NARCAP and a 2005 UAP Incident

[Kandinsky]

I think everyone in here has heard of NARCAP (index) and I won't go into great detail about who and what they are about. Although there are quite a few members spanning several countries, they are primarily focused on incidents involving US aircraft and unidentified aerial phenomena. The term UAP is preferred above UFO as it's more accurate and is less associated with the subject of ufology or inevitable 'alien' conclusions. NARCAP fully realise that the phenomena could have a number of sources and may represent aspects of different unconnected phenomena. Importantly, they want to be approached as a sober, professional organisation with guaranteed discretion.

The members who are most familiar to people on this board are Ted Roe, Dr Haines, Leslie Kean, Don Ledger and hopefully Massimo Teodarani. Ted Roe released the excellent Project Sphere Report recently. Dr Haines, is an ex-NASA scientist and writes the technical reports. Leslie Kean was instrumental in the first successful lawsuit against NASA for withholding files on the Kecksburg incident. Don Ledger is an aircraft pilot and probably the front-line researcher of the Shag Harbour incident. Teodarani has written what I believe is a seminal report on the sightings reported in the major UFO databases (Hatch, NUFORC, etc).

NARCAP exist to document the reported incidents and support the argument that UAP can pose a hazard to aircraft safety, therefore the phenomena deserves official recognition and public research. Leslie Kean was clear about the same long-term goal as it relates to The Coalition for Freedom of Information (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/). This quote is a fairly clear summary:

"NARCAP has no position regarding what UAP may represent though there is some evidence to suggest that UAP represent a category of phenomena that has not been adequately investigated by science. We do share a position of solidarity with other official international groups studying anomalous aerial phenomena and aviation related matters (see: International Organizations and Case Files). Better reporting regimes and an active attempt to counter under-reporting bias will provide enough data to demonstrate a further need for analysis of UAP reports which affect aviation safety." NATIONAL AVIATION REPORTING CENTER ON ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA

Enough with the introduction. I discovered NARCAP after Dr Haines was interviewed on the Paracast. It remains my favourite Paracast interview. Looking to learn more about the scientific approach and Dr Haines himself, I began to read through the technical reports at NARCAP. They aren't aimed at UFO fans and aren't written to appeal to casual readers. The language is formal and neutral and there isn't a single 'flying saucer' animation to be found...

The first report that impressed me involved an object being sighted apparently tracking a commercial airliner. It's available here...http://www.narcap.org/reports/012/uap_photo_7-3-05_PaloAlto.pdf The title itself is hardly intriguing, but the contents are...

It was caught on film by a witness with a Canon Rebel XT. These were a $1000 in 2005. The guy reported his sighting to NUFORC, I've checked...it's there (http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/044/S44750.html). He took several photos and NARCAP were able to analyse them in the hope of identifying the UAP.

From an image like this...


They were able to magnify further and observe something unidentified near to the tail of the aircraft and exactly as described by the witness. This is the blow-up...


"...was just behind the airliner, matching its speed. Then it started moving away fairly quickly. It didn't appear to be dropping (down) from the airliner, since it was moving away in an almost horizontal line. The unknown object was white or silver in colour, and appeared to be round. After a few seconds the object just vanished." Witness statement.


The witness took several images and described how the UAP 'tracked' the airliner before breaking away and moving off to the west. It didn't plummet or drop so we can avoid cries of 'waste dump.' Of course, we'd only have his word for it if it wasn't for the images. If you zoom in on the next image, the UAP is there...moving away as described...

http://www.dh22.com/NARCAP/image3.jpg

The witness took five images and through these and his report, he and Dr Haines were able to identify the airliner model, flight path, time, date and pilot.This information is key to gaining more understanding of what these images actually show. With this data Dr Haines knew aircraft size, altitude. elevation, atmospheric conditions, angle of sun and that the pilot was listening to a Bob Marley CD and wearing black socks. This is the information that serious study requires to rule out conventional explanations. With this, Haines was able to get a fairly close idea of the size of the UAP.

http://www.dh22.com/NARCAP/image4.jpg

http://www.dh22.com/NARCAP/image5.jpg

The zoomed image of the UAP is the highest quality image I can recall seeing. There are dozens out there and they remain almost meaningless due to lack of provenance. Sure, we've all seen them and some appeal more than others. Ultimately, they don't tell us a lot. In the modern age, capturing UAP on video or camera is getting close to redundant with the advances of photoshop, hoaxers and those who enjoy confusing the issues. FLV compression has people analysing very 'noisy' You Tube footags from unknown people and places. As Kevin Randle is fond of pointing out, the chain of evidence has to be strong and unbroken. In the case of these images and the witness...the chain is unbroken from his NUFORC report to the analysis by NARCAP.

