-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Ted Roe of NARCAP — June 8, 2014
- Thread starter wwkirk
- Start date
Free episodes:
Impatience is for the young. I have to get up real early to manually post these. Can you forgive the cat nap? Also GCN's servers were really real slow this morning.
We'll we are hosting the files too so it shouldn't be a problem, except for the on-demand player.
Ufocurious
Paranormal Maven
My UFO, excuse me, UAP education got a bust. I really liked this guy, as he seems the down to earth type. Congrats, another great interview!
Aloha Gene and Paracast Listeners,
Thank you for the great questions and an opportunity to share some of our work and perspectives at NARCAP.org. We are a team of about 55 members and every one of them is appreciated for the work they do and their contribution to our image and the subject in general. The questions were better than I expected and it gives me hope that there is a place for straight-talking at the table.
The official international efforts to understand UAP events are gaining momentum and it is a privilege to be involved. It was clear to me, and many others at NARCAP, that we needed to see dialog between these official teams and international private efforts of merit and its heartening to not only see it happening but to be a part of it.
If any listeners need references to incidents, events, NARCAP activities, etc., that were mentioned in the interview, please ask.
Thank you for the great questions and an opportunity to share some of our work and perspectives at NARCAP.org. We are a team of about 55 members and every one of them is appreciated for the work they do and their contribution to our image and the subject in general. The questions were better than I expected and it gives me hope that there is a place for straight-talking at the table.
The official international efforts to understand UAP events are gaining momentum and it is a privilege to be involved. It was clear to me, and many others at NARCAP, that we needed to see dialog between these official teams and international private efforts of merit and its heartening to not only see it happening but to be a part of it.
If any listeners need references to incidents, events, NARCAP activities, etc., that were mentioned in the interview, please ask.
As said, good show and all my best wishes to NARCAP.
PCarr
Paranormal Adept
Still listening, but I like this Ted Roe guy. He understands that good research requires skepticism and patience. Billionaires doling out UFO funds should definitely send some NARCAP's way.
Last edited:
So long as there are no terms and conditions — and that is a huge problem.
PCarr
Paranormal Adept
Yeah, you have to be careful about signing NDAs.
Excellent show! The show is undoubtedly on a roll - we've had a number of fantastic guests back to back. I really fell sorry for the next few guests cos it is frankly an impossible task to sustain this quality indefinitely although I know Gene and Chris always try to get interesting guests.
I cannot think of a another show that comes close to this quality on such a regular basis. Good job Gene and Chris and thanks to Ted for coming on a telling it straight.
I cannot think of a another show that comes close to this quality on such a regular basis. Good job Gene and Chris and thanks to Ted for coming on a telling it straight.
Thank you all for your kind words. FYI, a GEIPAN member just contacted me after listening to the show so Paracast has some reach.... With respect to funding sources, my primary concerns are autonomy and transparency. We ran NARCAP out of our own pockets for the last fourteen years specifically to maintain control of our work and image. We have finally come to a point where we simply can't do it out of pocket anymore and we need to adopt a nonprofit business model. Our travel budget alone is daunting.... so we have to find reasonable funding sources. Further, I would like to see some closed symposia with the various official teams to develop an effective research arc.... thousands are spent every year on "UFO Conferences", media productions, etc... and pennies are spent on research. I welcome a shift in that trend...
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I'll apologize in advance for having to be the only critical commenter, and begin with the following quote.
The above rationale seems to be the result of cherry picking preferred factions in what Ted calls the "international research community" that suit NARCAP's agenda. The fact is, with few exceptions, the most prevalent languages in the international community use the word UFO as it was created, or another word ( OVNI ) that was intended to convey the same idea. If you don't have a library of UFO books to check ( like I do ), try it yourself on Google Translate. I didn't see UAP anyplace.:
Actually "OVNI" was the original French ( Object Volant Non-Identifié ) and Spanish word was ( Objeto Volador No Identificado ), and more recently they French research group GEIPAN uses "Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés" ( Unidentified Aerospace Phenomnena ). But besides that, how can NARCAP claim to have a word that is more accurate when they admit to not knowing what they are in the first place?
It seems to me that if they don't know what UAPs are, that it's premature to make such a definitive statement. NARCAP claims to be motivated by "aviation safety", and I don't have a problem with that ( who would ? ), but then why all the talk about UFOs? And let's not kid ourselves here because they can call them whatever they want and we all know what they're really talking about
. If NARCAP is interested in international aviation safety, then instead of UFO talk shows, they should be taking part in more things like the European Regional Aviation Safety Group meetings, This isn't to suggest that they don't network with aviation safety groups, but I didn't notice them as participants in any of their meetings.
