Ted Roe of NARCAP — June 8, 2014

[Randall]

"Ufology", you are a troll.

So instead of dealing with the issues I've presented that include direct quotations, some from NARCAP's own documents, or recognizing the legitimacy of the work done in ufology as illustrated by the books I posted, you come on here and insult me personally. I retort: Who's really the troll?

A ball of light is not necessarily an object and UAP has been defined for some time now.

Sure, let's have a closer look at that shall we:

First on the term UFO:​

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible. - J. Allen Hynek ( astronomer & ufologist ), The UFO Experience 1972
​

Then on the term UAP:

"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)​

See any similarities? Note the segments in red text. Did Haines and Hynek work together on Haines' version or did Haines just "borrow" it for his own paper? I don't know. But given the two quotes above it looks like Haines took Hynek's definition of UFO, juggled around a few words, added a couple of inconsequential ones of his own, slapped the label ( UAP ) on it, and presto! The acronym UAP was born. Then the organization ( NARCAP ), went on to create a policy of "dissociating" itself from ufology in order to make itself seem more credible, and uses the thinly veiled term UAP as part of that strategy. It also flies under the banner of "aviation safety", which given all that I've exposed here so far looks at least in part, to be a rather thin façade. Do you actually think that nobody in ufology had considered the impact of UFOs on aviation safety before NARCAP came along?

Your inability to control yourself in a public forum responding to a brilliant interview is downright rude.

Again, more personal attacks rather than dealing with the substance. You might want to take some of your own advice.

A professional would contact him directly rather than attempt to smear a well documented organization full of brilliant minds presenting data in a charitable way to the public. The comments here are inaccurate to a slanderous fault and you would do well to shut up and not get sued by NARCAP or Roe for slander.

It's plain to see from the responses, that NARCAP has no intention of changing the anti-ufology component of its image management strategy regardless of how it is brought to their attention. And there is no smearing going on here except that component of NARCAP's image management strategy that reinforces the misconception that ufologists are all "cultists, charlatans and crackpots". In contrast, I've used direct quotes and images that serve as evidence for the point I'm making. If you find something that is inaccurate then by all means respond by way of example along with your rationale for why you think it's inaccurate. If you make a reasonable case I'll be more than happy to acknowledge it and adjust my viewpoint.

It's nice to see Ted Roe school you throughout your BS but your BS is uncalled for and some of it, like here is slanderous. Beware - your written mouth on the internet can still get you sued. Good job Ted Roe!

It's fairly obvious from your last statement above that you have a few things to learn, like the difference between slander and libel for a start, and your threats of legal action are nothing short of frivolous. If NARCAP wants to waste its resources intimidating me with legal threats instead of working together toward a mutually beneficial resolve, they can contact the Paracast and I'll be happy to let @Gene Steinberg decide how he wants to handle it. He can remove every one of my posts for any reason he sees fit.

While we're at it, let's compare some credentials:

J. Allen Hynek:​

A fellow of the Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin, USA, Hynek received his doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Chicago in 1935. Between 1936 and 1941, Dr. Hynek was an instructor and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Ohio State University. Between 1941 and 1946 he supervised technical reports in applied physics at John Hopkins University. He returned to Ohio State in 1946 to become a full professor in physics and astronomy. In 1948 Edward J. Ruppelt enlisted Hynek as Astronomical Consultant to Project Grudge, and in 1952 he became Scientific Advisor to Project Blue Book. ( More ... ).​

Richard Haines:​

Richard F. Haines was born and raised in Seattle, Washington, and attended the University of Washing ton (College of Engineering) and Pacific Lutheran College (Tacoma) where he received the B.A. degree in 1960. He was awarded the M.A. and Ph.D. from Michigan State University (East Lansing) in 1962 and 1964, respectively, in the field of Experimental Psychology ( More ... )​

Obviously the two men were well educated and deserve respect, but I submit that Hynek's credentials are more extensive and applicable in that rather than psychology, he was working in astronomy and physics, plus his work with the USAF was directly related to the phenomena under study, and that phenomenon is and was UFOs. Hynek wasn't afraid of the criticism he took as a ufologist. He was also taken seriously by the USAF and other officials during briefings and evaluations of UFO sighting reports.

