For those interested in such things, Ray
Stanford had claimed that he had a photograph of a Socorro-like UFO, he had
taken after the Lonnie Zamora sighting. He was careful who saw the picture. I’m
not sure his rationale for that, but there were very few who had seen it. We
had to rely on their descriptions of the picture, if they were inclined to give
us any information about it.
Ben Moss, who had worked with Stanford
for years, thought the picture to be important. He had mentioned to me that it
looked somewhat like an egg-shaped UFO with landing gear underneath it. With
Stanford’s passing, and with Stanford’s wife’s permission, Ben searched through
the mountains of material that Stanford had collected. He didn’t want to say anything
about this, though he had located a print. He wanted to have the negative.
From what he emailed me, he thought he
had the original negative, but, apparently, it was only a duplicate. It follows
here:
 |
| The Ray Stanford photo of the Socorro like-object. |
 |
| Close up of the object, whatever it might be. |
Here is the important part of Ben’s email to me. “If you wanted to post the Socorro craft pictures I sent, please feel free to do so with any commentary you want to add, I'm sure the usual suspects will be commenting on them. I discovered that the picture of the dynamite shack that I thought had the images was the wrong one, it is in the original polaroid Ray took without the kid standing in front of it. I will scan that picture in January, but have no negative, yet I did find it at Ray’s house listed as 'original', and as I examined it there are several objects in the background sky, I just need to get a high DPI scan to confirm.”
Here’s where we are with this. A solid
analysis has not been made but Ben plans to do that. We have an interesting
story that connects to the Zamora sighting, we have photographic evidence, but
those of us who have been around for a while, we know we need the original. Ben
is attempting to find that doing the follow up investigation as time permits.
Without the original, and without a solid analysis, I can say nothing about the authenticity of the photograph. All I’m able to say is that we now know what it looks like. We need the analysis to determine the important of the picture.
16 comments:
Glad to find out the image was found! Looks like a spider or an insect, but only three legs are shown. Wondering if the image is a reverse image like a photo negative because the thing looks dark blue to almost black. Officer Lonnie Zamora described something white. The photograph could show the same craft returned to New Mexico four months later. Wondering if it had a paint job, or if the colors and shades were reversed like on a negative.
Cannot be certain if the image shows the thing returned to New Mexico four months later, as the thing's origin is unknown. Kevin, you probably know by now how the true story of the sighting in 1964 was incorporated into that hoax about a fictional exchange program. According to the hoax, extraterrestrials got lost on their way to deliver the craft to an Air Force Base in New Mexico. Mentioning it here tonight because recent posts about Dr. Eric Davis's mistaken belief in the fictional crash at Del Rio, Texas from the Majestic Twelve hoax. We know that Dr. Eric Davis is connected to the individuals involved with the fictional exchange program hoax of which an agent of A.F.O.S.I. pitched earlier versions of the story in earlier decades to anybody who would listen.
If news of the image's rediscovery gets picked up elsewhere in the media, somebody else may also be reminded of that hoax narrative and may become convinced the image reinforces rumors of somebody secretly gifting intact craft to some nonexistent secret program. Does anyone else wonder about it?
As I recall, Ray in an interview said he had located the original or negative and upon closer examination thought the "object" was actually a photo defect. I don't know how or why he came to that conclusion.
My further (shaky) understanding was that the photo was taken "at the time", not months later, and included Dr. Allen Hynek himself taking a picture looking down the arroyo toward the Rio Grande valley to the east, labeled "direction from which the object approached." This photo of Stanford's is on p. 53 of his book.
If that's the case, then the Hynek photo would also have the object, if it were real. I have no idea what happened to the original Hynek photos. All I've seen are poor quality copies in Project Blue Book files. (e.g. see: https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/projectbluebook/ProjectBlueBook-SocorroNM1964.pdf I think it may be the 3rd photo in collection)
First thoughts on the photograph: The image of the object looks more out of focus than what appears to be the landscape behind, although perhaps a small degree of motion could give the same effect. I was reminded of photographs of models of Sputnik I with a light reflected on the metallic surface -- with the antennae looking like legs -- but it looks maybe a little less round than Sputnik and I see only three of the Sputnik antennae. Obviously, any real analysis would need to know more about the circumstances under which the photo was supposed to have been taken.
