Ted Roe of NARCAP — June 8, 2014

[technomage]

The issue is not whether or not someone may or may not be technically correct. If the target of the comments or criticism feels he or she is being personally attacked, one needs to respect that. It's also not a question of censorship, but of having a forum where we follow some loose rules about behavior so we can actually enjoy ourselves and pass along useful information and comments. Our terms are clearly posted for anyone to see, and we are pretty lax, but still.

That makes sense. I am all for civil discussion and if someone feels insulted, it's good manners to back off, even if one doesn't agree they're insulting.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Randall - this is an open plea to you from me. For some reason, you do not seem to understand that not everyone gets so involved over the differences in meaning and use of the terms UFO and UAP. If you haven't convinced someone after several pages of thread, it's time to agree to disagree and move on.

The fact is, NARCAP is doing what it collectively feels it needs to do, which is obviously far more than some other 'ufo' groups who involve themselves more in 'names' of the field than actual scientific work but regardless, whatever they do, they cannot please everyone and it just so happens that you do not agree with what they are doing and you need to accept they will not change to what you want, so just leave them behind and don't give NARCAP another thought because all this back and forth citing this evidence and that is getting us nowhere. Not everyone will agree with everyone else and that's just the world.

As for whether you are a troll etc, I don't think your intention is any such thing, however, as Gene pointed out - like with school or workplace bullying, the salient thing is how someone on the receiving end feels and Ted feels that NARCAP, and by extension himself, is under some kind of attack, regardless of your true intent. I know from experience that you like to get to a razor-sharp understanding of all you are interested in and that includes detailed definitions of terms used. Few other people take things to that degree and I really feel you will do yourself a favour by learning to see when a conversation has gone well past any useful exchange and has become a battle of wills over who is 'right'.

At this point you must stop engaging with Ted (if he is still around) and that is without me casting any blame on anyone. The fact is, things have deteriorated. There is zero chance of coming to a mutual understanding over the issues that bother you.

Goggs

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Anytime, Gene needs to step in and block emails or ban people, it's censorship. However, it's his forum so he can censor as much as he likes. Of course, it's in his and everyone's interest to apply censorship only in extreme cases to keep the discourse open and unbiased. I admit I haven't read every bit of the exchange going back and forth, but I found nothing in Ufology's comments that could be labeled abusive. He had some strong criticisms (unfounded or not) and he provided references for his points of views. I also didn't see much, if any, in the way of direct insults. Of course, it's not up to me, but to Gene to decide what constitutes abuse.

I understand that Ufology was "attacking" Ted, but he seemed to be focusing on the issues. Whether some agree or disagree, consider his attacks frivolous or pointless or whatever is beside the point. If someone can point out something he said that could be construed as "abusive", I will gladly review it to see if it warrants any action on Gene's part.

I think it's a question of volume, of numbers. For example, you could reply to every post someone makes and write in bold italics, 'I say you are wrong because of A, B or C,' 'You do not know what you are talking about,' 'No, that is not the case, it is this..'
Multiplied a few times it can get to be a kind of badgering. Like in court, a lawyer uses civil language but in his forcefulness, badgers the witness.

The point is, it should be obvious to Randall (Ufology) that Ted does not agree with his point of view. Fair enough, and Randall states why he disagrees and cites evidence to support his view. Pages later and there is still no agreement. That is not a cue to continue until someone wins, it's a cue to agree to disagree IMO.

I don't want posts deleted, nor members banned but it should be easy enough to see when agreement is not going to happen and walk away. To me, it looks like arguing for arguing's sake.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I have seen nothing in this thread that calls for a "ufology" 's temp ban. Sure, he is obviously passionate when it comes to the subject of ufo's, and how others and or organizations define the term. Perhaps he has taken it a bit too far, but a person in Ted's position must have thick skin when it comes to such particulars. I enjoy Randal's postings, and mostly agree on his take of the ufo origin (ETH) I hope Gene reinstates his ability to post after a day or two.