The field of ufology owes Hynek a great deal for his efforts to make it credible, and IMO any image campaign that has as part of its strategy, anything that reinforces the idea that ufology is nothing but "cultists, charlatans and crackpots" is not only wrong, but erosive to the efforts of all serious ufologists, and all I've asked is for NARCAP to do away with that component, and be more discerning when making public statements about UFOs and Ufology.

When circumstances arise, it wouldn't be all that hard to use serious ufology to make NARCAP and ufology both look credible at the same time, and in doing so, it would only boost, rather than detract from NARCAP's image. Instead of distancing itself from ufology, embrace serious ufology. Instead of using subtle ( or not so subtle ) language that slams ufology, highlight and embrace the better aspects of ufology that inspired Haines and others in the organization to do the great work that they do. Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so, and if it needs help in that regard All NARCAP has to do is ask. I'll provide consultation on the issue that will help transform it into something positive.

But given this discussion I'm not going to hold my breath hoping for a miracle. Maybe that's partly my fault. Maybe I could have taken a softer stance at the start. One thing I can tell you with certainty is that there is no malice intended. I simply take the issue of ufology and its image seriously. I watch and listen a lot to what is going on in ufology, and every little bit of ground the field can make is important. I had hoped that my point would have been understood and appreciated in that light.

 

[Ted Roe]

So instead of dealing with the issues I've presented that include direct quotations, some from NARCAP's own documents, or recognizing the legitimacy of the work done in ufology as illustrated by the books I posted, you come on here and insult me personally. I retort: Who's really the troll?

Sure, let's have a closer look at that shall we:

First on the term UFO:​

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible. - J. Allen Hynek ( astronomer & ufologist ), The UFO Experience 1972
​

Then on the term UAP:

"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)​

See any similarities? Note the segments in red text. Did Haines and Hynek work together on Haines' version or did Haines just "borrow" it for his own paper? I don't know. But given the two quotes above it looks like Haines took Hynek's definition of UFO, juggled around a few words, added a couple of inconsequential ones of his own, slapped the label ( UAP ) on it, and presto! The acronym UAP was born. Then the organization ( NARCAP ), went on to create a policy of "dissociating" itself from ufology in order to make itself seem more credible, and uses the thinly veiled term UAP as part of that strategy. It also flies under the banner of "aviation safety", which given all that I've exposed here so far looks at least in part, to be a rather thin façade. Do you actually think that nobody in ufology had considered the impact of UFOs on aviation safety before NARCAP came along?


Again, more personal attacks rather than dealing with the substance. You might want to take some of your own advice.

It's plain to see from the responses, that NARCAP has no intention of changing the anti-ufology component of its image management strategy regardless of how it is brought to their attention. And there is no smearing going on here except that component of NARCAP's image management strategy that reinforces the misconception that ufologists are all "cultists, charlatans and crackpots". In contrast, I've used direct quotes and images that serve as evidence for the point I'm making. If you find something that is inaccurate then by all means respond by way of example along with your rationale for why you think it's inaccurate. If you make a reasonable case I'll be more than happy to acknowledge it and adjust my viewpoint.

It's fairly obvious from your last statement above that you have a few things to learn, like the difference between slander and libel for a start, and your threats of legal action are nothing short of frivolous. If NARCAP wants to waste its resources intimidating me with legal threats instead of working together toward a mutually beneficial resolve, they can contact the Paracast and I'll be happy to let @Gene Steinberg decide how he wants to handle it. He can remove every one of my posts for any reason he sees fit.

