UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 11

Re: There's A Hole In My Philosophy - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:51:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:46:44 -0500
Subject: Re: There's A Hole In My Philosophy - Stanford

>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:22:14 +0000
>Subject: Re: There's A Hole In My Philosophy

>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5@houston.rr.com>
>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:42:02 -0600
>>Subject: Re: There's A Hole In My Philosophy


>>However, Grinspoon may have been wrong when he assumed that no
>>evidence has been found of footprints associated with UFO cases.
>>There's at least one. According to Ray Stanford's book, there
>>were two sets of footprints found at the Socorro landing site
>>near the much deeper indentations that appeared to have been
>>made by a heavy object. Maybe the "visitors" were so startled by
>>Lonnie Zamora's appearance that they forgot to erase their
>>tracks before leaving as required by the Prime Directive.


>You do not need to reference Ray Stanfoird's severely flawed
>book about Socorro (as I have repeatedly said, his depiction of
>me in it borders on libelous and is totally unfounded) to
>document the "footprints". That is what they are called in the
>Air Force file on the case. See The UFO Evidence , Vol. II, for


Please notice that Lan Fleming didn't even so much as utter a
whispered mention of the Goddard episode in his reference to my
book. Sorry, List members who are tired of hearing Dick's
unsolicited comments on my book, or my response to them.

So, I shall be brief, but because of Dick's disparaging comment
about my Socorro book, I trust it is acceptable to mention to
this List that the book was highly praised in letters to me by
Hynek, John Schuessler, and other major scientists and engineers
in UFO studies and outside.

Would they have done that if it is seriously flawed as Hall

I think a chemist like P.E. Smith (who, early-on, told me the
analytical "mistake" claimed by the Goddard people was
impossible, as reported in my book), a physicist-astronomer like
Hynek, or an aerospace engineer like John Schuessler are in a
better position to comment on whether the claimed analysis
mistake could really have occurred than is a philosophy major-
UFO historian like Hall. I don't mean that as any negative
reflection on Hall, but simply something to be considered when
we examine the professional qualifications that might reinforce
the reliability a person's comments on the question of an
analytical cover-up or mistake.

"Totally unfounded..." Dick Hall said! It's nice to know he has
a sense of humor! :)

Hynek, in fact, donated a copy of the book Hall so disparages to
the technical library of NASA's Johnson Space Center, as
reported to me in a note from John Schuessler, soon after the
book was published. Hynek and Schuessler had read it, of course,
and the library donation occurred immediately after Hynek had
visited my project's headquarters in Austin and our 400-acre
two-laboratory facility northwest of Austin in the hill country,
with Hynek praising the book profusely as we drove out to the
lab site one night, aside from what he wrote, intended for use
in promoting the book.

But, it is the season of good cheer, so here's my holiday gift
to Dick: For the record, let me make it perfectly clear that I
certainly don't think he was behind the Goddard cover-up, but
only commented (in the book) in disappointment that Dick (or
NICAP) did not follow-up on the cover-up at Goddard by
consulting at least one expert in analysis as I had immediately
done, and subsequently did several times over the years.

Subsequent to publication of the Socorro book, when word got out
that the CIA had sought a security clearance-check on Hall when
he worked for NICAP, I at times frankly wondered whether Hall
might had been knowingly involved in a cover-up of the metallic
evidence in the Socorro case, but let me make this clear: I now
think that Dick has been exonerated of any such suspicion by me
or anyone else who wants to be realistic. Part of my reason for
saying so is due to things revealed about Hall by Ann Druffel's
recent book on Jim McDonald, entitled FIRESTORM.

Not long ago, I offered List members a brand new, hard-cover,
first edition, free copy of my book to anyone who would send me
the cost of the book-mailing envelope and postage. The time
limit for that offer is past, and because of the busy line at
the post office now, I shall not repeat it, but will only
mention that I probably heard back from most or all of those of
you who read it, and those recipients who reported their
reaction to it had nothing but praise, including a friend of
Dick. Not one of you declared it to be "severely flawed" as Dick
claimed the book to be in his post today.

Also, let me add that nothing I said in the book about Dick Hall
bordered on liable, as his post of today claims. The fact is
that before publication of the book, at the publisher's
suggestion, I had two different lawyer friends read it to make
sure I was not setting myself up for a lawsuit by anyone
involved in the Goddard affair. I was assured by both lawyers
that the book is in no way libelous or slanderous of anyone. In
fact, both assured me the book is quite clear of being anywhere
nearly libelous or slanderous.

But, coincidentally, both lawyers made the exact same comment
after reading the book, "Ray, you missed your 'calling'. You
should have been a lawyer!"

Judging from Dick Hall's past comments, he might choose to think
that comment was based on my character. :)

I prefer to think it was based on thoroughness, factuality, and

That said, I rest my case.

Ray Stanford