The object is somewhat under three feet in diameter and silver or white in colour. Dr Haines goes on to investigate other 'prosaic' explanations. Weather balloons or remote vehicles? The flight characteristics don't conform to debris (ice etc) falling from the aircraft. The report leaves us with an unidentified aerial phenomena and Dr Haines concludes such an object necessarily poses a risk to aircraft. You can read his full conclusions in the report.

Now it's tempting to speculate what the object represents, what it could be or where it originates from. I'll leave that open to discussion. One thing it does represent is how much work the right people are involved in and it provides good evidence for the existence of UAPs in the close proximity of commercial aircraft.

(I'd like to thank Ron Collins for cornering me to write the OP (I owe you one), Ted Roe for granting permission and being part of NARCAP and Angel of Ioren for the help. Thanks guys)

Edit to add...dammit these images have been a pain in the ass!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That's a pretty good set of images - I sat set because if it was a single one it would allow for more explanation, such as dust in front of the camera. Due to the fact that it appears in a different spot on the other image, we can rule that out. Usually a photographer using s DSLR (I have a Rebel XS) knows not to use a flash to take a picture of any object that is further than 10 feet away, so I'm thinking that it is not a reflection of something in the air. The use of a flash could put that into play, but we can easily see if the flash went off by viewing data of the original image. I doubt the flash was used though.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

If anyone knows, where are the full resolution versions of the images?
These super small ones from the PDF are useless.

Thanks,


Lance

I wouldn't say useless, but to further investigate it, the full rez images would be needed.

 

[Skymon876]

Ted Roe recently joined this forum so I would bet he might comment soon.

 

[Ted Roe]

Hello Everyone,
This is an interesting documentation, certainly.... With respect to hi res images, let me check my files and see. I have had two computers since we published this so I may not be able to locate them easily. I am sure that Dr. H has them... I actually thought that it would have been a good idea to link externally the original images but the .pdf format doesn't allow for that and we need the .pdf to maintain the integrity of the document itself.
This case is a good example, I think, of events like this that are reported all over the world by people observing a/c in flight. I am satisfied that the camera captured what reality presented. I do not know what the UAP is... duh.... I think its very interesting that it could pull up under the tail of the a/c and maintain position there without being affected by buffeting or dynamic pressure.
It is small, about three feet across, self luminous and radiating.... I wonder about these things. Radar doesn't often detect them. Is that due to a lack of density - are they some kind of self-organized plasma? Is it actually an object that is radiating and does that radiation defeat radar detection? Some UAP have been detected with radar at Hessdalen.... One wonders if this would trigger a TCAS alarm if it was in front of the plane...The few examples of head on approaches that I have looked at that could be considered near misses (NMACs) do NOT include TCAS alarms.
I think it is particularly interesting that it paced the a/c from a good distance behind it and then accelerated to catch up to the a/c and then took position under the tail (slowing to match the speed of the a/c) before breaking away at an oblique angle.
The witnesses were quality... astronomers with a very good camera and no axe to grind. Let us use their names ( we try to maintain confidentiality in most matters to simply shield the witnesses from undue attention and to protect careers and image if they are professionals)
In the Project Sphere report Massimo Teodorani offers a scenario that is rather alarming with respect to the possibility of collision with one of these things and the potential outcomes...

Spherical UAP: Scientific Observations and Physical Hypotheses, Danger Evaluation for Aviation and Future Observational Plans (Massimo Teodorani)
http://www.narcap.org/Projsphere/2.4-e2-narcap_ProjSph_MaxTeo.pdf

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

I really appreciate Dr. Haines work on these studies and want to remind everyone of who the Science Chief of NARCAP is.... I am an administrator, my job is to promote and support the work of the science team and manage the outreach, media and activism related to the work of the science branch. I do participate in research and I do write reports, both internal and in the public domain, but Dr. Haines is the primary lead on this. NARCAP was his idea.