 

[SRL+]

You know what really sucks? It’s discussing Randall Murphy, and his inability to control himself, instead of the incredibly difficult task in which Ted Roe, along with NARCAP is attempting to accomplish. What this thread has represented is a text book case study into why highly credentialed researchers want nothing to do with the acronym “UFO” or its companion term “Ufology” while surreal just may be the correct word when in describing the previous dialogue between a true believer and a serious research organization. In the unique position, Randall Murphy has become for all practical intents and purposes, “Ufology” as personified, and will defy anyone who challenges Ufology, in protecting its core beliefs. This comes as no great news to those who have witnessed this time and again. As undoubtedly the return of Randall is eminent, as he has very few ports of refuge left in his own continuing storm. Even though some may have endured discomfort in viewing the unraveling of this thread, what comes to light is the gaping chasm between the true believer, and those of reserved, methodical, scientific research.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

…Randall Murphy has become for all practical intents and purposes, “Ufology” as personified, and will defy anyone who challenges Ufology, in protecting its core beliefs. This comes as no great news to those who have witnessed this time and again. As undoubtedly the return of Randall is eminent, as he has very few ports of refuge left in his own continuing storm. Even though some may have endured discomfort in viewing the unraveling of this thread, what comes to light is the gaping chasm between the true believer, and those of reserved, methodical, scientific research.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Tyger]

What this thread has represented is a text book case study into why highly credentialed researchers want nothing to do with the acronym “UFO” or its companion term “Ufology” while surreal just may be the correct word when in describing the previous dialogue between a true believer and a serious research organization.

I was not reading this thread but received an invitation to do so via pm.

Up front, I have merely scanned it, so there is no informed opinion here, except to say (this came to me as I was driving this morning) that I don't believe there can be anything akin to 'Ufology' - as a discipline, like Sociology or Geology - precisely because it is not an academic discipline and never has been. There has never been a Department of Ufology at any university or college that I know of - and for very good reason. The very word 'Ufology' is a creation in imitation of academic disciplines. As a word it is simply an area of interest wherein a lot of things get clumped in the popular imagination. Referring to the casual (or passionate) interest in 'ufo's' as an 'ology' - meaning 'knowledge of' - is something of - well - an intentional joke. I always thought, anyway - the way one would refer to 'tupperware-ology', for example, or 'tire-ology'. When someone does this I know what they mean - not that there is a Department of Tires or a Department of Tupperware down at the local Community College.

When the 'ufo-ology' lost it's hyphen and became 'ufology' might be an interesting study in itself. The entire phenomenon of 'ufology' is worth a sociological study imo.

I enjoy the unexplained and mysterious. Don't we all? It's the seminal urge for scientific research. It can also be the seed for wild flights of fancy and complex imaginings - which then do not somehow of themselves become legitimate disciplines of study. The actual ruminations on a mystery are not a 'discipline' nor an 'ology'. Just my two cents.

That said, I think Ted Roe and his group are pursuing the absolute right course. In fact, this idea that someone who has an experience - who has decided that what they saw was 'not of this world' - would be dis-inclined to approach such a group I think is bogus. Distancing from the imaginings is a sound prophylactic - and the sincere searcher will not be put-off but heartened imo. There are too many conclusions floating out there with nary a fact to substantiate them. An imagining is not a fact.

 

[Stagger Lee]

One thing is certain. The term "UFO" has been demonized. For a pilot, law enforcement, military, etc.. to report such a sighting using "ufo" in said report, could be career suicide. Or at the very least, laughed at and not taken serious. Sadly, it's just the way it is and has been for decades now. Ted Roe and NARCAP at least provide an outlet for the experiencer to report his or her sighting. If I considered myself a ufologist, or ran any type of ufo organization- I don't think I would take NARCAP's decision to distance itself from ufology personal. I get it.
Then again, I'm not as passionate as some when it comes to organizations, modeled from 20th century ufo investigative groups, distancing itself from the language and procedures of old. Perhaps this approach will have a positive effect in getting the public's attention, instead of the constant giggle factor.
All said, I would miss Randal's posting should he not be re-instated.

 

[PCarr]

One thing is certain. The term "UFO" has been demonized. For a pilot, law enforcement, military, etc.. to report such a sighting using "ufo" in said report, could be career suicide.

True, and good luck getting science funding or tenure if you study UFOs on the side. It carries that kind of career-limiting stigma.

However, the UFO true believers have to pick up a lot of the tab for the circus atmosphere that has contributed to this. It will take a long time and a lot of careful work to turn it around.

 

[Burnt State]

I think it's like how the word 'gay' has evolved tremendously, much like the word 'queer,' to be words of fascination, denigration and then empowerment and even unification, where yes, we can all relax and be queer together.

One day 'UFO' might no longer represent something that is as fringed as a flapper's skirt from the gay twenties, and in another time 'UAP' will be a term of empowerment & endearment. We'll see spray-painted on the pathways of university & college campuses classic flying saucer images beside the words "We're here! We're UAP's! And Yes, We're Very Queer!" proclaiming the next social revolution.

 

[Burnt State]

Oh jeez, I was responding to page two and then went and got a beer. The whole dust up managed to bring more people from the sidelines into the fray as well - almost the beginning of a brawl! Unbelievable - and all over the acronym? Whose side are we all on in this friendly little pursuit?