The objections to the use of the word UFO tended to focus on the idea of UFOs as "extraterrestrial spaceships" rather than the more general question of alien visitation. Is that because such a specific position makes it easier to defend their objections? It's entirely logical to say that because an observer didn't see a UFO come from space, they can't be sure it came from space. Fine. I get that. But that still doesn't mean a craft can't classed as alien, and there's plenty of evidence to show that the word UFO is meant to convey exactly that ( alien craft ).
Interesting sighting but not enough details to determine whether or not the object was a UFO. But I really like the way that Gene pressed the issue with the idea of intelligent control:
BINGO GENE! Enough with the UAP "technical manifestations" BS. Airplanes are "technical manifestations" but we don't call them "technical manifestations". We call them aircraft because they are a form of craft that travels through the air. The NARCAP jargon seems contrived to dance around the fact that when they focus on the same thing ufologists do, we're both talking about the same thing and that thing is alien craft, but Ted seems to be in some sort of state of denial. If we doubt there's any dancing around the issue; let's continue with Ted's response to Gene's question:
NO KIDDING TED! But I didn't hear an answer to Gene's question, and the follow-up song and dance is no better. In fact it goes on to do exactly what NARCAP says it isn't interested in doing, and somewhat ironically stresses the importance of it at the same time:
REALLY? What happened to, "Please do not contact NARCAP to gain participation in programs that engage in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien spacecraft. We do not know what UAP are and do not support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences. NARCAP reports and studies are not entertainment." ( NARCAP Media Release )? Is NARCAP really a soft cover UFO investigative group posing as airline safety investigators? After this Ted goes on to discuss some early UFO sightings like the 1952 Washington DC sightings, which makes it even more clear that UFOs ( not UAP ) are what NARCAP's primary focus really is.
Chris had a good question regarding the possibility of black projects and Ted's answer was that they back away from those cases so as not to clash with national security. But I ask, why back away from "aviation safety" simply because the military are joy riding around in some classified aircraft? Isn't the whole point of the military to keep us safe? And if they're negligent in that duty, and it's NARCAP's mandate to investigate and resolve aeronautical safety issues, don't they have a duty to follow-up on it regardless of it being military? Ufologists certainly haven't been afraid to do that even if it meant suing the government under the FOIA. But NARCAP seems more interested in keeping in the good graces of the government than finding out what is really going on. The show continues with even more speculation regarding alien visitation. There was some talk about the Robertson panel. For more accurate info on that see the Robertson Panel entry ( here ) on the USI website.
TIME 1:12:10: There was some talk of posting photos up to this thread. Where are they?
I found it interesting to hear that pilots tend to withhold reports of their experiences until shortly after they retire, and a great question by Chris on how NARCAP approaches aeronautical organizations with the subject matter.
I'm skeptical. How about some specific examples where someone has been alienated because NARCAP used the term UFO instead of UAP. Are we really supposed to think that if we use the term UAP instead of UFO, that the government is just going to open their arms and invite us into their confidence? Dream on. IMO This UAP labeling has more to do with avoiding alienating potential donators and publicists than the government. In fact the word UFO was invented by the government and is found in tens of thousands of pages of archived material.
Don't worry Ted, this UFO believer isn't planning on applying for membership any time soon, but I liked your comment about UFO conferences not measuring-up to quality research standards.
Why? What cannot be done effectively through communications? Teleconferencing live over the Internet costs much less than international travel and the transfer of documentation and media files is nearly instantaneous. Musicians can record entire albums this way. Movies are also created and assembled this way. News reports are done by long distance videoconferencing. Doctors can even remotely operate on patients on the other side of the country. Why is it necessary to panhandle to the public for donations to travel to France and South America?
SUMMARY
There are some days I get tired of being a ufology critic and this was certainly one of them, but NARCAP's two-faced relationship with ufology isn't something I can endorse. They'll happily participate in UFO talk shows and research, while at the same time saying that they don't want to participate in shows that, "engage in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien spacecraft." because they consider it to be "entertainment" and therefore don't seem to take it seriously. If I could ask just one favor. Please don't throw serious ufology under the bus along with the fringe groups and cults. Serious ufology has a legitimate history and the subject of alien visitation isn't just "entertainment".
On the more positive side NARCAP's effort to collect pilot sightings is an extremely worthy endeavor, and if were to have asked a serious question about that, it would have been, "To what extent does NARCAP share it's case files with ufologists?" Maybe we'll get that answer here. Maybe not. I think we're still waiting for those photos to be uploaded, which reminds me: Wasn't Ray Stanford also supposed to be supplying some photos to upload?