While we're at it, let's compare some credentials:

J. Allen Hynek:​

A fellow of the Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin, USA, Hynek received his doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Chicago in 1935. Between 1936 and 1941, Dr. Hynek was an instructor and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Ohio State University. Between 1941 and 1946 he supervised technical reports in applied physics at John Hopkins University. He returned to Ohio State in 1946 to become a full professor in physics and astronomy. In 1948 Edward J. Ruppelt enlisted Hynek as Astronomical Consultant to Project Grudge, and in 1952 he became Scientific Advisor to Project Blue Book. ( More ... ).​

Richard Haines:​

Richard F. Haines was born and raised in Seattle, Washington, and attended the University of Washing ton (College of Engineering) and Pacific Lutheran College (Tacoma) where he received the B.A. degree in 1960. He was awarded the M.A. and Ph.D. from Michigan State University (East Lansing) in 1962 and 1964, respectively, in the field of Experimental Psychology ( More ... )​

Obviously the two men were well educated and deserve respect, but I submit that Hynek's credentials are more extensive and applicable in that rather than psychology, he was working in astronomy and physics, plus his work with the USAF was directly related to the phenomena under study, and that phenomenon is and was UFOs. Hynek wasn't afraid of the criticism he took as a ufologist. He was also taken seriously by the USAF and other officials during briefings and evaluations of UFO sighting reports.

The field of ufology owes Hynek a great deal for his efforts to make it credible, and IMO any image campaign that has as part of its strategy, anything that reinforces the idea that ufology is nothing but "cultists, charlatans and crackpots" is not only wrong, but erosive to the efforts of all serious ufologists, and all I've asked is for NARCAP to do away with that component, and be more discerning when making public statements about UFOs and Ufology.

When circumstances arise, it wouldn't be all that hard to use serious ufology to make NARCAP and ufology both look credible at the same time, and in doing so, it would only boost, rather than detract from NARCAP's image. Instead of distancing itself from ufology, embrace serious ufology. Instead of using subtle ( or not so subtle ) language that slams ufology, highlight and embrace the better aspects of ufology that inspired Haines and others in the organization to do the great work that they do. Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so, and if it needs help in that regard All NARCAP has to do is ask. I'll provide consultation on the issue that will help transform it into something positive.

But given this discussion I'm not going to hold my breath hoping for a miracle. Maybe that's partly my fault. Maybe I could have taken a softer stance at the start. One thing I can tell you with certainty is that there is no malice intended. I simply take the issue of ufology and its image seriously. I watch and listen a lot to what is going on in ufology, and every little bit of ground the field can make is important. I had hoped that my point would have been understood and appreciated in that light.

You haven' responded to my last posting with the picture of Vallee and co..... Should I repost it?

 

[Ted Roe]

So instead of dealing with the issues I've presented that include direct quotations, some from NARCAP's own documents, or recognizing the legitimacy of the work done in ufology as illustrated by the books I posted, you come on here and insult me personally. I retort: Who's really the troll?

Sure, let's have a closer look at that shall we:

First on the term UFO:​

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible. - J. Allen Hynek ( astronomer & ufologist ), The UFO Experience 1972
​

Then on the term UAP:

"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)​

See any similarities? Note the segments in red text. Did Haines and Hynek work together on Haines' version or did Haines just "borrow" it for his own paper? I don't know. But given the two quotes above it looks like Haines took Hynek's definition of UFO, juggled around a few words, added a couple of inconsequential ones of his own, slapped the label ( UAP ) on it, and presto! The acronym UAP was born. Then the organization ( NARCAP ), went on to create a policy of "dissociating" itself from ufology in order to make itself seem more credible, and uses the thinly veiled term UAP as part of that strategy. It also flies under the banner of "aviation safety", which given all that I've exposed here so far looks at least in part, to be a rather thin façade. Do you actually think that nobody in ufology had considered the impact of UFOs on aviation safety before NARCAP came along?


Again, more personal attacks rather than dealing with the substance. You might want to take some of your own advice.

