UFO Conjectures

Friday, October 28, 2016

Kevin Randle’s “radio” show with Ray Stanford

First off, let me ask why programs and podcasts about UFOs (and the paranormal) always open with god-awful “music” and in Kevin’s show, like Greg Bishop’s Radio Misterioso, an announcer’s voice augmented by echo or weirdly enhanced effect?

Such odd, off-putting “embellishment” skews the potential listening audience away from normal folks to those UFO buffs or paranomalists who are a bit wacky.

This undercuts the purposes of such shows, which is, I assume, to bring odd topics to the forefront of rational people who should see off-kilter subject matter as part of the human experience.

Ufologists and paranormalists are their own worst enemies.

Now, what about Kevin’s interviewee, Ray Stanford, who Kevin touts as the author of the primary book about the 1964 Socorro UFO event?

Mr. Stanford, now a UFO geezer, like many of us who remain encased in the UFO phenomenon, went to Socorro, enveloped in an ET bias.

But all of you know that.

As a former newspaper/TV reporter, I find the idea of a person with an intrinsic bias gathering information about a newsworthy event offensive in the extreme.

Objectivity and journalistic acumen are gone from the get-go.

Mr. Stanford’s book and opinions about Socorro are flotsam to me and other reasonable persons.

That my pal Kevin chose to highlight Mr. Stanford and his book is distressing in the extreme.

I expect an ET advocate like David Rudiak to laud Mr. Stanford and his oddly titled work but Kevin Randle?

I don’t get why some UFO aficionados continue to kill their credibility by associating their UFO legacy and diligent investigation of the phenomenon with a person whose UFO work is iffy, in my estimation.

I just don’t get it…..there is a kind of madness in ufology that is epidemic and ubiquitous.



  • Rich -

    Really? This is your takeaway? You don't like the introduction, you don't like the bumper music and you didn't get the joke when I said that Ray Stanford says that he literally wrote the book on Socorro. There is a single book about that encounter and Ray is the author...

    But what did we learn? Well, the picture that was mentioned several weeks ago, of the dynamite shack taken by Ray and that some had said contained Socorro-like saucers turns out not to be quite that extraordinary. Ray was suggesting that what is seen simply might be artifacts on the film and not objects in the sky, not to mention that he hasn't even bothered to look at the original picture to verify that we don't have some sort of copying or processing error.

    There was talk about other police officers seeing the same craft that Zamora saw, but in the discussion with Ray we learn there is no documentation to support this. Ray has no tapes with some of those officers. Chaves, one of the officers mentioned specifically, didn't leave any sort of written record, so we don't really have any evidence that he or they had seen anything. I have another document that suggests that Chaves didn't arrive on the scene for ten to fifteen minutes which means he didn't see anything from Zamora's location. He might have seen something, high in the sky, as he drove toward Zamora, but that seems to be dubious.

    I mentioned that there had been three calls into the police station, as documented by CPT Richard Holder in one of his early reports, but again, we have no names, no times, and something that was only seen in the sky. Not really much in the way of corroboration.

    So, I cleared up some of the things that have been said in the last few weeks, including some of what was said on my show, but you didn't like the bumper music and thought that I shouldn't have quoted Ray's "I literally wrote the book on Socorro."

    Well, sorry about that but I hope you like next week when I talk to the guy who was actually part of Blue Book in its waning years.

    By Blogger KRandle, at Saturday, October 29, 2016  

  • Kevin:

    You are the only UFO investigator cleansing cases of the accumulated errant accretions, and you've done this with Socorro.

    But I do hate that important UFO programs, like yours, Bishop's, and Paul Kimball's (which he no longer provides) resort to effects meant to suggest that what one is about to hear is weird.

    No TV or radio producer, in his or her right mind, would herald their show with haunted house music and voices, unless it's Halloween.

    Ray Stanford is given credence he doesn't deserve.

    Yes, he was on the scene shortly after the "sighting" but didn't commit it to paper until much later, from notes, I assume, not unlike the one I took to task here a few weeks back.

    Stanford hasn't added anything worthwhile to the story beclouding it with an amateur eye and scrutiny.

    (This is an ongoing problem with "ufology" -- people who have flawed components in their UFO work are lauded by fellow-travelers as Gods of the verbatim truth.)

    Your current Socorro presentations, online and during your shows have clearly pointed out that there is a lot of foo-faw amidst UFO tales and reportage, even in a case, Socorro, that had an exceptional witness and supporting materials.

    So, my complaints come down to two: the use of eerie music and voices to open what should be show with the appearance of normalcy and reason and the employment of a guy whose book is titled, Socorro "Saucer" in a Pentagon Pantry.