Thanks Kevin or posting this. As far as when the picture was taken, it was not months later but about 2-3 weeks later. As detailed in the book Tony Angiola and I wrote, egg shaped craft were reported all around this area for many months, including one on the ground at the Hollorman base as reported by military personel. The 4th leg of the craft is not seen due to the orientation of the craft, and the swirl seen on the back may or may not be an energy signature.
What is interesting is the tie in to the La Madara landing 194 miles away of an egg shaped craft that same weekend. The witness reported blue flames coming from several 'portholes' at the bottom of the craft whereas Lonnie said there was one blue knifing flame coming from the center of the craft. What I found interesting is this:
"The sketch of the Socorro UFO that Lonnie Zamora confirmed as correct was drawn by a local eighth-grade student named Ricky Baca.
Baca drew the sketch under Zamora's direction about two weeks after the sighting. The drawing, which included the symbol Zamora saw on the craft, was then published in the Socorro Chieftain newspaper in May 1964. This specific sketch is considered to be the most accurate representation of the object as described by the witness at the time of the event."
In this drawing, there are several 'portholes' at the bottom of the craft. So perhaps this vehicle could morph the engines orientation, and could use this propulsion in different ways according to the task. All indications were that it was having difficulty in Socorro, as the Opal Grinder witnesses said it almost took the roof off of their car, and finally landed at La Madara to repair itself.
There was some interesting analysis on the landing gear on You Tube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6tgSF6zKMA
Oh, my. Ray Stanford and his acolytes jabbered about this so-called "dynamite shack" photo for many years. For example, on a 2015 podcast appearance, Stanford described it as "a wonderful photograph in which...people will be able to see, in broad daylight...the Socorro object [egg-shaped UFO], with its landing gear deployed." He even said he intended to write a second Socorro-themed book built around the purported wonderous photo.
Of course, this was very much on-brand for Ray Stanford -- over the decades, he made claims to have obtained UFO images in many scores of personal encounters, comprised of "thousands" of frames, in many of which he claimed to see evidence extraordinary technology at work. In my view, most of these claims were based on his highly imaginative interpretations of grain patterns and artifacts in gross enlargements of emulsion negatives. Moreover, in multiple cases, Stanford's claims about the circumstances in which specific images had been obtained morphed drastically over the decades, and/or disintegrated under independent investigation. I have published exhaustive and definitive documentation on several such cases, including a prosaic 1975 incident for which I was personally present, which Stanford over many years fictionalized into an extraordinary event (the "laser strike" story).
Anyway, in 2020, Ray Stanford himself explicitly repudiated his earlier claims about the Socorro "dynamite shack" image. In a live call in to Martin Willis's podcast on September 15, 2020 (on which Ben Moss was one of the in-studio guests), Stanford said he had found the original image, and that what he had previously interpreted as a UFO was in fact just the product of an improperly cleaned negative. "So, we can forget that," Stanford nonchalantly concluded (before launching into a new and highly dubious claim of a different egg-craft encounter). Yet the legend lives on.
For anyone who wants to listen to Ray Stanford's repudiation of the UFO interpretation of the Socorro image, I have posted the September 15, 2020 audio clip at the link below (it is less than five minutes long).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wfHNVE0OURmTli49E6n1pGdNW03WRwuA/view
Douglas Dean Johnson
As expected Douglas, you did not say anything about the image Kevin posted. As I continue to research the correct original, and if that craft is there, then what fabrication will you conjure to dispute the factual data??
(Reply to Ben Moss: no. 1 of 3) I find the two-sentence comment by Ben Moss (TheUFOGuy) noteworthy for its manifest evasiveness, and for its display of his extraordinary level of confirmation bias (indeed, I saved a screenshot to use as an illustration in future presentations on the latter subject).