It's plain to see from the responses, that NARCAP has no intention of changing the anti-ufology component of its image management strategy regardless of how it is brought to their attention. And there is no smearing going on here except that component of NARCAP's image management strategy that reinforces the misconception that ufologists are all "cultists, charlatans and crackpots". In contrast, I've used direct quotes and images that serve as evidence for the point I'm making. If you find something that is inaccurate then by all means respond by way of example along with your rationale for why you think it's inaccurate. If you make a reasonable case I'll be more than happy to acknowledge it and adjust my viewpoint.

It's fairly obvious from your last statement above that you have a few things to learn, like the difference between slander and libel for a start, and your threats of legal action are nothing short of frivolous. If NARCAP wants to waste its resources intimidating me with legal threats instead of working together toward a mutually beneficial resolve, they can contact the Paracast and I'll be happy to let @Gene Steinberg decide how he wants to handle it. He can remove every one of my posts for any reason he sees fit.

While we're at it, let's compare some credentials:

J. Allen Hynek:​

A fellow of the Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin, USA, Hynek received his doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Chicago in 1935. Between 1936 and 1941, Dr. Hynek was an instructor and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Ohio State University. Between 1941 and 1946 he supervised technical reports in applied physics at John Hopkins University. He returned to Ohio State in 1946 to become a full professor in physics and astronomy. In 1948 Edward J. Ruppelt enlisted Hynek as Astronomical Consultant to Project Grudge, and in 1952 he became Scientific Advisor to Project Blue Book. ( More ... ).​

Richard Haines:​

Richard F. Haines was born and raised in Seattle, Washington, and attended the University of Washing ton (College of Engineering) and Pacific Lutheran College (Tacoma) where he received the B.A. degree in 1960. He was awarded the M.A. and Ph.D. from Michigan State University (East Lansing) in 1962 and 1964, respectively, in the field of Experimental Psychology ( More ... )​

Obviously the two men were well educated and deserve respect, but I submit that Hynek's credentials are more extensive and applicable in that rather than psychology, he was working in astronomy and physics, plus his work with the USAF was directly related to the phenomena under study, and that phenomenon is and was UFOs. Hynek wasn't afraid of the criticism he took as a ufologist. He was also taken seriously by the USAF and other officials during briefings and evaluations of UFO sighting reports.

The field of ufology owes Hynek a great deal for his efforts to make it credible, and IMO any image campaign that has as part of its strategy, anything that reinforces the idea that ufology is nothing but "cultists, charlatans and crackpots" is not only wrong, but erosive to the efforts of all serious ufologists, and all I've asked is for NARCAP to do away with that component, and be more discerning when making public statements about UFOs and Ufology.

When circumstances arise, it wouldn't be all that hard to use serious ufology to make NARCAP and ufology both look credible at the same time, and in doing so, it would only boost, rather than detract from NARCAP's image. Instead of distancing itself from ufology, embrace serious ufology. Instead of using subtle ( or not so subtle ) language that slams ufology, highlight and embrace the better aspects of ufology that inspired Haines and others in the organization to do the great work that they do. Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so, and if it needs help in that regard All NARCAP has to do is ask. I'll provide consultation on the issue that will help transform it into something positive.

But given this discussion I'm not going to hold my breath hoping for a miracle. Maybe that's partly my fault. Maybe I could have taken a softer stance at the start. One thing I can tell you with certainty is that there is no malice intended. I simply take the issue of ufology and its image seriously. I watch and listen a lot to what is going on in ufology, and every little bit of ground the field can make is important. I had hoped that my point would have been understood and appreciated in that light.

And Haines and Hynek were friends until Hyneks death. Haines and Vallee also met and became friends with Haines in the 1970s.... Vallee and Hynek worked together on Blue Book. Haines and Hynek came up with the UAP definition and it is based on the original UFO def offered by the USAF.

Vallee is on our staff today and has been since we started and is clearly fine with our mission as he helps me with policy as an advisor....