    I would hope you can get Richard Holder Jr. on air. He seems to be rational and willing to pursue the truth, as he knows it.

    I work from that Jesus maxim, Let the dead bury the dead, and, for me, Stanford's Socorro effort died upon arrival of his book.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, October 29, 2016  

  • so was Zamora the world's worst witness, or did an alien craft land in Socorro? it has to be one of those two ... or else somebody running this simulation thought it would be entertaining to toss this one-off event into the fray, knowing full well (being in control) that nobody would have a camera showing a close-up pic of a non-earth vehicle slowly moving 15 feet off the ground. That would be a history changing event, and the simulation won't allow for that. I'm starting to believe that's the most 'reasonable' explanation.

    By Blogger jamesrav, at Tuesday, November 01, 2016  

  • James...

    Two mistakes (in logical thinking): "... did and alien craft land in Socorro?" and "It has to be one of those two ..."

    Setting the premise that it was an alien craft and that there are only two (possible) alternatives sets the stage for a belief rather than a reasoning stance.

    It was a craft, apparently, and that apparent craft could have been anything....anything other than alien, although one has to concede that being an extraterrestrial craft is a possibility -- a remote possibility as I've noted in previous postings here.

    Zamora was an exemplary witness, reporting rationally on something extraordinarily odd.

    Officer Zamora was ill-served by those who interviewed him in the time-frame. They distorted his observation by inept interpretations of his account, adding accretions also that muddied his report.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 01, 2016  

  • I think you are making something that seems clear-cut appear 'fuzzier' than it needs to be. Either he was a terrible witness (could somehow misinterpret a balloon or some early lunar test craft being held aloft by a helicopter) or it was craft far beyond our capabilities of the time. Why would the white clothed 'whatevers' suddenly bolt when a guy comes into their view, and end their mission to Earth after a mere 30 seconds? It's just too crazy a story either way you analyze it, but if you introduce a 'really far out' solution (some joker inserted it into the simulation), it kind of makes sense. The fact that even logical Elon Musk and analysts at BofA actually believe reality might be a simulation (I'm sure you saw the recent articles), combined with more and more articles about infinite universes, anything is possible. I just wish he had a camera, civilization would have changed in an instant. On a comical note, I've been reading all the recent posts on Socorro, somewhat of a flood in the past couple weeks. And sure enough, a couple days ago I'm doing a random check of about 1,000 names in a list I needed to text, hit page down a few times ... and land on a person named Socorro.

    By Blogger jamesrav, at Tuesday, November 01, 2016  

  • Again, James, buddy, you make a leap in logic:

    " ... or it was craft far beyond our capabilities of the time. "

    I don't see the craft as far beyond our capabilities of the time.

    It was an egg-shaped something that seemed to take off, using a propellant that showed as blue to the witness.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 02, 2016  

  • To me you are going well beyond the limits of the science in the early 60's and using that in a theory. No point in debating in such a circumstance. YouTube has plenty of videos of the Lunar Lander from 1969, and it's a very primitive device (that did the job). Didn't look like an egg. Would have had no reason to have been off a huge test facility. Was 5 years later than Socorro. The Morpheus lander (50 years later) is still unmanned, and is not a nice smooth shape as described, but is a bit closer to what Zamora described. It was either an alien craft or something that was meant to be interpreted as an alien craft, or Zamora is the worlds worst witness.

    "Vallée states that the evidence ... suggests an underlying plan for the deception of mankind by means of unknown, highly advanced methods."

    " ..that is exactly what the manipulators want us to believe." (Vallée)

    The idea of reality simulation was unknown back in the 70's when he wrote this, but he's basically describing such.

    By Blogger jamesrav, at Wednesday, November 02, 2016  

  • James...

    You write," It was either an alien craft or something that was meant to be interpreted as an alien craft, or Zamora is the worlds worst witness"

    I can accept that the thing Officer Zamora saw "was meant to be interpreted as an alien craft" but not that is was "an alien craft" as readers here know my aversion to aliens visiting Earth then or now.

    And most reasonable people think Lonnie Zamora was a remarkable witness, under the circumstances.

    For me the Socorro "visitation" was a concrete reality. What is was could be determined if we had access to the real symbol Officer Zamora saw and drew.

    I'm a fan of the simulated reality theories abounding all over the place nowadays. But it's an intellectual stretch, a sci-fi kind of idea that is beyond proof it seems.

    If someone is fooling with us, either as humans or as simulations, it has to be God, and everyone knows I think God is dead.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 02, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home