in my opinion, which were photographic hoaxes, for example. What you do when you have important data?
You vigorously analyse it, work with the right people to make sure that your analysis is objective and reasonable, then you move out in a credible way of publication - not taking it to the media, but publish it, preferably as a scientific paper or papers and then come out with popularised versions on top of that. Say it in the most thorough and complete way first so that when it hits the media, there is not a lot of misinterpretation or misunderstanding.
There is no desire on part or any of those that have worked with me to come out and say what we have compulsively. I have to ask myself, because many researchers have not: What is the public's need to know? Is there any urgency that the public know the physics of UFO propulsion? I personally don't believe that there is and therefore I want to wait until we can present it in a way that is meaning for the science and can possibly lead to technological breakthroughs, rather than put something out, "Gee whizz! We have evidence that an advanced technology is here. Where the heck did they come from?" And there's nothing that we have that tells us where the technology comes from.But, it strongly suggests that it would be stretching it to say that it had a known terrestrial source.
Ian: Do you have not just have a method but a time line? I'm just wondering when I can look forward to seeing this.
Ray: There is a not a specific time line at this time. I've been working with a well known and credible European researcher, trying to get feedback for this from the standpoint of the UFO community, how to best approach this from the scientific side of the UFO subject. There is also a scientific and objective side that tries to base the analysis on hard data and to come up with factual conclusions. That is first. So there is not a definite time line but I can say this. It is my gut feeling that within the next two years you are going to see much of this out and open and at that point, although it may sound incredible now, you should understand that in what I've said, I am understating it, not overstating it Errol: I guess for a lot of the younger listeners, two years is a long time but for us older guys, it goes by real fast!
Ray: Isn't that the truth!
Errol: Have you figured out, having seen all the footage over the years that you've shot, and you figure what you're seeing is real, are you able to look at footage [by others] and say 'That's not real?'
Ray: Yes. There are distinct sets of phenomena that - much my surprise - we have discovered in UFO motion pictures and still photographs (telephoto-still photographs as well).
These sets of phenomena are present regardless of what shape or type of object have been filmed. Now, understand they are not just in those we've got. They are present in other people's films and still-shots as well... but they are not present in pictures that are fake; in fact it would be impossible for anyone to fake these sets of phenomena.
I'll tell you one of them. Let me go back to a sighting where there was not film. On Santa Catalina Island off the coast of California back some years ago at a boy scout encampment in summer, a close range sighting occurred by huge numbers of boy scouts. It was a domed disc. They said it was odd because against the blue sky, around this object the sky looked bluer than the rest of the sky. Well, one might say... well, they were seeing a corona. The truth of the matter is that, if all you had was that observation, that would be thought to be the case, but when you take and film this, what you find out is that the higher the shutter speed, the more this phenomena is defined.
What the phenomena is, well I'm not going to go into how this might be done because we don't know, we can only speculate but around the object there are negative ghost images of the object in various rotations. And the longer the exposure, the more these are around it and they will even overlap each other; the quicker the exposure, the shorter the duration of the exposure, the fewer these will be seen.
In some cases, they almost look like photographic negatives of it. In a few cases, you will actually see the image of the object bigger and clearer than the actual objects you were looking at when you filmed! They are not as solid looking as the real object.
They are like..... I don't know how to explain..... They are like phantoms that, well, for example, in some in cases the bright areas will be dark in these phantoms and the dark areas will be bright - kind of a negative effect. But it is incredible to look at this and I can take the Super 8 mm movie film (the ones I have) and show you this and show it to you in the still shots and regardless of the shape of the object.....
Now, depending on the shape, the array, the pattern of the array that is around the object will be different according to the shape. They will not be present in simulated (fake) photographs.You don't get this effect at all. So it's a nice earmark and there are others as well. They are quite remarkable and consistent. You can see this effect is a kind of darkness around the object, but some of the phenomena are extremely high-speed, as you would probably guess if you were trying to speculate about advanced technological propulsion. You might guess there would be high-speed flash phenomena for example. Startling!
The young man from Miami, Florida - and he was just a passenger on the plane beside me - he watched as I filmed that UFO over West Texas at the end of June 1978. We were flying in on an airliner. We watched a domed, black, object out in front of thunderhead [cumulonimbus cloud] that was hovering out there and I took a film of it and when we got the film back, on only in one frame was the object black [as it constantly appeared to our eyes]! In many frames it was solid white, others the top half was white the bottom half black and vice versa. It was incredible.
There were flash phenomena that were so short the eye did not record them but [the black] was flicker-fused. But no matter how short a bright phase is, if it's bright enough, it's going to register on the film even though the eye and perceptual system in the human brain doesn't perceive it.