For those interested in aviation safety:
![ufo-manseti[1].jpg](https://www.theparacast.com/forum/data/attachments/3/3981-2777b025f3f558a87761a9bc494b7d04.jpg?hash=J3ewJfP1WK "ufo-manseti[1].jpg")
QUOTE 15:15 Ted: "At the time we felt that the word UFO was a bit limiting and inaccurate, so we adopted a term that's more common in the international research community, which would be Unidentified Aerial Phenomena."
- Dutch UFO
- French: OVNI
- Greek UFO
- Italian ufo
- Korean: UFO
- Spanish OVNI
- Swedish: UFO
- Zulu: Ufo
QUOTE 15:31 Ted: "The French use Rare Atmospheric Phenomena, so we tried to choose a term that is more accurate."
Actually "OVNI" was the original French ( Object Volant Non-Identifié ) and Spanish word was ( Objeto Volador No Identificado ), and more recently they French research group GEIPAN uses "Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés" ( Unidentified Aerospace Phenomnena ). But besides that, how can NARCAP claim to have a word that is more accurate when they admit to not knowing what they are in the first place?
QUOTE: "We do not know what UAP are and do not support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences." ( NARCAP website ).
It seems to me that if they don't know what UAPs are, that it's premature to make such a definitive statement. NARCAP claims to be motivated by "aviation safety", and I don't have a problem with that ( who would ? ), but then why all the talk about UFOs? And let's not kid ourselves here because they can call them whatever they want and we all know what they're really talking about
. If NARCAP is interested in international aviation safety, then instead of UFO talk shows, they should be taking part in more things like the European Regional Aviation Safety Group meetings, This isn't to suggest that they don't network with aviation safety groups, but I didn't notice them as participants in any of their meetings.The objections to the use of the word UFO tended to focus on the idea of UFOs as "extraterrestrial spaceships" rather than the more general question of alien visitation. Is that because such a specific position makes it easier to defend their objections? It's entirely logical to say that because an observer didn't see a UFO come from space, they can't be sure it came from space. Fine. I get that. But that still doesn't mean a craft can't classed as alien, and there's plenty of evidence to show that the word UFO is meant to convey exactly that ( alien craft ).
QUOTE 35:02 Ted: "The one that got me in touch with Dr. Haines was a bit more puzzling. It was a very close approach by a large cylindrical object with very unusual attributes and it kind of parked itself in front of our car as we were driving down the road less than its own length from our windshield."
Interesting sighting but not enough details to determine whether or not the object was a UFO. But I really like the way that Gene pressed the issue with the idea of intelligent control:
Quote 42:15 Gene: The key about it here is that from what you tell me this phenomena does show evidence of intelligent control right?
Ted: 42:25 Ted: "There are profiles of UAP that seem to do that. They seem to be technical manifestations. I don't know whose, but they have technical qualities to them, and if you can describe their behavior you would try to apply attributes of intelligence yes."
Quote 42:50 Gene: So having seen things that show evidence of intelligent control. Unknown aerial phenomena showing intelligent control; obviously you have cases on file at NARCAP of things also indicating some sort of intelligent control. So it follows then: What sort of intelligence are we talking about?
Ted: 42:25 Ted: "There are profiles of UAP that seem to do that. They seem to be technical manifestations. I don't know whose, but they have technical qualities to them, and if you can describe their behavior you would try to apply attributes of intelligence yes."
Quote 42:50 Gene: So having seen things that show evidence of intelligent control. Unknown aerial phenomena showing intelligent control; obviously you have cases on file at NARCAP of things also indicating some sort of intelligent control. So it follows then: What sort of intelligence are we talking about?
BINGO GENE! Enough with the UAP "technical manifestations" BS. Airplanes are "technical manifestations" but we don't call them "technical manifestations". We call them aircraft because they are a form of craft that travels through the air. The NARCAP jargon seems contrived to dance around the fact that when they focus on the same thing ufologists do, we're both talking about the same thing and that thing is alien craft, but Ted seems to be in some sort of state of denial. If we doubt there's any dancing around the issue; let's continue with Ted's response to Gene's question:
Quote 43:17 Ted: "Well, yes, it it it, that would be in the next round of questions I, I suppose. Um, ya, it it we we there's a lot to be done in terms of just teasing these profiles apart and understanding them."