Mr. Moss wrote, "As expected Douglas, you did not say anything about the image Kevin posted." But as anyone can read above, I did indeed say quite a lot about the image that Mr. Moss fervently believes shows a Zamora-like egg-craft: I said that the man who took the picture, Ray Stanford, on September 15, 2020, called in during a Martin Willis podcast, during a guest appearance by Mr. Moss and Tony Angiola, and said, "I found the original negative, and it [the UFO] is not on the negative. It was just on the picture [a print], which that shouldn't have been there if they'd had a clean negative." Stanford also explained that he'd had his film processed "at a local photo lab" in Phoenix, back in 1964, "and when they made copies, they didn't do a good job of cleaning the negative. And amazingly, they left something on the negative that when the prints resulted--and Ben and Tony have seen it--really looked like there's a Socorro object out there over the mountains, looking to the west."
I also linked to an audio clip of Stanford making the statement. Here is a verbatim transcript in PDF format:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cd6JrFjnFieMc5WDEQn1maTe0DQqZ45A/view?usp=sharing
Although Ray Stanford took the picture, and said he had made this assessment with "the original negative in hand," Mr. Moss apparently considers it irrelevant. I think anybody properly termed an "investigator" would consider Stanford's statement to be highly relevant. Yet "investigator" Mr. Moss neither volunteers this assessment by the man who took and possessed the photo, nor even addresses the issue after I have presented it. Evasive, and illogical.
(2 of 3) Mr. Moss, I will ask you directly: Do you think that on September 15, 2020, Ray Stanford still believed that "the original negative" really showed a "craft," and therefore that he was LYING to you and all of the others listening that day? And if you think he was lying on that occasion, to what motive do you attribute his lying, on this specific matter?
Or, if you think that Stanford was not lying on September 15, 2020, but rather somehow mistaken about what he was looking at, how do you think he could be mistaken about such a thing with the negative in hand, and why do you think anybody ignore what Stanford said and rely instead on your judgment on this matter?
For those coming late to this discussion, I should also underscore that whatever the origin of the little blob, it is not a record of any known real-world event. Neither Stanford nor anybody else claimed to have seen anything odd in the sky at the time and place that Stanford captured in the photograph (which Mr. Moss says was "about 2-3 weeks" after the famous Zamora encounter on April 24, 1964). Nor did Stanford himself notice any purported UFO in that photograph for many years thereafter--it is not mentioned, for example, in his 1976 book "Socorro 'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry" (which I copy-edited), nor in the expanded 1978 UK edition of that book.
Also, I note that in his quoted email communication with Kevin Randle, Mr. Moss confusingly speaks of a Polaroid that he intends to subject to a high-def scan; yet it is my understanding that consumer Polaroid cameras of 1964 did not produce a negative of the lasting kind, but a silver diffusion transfer print, which was produced by the camera itself, not processed "at a local photo lab." So here too, it seems that we are to ignore what Stanford himself said on key points, because Mr. Moss knows that he is looking at a photo of a "craft" and he will brush aside anything that conflicts with that belief, to which he is so deeply attached.
(3 of 3) Instead of squaring addressing any of these jarring contradictions, Mr. Moss instead offered up this second sentence: "As I continue to research the correct original, and if that craft is there, then what fabrication will you [Douglas Dean Johnson] conjure to dispute the factual data??"
Mr. Moss, your approach to "investigation" reminds me of the Queen of Hearts in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland": "Sentence first, verdict [evidence] afterwards." First you postulate an image of a "craft," based solely on your wispy beliefs regarding a negative that you cannot produce, and then you boldly suggest that "if" you do locate "the correct original" and it shows a "craft" (as determined how and by who?), that I can be expected to engage in "fabrication" to discredit your self-defined "factual data."