So, this is another thing that is very important to understand, when filming UFOs, is that they may come out quite different on the film than they appear to the eye when the flash phenomena are fast enough or in the right relationship, temporally, to one another.
Errol: Also you'll get people who are shooting their friends against a background, pretty mountains or whatever it is, and they see nothing but when the film is developed or nowadays when they took a look at the images back on their computer, there's something in the picture, so that cameras invariably pick up stuff that the eye doesn't see. So what you've been seeing is an extension of that..... You're seeing the objects up there and the camera is seeing even more than your eye is seeing as you shoot it.
Ray: That's right. And the camera simply does not see the way the eye, human perception, sees or perceives.
Errol: This is interesting tonight... I knew it was going to be good but I like this.
Some email coming in here, some questions for Ray Stanford from Wendy Connors down there in Albuquerque - I don't know if you're familiar with Wendy Connors, Ray?
Ray: Sure. I am to some extent.
Errol: OK. We covered off her first question. She says secondly, how do you view the field of ufology as it appears today with ufology of the past?
Ray: Kinda complex... but a good one. I think that UFO research needs to get back to basics. I think there has been tremendous distraction beating the bushes to try to get 'big brother' to tell us the truth. And [since] Big Brother has been lying to you since 1947 and before, I don't know why you want to beg him to tell you the truth.
I believe and I think many would agree with this part, we need to get back to real basics, to studying the actual cases of what is reported and even its physiological effects, we need to look more carefully at these.
We need to look at photographs, not just with the computer to see if strings are attached and if it's a model. To look at it to see, if it should turn out to be a real so-called UFO - whatever that is - look at it to see the physics involved. In other words deal with the basic issues, if there are strange objects out there, and get off of the rumour mill and so much side-tracking.
I've very pleased for instance that Francis Ridge's NICAP website is putting up so much of the old records of excellent cases. We need to get back and study these - like sometimes people will say the kids in school need to get back to the basic of education.
And I see a tendency that people are finally tiring of the sensationalism, rumours and so on and trying to lock it back to something more wholesome and more diagnostic under normal scientific scrutiny.
Errol: And certainly Richard Hall who is a regular contributor to this program has said that, many times before on this program and on the UFO UpDates List.
Will you be able to stay with us a little while longer Ray?
Ray: You know how I love to talk!
Errol: We'll get back to Ray in a moment. I want to bring Bill in, out in The Beach, on the conversation.
Bill, good evening. Welcome to Strange Days...Indeed.
Bill: Good evening, I have a question. Of all the sightings, let's say over the last 50 years, it seems to me the vast majority are at night. I've only seen two or three instances that I've seen reported or in the daylight. What's your opinion on that?
Errol: Well you're right. There have been hundreds of hours of film and videotape of lights in the sky at night but daytime for some reason people don't seem to have their cameras with them or the camera doesn't work or it jams or the tape won't roll or it's over exposed - there's a whole bunch...I don't know.
Bill: Or they don't see it. Or they don't want to be seen.
Errol: Well there's that to it too.
Bill: Can't really identify it.
Errol: Thanks for your call Bill.
Bill: I thank you very much. Keep up the good work. It's interesting.
Errol: Thank you Sir. Yes, we're fascinated by it.
Let's bring John Velez in here down there in New York city, the moderator of the Abduction Information website and email list - John Velez - Ray Stanford, Ray Stanford - John Velez.
Ray: Hello John John: Good evening Ray. Very nice to meet you.
Ray: Good to meet you again.
Errol: You've been listening John?
John: Yes I have. I've had my ears on all night and I hope Ray doesn't take this the wrong way... but that heart attack might have been a good thing or we wouldn't be hearing all this stuff!
Ray: Yeah, that's right. Sometimes the things we think are the worst in life are a blessing in disguise.
John: Yes there's a silver lining to that cloud.
Errol: John just went through that in the last week or so Ray.
Ray: John... Yes we're heart brothers!
John: We're heart brothers... exactly. And UFO brothers in many ways.....
I did want to make one comment, because I'd like to give the floor back to Ray. This is fascinating stuff tonight. I think the less time I take up the better. But, I did want to say that I do agree with getting back to basics and bringing some science and some cool heads - some thought and some rationality back to the study of UFOs.
My involvement began back in 1995 with participation in the NOVA program. And the reason why I consented to participate and become a public person was because I thought that this would be an opening to introduce some science into the study of abductions.