NO KIDDING TED! But I didn't hear an answer to Gene's question, and the follow-up song and dance is no better. In fact it goes on to do exactly what NARCAP says it isn't interested in doing, and somewhat ironically stresses the importance of it at the same time:
Quote 44:27 Ted: "The flipside of the problem though Gene is the extraterrestrial hypothesis and the concern that if any one of these things is a manifestation of an extraterrestrial incursion, we as humanity cannot afford to be missing this if it's happening." [ underscore mine ]
REALLY? What happened to, "Please do not contact NARCAP to gain participation in programs that engage in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien spacecraft. We do not know what UAP are and do not support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences. NARCAP reports and studies are not entertainment." ( NARCAP Media Release )? Is NARCAP really a soft cover UFO investigative group posing as airline safety investigators? After this Ted goes on to discuss some early UFO sightings like the 1952 Washington DC sightings, which makes it even more clear that UFOs ( not UAP ) are what NARCAP's primary focus really is.
Chris had a good question regarding the possibility of black projects and Ted's answer was that they back away from those cases so as not to clash with national security. But I ask, why back away from "aviation safety" simply because the military are joy riding around in some classified aircraft? Isn't the whole point of the military to keep us safe? And if they're negligent in that duty, and it's NARCAP's mandate to investigate and resolve aeronautical safety issues, don't they have a duty to follow-up on it regardless of it being military? Ufologists certainly haven't been afraid to do that even if it meant suing the government under the FOIA. But NARCAP seems more interested in keeping in the good graces of the government than finding out what is really going on. The show continues with even more speculation regarding alien visitation. There was some talk about the Robertson panel. For more accurate info on that see the Robertson Panel entry ( here ) on the USI website.
TIME 1:12:10: There was some talk of posting photos up to this thread. Where are they?
I found it interesting to hear that pilots tend to withhold reports of their experiences until shortly after they retire, and a great question by Chris on how NARCAP approaches aeronautical organizations with the subject matter.
Quote 1:22:05 Ted: "There's definitely a stigma with the term UFO and it's one that we try to avoid using if at all possible particularly in conversations with government and that sort of thing. We did a study for the general accounting office interrogating the Air Force on uncorrelated incursions into US air defense zones. We spent three years on that project and at the time we didn't use the term UFO at all I don't think. It's really important. It can alienate people, create problems if you don't understand your terminology and know your audience."
Quote 1:26:40 Ted: If these guys were really skeptics and were really good at what they did I'd invite them to join NARCAP. You know we need good minds that are able to roll with the data and do good work, but I'm no more interested in seeing them on board than a number of the UFO believers and so-called researchers that I wouldn't want in my organization.
Quote 02:03:10 Ted: "Our travel budget alone is daunting just to deal with the Chileans and the French on their terms. We have to be able to move to them.
Why? What cannot be done effectively through communications? Teleconferencing live over the Internet costs much less than international travel and the transfer of documentation and media files is nearly instantaneous. Musicians can record entire albums this way. Movies are also created and assembled this way. News reports are done by long distance videoconferencing. Doctors can even remotely operate on patients on the other side of the country. Why is it necessary to panhandle to the public for donations to travel to France and South America?
SUMMARY
There are some days I get tired of being a ufology critic and this was certainly one of them, but NARCAP's two-faced relationship with ufology isn't something I can endorse. They'll happily participate in UFO talk shows and research, while at the same time saying that they don't want to participate in shows that, "engage in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien spacecraft." because they consider it to be "entertainment" and therefore don't seem to take it seriously. If I could ask just one favor. Please don't throw serious ufology under the bus along with the fringe groups and cults. Serious ufology has a legitimate history and the subject of alien visitation isn't just "entertainment".
On the more positive side NARCAP's effort to collect pilot sightings is an extremely worthy endeavor, and if were to have asked a serious question about that, it would have been, "To what extent does NARCAP share it's case files with ufologists?" Maybe we'll get that answer here. Maybe not. I think we're still waiting for those photos to be uploaded, which reminds me: Wasn't Ray Stanford also supposed to be supplying some photos to upload?
For those interested in aviation safety:
- International Civil Aviation Organization
- Aviation Safety Network
- Aviation Safety Magazine
- Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority
- Federal Aviation Administration Safety Team
Last edited:
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Don't you think you're being a little bit harsh?
I mean, if I wanted to remain credible I'd distance myself from the mainstream UFO angle, too...
And I do not agree at all that "Serious ufology has a legitimate history..."
Most scientists put it one hundred percent squarely in the pseudoscience bucket from what I can tell. I think Ted is trying to sidestep this categorization and I welcome it.
I'll apologize in advance for having to be the only critical commenter, and begin with the following quote.