So you don't know what you are talking about.

You forgot to mention that Haines was the Chief of the Space Human Factors office at NASA Ames research center...

Staff pic...
Dr. Haines, Mr. Brian Smith (then Frmr Director Aviation Safety Office at NASA Ames before Deputy Directory of Human Factors - not certain of his current title), Larry Lemke - NASA, Dr. Jacques Vallee, Bob____, Dr. Bernie Haisch - Cal Inst of Higher Physics, Ruben Uriarte - NARCAP Spanish Language Coordinator....

Plenty more where they came from.

Obviously Dr. Vallee and co are pretty happy with our program and you don't know what you are talking about.

We are finished.

 

[Ted Roe]

yes you are right it was jealousy that lead to my suspicion that you were here on the behest of MR Roe..... (this is irony.)

Oh and regarding me and @ufology being the same person employing your "second hand" detective skills may reveal that this is highly unlikely given that we reside in different continents..... oh and the fact that we have disagreed on numerous occasions for example:
U.F.O. poll | The Paracast Community Forums (regarding the terminology of UAP/UFO etc and it's use in different language environments.)

Regarding Image management: the image you have portrayed to me is one of a fanatical cheerleader....

However in the interests of myself and the forum I will not make any further comments, and apologise for any offence caused by my remarks.

Harry, I am not Environmental One and the attacks between you and Ufology are forcing me to give up on Paracast and this thread. I have't done anything to deserve this mistreatment and I won't return for another interview. This is why I am so against Ufology.... the abuse just destroys any good work or message.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Ted, please don't let the abuse of one member force you to give up on this forum and this thread. Indeed, unless the people who are attacking you don't stop, I'm going to shut this thread down and take appropriate action against the offenders.

I agree with you about this, Ted, and I'm sorry you've been put upon. But don't give up on us.

 

[technomage]

Ted,

I think you will find abuse in any forum, but the Paracast forum views expressed don't represent the opinion of Gene or Chris. It's just a forum for people to discuss ideas for good or worse, and many of the view points don't represent the majority of listeners either. I urge you to not expand the issues in the forum to the radio show and sever ties because of viewpoints that Gene or Chris cannot control (without instituting censorship, which defeats the purpose of a forum).

Thanks.

 

[Constance]

Ted, please don't let the abuse of one member force you to give up on this forum and this thread. Indeed, unless the people who are attacking you don't stop, I'm going to shut this thread down and take appropriate action against the offenders.

I agree with you about this, Ted, and I'm sorry you've been put upon. But don't give up on us.

I'm glad you have stepped in, Gene, and that you intend to put a stop here to Ufology's persistent, repetitious, and immoderate attacks on Ted Roe and NARCAP. This siege has gone on for days and has become an unseemly and unnecessary embarrassment to the Paracast forum in my opinion. I, too, hope that Mr. Roe will return some time for another Paracast interview, but I would understand his reasons for being reluctant to do so at this point.

 

[Constance]

Ted,

I think you will find abuse in any forum, but the Paracast forum views expressed don't represent the opinion of Gene or Chris. It's just a forum for people to discuss ideas for good or worse, and many of the view points don't represent the majority of listeners either. I urge you to not expand the issues in the forum to the radio show and sever ties because of viewpoints that Gene or Chris cannot control (without instituting censorship, which defeats the purpose of a forum).

Thanks.

Viewpoints are one thing; the manner in which they are expressed is another. Abuse should not be tolerated on a forum that intends to maintain rationality and civility in discussions of differing viewpoints. It's an issue of moderation, not of censorship.

[Edit to add] I'm referring to the self-moderation required of individuals pursuing a civil and respectful discussion as well as the forum moderation that needs to be brought to bear at points such as this one.

 

[Randall]

And Haines and Hynek were friends until Hyneks death. Haines and Vallee also met and became friends with Haines in the 1970s.... Vallee and Hynek worked together on Blue Book.