In all the years that I've been involved I've been fighting very, very hard, to get people to focus more on study...scientific analysis... the kind of work that Ray and many other credible people... good researchers, are doing... to stay away from the anecdotes and the stories and the sensationalism.
You're doing a terrific job Ray. I can't wait for all this data to be made public and available. I hope you're going to have this available on the Internet at some point?
Ray: Let me add a personal note to you. If you're down here in the DC area - I think you know how to contact me...you're welcome to come by and let me show you some of this stuff, first-hand, if you have inclination and time.
John: Sure Errol: John goes down to Washington on occasion. He was down there for.....
John: The George Washing University Symposium.....
Errol: When was that? About two months ago? Now you've got another damn good reason to go down there John.
John: Yes. And to visit my buddy Dick Hall.
Ian: Well speaking of coming back to the roots of ufology...actually John or Ray maybe you could take this one......Do you think a ufologist should have to have any kind of qualifications to investigate unexplained flying objects? I think part of the problem we have right now is that anyone who signs up for the MUFON newsletter and gets the coffee cup, feels they can go out and investigate UFOs. I think that's probably one of the strongest criticisms of that - who are these people to investigate these things? Isn't it better to have qualifications to attach to these reports? What do you think would make a good UFO investigator? What kind of qualifications would you think makes someone qualified to investigate this phenomena?
Ray: If I may answer that......
I think that one thing we need to keep in mind about the persons, for example, that are able to go out and interview witnesses and examine cases and the evidence connected with them.
Let us keep in mind that these people, basically, are studying reports. And of course if there is filmed evidence, that too.
They should certainly be qualified if they are gonna try to get into to interpreting a film to see if it is significant or not. If not they should let other persons handle that.
But, basically, we need to keep in mind that there are two kinds of UFO - well there are many kinds of UFO studies -but basically two kinds, in that one is the direct study with instruments and one is the study of reports. And the person that is going to talk to people about what they have seen needs to have a level-headed insight into human psychology, needs to have the capacity to listen, not only to what the reporter says, but during conversations, I find as an investigator, it's very important to listen to what they don't say.
Sometimes from what a person doesn't say in a certain situation can be at least be, at least inferentially, just as revealing as what they do say. And that's very important.
I think that a person also needs a lot of good practical training and also some training in ethics of how to deal with people in ways that you don't end up creating more problems than you solve.
John: I'd like to add something to that comment, that I think might address the question a little more directly.....Guys like Ray, like Wendy, like Dick Hall. You don't necessarily have to be a scientist, a physicist, an astronomer yourself, in order to be a good researcher, as long as that data - such as Ray has done, he went out of his way to raise funds so that he could have film experts and physicists and other people who are scientifically trained, go over the material, supply him with reports, then he compiles that data and passes it along to the public.
So that, no, I don't think you have to be, yourself, an expert as long as you're performing the work of a..... The word middleman doesn't fit... but to be the go-between, between the raw data and getting it into the hands of people who are qualified to study it. I think that's where the ethics and good working knowledge of how to take this data and get it to the right people. I think that's more important than the person himself being a scientist.
Ian: So its a matter of saying you want someone who is professional and maybe has some technical expertise but is also ethical and objective of course.
John: And if you don't know how to do it yourself that you go out of your way to get that material into the hands of people who can do it, the Bruce Maccabees, the Jeff Sainios or whoever.
Ian: That's the important part. This doesn't have to be a one-person-stop - like Ray was saying, not necessarily everyone that can have technical expertise is going to be a people- person and be able to interview witnesses. So, its good to have a team who excels in different areas.
Ray: Can I go back, for a minute, to the call we had from Bill?
Ray: He mentioned that it seems that a lot more people report UFOs from nocturnal observations than diurnal observations, as for daylight observations... and you might find it interesting that of all the motion picture films that we've got in our project... [Actually, my personally getting motion picture film goes back to 1959] but... in all of these, only one of them is a night-time film - from an airliner, looking down at three UFOs involved in activity near a lake in Texas... one night I was flying down from Austin to Dallas.....
But, what we learned on our project, from both extensive night- time watching and day-time watching is - believe it or not - there appear to be more UFOs in the sky potentially visible in daytime than at night. And I don't know if this is something deliberate on the part of UFOs, or not. But, you see, because of the human visual system - the way we see things - it's easier to notice things at night. And its much less likely...when you're out in the day time, you're looking at the things around you and its not like a light against a dark sky. So its harder to notice them.
We may hear a jet relatively close and look for it, and, of course, the sound will be behind it because it takes the sound a while to reach you - behind where it should be.....
And so, what I'm saying is I really believe, based on our experience in the Project, that there are more UFOs out there and visible, potentially, in day-time than there are at night.