The above rationale seems to be the result of cherry picking preferred factions in what Ted calls the "international research community" that suit NARCAP's agenda. Like that is a crime. Should we have partnered with Laura Eisenhower or Michael Salla? Really, anyone who wants to see any success has to watch the company they keep. However, that is NOT the reason we adopted the term UAP. The fact is, with few exceptions, the most prevalent languages in the international community use the word UFO as it was created, or another word ( OVNI ) that was intended to convey the same idea. So? If you don't have a library of UFO books to check ( like I do ), try it yourself on Google Translate. I didn't see UAP anyplace.: Guess you didn't look hard enough.QUOTE 15:15 Ted: "At the time we felt that the word UFO was a bit limiting and inaccurate, so we adopted a term that's more common in the international research community, which would be Unidentified Aerial Phenomena."
Even in Japan they use the word UFO exactly as it was created:
- Dutch UFO
- French: OVNI
- Greek UFO
- Italian ufo
- Korean: UFO
- Spanish OVNI
- Swedish: UFO
- Zulu: Ufo
The various official teams of the world use variations of the term UAP. The French team acronyms:
The Chilean team acronym: CEFAA - Committee for the study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena
- GEIPAN stands for Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (unidentified aerospace phenomenon research and information group)
- Jump up ^ GEPAN stands for Groupe d'Étude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (unidentified aerospace phenomenon research group)
- Jump up ^ SEPRA formerly stood for Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrée Atmosphérique (atmospheric re-entry phenomena expertise department) and, since 2000, stands for Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes Rares Aérospatiaux (rare aerospace phenomena expertise department)
- Jump up ^ GEIPAN is clearly focused on UFO study, but UAP (PAN in french) is meant to cover a much broader area than UFO (OVNI in french) as UFO may imply the presence of a physical object despite any actual evidence of it.
The Peruvian team acronym: OIFAA - Office of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena Research (OIFAA)
QUOTE 15:31 Ted: "The French use Rare Atmospheric Phenomena, so we tried to choose a term that is more accurate."
Actually "OVNI" was the original French ( Object Volant Non-Identifié ) and Spanish word was ( Objeto Volador No Identificado ), and more recently they French research group GEIPAN uses "Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés" ( Unidentified Aerospace Phenomnena ). But besides that, how can NARCAP claim to have a word that is more accurate when they admit to not knowing what they are in the first place?
QUOTE: "We do not know what UAP are and do not support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences." ( NARCAP website ). Is there a claim that we should be supporting? Why? Nobody has effectively made the definitive case, why should we endorse any claim?
It seems to me that if they don't know what UAPs are, that it's premature to make such a definitive statement. If we don't know what they are we can't claim they are ET. NARCAP claims to be motivated by "aviation safety", and I don't have a problem with that ( who would ? ), but then why all the talk about UFOs? And let's not kid ourselves here because they can call them whatever they want and we all know what they're really talking about
The objections to the use of the word UFO tended to focus on the idea of UFOs as "extraterrestrial spaceships" rather than the more general question of alien visitation. Is that because such a specific position makes it easier to defend their objections? It's entirely logical to say that because an observer didn't see a UFO come from space, they can't be sure it came from space. Fine. I get that. But that still doesn't mean a craft can't classed as alien, and there's plenty of evidence to show that the word UFO is meant to convey exactly that ( alien craft ). You are assuming that all UAP observations are alien spacecraft and that all UAP present as objects. Neither assumption is accurate. UAP/light or UAP/UFO when appropriate is a proper engagement of the question of unknowns. From our website:
UAP ~ Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
"An unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) is the visual stimulus that
provokes a sighting report of an object or light seen in the sky, the
appearance and/or flight dynamics of which do not suggest a logical,
conventional flying object and which remains unidentified after close
scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable
of making both a full technical identification as well as a common sense
identification, if one is possible. (Haines, Pp. 13-22, 1980)The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" or UAP is an attempt to address the fact
that not all UAP are described as unidentified flying objects or UFO. Many are simply
described as unusual lights. NARCAP feels the term "UAP" more accurately reflects
the broad scope of descriptions in aviation reports as well as the possibility that these
phenomena may arise from several different sources.
The answers to the questions regarding the existence, source and nature of the
subcategory of UAP referred to as UFO will be found in the data. Given that pilots do
report aerial phenomena that they describe as structured objects, NARCAP feels it is
appropriate to give attention to the witness' description of what was seen or detected
and engage it objectively.
QUOTE 35:02 Ted: "The one that got me in touch with Dr. Haines was a bit more puzzling. It was a very close approach by a large cylindrical object with very unusual attributes and it kind of parked itself in front of our car as we were driving down the road less than its own length from our windshield."