I know Vallée and Hynek did some work together, but I don't recall seeing Vallée mentioned anywhere as a consultant for the USAF Project Blue Book. If he was, then perhaps you could find a reference for that. I would be interested in reading more about his work for Blue Book. Also interesting to hear that Haines and Hynek became friends. I've not seen that mentioned anywhere else. Some further details there would be appreciated.

Haines and Hynek came up with the UAP definition and it is based on the original UFO def offered by the USAF.

I don't see Hynek's name associated with Haines' definition or any credit given, so are you saying they worked on it together or that they both came up with something similar independently? I don't recall Hynek using the word UAP anyplace, and I can't imagine why he'd want to come up with another nearly identical definition for use by another organization, especially since his own organization is called The Center For UFO studies. There are probably some details here we aren't going to be able to establish with certainty, but this is really interesting.

Vallee is on our staff today and has been since we started and is clearly fine with our mission as he helps me with policy as an advisor ...

Sure, that's all cool, no problem there, but now in light of Hynek's influence, and your involvement with Vallée, so much for "dissociating from ufology".

So you don't know what you are talking about.

That is an irrelevant comment. The quotations speak for themselves, and I never claimed to know whether or not Hynek knew Haines.

You forgot to mention that Haines was the Chief of the Space Human Factors office at NASA Ames research center...

I included the link to more information about both Hynek and Haynes, and it's probably mentioned there.

Obviously Dr. Vallee and co are pretty happy with our program and you don't know what you are talking about.

Again, that is an irrelevant comment with respect to me. But your admission of NARCAP's relationship with Hynek and Vallée speaks directly to your double standard, as does any other close relationship you claim to have with the ufology community. You can't have it both ways and not look hypocritical. On one hand you're all buddy-buddy chums with key figures in the ufology community, and on the other, a critical component of your image management strategy is to dissociate with ufology because they're perceived to be "cultists, charlatans and crackpots". If your other buddies in the ufology community think it's just fine for you to be that way, it's still no justification, and they're unwittingly ( or otherwise ) adding to the problem by allowing themselves to be used and perceived that way. They should care about the image of their field as much as you care about that of your organization.

Also, your strategy appears to have been written well after Hynek's death, so unfortunately, he can't comment on it. Like I said, before, I think he'd applaud much of the work NARCAP does, but I'm not so sure he'd be comfortable with NARCAP dissociating itself from CUFOs because of NARCAP's fear that because ufology is equated by a certain crowd as being nothing but "cultists, charlatans and crackpots", that some bad mojo might rub off on NARCAP. So again, instead of continuing to dance around the issue with your responses, how about a definitive commitment? This is what I'm asking ( again ).

In the interest of the mutual need for positive image management between NARCAP and serious ufology, instead of distancing itself from the entire field of ufology, when opportunities arise, instead of using subtle ( or not so subtle ) language that slams ufology or makes mention of those cultural aspects that detract from the perceived legitimacy of our studies, highlight and embrace the better aspects of ufology that inspired Haines, yourself, and others in the organization to do the great work that they do, and make it a matter of policy as follows:​

SAMPLE AMMENDEMNET 41. It is critically important that this initiative associate itself with serious ufology studies and not be perceived as a part of the sub-component of ufology culture associated with cults, religion, entertainment, and pseudoscience.​

Yes or No? It's a simple answer. It's not an unreasonable request. It would be mutually beneficial, and you'll have not only gained another ally, but publicly demonstrated that it is possible for groups with a common interest in the phenomena to work out differences of opinion through open discussion.

 

[SRL+]

I nominate Mr. Ted Roe for forum moderator.