And I think our track record of watching both the night and day and getting far more in daylight, is possible evidence of this.
Errol: I also feel though, Ray, that for some reason, somehow, you are a 'UFO magnet'. It seems to me that 'they' regard you with a degree of optimism for getting the information out there.
I know that's a weird thing to say, for me, but that just occurred to me..... You certainly do seem to pull-in a lot of those sightings, don't you?
Ray: Nice idea Errol, but I'm sceptical about it.....
Errol: Ray, an e-mail here from Michel Deschamps "Please tell Ray I haven't forgotten about him....."
Michel Deschamps is up there in Sudbury, Ontario. He says he promised you a copy of the Unsolved Mysteries segment on the Lonnie Zamora UFO landing case, as a thank-you for the autographed copy of your book that you sent him, a while back.
Ray: I appreciate his remembering that, because I'd certainly forgotten it.....
Errol: Yeah, Michel remembers all kinds of amazing stuff. He regularly contributes either by phone or by [tapping screen] this here monitor.....
We have a few minutes left... is there anything you want to say that needs to be said?
Ray: Okay. I'd like to say that I believe I'm not special. I carry a camera... this makes me conscious of the sky and the potential. Doing that is extremely important in getting you to watch and potentially see something.
I'm a dinosaur-track researcher and a geologist came over here, that lived in [fear?] all his life... for I find dinosaur tracks. He had not found any in his whole life-time.
Once he saw my collection, he went out the next day and found a wonderful track.
Now, this is because he had the right search image and was conscious now that it was possible now, to find such tracks.....
Likewise, I think, if people will get their cameras ready, and be conscious too, that they too can get this evidence, that they're much more likely to actually be observing and see something. Just having the camera makes you want to be more observant because you can have the gratification of getting a video or a film.
I hope that, if anybody gets such, that they will communicate with persons that are capable to analyse and look at this material. If anybody wants my help with anything they can reach me at dinotracker@...
and that would be my suggestion.
In other words, you too can get out there and get films if you are alert to watch the sky and focus your eyes distant, when you're out there, on clouds and things. Otherwise you'll be unconsciously focused close-by and its harder to notice or perceive what's out there.
Errol: John Velez sees a lot of stuff in the sky - over his home - on a fairly regular basis. Right John?
John: I have hours and hours and hours of video. All daylight stuff. Of spheres, discs. I had one sighting that I was unable to get on video that involved about 10 or 15 of these objects, that included a large, white, boomerang. And, yeah, I have hours and hours and hours of that stuff that I've gotten right here in my backyard, in New York. I've been telling people for years, "all you have to do is look up."
Ray: Well, John's the living proof there, of just what I've said. That's exciting John. If you come to see some of mine bring some of yours - too.
John: Yes, Sir.....
Errol: I'll show you yours, if you'll show me mine.....
[Laughter] Errol: Yeah, mutual video and film admiration society..... Ray Stanford, I want to thank you alot for coming on tonight. Its been a long time since you've been heard from. I hope that you have, in the course of the last two-hours, answered a lot of questions that a lot of people in the field have had. And I'm sure that they, like us, here in the studio, and our listeners, look forward to seeing that footage and a lot of your results of the research that you've been doing. Its been thirty years now, with this technology.
Ray: That's right. I want to promise people that I'm going to make every effort, now that I've had the heart-attack and realised that my time... my days are numbered, I want to get this stuff out there and not die and leave it to somebody else. I'd like to get to work.
Errol: And we look forward to seeing the results of that. If there are things that you want to tell people, it doesn't have to be for two-hours, you're welcome back any time.....
Ray: Well thank you, I appreciate that, Errol.
Errol: Thanks, Ray. Good night..... And John Velez.....
John: Informative and fascinating program.
Errol: Wasn't it. I've been trying to wrap my head around a lot of the science and the descriptions, y'know. I like mind-movies, but there were a few tough moments.....I want to thank you, John.....
John: You're very welcome.....
Errol: Goodnight John: Goodnight Errol: Ian Rogers, what do you think?
Ian: I'm more curious..... I'm sceptical. I just want him to convince me. And the best way to convince me is show me the evidence. And show me the information. As a testimonial it's very interesting. But it's like a knock on the door and I want to know if it's worth answering.
Errol: Well, we'll see you next week Ian Rogers - as we will Bobbi Rowley. Goodnight Bobbi, goodnight Ian......
[End of transcript] Transcribed by David Haith May be freely distributed as long as all credits remain intact.
Copyright 2003 - RandomFit/VSN Productions - Toronto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]