Well. Over the last six years or so, I have written articles about Ray Stanford's UFO-related claims totaling many tens of thousands of words. The articles are heavily embedded with primary documentation (documents, audio files, etc.). Mr. Moss, I hereby challenge you to post here a single specific, documented instance of fabrication on my part, in anything I have ever published about Ray Stanford (or anybody else, for that matter). Not some generalized complaint that you think I was unfair to Ray Stanford, or that I said harsh things about Ray Stanford, or that I am motivated by this or that thing that you imagine, but just (1) a single very specific statement that you believe was fabricated, or even just seriously in error, coupled with (2) the exact basis for your belief that the statement by me was fabricated or in serious error-- that is, evidence in support of your position on the purported fabrication or error.
If you think you have more than one such instance, fine, but for starters let's have your best shot: Just one example to attempt to justify your baseless, juvenile slur. But do take care to be very specific-- a verbatim statement by me, citing where I said it, and then your rebuttal with its back-up evidence.
Douglas Dean Johnson
Your obvoius bias towards Ray, even in death, is atrocious and once again shows your bias and anger towards him. After speaking with Pierre DeEntremont, who was also at the Texas location, he has recounted interesting stories about you that I will not go into here. Needless to say I have a better picture of your ongoing, never ending bitterness. Ray told us several times that he had located the negative, only to not be able to produce it when Tony and I visited, nor recall telling us he had found it. From about 2028 on, Ray was having memory issues, forgot things he had wrtten and said, and in the end did not even remember me. So your constant reposting of Rays comments may just be incorrect recollections of a fading mind. Your digs at my investigation skills and at anyone that contradicts you simply come off as the anger of a bitter old mind. Needless to say I am still working on the image, and regardless of what proof and data I report, I'm sure you will attack the data, me, and anyone else who does not worship at your feet. So, as I know you will, rant on and repost Rays interviews for the 10th time as it seems you have a lot of time to attack me, Ray, and anyone else who does not agree with you, on your hands.
This brings me to the question: what will happen to Ray's collection? In several chats I've had with Christopher O'Brien (RIP), he was adamant that what he saw at Stanford was "the real deal"...
1 of 3) I suspect that number of people interested in the divergence of views about UFO-evidence claims of the late Ray Stanford could fit in a phone booth, if we still had phone booths. But for those few, allow me to recap: Ben Moss (TheUFOGuy) sent Kevin an image said to be among those taken by the late Ray Stanford at the site of the famous April 24, 1964 Lonnie Zamora incident at Socorro, New Mexico, but weeks after the Zamora event. Mr. Moss thinks that the image he sent (which is an enlargement from some full frame that we've not seen) shows an exotic craft in the distance, which he associates with the type of craft that Zamora described. On December 15, 2025, I replied by pointing out that Stanford himself had phoned into the Martin Willis podcast on September 15, 2020, said (Stanford) he had finally found "the original negative" of the image, and that what he (Stanford) had previously thought was a craft was actually an artifact of an improperly cleaned negative, which he blamed on the "local photo lab in Phoenix" that had processed his film. I linked to an audio recording of Stanford's called-in explanation. (Mr. Moss had neglected to mention Stanford's 2020 call-in statement in his narrative, despite its obvious pertinence to the evidence claim.)
In his December 16 reply, Mr. Moss remarkably again failed to address Stanford's 2020 statement, but instead said, "As I continue to research the correct original, and if that craft is there, then what fabrication will you conjure to dispute the factual data??" In my detailed reply of December 29, I challenged Mr. Moss "to post here a single specific, documented instance of fabrication on my part, in anything I have ever published about Ray Stanford (or anybody else, for that matter). Not some generalized complaint that you think I was unfair to Ray Stanford, or that I said harsh things about Ray Stanford, or that I am motivated by this or that thing that you imagine, but just (1) a single very specific statement that you believe was fabricated, or even just seriously in error, coupled with (2) the exact basis for your belief that the statement by me was fabricated or in serious error-- that is, evidence in support of your position on the purported fabrication or error."