Dr. Haines first proposed the concept to me in 1999 - at the time he was thinking of an international reporting center but we decided to scale it back and focus on US aviation. Many of his contacts are behind our efforts including folks from NASA like Mr. Brian Smith, then Chief of the Aviation Safety Program Office at Ames Research Center and now Deputy Director of Human Factors... Dr. Haines is a perceptual psychologist, an expert on visual perception and has applied those skills to aviation and space human factors. He has been involved in designing cockpit and spacecraft environments and instrumentation and was the first Chief of Space Human Factors at Ames Research Center. I have sat with him and Mr. Smith as we briefed the FAAs Aviation Safety Reporting System analysts on UAP encounters and we enjoy the cooperation of that team. Further, his contacts around the world in the UFO research arena including those with the official research teams of the world have been instrumental in developing our image. Of course, the work stands on its own and that, again, is due to his training and experience. I have been very, very fortunate to work with him. I have learned quite a lot and the opportunity to work with people like Dr. Vallee, Dr. Haisch, and many others that comprise our staff has been extremely gratifying.

As for me, I came to this situation honestly enough and took the executive director position at his request...

Dr. Haines integrity is above reproach and his drive to maintain an appropriate level of objectivity and restraint is a great example to all who work in this field. I know this because I set the same standards myself and we have worked very closely to maintain it, together.

When we decided to go with the NARCAP project we discussed Ufology at length. We thought we saw trends and problems and decided that, for the good of our effort, we needed to represent as objective approach as possible and avoid UFOlogy as a whole. We opted to avoid UFO conferences for the most part, with a couple of exceptions that allowed for travel and meeting with key individuals when our expenses could not manage it as well as one or two appearances to let the world know we exist. We avoided most media opps. I personally have been rather brutal with media requests... Been hard on George Noory and even Gene here back when we got a request a few years ago. I felt that we are judged by the company we keep and the aviation community, as conservative as it is, would be put off if we were sharing space with promoters of "shadow people" and other strangeness. As our body of work grew, so did our credibility and that begged a rethink on media appearances... thus I am here sharing this work with you while doing a few more interviews and other media.

Further, the NARCAP team have been right in step with us. Don Ledger and the rest have all been team players. They understand how we work and why we are so careful with our public commentary. They are the heart of NARCAP, volunteers all, and we are fortunate and grateful for their participation. They work from their home offices in locations all around the world and contribute their best work.

The results of all of this included briefing Congressmen and participation in a GAO inquiry regarding UAP a few years ago as well as ongoing collaboration with the official gov research efforts of the world. The Chilean team, CEFAA, in particular has been very gracious to us and we have been collaborating with them in research and analysis. That is, of course, a tribute to General Bermudez and his drive to solidify UAP research efforts both inside his country and abroad...

On a personal note, in ten years Dr. H and I not had a single dust up. He is a professional and a good friend. I am lucky to have met and known him, NARCAP or not....

 

[Kandinsky]

In the Project Sphere report Massimo Teodorani offers a scenario that is rather alarming with respect to the possibility of collision with one of these things and the potential outcomes...

Hello Ted, I remember you posting a thread about Project Sphere on ATS. Despite the contents and the source, it generated very little attention and only a couple more replies than this one has. The neutrality and scientific terminology of the reports is like a repellent to most people who present an interest in UFOs. The attention that I believe they deserve is never forthcoming. Perhaps, believers, skeptics and debunkers see these reports as challenging and shy away for one reason or other. The reports can't be 'debunked,' they already are skeptical by nature and 'believers' either can't comprehend the format or need more colourful language and pictures. I doubt there's an exclamation mark in the whole collection.

The contents could be 'dressed up' and presented in a wholly different tone and you'd be guaranteed to generate a larger audience. You could rewrite them all and exchange UFO for UAP. The title of this report could be, "Commercial Aircraft in Near Miss with UFO!!!" You could spruce up the NARCAP site with old jpgs of flying saucers and a host of links to UFO sites.

The idea is ridiculous, I'm just trying to make a point. Most people with a taste for UFOs only seem to want one flavour.

NARCAP is doing sterling work in ways which will benefit others in the long term. Credibility, authority and professionalism are part of the ethos. It seems the price you pay for the high standard is perhaps a lack of recognition, but certainly a lack of appreciation. The only solution is to dilute the standards and then you lose the credibility. What incentive would encourage those trade-offs for an audience that paid little attention in the first place? The aviation sector could be put off. It's a dilemma of sorts.