Interesting sighting but not enough details to determine whether or not the object was a UFO. But I really like the way that Gene pressed the issue with the idea of intelligent control:
Quote 42:15 Gene: The key about it here is that from what you tell me this phenomena does show evidence of intelligent control right?
Ted: 42:25 Ted: "There are profiles of UAP that seem to do that. They seem to be technical manifestations. I don't know whose, but they have technical qualities to them, and if you can describe their behavior you would try to apply attributes of intelligence yes."
Quote 42:50 Gene: So having seen things that show evidence of intelligent control. Unknown aerial phenomena showing intelligent control; obviously you have cases on file at NARCAP of things also indicating some sort of intelligent control. So it follows then: What sort of intelligence are we talking about?
BINGO GENE! Enough with the UAP "technical manifestations" BS. Airplanes are "technical manifestations" but we don't call them "technical manifestations". We call them aircraft because they are a form of craft that travels through the air. So what do you call a ball of light? The NARCAP jargon seems contrived to dance around the fact that when they focus on the same thing ufologists do, we're both talking about the same thing and that thing is alien craft, but Ted seems to be in some sort of state of denial. The issue is nuance. If even one species of UAP is NOT an alien device then how do we document that unknown? If we doubt there's any dancing around the issue; let's continue with Ted's response to Gene's question:
Quote 43:17 Ted: "Well, yes, it it it, that would be in the next round of questions I, I suppose. Um, ya, it it we we there's a lot to be done in terms of just teasing these profiles apart and understanding them."
NO KIDDING TED! But I didn't hear an answer to Gene's question, and the follow-up song and dance is no better. In fact it goes on to do exactly what NARCAP says it isn't interested in doing, and somewhat ironically stresses the importance of it at the same time:
Clearly, detecting ET incursions is critical to global security if they are happening. Those of us who study UAP share a responsibility with this. As for Gene's question, how would I know anything about an ETI, what it might or might not be? At the same time reports reflecting provocative profiles do happen and we do not ignore them. Our focus is not in doing what Ufology wants, expects or demands. Our focus is the data and accurately representing and promoting it within the scope of aviation safety.Quote 44:27 Ted: "The flipside of the problem though Gene is the extraterrestrial hypothesis and the concern that if any one of these things is a manifestation of an extraterrestrial incursion, we as humanity cannot afford to be missing this if it's happening." [ underscore mine ]
REALLY? What happened to, "Please do not contact NARCAP to gain participation in programs that engage in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien spacecraft. We do not know what UAP are and do not support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences. NARCAP reports and studies are not entertainment." ( NARCAP Media Release )? This is our position concerning dealing with media that wants to sell aliens when we have nothing to say about them. We welcome thorough, logical presentations but we do not and will not promote sensationalism with our work. Is NARCAP really a soft cover UFO investigative group posing as airline safety investigators? After this Ted goes on to discuss some early UFO sightings like the 1952 Washington DC sightings, which makes it even more clear that UFOs ( not UAP ) are what NARCAP's primary focus really is. That was the focus of the conversation and the show (Its called Paracast), not our work. We are constantly bombarded with questions about ET incursions and many, like you, assume that is our focus. However, our focus is on pilot testimony, safety factors,and staying true to the data and it DOESN'T all lead to the same place. It is nuanced.
Chris had a good question regarding the possibility of black projects and Ted's answer was that they back away from those cases so as not to clash with national security. But I ask, why back away from "aviation safety" simply because the military are joy riding around in some classified aircraft? Isn't the whole point of the military to keep us safe? And if they're negligent in that duty, and it's NARCAP's mandate to investigate and resolve aeronautical safety issues, don't they have a duty to follow-up on it regardless of it being military? Not when it involves national security. We are not interested in an adversarial relationship with gov when much of our work overlaps with government and a very conservative aviation community and we are staffed by current and former aviation professionals and gov administrators.. Ufologists certainly haven't been afraid to do that even if it meant suing the government under the FOIA. But NARCAP seems more interested in keeping in the good graces of the government than finding out what is really going on. Why argue with the government when we can research the situation ourselves? Did you not see the waste of time and energy that Leslie Kean (a longtime NARCAP friend and one-time member) expended in suing NASA over Kecksburg? The show continues with even more speculation regarding alien visitation. There was some talk about the Robertson panel. For more accurate info on that see the Robertson Panel entry ( here ) on the USI website. And what did I offer that was inaccurate?
TIME 1:12:10: There was some talk of posting photos up to this thread. Where are they? I offered to share links and info. for those who had questions, perhaps you weren't listening.
