UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Aug > Aug 1

Re: Close-Up Photos - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 11:19:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:20:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Close-Up Photos - Stanford

>From: Roy Hale <roy.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:58:00 +0100
>Subject: Re: Close-Up Photos

>>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:35:51 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Close-Up Photos

>>Yes, I was just using my common sense and what I've learned by
>>our photographic field work which tells me how truly anomalous
>>UFOs present photographically. Photographed models and
>>airbrushed images never have what it takes.

>Mr Stanford,

>Can you tell me if your book, Look Up, is still in publication?

>I would like to read a copy of it, can you point me to one?


Although you are clearly on a 'fishing expedition', I will
respond in depth to your inquiry.

Since I self-published that little 66-page book at age 19, 45
years ago, in early 1958, it has been long out-of-print and I
never re-published it because before very long I began to
realize that the wide-eyed Adamskian 'contactee' interpretation
I had placed upon the otherwise genuine and well-witnessed UFO
encounters described in that book was fanciful and tainted by my
teenage belief in the contact and fake UFO photos of George
Adamski. But to compensate, within a few years I was actively
exposing Adamski's hoaxes and fake photos publicly, along with
the contact hoax and fake UFO movie(s) and photos fabricated by
Daniel W. Fry, whom I never believed. That experience with
Adamski and that whole 1950s 'contactee' crowd, is why I am so
dubious of the 'will-to- believe'. I've been through that and
know what damage it can do to one's objectivity.

Whether one likes how I presented Look Up, or not (I don't.),
tell me how many other youths have the enthusiasm and
determination to write a book (I didn't have word-processing
back then, either, to make the writing easier.) at age 18 (just
out of high school) and 19, and raise the money to pay a printer
to print it by working at a shoe store, in order to let people
know their experiences with UFOs or anything else. Let me assure
you that it took some very impressive UFO encounters and a
pretty dedicated young man to undertake such an effort. If you
or anyone else on this list would like to try to shame me for
that kind of dedication, then the person you shame is yourself
and not me. I never had any hope or delusion about making enough
money to even pay myself back for the printing of the book,
copies of which I sold for immense sum of $2! No, I was simply
on fire inside with excitement to share personal experiences
that I knew could not possibly involve objects of terrestrial
origin, even though in my excitement, I was reading too much
into some of my experiences, especially some of those that did
not involve UFOs, per se. Boys will be boys! Youth will be

But aside from the book's contactee idiom of presentation and
interpretation, it quite honestly reported the visual (and
auditory) events, of our multi-witness encounters with UFOs. In
the 10-21-56 encounter, my group of four (All of us swore a
notarized affidavit published in the book.), the object involved
was a blue-white, glow-pulsing oblate spheroid 30-40 feet across
that didn't look anything like Adamski's fictional lampshade
'scout craft'.

It twice passed within six feet above our heads. That was a bit
too close for comfort, causing our voluntary muscles to become
immobilized, and causing a sensation of a pulsed electrostatic
charge through our bodies and hair as it passed over us (twice),
causing our hair to lift up and go back down, alternately --
 except for one of the witnesses, who had a 'flat-top' haircut,
so his hair stood up all the time. :) To explain further: our
hair raised up and down in pulses, the hair lift-up part
coinciding with the higher-amplitude component of a pulsing,
rather complex sound coming from the object. I'm not sure, but
Look Up may have provided one of the earliest descriptions of an
unmistakable electrostatic effect from a UFO to appear in the
literature. There are many, now.

A less-exciting, eleven-witness encounter described in Look Up,
occurred on November 6, 1954, on the Gulf of Mexico beach on the
south end of the 100+ mile long sand-bar type Padre Island --
 quite unpopulated back then, but crowded with tourist hotels
and condominiums in recent years. There were eleven witnesses
(all of them named in the book) to the seemingly (not knowing
object size) fairly close approach to us of an golden, glowing,
domed disc. There had been an earlier UFO encounter that night,
but the police had not arrived when that happened. Three of the
witnesses to the domed disc were police officers, comprised of
Texas State Highway Patrol Officer Don Hoyd; his father, Deputy
Sheriff Ray Hoyd; and Deputy Sheriff Steve Woods. The notarized
affidavits (attesting to their witnessing the Padre Island UFO)
of the two Deputy Sheriffs were reproduced in the book, along
with a photo of the State Patrol Officer, Don Hoyd, and his
father, Ray Hoyd, handing me the elder Hoyd's affidavit. Ray
Hoyd was quite willing to pose for the photo for publication
with my account of the UFO encounter, but declined to sign a
notarized affidavit because of lack of clearance from a superior
officer in the State Police.