The approach you've all taken at NARCAP is the right one. It's the hardest one to take, generates less interest and maybe gets frustrating at times. Nevertheless, it's definitely the right way forward. I hope you get a generous donor to expand your research and give more breathing space.

Thanks again for letting me use your material. I'm sure I could write a thread or article that would generate more interest, but it'd go against the beliefs you hold and probably mine also. Don't be put off from stopping by and posting around here. I've enjoyed reading your comments and I know others have too.

 

[Skymon876]

what happened to the thread? is anyone having problems loading it?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

what happened to the thread? is anyone having problems loading it?

This one? No, not here.

 

[Skymon876]

This one? No, not here.

Fixed it, I can now see it, back to normal

you can delete my other thread complaining about it

 

[Ted Roe]

Hi Kandinsky,
You have hit the nail on the head... The complaints about science not engaging are promoted by the same people whose dogma would be challenged by that science. I hear it all the time yet the same complainers are completely unaware of the science being done.
I recall the ATS posting. I tried to post and was told that I couldn't post anything without prior approval because I was a newbie to the site... Later, after I had moved on I got an email "mia culpa" inviting me to return to the site and engage but I already decided that there was probably no point.
We just recently got an invitation from Orange County Mufon to speak and then were sent a list of conditions that aptly demonstrated that nobody on their side had even looked at the NARCAP website. We declined rather directly.
When I review our website statistics it is clear that we have very little traffic compared with other flashier and speculative sites. About 4000visits a month is a pretty good estimate. The majority do not stay long and many exit straight from the home page. Others barely read, or do not finish reading many of our studies.
I am sure that there are a variety of reasons for this.
Even more interesting is the abuse of our work to further the agendas of Exopolitics and others. I have directly confronted Basset and others on this and rejected their requests to participate in their agendas.
At the same time the folks that matter in this field, like the official gov teams of the world are in our email regularly and we collaborate with them to investigate and report on some of their cases. CEFAA in particular has been very involved with us. So that is where we need to be, those are the standards we need to meet. UFOlogy is a quagmire of nonsense and while one can make a buck if one chooses to flit from podium to podium spouting nonsense like Michael Salla and the Exos one can do so. But if one is concerned about credibility and authority over notoriety one is faced with rejecting UFOlogy proper and focusing on science.

 

[Kandinsky]

. But if one is concerned about credibility and authority over notoriety one is faced with rejecting UFOlogy proper and focusing on science.

I've just written a reply and hit the wrong mouse button...vanished. I'll try again.

It's quite the conundrum. Are there many trade magazines and websites in aviation? Could NARCAP increase its presence in these magazines? The readers are the target audience to attract reports and build up the database. This might indirectly lead to increased general awareness amongst aircrews and authorities. Another alternative, would be interviews in such magazines. I've heard you and Dr Haines in interviews and you present a sober case.

I'm out of my field here and aware that you've probably done all this already.

There must be a way to increase awareness without diminishing credibility or becoming tied to a commercial agenda. It's a real poser isn't it?

 

[Ted Roe]

Hi Kandinsky,
We are aware of these good points and suggestions... part of the issue is having a credible body of work before telling everyone that the sky is falling. We did present some of our work to congressmen and that resulted in a GAO inquiry in 2004/05 though the focus shifted from aviation safety to national security. We are at a point, in the past year or so, where we can start presenting articles and materials to the aviation community and back it up with good data. We have aviation safety specialists from NASA and others to back us up... We need to engage in an outreach program and I simply haven't had enough time and our staff are not really into outreach and activism, they have enough to do with research..... Good suggestions and I will give it more thought. We are linked on several aviation safety sites like the Flight Safety Foundation and others...
Thanks, it is a challenge all the way round...the key is having something to say and saying it to the proper people.
We do have some solidarity with the official research teams though they don't focus solely on aviation safety. They have come to realize that if they can make a case for aviation safety and UAP they can better justify their reason for being. We may have to go at this from several different angles. Grass roots and ground up, upper level management downward, and internationally through the UN Int. Civil Aviation Org (UN ICAO). Perhaps General Bermudez of Chile and the French team at CNES could help leverage this.... We are thinking about all of it but we need more members that are interested in this aspect of our work rather than simply researching because it is a big job and not one I can do alone.