I found it interesting to hear that pilots tend to withhold reports of their experiences until shortly after they retire, and a great question by Chris on how NARCAP approaches aeronautical organizations with the subject matter.
I'm skeptical. How about some specific examples where someone has been alienated because NARCAP used the term UFO instead of UAP. I can but I don't want to abuse the responsible party. It took place during meeting with congressmen and their staff. Do you really believe that UFO is an accurate and objective term that is free of implied meaning? Since many profiles don't involve objects what are we to do with those cases? Are we really supposed to think that if we use the term UAP instead of UFO, that the government is just going to open their arms and invite us into their confidence? We never assumed that, we don't care what gov thinks because we are the experts and we depend on our own work but we do have access that an adversarial and presumptive approach would not give us. Dream on. IMO This UAP labeling has more to do with avoiding alienating potential donators and publicists than the government. In fact the word UFO was invented by the government and is found in tens of thousands of pages of archived material.Quote 1:22:05 Ted: "There's definitely a stigma with the term UFO and it's one that we try to avoid using if at all possible particularly in conversations with government and that sort of thing. We did a study for the general accounting office interrogating the Air Force on uncorrelated incursions into US air defense zones. We spent three years on that project and at the time we didn't use the term UFO at all I don't think. It's really important. It can alienate people, create problems if you don't understand your terminology and know your audience."
Don't worry Ted, this UFO believer isn't planning on applying for membership any time soon, but I liked your comment about UFO conferences not measuring-up to quality research standards.Quote 1:26:40 Ted: If these guys were really skeptics and were really good at what they did I'd invite them to join NARCAP. You know we need good minds that are able to roll with the data and do good work, but I'm no more interested in seeing them on board than a number of the UFO believers and so-called researchers that I wouldn't want in my organization.
Quote 02:03:10 Ted: "Our travel budget alone is daunting just to deal with the Chileans and the French on their terms. We have to be able to move to them.
Why? What cannot be done effectively through communications? Team building, attending closed workshops and symposia by invitation of the hosting teams, sharing sensitive materials , etc...Teleconferencing live over the Internet costs much less than international travel and the transfer of documentation and media files is nearly instantaneous. Musicians can record entire albums this way. Movies are also created and assembled this way. News reports are done by long distance videoconferencing. Doctors can even remotely operate on patients on the other side of the country. Why is it necessary to panhandle to the public for donations to travel to France and South America?
SUMMARY
There are some days I get tired of being a ufology critic and this was certainly one of them, but NARCAP's two-faced relationship with ufology isn't something I can endorse. They'll happily participate in UFO talk shows and research, while at the same time saying that they don't want to participate in shows that, "engage in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien spacecraft." because they consider it to be "entertainment" and therefore don't seem to take it seriously. We don't consider UFO to be entertainment, production companies often do and we want nothing to do with those kinds of shows and we are very clear about this. I won't risk our reputation on the promotion of nonsense. We have rules for engaging media. Ufology could learn something from that. If I could ask just one favor. Please don't throw serious ufology under the bus along with the fringe groups and cults. Serious ufology has a legitimate history and the subject of alien visitation isn't just "entertainment". Never said it was.
On the more positive side NARCAP's effort to collect pilot sightings is an extremely worthy endeavor, and if were to have asked a serious question about that, it would have been, "To what extent does NARCAP share it's case files with ufologists?" Maybe we'll get that answer here. Maybe not. Our studies are in the public domain, see our site. Further, I have opposed efforts to buy up our files by certain people whou definitely would not ever share them with the public. We are working on funding a project to digitize our entire database and put it online. Your insinuations reflect poorly thought out assumptions and could have been addressed with a polite question. I think we're still waiting for those photos to be uploaded, which reminds me: Wasn't Ray Stanford also supposed to be supplying some photos to upload?
NARCAP was founded specifically to document and analyze safety related events involving UAP. Please actually read some of our studies. That is what we actually do vs what you and ufology are focused on. We have current and former NASA aviation safety administrators on staff and most of our staff have aviation credentials.... When you have a large research team and you dedicate your life to making it effective you can do it your way..
For those interested in aviation safety:
More foreign Language use of the word UFO:
- International Civil Aviation Organization
- Aviation Safety Network
- Aviation Safety Magazine
- Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority
- Federal Aviation Administration Safety Team
Last edited:
Ufology said, "It seems to me that if they don't know what UAPs are, that it's premature to make such a definitive statement. NARCAP claims to be motivated by "aviation safety", and I don't have a problem with that ( who would ? ), but then why all the talk about UFOs? And let's not kid ourselves here because they can call them whatever they want and we all know what they're really talking about . If NARCAP is interested in international aviation safety, then instead of UFO talk shows, they should be taking part in more things like the European Regional Aviation Safety Group meetings, This isn't to suggest that they don't network with aviation safety groups, but I didn't notice them as participants in any of their meetings."
