• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Welcome Ted Roe! to the Forum

Free episodes:

Skymon876

Paranormal Adept
I am not a moderator so sorry if the thread title seems a little official but, I noticed that Ted Roe has recently joined the forum. This is a big plus. Ted I messaged you on Facebook in the past and you can remember me as Ryan, however I was wondering if you could post some information on your latest project SPHERE report, because people on here were asking about it.

What is the overall idea behind the SPHERE report.
 
Hi Ryan,
Of course I remember you from FB... I was fairly certain that the Rygywa login was you...
http://www.narcap.org/ProjectSphere.htm
With respect to Project Sphere, we are interested in examining one facet of UAP reports to see if we can identify trends and establish a path of inquiry that might be productive. We invited our team to submit research related to any aspect of UAP reports that seem to indicate a spherical form or light. The reason for the focus on the sphere shape is related to the lack of aerodynamic properties and the prominence of spherical UAP reports in the literature.
Originally I wanted to focus solely on reports of apparently metallic or seemingly solid spherical shapes. However, Dr. Haines felt that we should look at any round UAP regardless of the bandwidth and then refine the data from there since we have many reports of globe-like lights. I think this is a very good approach and happily followed through.
We didn't assign any particular topic though we did discuss the topics that were chosen by the team to develop strategies and to see how they might dovetail together. Some chose case studies and analysis, others went after other aspects of the situation. Topics included radar studies, proposed theories about mechanisms that might create stable spherical forms in nature, case studies and quantitative analysis, photo-documentation, etc... all of it from an Aviation and Aviation Safety perspective.
I think the entire project is a pretty good read but if you are looking for something a little more condensed review my paper, which is section 3.1.6 Aviation Safety in America- Spherical UAP It is a quantitative analysis of spherical UAP reports for characteristics and I devote a second section to aviation safety-related analysis and recommendations.
http://www.narcap.org/Projsphere/3.1.6_narcap_projSph.pdf
Project Sphere is a preliminary study. The results are still being engaged by our group and we are working on developing the next phase of research.
We did come to some interesting conclusions at the first level though. Of particular interest is the radar transparency of UAP. Martin Shough addresses the issue somewhat in his paper. Basically the trend suggests that expecting UAP to be radar reflective and demanding radar data as proof of their presence is probably not an effective strategy. If they are as transparent as the data suggests then we have no way of knowing if they have been involved in aviation catastrophes and they can not be excluded as a possible hazard.
Further there may be separate and different phenomena showing up in the data. For example, we have aviator reports of orange balls of light. There are reports and documentation of orange balls of light at Hessdalen by Cabassi, Strand and the CIPH team. The question is "Are they the same phenomenon?".
So the whole point of the exercise was to do a foundational study and see where that leads....
 
I have posted a number of our recent reports on the NARCAP.org http://www.narcap.org website.... Included are some photo-cases as well as some quantitative studies of UAP databases... Dom Weinstein, College of Experts GEIPAN-CNES, has a paper on the site as well....
We have a lot of new developments and more research in the wings... Thanks for taking a look...
 
Thank you, Gene. We have been trying to reach out in a conservative manner and I thought that your forum might be a good option. Ron contacted me regarding permission for a member to post some of our studies so I thought that might be a good opportunity to step up. I have done some interviews with The Clueless One and Wes Owsly... The main thing was not getting bogged down in UFOlogy and focusing on the aviation community and the necessary research. The data will answer the questions, I hope...
So, thanks for the opportunity...
 
Thank you, Gene. We have been trying to reach out in a conservative manner and I thought that your forum might be a good option. Ron contacted me regarding permission for a member to post some of our studies so I thought that might be a good opportunity to step up. I have done some interviews with The Clueless One and Wes Owsly... The main thing was not getting bogged down in UFOlogy and focusing on the aviation community and the necessary research. The data will answer the questions, I hope...
So, thanks for the opportunity...

Thanks again for the permission and we definitely look forward to your participation in the forum.
 
Ron contacted me regarding permission for a member to post some of our studies so I thought that might be a good opportunity to step up. .

Hiya Ted, that'll be me so thank you for letting the Paracast host parts of your reports.

The intention is simply to draw more attention to the great work of NARCAP and to show the different approach you all take to the phenomena. I've written the thread and cropped a half dozen images from the report to support points etc. As soon as Ron Collins is back on-line, I'll post it.