But then it came back to acronyms again so still relevant. Ufology does lack a defined and agreed upon history, like any new science or way of thinking. It's still early days on since we've started to engage the topic at all in any real considerate or studious manner.

It's all been pretty much bumbling around in the dark; that's why Jim Mosely makes so much sense. No need to bring a whole bunch of emotion to anything that is still, after all these years UNIDENTIFIED. Whether there's intelligence, in a way that we may not quite understand intelligence as, or simply a natural, possibly living, phenomenon. Who knows?

We know next to nothing still.

We still spit on each other, completely humiliate the experiencer, and all in the name of trying to figure it out. No wonder nothing gets done.

 

[marduk]

We know next to nothing still.

We still spit on each other, completely humiliate the experiencer, and all in the name of trying to figure it out. No wonder nothing gets done.

And this is what drives me in-freaking-sane.

You get a bunch of ostensibly bright, well-intentioned folks trying to bring the best of humanity to a conundrum that impacts many people around the world, which has been ostracized, maligned, and mocked by academia, governments, and media alike...

And this is what we do. For crying out loud. We spend far too much energy on what each other thinks of each other, and not enough on WTF is going on.

Bah. Humans.

Sorry for the rant, y'all. I'm done.

 

[Burnt State]

I know, hey? That's where Doug Henning had it right - transcendental mediation. Just relax; let your hair grow and let things unfold without preconceptions. Magic reveals itself in its own good time.

 

[Polterwurst]

I have seen nothing in this thread that calls for a "ufology" 's temp ban. Sure, he is obviously passionate when it comes to the subject of ufo's, and how others and or organizations define the term. Perhaps he has taken it a bit too far, but a person in Ted's position must have thick skin when it comes to such particulars. I enjoy Randal's postings, and mostly agree on his take of the ufo origin (ETH) I hope Gene reinstates his ability to post after a day or two.

But why get mad at a good, solid researcher who wants to distance himself from ufology instead of getting mad at the charlatans, hoaxers and true believers who gave the field this bad name? What's so incomprehensible about someone not wanting to be linked to names like Adamski, Meier, Greer, Romanek? I can't even call this behaviour stubbornness any more. It's more like denying the reality of the last five to six decades of (UFO-related) history.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

What bothered me most of the worst of this discussion is getting engulfed in terms and process, rather than looking over the data and figuring out what's happening. Just more assumptions gets us nowhere. Besides, NARCAP is not the same organization to refer to the phenomenon as UAP or something similar. Get over it!

 

[marduk]

I know, hey? That's where Doug Henning had it right - transcendental mediation. Just relax; let your hair grow and let things unfold without preconceptions. Magic reveals itself in its own good time.

 

[PCarr]

Well, magical helmet guy seems to be enjoying himself....

 

[Burnt State]

What bothered me most of the worst of this discussion is getting engulfed in terms and process, rather than looking over the data and figuring out what's happening. Just more assumptions gets us nowhere. Besides, NARCAP is not the same organization to refer to the phenomenon as UAP or something similar. Get over it!

Agreed. Humans love to start with a thesis (assumption) and can't just patiently appreciate & describe the phenomenon to see where evidencary patterns take us.

The other thing is the sociological and psychological issues that both circumscribe and describe these unidentified aerial & aquatic things of light interfere tremendously with our ability to comprehend and define them. They are at the same time a collective cultural experience as well as a personality altering catalyst.

UFO's (& UAP's) are not only here to make us think. They are here to change us. This is an inescapable feature of the phenomenon that we have great difficulty dealing with on both an individual and communal level.

Perhaps in another 500 years of talking, writing, recording and examine these unidentified objects we might acquire a better handle on the whole thing. What we do know is that starting off with the premise that they are extra, ultra or intraterrestrial (most likely option) is just plain limiting.

 

[Ted Roe]

What bothered me most of the worst of this discussion is getting engulfed in terms and process, rather than looking over the data and figuring out what's happening. Just more assumptions gets us nowhere. Besides, NARCAP is not the same organization to refer to the phenomenon as UAP or something similar. Get over it!

Aloha Gene and Paracast Forum Members,
I have stayed out of this discussion once I left it because
it is appropriate for the members and moderators to work these
things out for themselves.

For my part, I made it clear to Randall that I was finished
talking to him and he simply ignored me. I patiently engaged
him on every issue and when he didn't get the answer he wanted
he ignored my responses and continued to press issues I had
already addressed while finding fault with everything I said
and declaring that he had "uncovered" various things.