During that November 6, 1954, UFO experience, we had tried
stabilizing a cheapie little view-through-the-top small-aperture
camera (containing black and white film) atop a rather point-
topped cedar fence post and apparently succeeded in getting one
photo of the domed disc, but because the domed disc in the
resultant photo seemed a bit more horizontally 'stretched out'
compared to what we actually observed visually and did, thus,
not faithfully represent what we observed, we did not publish
that single photo. The horizontal elongation of the object's
image was probably due to trying to take a time exposure (a few
seconds, only) atop the fence post where, in all likelihood, the
camera rotated a bit (due to pressure on the shutter button) in
the horizontal plane, providing the distortion. Furthermore,
there was a foolish dictum around in UFOlogy in those days
saying that if a photo does not show exactly what the witnesses
described it is either a hoax or, otherwise, worthless! That
concerned us.

Had we been dishonest, we could have published that photo and
claimed the UFO dome and flange actually had looked that flat,
but, instead, I just put the photo away in my file on the case.
In fact, I cannot truthfully say with absolute certainty that it
was I who took that photo, because several others tried to
steady their hand on the camera and take a photo with the camera
atop the fence post that night.

It may be of further interest to note that, in evidence of our
honesty, we took that little camera with the unprocessed film
still in it to the Corpus Christi (Texas) newspaper, the Caller-
Times, and gave it to reporter Spencer "Bones" Pearson to
process in the newspaper darkroom, without any of us being
present. When Pearson came back out with what seemed a blank
film except for that one shot of the object and, seeing it was
not the somewhat 'fatter' domed disc we had perceived when
thinking we might be about to witness the landing of a
comparatively 'fat' Adamaki 'scout craft', we decided not to
publish the photo at that time. It never dawned on us that,
quite aside from camera instability likely accounting for the
horizontal stretch of the UFO image beyond what we had
remembered, we probably had perceptually distorted the domed
disc we had been watching that night into something more closely
resembling the 'Venusian scout craft' shown in photos of our
hero, George Adamski! The November 6 Padre Island photo shows an
edge-on view of what looks like a quite flat disc with a slight
downward point in the center of the bottom side and a rather
flat seeming dome on top (of maybe slightly under half of the
disc's diameter).

If you click on http://platinumstudios.com/titles/ufomag.php you
will see in the UFO Magazine partial-cover depicted there, an
artist's presentation of a UFO that, if you imagine the object
depicted edge-on (instead of what's shown) , and reduce the
bulge on the bottom part by about 60% (and make it a bit more
pointed) you will have a pretty accurate concept of the outline
of what's shown in the November 6 Padre Island photo.

In the photo, however, what resemble pointed 'beams of light'
seem to gleam off the edge of the dome and flange, at places.
The photo is not very impressive to me, simply because I don't
see anything in it that seems unambiguously propulsion-
diagnostic, and that's the way I prefer UFO films and photos.
The beam-like things in the photo are a bit interesting,
however, because I don't recall our seeing individual beams, per
se. We did notice that the domed disc seemed to quickly 'gleam'
(hard to describe) at times. Maybe those 'gleams' were what were
captured coming off the disc in the photo. I seem to recall that
some of us who witnessed the Padre Island UFO might have
speculated that the pointed beams in the photo were some type of
propulsion effect used in keeping the object oriented.

In Look Up I rather timidly described the observation by eight
of us on the night of January 5, 1957, of a very bizarre beam of
light striking three of us, that had extended slowly toward us
from a large, black UFO that came in from the west-northwest and
hovered just to the southeast of us, on the north end of Padre
Island. That time, we were not on a beach but in the east-west
middle of the island, half-way between the Gulf of Mexico and
Laguna Madre, to the west. I mention that event here just to
point out that we were the first persons in UFO history (so far
as I can determine) to report the now famous phenomenon of a
'slowly-telescoping' light beam, which some persons refer to
(hopefully only figuratively) as a 'solid' light beam.

The main column of the slowly progressing beam of January 5,
1957, was more subtle than its three more narrow, lengthwise,
internal components which were much brighter, reminding us of
tightly stretched Christmas tree tinsel, twisting and
'scintillating' in sunlight. That 'telescoping' beam struck only
the three of us who were separated from the others, but it
packed a 'wallop' that sent the three of us (as long as it was
on us) into some kind of awesome altered brain function that I
will never forget but do not pretend to comprehend.

