Ted Roe of NARCAP — June 8, 2014

[Tyger]

Dear Randall and Mr Roe, I politely request that you either aplogise to each other, or cease addressing each other directly. My opinion is that the discourse between you is not constructive and is at a stalemate* lets be honest: no one has covered themselves in glory during this debate, and it is high time to move on.

*"Repetition of position" or the "Threefold repetition rule"

It's clear to me that Mr Roe has done nothing he needs to apologize for. In fact, his ability to state the situation he has experienced on this thread vis-a-vis Randall has been both impressive and painfully accurate. For anyone who has had to deal with the business end of Randall's ire/incapacity - and I have been one - I cannot fault Mr Roe one sentence.

What has to be clear is that Randall does not apologize - he never has - ever - for anything. He is - it appears - incapable of acknowledging being in error. He always presents himself as triumphantly in the right - always. That being the case - as those of us who have had the misfortune to experience well know - he is not going to let this lay/lie. We all know that Randall came back on this thread to goad Mr Roe - to issue forth another volley. When Mr Roe takes Randall's re-emergence on the thread for what it is - a goad and a stealth re-engagement - Randall wide-eyed tells him he was not actually addressing Mr Roe. Fatuous rejoinder.

What the hell are you talking about? This was never Randall Murphy’s thread to begin with. If you want, you can beg Randall to spew onto another thread. Once again, this has nothing to do with “stalemates” as this has to do with individuals who take this subject seriously, in an honest and objective manner. I hate having to point this out, as it should be so painfully obvious to those who understand.

I agree with your whole post absolutely - especially the bolded.

 

[Ted Roe]

Dear Randall and Mr Roe, I politely request that you either aplogise to each other, or cease addressing each other directly.
My opinion is that the discourse between you is not constructive and is at a stalemate*

lets be honest: no one has covered themselves in glory during this debate, and it is high time to move on.



*"Repetition of position" or the "Threefold repetition rule"

Han,
Perhaps I missed your apology for accusing me of being Environmental One, a founding member of NARCAP who came into the thread after seeing Randalls repetitive, circular attacks.
In any case, Randall has made this entire thread about him, what he thinks is important, what he doesn't like about NARCAP, what he doesn't like about our Media statement (which, if you read the next couple of paragraphs is rather clear that we take UAP reports seriously) and his attempts to make his misrepresentation of it an issue of contention.... all offered from an ivory tower whereby he claims to speak for Ufology and the legacies of Hynek and the other members of the Invisible College while criticizing and passing judgment on my team that is composed of founding members thereof.
I would have enjoyed engaging a lot of you on the many nuanced topics around aviation safety and UAP but Randall was too busy criticizing our aviation safety focus without knowing who we had on staff, who we affiliate with, the actual data itself.
Basically, this thread is all about Randall and I think Randall should have done the interview about NARCAP to begin with and saved me the time and energy dealing with his, and your, nonsense.

 

[SRL+]

With all fairness toward Han, (he/she?), manned up with an apology back in post #97. Perhaps you’ve missed it, or it wasn’t quite the apology in which you were seeking.

Speaking to data, did NARCAP assist in interpreting any of the radar reports out of Erath County during the Stephenville sightings?

Would you consider the quote below provided by Billy Cox of the Herald-Tribune on 7/15/08 as accurate in relation to the O’Hare incident?

“Once again, an unidentified aircraft tracked on FAA radar over a populated area, without transponders, just like Carteret,” he says.

Huyghe favorably compares the MUFON report with the depth of last year’s National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena analysis of a UFO incident over Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport in November 2006. NARCAP’s team of scientists concluded the UFO that reportedly ripped a discernible hole through the clouds above a United Airlines gate posed a “definite potential threat to flight operations.”

 

[Randall]

Randall, I see nothing funny about it. You must (and Ted) accept that for whatever reason, relations are far from cordial between you. No-one is talking about banning or censorship - I am asking for you both to ignore each other. Both of you, not just one of you - I've given the same request to both so nobody is being singled out. I am not even asking anyone to not participate in any threads - you are free to participate anywhere, I am just trying to prevent constant back and forward of arguments and counter-arguments that nobody else is enjoying reading.

Well I guess we don't all react the same way. It just struck me as funny that you'd suggest Ted and I should put each other on ignore. FWIW, I find Ted to be interesting, he was a good guest for the show, and NARCAP's work to coax pilots to come forward is fantastic. Our discussion included some really interesting points, like Hynek's association with Haines, and I'm sure Ted may have some other interesting stories as well. So simply because we don't agree on how NARCAP's image management strategy may adversely affect the public's perception of ufology, isn't sufficient reason for me to put Ted on ignore.

In the meantime maybe you know where the Flatwoods Monster thread is?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

This one?

Flatwoods Monster Solved? | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[PCarr]

BTW, Marsha talked with Ted Roe for over an hour, and we are going to present a slightly trimmed version of that in upcoming episodes of API Case Files. I encouraged her to listen to the Paracast interview first, which hopefully helped.

Here's my question, which I know Ted doesn't have an answer for, but I hope to explore more in the future: why was there no ONE legitimate, non-suspect image from a cell phone camera of the O'Hare object? There must have been dozens of witnesses. I tell ya, it wakes my normally deeply slumbering inner conspiracy theorist.