Now we see that on January 4, 2026, Mr. Moss responded to my challenge in exactly the way that I have come to expect from Ray Stanford fan-boys (a small and dwindling band): Mr. Moss makes generalized complaints that I have a "bias" and "anger" towards Stanford. Yet, as I anticipated, he provides not a single example of any statement, action, document, or recording that I have attributed to Ray Stanford that is "fabricated," or even factually inaccurate. Mr. Moss goes on to assert that whatever "proof" he may come up with, I can be expected to "rant" about Stanford. I invite any reader to review this entire series of replies to Kevin's original post. Personally, I find only one post in this thread that is fairly described as a "rant," and it is Mr. Moss's most recent jumbled reply, which I find barely coherent.
As for "the Texas location" (site of Project Starlight International), some readers might find illuminating the 11-page 2021 open letter from Daniel H. Harris, Ph.D.-astronomy, who was Research Director of P.S.I. during the period of its greatest public prominence.
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/the-research-director-of-project-starlight-speaks-out-about-his-long-ago-association-with-ray-stanford-and-what-he-thinks-about-stanfords-ufo-evidence-claims/
(continued)
2 of 3) Again: I have publicly documented multiple instances of Ray Stanford lying about his own past activities and statements, drastically altering his various UFO-alien stories, and the like. Stanford acolytes such as Mr. Moss and Christian Lambright have never PUBLICLY challenged a single SPECIFIC assertion in any of my numerous investigative reports on Stanford's UFO-related delusions and scams-- no specific challenge to any single quote, any single audio recording, any single document, any single factual allegation. They simply evade this mass of damning evidence, and seek to deflect attention through generalized ad hominem characterizations regarding what they imagine to be my mindset or motivation, such as Mr. Moss's January 4 reply. On some level, I think they realize that once anyone starts getting into the DETAILS of Stanford's seven-decade history of promoting delusional UFO-evidence and alien-contact claims, and many documented lies, the likely result will be a sharp diminishment in interest in the specific Stanford tales and artifacts in which these devotees have unwisely invested so much time, energy, and credibility.
But for those interested in specifics and documentation, you will the hub-page for the material here:
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/the-ray-stanford-ufo-alien-legacy/
If that is too much, here is a one particularly instructive close-up deconstruction of a couple of Stanford's most widely circulated claims of photographic evidence of claimed Stanford encounters with alien craft:
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/beam-ship-or-bullshit/
But at least, in his jumbled January 54 reply, Mr. Moss finally does address, in a fashion, Stanford's public disavowal of the Socorro photo. Here is Mr. Moss's explanation: "From about 2028 on, Ray was having memory issues, forgot things he had wrtten and said, and in the end did not even remember me. So your constant reposting of Rays comments [of Sept. 15, 2020] may just be incorrect recollections of a fading mind."
Now, I am going to assume that Mr. Moss, ranting without proofreading, meant to type "2018." So, "memory issues" from 2018 on? Does that mean that promoters of cherry-picked Ray Stanford UFO "evidences" are free to disregard any public statements that Stanford himself made about those stories and images--that is, any statements that they find inconvenient--starting in 2018, seven years before his death? That is quite an escape hatch!
Does this apply to all of those stories Stanford told to credulous Jeffrey Mishlove in hours of video interviews that Mishlove posted in early 2023-- were those the "incorrect recollections of a fading mind"? If so, somebody better tell Mishlove so he can pull them off YouTube.
How about Stanford's lengthy interview on the Erica Lukes podcast "UFOs Classified" on March 8, 2019? That's one of the occasions on which Stanford publicly denied that he had ever solicited support to build a time machine. (It was not his first denial. In 1999 he asserted that his organization "NEVER, EVER collected any money to build the 'Time Machine'...") I responded by posting direct evidence that Stanford had indeed promoted creation of such a device (the "Hilaron Accelerator") intermittently for 15 years (1960-1975), including verbal and written solicitations. I posted audio recordings of two 1974 Stanford lectures about the device--in one, he estimated the project would cost from $1.25 to $3 million.