Thanks again.
 
Ted I have a question. When you were doing the O'hare case, didn't David Biedny and Jeff Ritzmann help you with looking at alleged photographs? Am I correct that there was 1 photo taken from a pilot at O'hare that was determined to be authentic?
 
Hi Ryan,
Yes, we did get some assistance with digital analysis of some alleged photos from the OHare incident. In previous investigations we discarded digital photos and focused on analog film because of the ease with which digital images are manipulated vs the sensing ability of chemical film so our expertise in digital analysis was not adequate. ATS had been receiving various images and JR and DB were helpful in weeding out the hoaxes - and they all were hoaxes.
I have not been made aware of any authentic photos from that incident and seriously doubt that any pilot flying close enough to see the UAP would have been able to grab a pic of it. OHare is a very, very busy hub and the only reason an airborne pilot would be anywhere near it is to land or take off... that would keep them rather busy. So, no, I don't think there are any pics of the OHare UAP in the public domain that I am aware of.
Ted
 
ats40602_img_1563.jpg



Does anyone remember this photograph? Is it a water drop? or what are your honest thoughts?

I think this might be one that they thought was one of the more realistic looking ones.

---------- Post added at 06:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 AM ----------

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread236709/pg27

Above ATS thread has 3 confirmed eyewitnesses that say this is what they saw.
 
ats40602_img_1563.jpg



Does anyone remember this photograph? Is it a water drop? or what are your honest thoughts?

I think this might be one that they thought was one of the more realistic looking ones.

---------- Post added at 06:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 AM ----------

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread236709/pg27

Above ATS thread has 3 confirmed eyewitnesses that say this is what they saw.

Unfortunately, it's too hard to say anything concrete about that photo. I trust Ted Roe when he says, " I don't think there are any pics of the OHare UAP in the public domain that I am aware of."

Ted, was that one of the ones that was a confirmed hoax?
 
Unfortunately, it's too hard to say anything concrete about that photo. I trust Ted Roe when he says, " I don't think there are any pics of the OHare UAP in the public domain that I am aware of."

Ted, was that one of the ones that was a confirmed hoax?


I know what you mean, there is nothing we could do with any photo really. I just thought I would post it and start a discussion.

but your right Angel that there is not enough concrete evidence to nail it down
 
When Jeff and David were looking at this there was concern about some apparent encoding that formed into a "happy face" and we felt that it wasn't worth the risk to declare it "authentic". The location of the UAP at OHare was over C terminal and, judging from the pic, this is out over the runways.... Photos are tricky business, especially in a digital age. At the time we didn't have the chops to take on digital analysis though Dr Haines is very well versed in analog photo studies... It is a provocative pic, though...
 
When Jeff and David were looking at this there was concern about some apparent encoding that formed into a "happy face" and we felt that it wasn't worth the risk to declare it "authentic". The location of the UAP at OHare was over C terminal and, judging from the pic, this is out over the runways.... Photos are tricky business, especially in a digital age. At the time we didn't have the chops to take on digital analysis though Dr Haines is very well versed in analog photo studies... It is a provocative pic, though...


This post of yours informed me as to the history of this photograph. I am leaning towards thinking that above photograph is not what people saw at O'Hare. I was not aware of all the details behind it.

Clearly it is not in the correct location.

It even looks like a drop of water on a window.

I now think its probably not authentic anymore.
 
With regards to digital photography, if the photo is a RAW image I do believe that it can be taken as authentic. If there are any professional photographers, please chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.
 
It might well be authentic but the location is wrong... it could be an authentic pic of a rain drop on a window. We can't really even be sure that is OHare....nor can we be certain that it was taken on Nov 6, 2006 in the mid-afternoon. It looks a bit rainy and dark for the weather work up we did. Seems like it was taken near dusk. Also, the witnesses described the UAP as a dark object. A lot of questions remain.
When the UAP departed, the witnesses described it as leaving a hole or tunnel in the clouds. This characteristic was also mentioned in Gen Schulgen's Intelligence Requirements on Flying Saucers...this looks like very thick overcaste and I wonder if witnesses could even see a hole if this thing is the UAP in question...
so many questions, so many hoaxes, so little time and resources....
I think the biggest question is its location which is not where the rest of the witnesses said it was...
 
Back
Top