 

[manxman]

And I don't want to see any attacks against Randall either. If he's gone, let him be in peace.

That position, however, doesn't apply to Lance Moody, who has engaged in some nasty personal attacking since his departure.

Always was, and always will be a nasty bastard, same as most of his ilk are, and always will be, Klass their mentor was born an arsehole, and died an arsehole, always was consistant old phil..

 

[manxman]

Redferd? Not ... the Redferd, Nick Redferd? *faints*

Me, personally, I never make typos. No, on . . .

Sue with the G and the T being together on the keyboard, NEVER when replying to customer Emails, sign off with ''Regards''.

Retards

 

[DissectionStalker]

The interest of the Paracast group in our work and what we have to say about official research efforts doesn't seem strong. There are seven pages of mostly harsh criticism and attempts to diffuse it. I posted some good material and nobody responded. So I don't see any reason to continue with podcasts and interviews. It doesn't do me any good to have our allies read this negativity and criticism. We are accused of elitism but look at what happens when we are accessible. It is exactly this kind of problem that drives me to insist on closed symposia and limited media involvement as we try to develop a research arc.

I came to this thread today just to thank you for your interview. I thought it was excellent, and you are a good PR rep for your organization. I think you should do another interview in a year or two, because your group has a lot to offer, especially, for pilots around the world. Getting pilots to report UAP is going to be easier than UFO, and there is A LOT of misidentified phenomena in the Sky. Optical and atmospheric illusions and reflections cast through windows and optics are notorious for creating "ghost imaging", and it seems the military has developed some Orb-light technology and other light-based imaging that is more a UAP fit -not UFO.

Anyway, good luck and come back to Paracast, PLEASE.

 

[Randall]

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.

Yes it's true that I'll defend my position. So what? That doesn't automatically make me a wide eyed believer. It's not as though I've formed my present view on a lark and a whim over a six-pack and a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens. What's more, I'll accept valid criticism and I'll change accordingly, which is more than I can say for others in this discussion. So instead of unsubstantiated proclamations, how about discussing some specifics backed up with some quotes and a defensible rationale. Unlike you, I have at least made that effort. Therefore if you want to talk about self-control, you might want to consider the quality of your own responses before trashing mine.

 

[SRL+]

Yes it's true that I'll defend my position. So what? That doesn't automatically make me a wide eyed believer. It's not as though I've formed my present view on a lark and a whim over a six-pack and a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens. What's more, I'll accept valid criticism and I'll change accordingly, which is more than I can say for others in this discussion. So instead of unsubstantiated proclamations, how about discussing some specifics backed up with some quotes and a defensible rationale. Unlike you, I have at least made that effort. Therefore if you want to talk about self-control, you might want to consider the quality of your own responses before trashing mine.

There’s nine pages here you can go back over if you so desire to, as you have brought this upon yourself.

 

[Randall]

There’s nine pages here you can go back over if you so desire to, as you have brought this upon yourself.

I don't see any examples in your post. Pick one and lets discuss how it applies to your cracks at my character. Maybe you'll make a point or two and I'll learn something.

 

[SRL+]

Once again, this thread is not about you.

 

[Randall]

Once again, this thread is not about you.

I never claimed it this thread was about me. I claimed your cracks at my character in your post here are, and I still don't see you backing them up with anything other than unsubstantiated proclamation, and I'll presume you never will because there are no actual grounds upon which to make those claims. It's trumped-up BS.

 

[SRL+]

I never claimed it this thread was about me. I claimed your cracks at my character in your post here are, and I still don't see you backing them up with anything other than unsubstantiated proclamation, and I'll presume you never will because there are no actual grounds upon which to make those claims. It's trumped-up BS.

Call it whatever you wish and I’ll call it the truth at the time written.., period.

 

[Randall]

Call it whatever you wish ...

OK I'll call it what it is: Trumped up BS.

... and I’ll call it the truth at the time written.., period.

If that's the case you don't seem to have a firm grasp of what truth is. It doesn't change to suit your unsubstantiated opinions.

 

[SRL+]

OK I'll call it what it is: Trumped up BS.

If that's the case you don't seem to have a firm grasp of what truth is. It doesn't change to suit your unsubstantiated opinions.

And Ted Roe is no longer around to give his opinion, thanks to you.

 

[Randall]

And Ted Roe is no longer around to give his opinion, thanks to you.

Now you're dodging the issue, and since when do I tell Ted when he can and can't post here? But let me try this another way. Since you can't substantiate your position, how about we just decide to move on. Can you suggest anything specific that doesn't involve a loaded answer ( the presumption that I've done something offensive ) that I can do to help communicate these issues in a way that you would be more receptive to?

 

[SRL+]

Now you're dodging the issue, and since when do I tell Ted when he can and can't post here? But let me try this another way. Since you can't substantiate your position, how about we just decide to move on. Can you suggest anything specific that doesn't involve a loaded answer ( the presumption that I've done something offensive ) that I can do to help communicate these issues in a way that you would be more receptive to?

Do you recall the reason that you were given a timeout? What was it?

 

[Randall]

Do you recall the reason that you were given a time out? What was it?

Your evasiveness and lack of constructive input is once again noted. I'm going to bed now. Go ahead and get your last word in.