I came to Paracast at Gene's request to promote new developments
in UAP research, offer some info about NARCAP and generally
promote our efforts. Randall could have chosen to contact me
directly as others have for clarifications, etc., but he chose
to carry out an aggressive public campaign of criticism. The strange
part of it was that he would offer derisive criticism and refer
to our funding needs as "Panhandling", declare that we didn't take
ufo's seriously and consider the subject "entertainment", claim
that we were marring the memories of researchers like Hynek and
Vallee (Vallee is very much alive and has been with NARCAP since
we began), declare that the term UAP is obscure and that it isn't
in use when many of the official teams use some variation of the
acronym, etc., then he would ask for cooperation to work with him
to rehab Ufology.

He completely ignored any response he couldn't find
fault with and tried to cover his disrespect by claiming
that he liked our research and wanted us to work with him to help
rehabilitate UFOlogy's image.

Telling him "No" wasn't good enough. Patiently responding to him
wasn't good enough. I believe that dialog would have gone on for
hundreds and hundreds of pages as he dissected every word related
to NARCAP that had ever been written. He doesn't seem well.

Then one of our founding members, Environmental One, jumps in to
say something good about our efforts because she is appalled by
Ufology's lack of respect and HAN abuses her for her supportive
comments and accuses her of being me.

I could spend all of my time fighting two fronts - Ufology and its
irrationality and the system itself that our organization was founded
to influence. It is hard enough to find the right words, adopt the
proper stance and deal the hard logic that moves the inquiry forward
while dealing with a Grand Inquisitor that feels obligated to criticize
every step and thinks that his opinion is the opinion and that my team
and I should do what he expects or face continued criticism and abuse.

On the small scale this is Randall on the Paracast forums, in the larger
scale its Ufology proper and that is why we have made it a point to
differentiate ourselves from Ufology and to collect, investigate, analyze
and promote UAP as a hazard to safe aviation.

Those of you who have read our studies and have good reasoning minds
can see the provocative cases and if the data is taken seriously as a hazard as we promote it to
the aviation community then the data is being taken seriously and more questions will be asked....

Dr. Haines and I did a thorough examination of the field before we founded
and named NARCAP.org. We found it lacking so we identified those efforts
of merit that seemed to have aviation experience with UAP like Don Ledger
and we brought aviation safety experts like NASA's Brian Smith and other
folks with aviation credentials. We began by agreeing that we had a host
of UAP profiles and knew absolutly nothing about them. We stayed focused
on that work until we had something to say, then we wrote papers and published
them in public, for Free.

Our work is free of speculations about aliens, reptilians, Roswell, hollow
Earth, channeled messages from the Galactic Federation or the Akashic Records
or the Galactic High Command, exotic energies, strange interdimensional portals,
time travel, hyperdimensional beings, quickenings, the Philadelphia Experiment,
implants, abductions, human-alien hybrids, vimanas, MAJESTIC 12, Mars teleportation,
SuperSoldier - Assassins, moon bases, Greys, Zeta Reticuli, Disclosure, the
Eisenhower/Alien Summit, Exopolitics, alien autopsies, MILABS, the UFO-Bigfoot
connection, and so much other stuff...

We are just trying to figure out what they are. The profiles are variable and not
all of them seem to have an obvious answer.

We are working on the issue surrounding the most provocative cases, we aren't
ignoring them. Trying to determine exactly what should be done about them is
a much harder problem. All I can do is suggest that you watch our work, our site
and our initiatives to see how we go about it. Maybe wish us luck.

I try to make myself available to media for interviews and have done a few of
them in the past couple of years. I am always hoping that we can attract a good
pilot report, maybe bring some helpful minds to our program, etc.. At the same
time we have a lot to do that we are not going to explain to Ufology first and
gain its blessings - Randall or Ufology proper... We don't have to be accessible.
We can answer specific questions if someone contacts via email and asks. I don't
think our goals are served with a Forum full of acrimony and accusations like those
from Randall and HAN. So I don't know what the future will bring with respect to
public access via radio/podcasts and forums.

Most of you seem like pretty reasonable folks, some like Constance are very well
prepared to discuss the nuances of this situation. It is unfortunate that those
voices are buried under the Randalls of Ufology. Organizations like ours endure
similar problems in the shadows of egos that are simply louder
and less critical - more concerned with being the center of attention than getting
the data and moving it well. So I wish you all well. I can be reached through the
NARCAP site or my email [email protected].

Ted

 

[boomerang]

Given how little we know about the nature of this phenomenon, what the heck difference can choice of acronym make ? We can go back to calling it "Foo Fighters" for all I care. It's not going to change our level of understanding or how society reacts to our efforts to decipher what is going on.