That beam's effect on our brains was as bizarre as its
appearance, transforming our awareness into a kind of seemingly
timeless, 'cosmic ecstasy'. I have never figured out the purpose
of that action on the part of the UFO intelligences, if there
was any purpose other than, maybe, to experiment with our minds
or perhaps, even, just to 'humble' three maybe-a-bit-egotistical
18-year-olds with an experience they couldn't even begin to
understand. What I know is that it was totally awesome and
overwhelming. It was also totally unexpected and no such thing
had ever been described in UFO literature, so the three of us
found ourselves as strangers in a very 'strange land'

Forty-seven years later, slowly progressing beams of various
types are commonplace in UFO literature, and I even got a nice
daylight movie of a UFO 'projecting' and, later, 'retracting'
such a beam (electric blue with magenta nodes), on October 5,
1985, at the Corpus Christi, Texas, bay-front, filmed from the
Emerald Cove breakwater pier, with five others there watching
what was happening and watching me making a movie of it through
a 10-X lens.

If anyone alleges that it is shameful of me to report such a
bizarre, eight-witness experience as that of January 5, 1957,
and that it is a discredit to UFOlogy or to me as a researcher
working for years now with good cameras and other instruments to
gather the kind of evidence that may bring UFOlogy into
mainstream science, I don't agree. We must report UFOs and their
associated phenomena not as we had envisioned them to be in the
early days of UFOlogy, not as we might wish or hypothesize them
to be today, but we must have the courage to report and
investigate them, confronting the high strangeness that they
often manifest. Who among us can explain what has been called,
'the Oz effect'? Who can even explain the fact that there have
been UFO witnesses, face-to-face with each other in a close
encounter, who were startled to realize that although they spoke
loudly, neither could hear the other speak!? I speak of the
strange seemingly UFO-induced "silence" so often reported. I
suspicion that if we could come to understand the physics of
those phenomena, we might learn some of the most instructive
lessons of UFO physics. That might also be true of the January
5, 1957, beam.

Keep in mind that on January 5, 1957, when three of us got
'zonked' by that bizarre beam, there were still five other
witnesses, unaffected by it, who watched us get enclosed in that
beam, from fairly close-by. They not only watched in wonderment
while that beam engulfed us, they saw us loose normal
consciousness, collapse onto the sand on our knees while that
beam was enclosing us, then they watched us rise up after the
beam had slowly withdrawn from us and 'stagger' toward them
somewhat like sea-sick neophyte sailors on their first 'break-
in' cruise! Sorry, my friends, but the prudent don't throw out
an eight-witness case like that, just because it doesn't sound
like today's normally far-less-well-witnessed claims of
abduction. What kind of celebration would some of you abduction
researchers have upon learning of an eight-witness case?

Finally, although described using my contactee idiom of the
time, in Look Up I wrote that UFOs can behave as "second bodies
for their pilots", explaining my intuitive sense that without
even touching any controls, UFO operators maneuver their
vehicles at the behest of thought. Because, years later,
research by Stanford Research Institute in California developed
both hardware and software enabling jet aircraft to respond to
their pilot's thoughts without the time delay of transferring a
maneuver order to mechanical controls (a great help in combat, I
should think), I feel vindicated. Some of you may have seen the
demonstration of that mind-controlling of an aircraft on network
TV a few years back. I don't recall on which network it was
broadcast or the program name, but maybe some of you can provide
that information, for anyone interested.

So, Roy, although I do not have a copy of Look Up for you, I
have shared some of the content of that book.

Now I must declare, Roy, that if (as one might suspicion) you
were bringing up the subject of my rather irresponsible teenage
writing in a covert attempt at retribution because I may have
embarrassed you by exposing the book of fake UFO photos you were
declaring to be of extreme interest, then the joke's on you.

At age 66, and for decades now, I have been happy to admit and
discuss my teenage indiscretion and any self-deception in which
I engaged as a believer in Adamski. In fact, I delight in
persons bringing it up so I can set the record straight and make
my current and decades-long very different approach to UFO
studies clear. I hope some of the presently wide-eyed can take a
lesson from, and benefit from, my teenage journey into
'contactee land', so thanks for the opportunity to once more
share with others, without looking as though I had spoken
entirely out-of-turn.

A thoughtful person admits past indiscretions and mistakes and,
benefiting by his own personal recognition of such, grows beyond

Well, now that I have once more explained my 45-year-old book's
teen-age stylistic and interpretative indiscretions (and some of
its important, well substantiated UFO accounts) for the last
time on this list, may we, in exchange, please be told whether
you still think Richard Brunswick's Photo Collection book's
phony photos are impressive?

Of course, I'm sure my personal explanation of your recommended
book as containing only fake photos did not convince you, but
hopefully the information reported in Friday's posting to this
list by widely respected V-J Ballester Olmos, Director of
FOTOCAT, should have convinced you, unless, of course, this is a
religious instead of a scientific issue with you.

From 'pipsqueaks' through Presidents, the ability or inability
to recognize and admit one's error or indiscretion, tells a lot
about a person.


Ray Stanford