FYI, we have presented to the ICAO, the French Air and Space Academy, and we have interactions through our NASA administrators with the ERASG and other EU aviation safety orgs. We have a German branch of NARCAP coming on line and our contacts are growing.... The French team has strong connections to aviation and safety orgs and officials. We are presenting to them next month at a closed meeting at their invitation. Further, the Chilean team is sequestered in their air technical school inside their DGAC (FAA) and we have been working to develop a pilot training program to address UAP incidents. Finally, read our homepage docs - Recommendations to Pilots and Recommendations to address bias in the aviation system... and most of the rest of our docs deal with safety factors... My last paper, for example, and many of the other tech reports, case studies, etc...
. If NARCAP is interested in international aviation safety, then instead of UFO talk shows, they should be taking part in more things like the European Regional Aviation Safety Group meetings, This isn't to suggest that they don't network with aviation safety groups, but I didn't notice them as participants in any of their meetings."FYI, we have presented to the ICAO, the French Air and Space Academy, and we have interactions through our NASA administrators with the ERASG and other EU aviation safety orgs. We have a German branch of NARCAP coming on line and our contacts are growing.... The French team has strong connections to aviation and safety orgs and officials. We are presenting to them next month at a closed meeting at their invitation. Further, the Chilean team is sequestered in their air technical school inside their DGAC (FAA) and we have been working to develop a pilot training program to address UAP incidents. Finally, read our homepage docs - Recommendations to Pilots and Recommendations to address bias in the aviation system... and most of the rest of our docs deal with safety factors... My last paper, for example, and many of the other tech reports, case studies, etc...
Last edited:
Ufology said "If I could ask just one favor. Please don't throw serious ufology under the bus along with the fringe groups and cults. Serious ufology has a legitimate history and the subject of alien visitation isn't just "entertainment".
Our research team is lead by Dr. Richard Haines and includes Dr. Vallee, Dr. Haisch and others that are considered major contributors to what you refer to as "Serious Ufology". We have many associates and friends of our org that are also considered to be contributors to credible research. Our studies are well presented and represent a thorough and conservative approach to UAP research. Our work and our activism is focused on a relevant and well-documented concern for the aviation community and a real and persistent threat to aviation safety.
I am sorry that you can't manage the nuances that come with a group that is more concerned with resolving actual UAP incidents and addressing the implications than it is in proving that all UFOs are aliens and the government knows it.
That might be your expectation and approach but it isn't ours. We are free to discuss any aspect of that and are equally free to fund, develop and expand our program as we see fit. We aren't interested in backing up Ufology, we are actively seeking data and doing the work.
We have been a virtual org for our entire existence and expecting that we should continue doing it out of pocket and via Skype when the work demands more adequately demonstrates your own lack of experience in project management.
You know, I found your website months ago and reached out to you because I generally liked the idea and approach. Looked like it might qualify as "Serious Ufology" though there were a couple of red flags but after this exchange I will withdraw that assessment pending some further proof. You clearly have an agenda that isn't objective and your expectation of conformity with the mess that is Ufology doesn't lend any credibility to your concerns.
Our research team is lead by Dr. Richard Haines and includes Dr. Vallee, Dr. Haisch and others that are considered major contributors to what you refer to as "Serious Ufology". We have many associates and friends of our org that are also considered to be contributors to credible research. Our studies are well presented and represent a thorough and conservative approach to UAP research. Our work and our activism is focused on a relevant and well-documented concern for the aviation community and a real and persistent threat to aviation safety.
I am sorry that you can't manage the nuances that come with a group that is more concerned with resolving actual UAP incidents and addressing the implications than it is in proving that all UFOs are aliens and the government knows it.
That might be your expectation and approach but it isn't ours. We are free to discuss any aspect of that and are equally free to fund, develop and expand our program as we see fit. We aren't interested in backing up Ufology, we are actively seeking data and doing the work.
We have been a virtual org for our entire existence and expecting that we should continue doing it out of pocket and via Skype when the work demands more adequately demonstrates your own lack of experience in project management.
You know, I found your website months ago and reached out to you because I generally liked the idea and approach. Looked like it might qualify as "Serious Ufology" though there were a couple of red flags but after this exchange I will withdraw that assessment pending some further proof. You clearly have an agenda that isn't objective and your expectation of conformity with the mess that is Ufology doesn't lend any credibility to your concerns.