3 of 3) Finally, I wonder if you think that "memory issues" explain Stanford vehemently denying that he had ever "channeled" purported extraterrestrials, when Richard Hall brought it up on a UFO listserv in 2003? Do you suppose that Stanford simply forgot that from 1960-1978, his main livelihood was as a "psychic channel"? (In 1978 he was 40 years old.) Do you think he forgot that one of his main guides was extraterrestrial "Aramda of the Planet Keepers," with whom Stanford said he "remember[ed] well" personal associations going back "38,000 years"?
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/ray-stanford-and-his-super-power-inducing-time-machine-aka-the-hilaron-accelerator-2/
By the way, during that same March 8, 2019 "UFO Classified" podcast, Stanford also gave a detailed description of his purported photo that he took in 1984 of a pointy-eared alien sitting in his spacecraft--a photo so clear that "you can count the fingers on his hand." Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Moss, but I think I may recall you endorsing that specific claim in the past. So, when are you going to obtain and release that photo of alien "Grok" (and do release the FULL 35mm frame, won't you)? I would think that such a purported clear photo of an alien in an alien craft would be a top priority for an "investigator" such as yourself.
Also, I hoped you keep your eyes peeled for what Stanford called "the Space Material." Ray Stanford spoke about it to an estimated audience of 6 million in 1978, during an appearance on the Phil Donahue syndicated TV program, stating: "Project Starlight has in its possession, we're trying to get some further tests done on it, some glassy material of unprecedented crystalline quality, that doesn't seem to be duplicable right now on Earth or in nature -- that may be -- it fell at hypersonic velocity from space -- could be evidence of UFOs, but we're not sure yet." To members of the A.U.M./P.S.I. organization in the 1970s, Stanford presented detailed claims that the material was part of a traveling alien space city that exploded and showered debris on San Antonio. In a 1971 newsletter, he said it "consists of a quite mysterious nonnatural material with a crystalline structure unlike any other known on Earth." So, Mr. Moss, all you need are a couple of independent lab results validating Stanford's claims of "nonnatural material...unlike any other known on Earth," and think of the press conference you can hold! The Socorro blob(s) pale by comparison.
Nobody needs to take my word for any of my assertions here about Ray Stanford. These are facts that exist outside of anyone's "bias." Listen to the Stanford recordings from decades past. Read or listen to the primary documentation from 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and later-- articles, letters, recordings, interviews, statements by other people who were there. For example, you can view images of the entire 2003 Hall-Stanford exchange at the end of the article linked below.
If anyone has a question or assertion about a SPECIFIC Stanford-associated, UFO-related claim, I probably have some pertinent material on it. I show my work and I am open to new information pertaining to anything that I have written. My gmail address is my full name, with dots between the names.
Douglas Dean Johnson
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/wild-woolly-alien-claims-lifetime-achievement-award-goes-to-ray-stanford/
Whoops! Ray Stanford's name for the purported alien that he claimed to have photographed, sitting in a domed craft, "three or three-and-one-half feet tall... [with] a bald head and pointed ears," and so clear "you can count the fingers on his hand," was "Gort" (not "Grok" as I typed).
No matter what, that is a really interesting image. Some context, like seeing the whole photo, for example, would be nice. I'm having trouble writing it off as the product of a dust mote, flyspeck, or whatever was claimed by Ray or others. Seems a pretty good stretch, though, to assume it's the same "craft" that Lonnie saw. Who knows?
Anyway, having said that, one of the few consistencies in Ray's public statements over the years was his vehement assertion that he had plenty of hard, physical evidence of aliens and their activities, gathered through scientific means. This is the best that anyone has found in his collection? This is an example of what convinced people like Chris O'Brien that Ray was the real deal? For the sake of COB's reputation, if nothing else, I hope there is more than this and a lot of cantankerous bluster. I didn't really know COB, but I met him once and I know people who knew him well. I really never saw him as the type to be fooled by smoke and mirrors or charismatic puffery. Time will tell, I suppose.
Post a Comment