 

[Randall]

Well folks. This looks like it's bye bye time. @Gene Steinberg seems to be alluding to my comments as "abuse" even when I've backed them with direct quotes from NARCAP's own image management agenda, and other clippings and sources. Gene also feels that my comments amount to "attacks" over "meaningless stuff" and has demanded an apology or I will be banned:

QUOTE: Pure and simple: You apologize of you're gone. You went too far attacking him on meaningless stuff. - Gene Steinberg
​

The topic of the image ( public perception ) of ufology has been an ongoing theme on the Paracast and is NOT "meaningless stuff". NARCAP has some influence in that regard and you can see for yourself that they consider it to be of "critical" importance. The comments I've repeatedly made about NARCAP's good work are being ignored, and if anything it is the field that I am proud to be a part of has been attacked by Mr. Roe more than once during his evasive rebuttals. My final request to Roe and my final appeal on this thread is ( as above ) and below:

In the interest of the mutual need for positive image management between NARCAP and serious ufology, instead of distancing itself from the entire field of ufology, when opportunities arise, instead of using subtle ( or not so subtle ) language that slams ufology or makes mention of those cultural aspects that detract from the perceived legitimacy of our studies, highlight and embrace the better aspects of ufology that inspired Haines, yourself [Ted Roe ], and others in the organization to do the great work that they do, and make it a matter of policy as follows:​

SAMPLE AMMENDEMNET 41. It is critically important that this initiative associate itself with serious ufology studies and not be perceived as a part of the sub-component of ufology culture associated with cults, religion, entertainment, and pseudoscience.​

I don't see anything in my comments that deserves an apology. Maybe Gene is looking at a formatting issue someplace that is confusing my comments with someone else's. Or maybe Gene is insulating himself from some form of legal threat behind the scenes. I don't know. I really have no idea what "abuse" he's alluding to that requires any sort of apology, so Gene, go ahead and ban me if you want. If you do, I certainly won't ask to come back.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

You avoid the fact that, if someone feels they and what they do has been insulted, the issue has to be addressed.

Please don't make any more excuses. Try to understand what's going on and what you may have done to contribute to his reaction.

 

[technomage]

Viewpoints are one thing; the manner in which they are expressed is another. Abuse should not be tolerated on a forum that intends to maintain rationality and civility in discussions of differing viewpoints. It's an issue of moderation, not of censorship.

[Edit to add] I'm referring to the self-moderation required of individuals pursuing a civil and respectful discussion as well as the forum moderation that needs to be brought to bear at points such as this one.

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.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

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.

 

[Randall]

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.

One doesn't need to respect any claim unless that claim is true, and in this case the claim is entirely false. I've not "personally attacked" anyone here. I've given credit where credit is due in multiple posts. What I've done is point out, with supporting evidence, the components of an image management strategy that reinforces the impression that ufology is a field composed of "cultists, charlatans and crackpots", and that NARCAP's belief that it is of "critical" importance to "dissociate" itself from ufology in order to make itself look better, appears to be hypocritical in light of the close association it admits to having with a number of historically key figures in ufology. I've also proposed a reasonable solution to that problem that would be in our mutual best interest.

What have I got in return? Consistent evasion and denial. Some of the evasion has raised some interesting points ( e.g. Hynek's association with Haines ) and more details about NARCAP's formative years with such a historical figure would be interesting to know more about. But again, that doesn't focus on the issue. And now, my concern over the effect of NARACAP's image management strategy has been characterized as "meaningless", when it is well known that every inch of credibility serious ufology scrapes and claws for is important.

And it's not like NARCAP has no influence on the field. One of the places we can see NARCAP's influence is in the very public persona of Leslie Kean, who has appeared on numerous media interviews promoting her book, which as Ted mentioned includes a chapter written by NARCAP. In it Kean introduces NARCAP's definition of UAP, and she has voiced a number of opinions about the word UFO, that based on my own studies ( here ) have some problems that appear to be linked to NARCAP's image strategy. So when we're talking about international best sellers and TV appearances, we're not talking small potatoes when it comes to image management.

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.

Agreed. And that's why I have over 4800 posts here; so "but still" nothing. This is a serious discussion about an important issue to the field of ufology, and I had hoped for better than evasion, denial, and false accusations of personal attacks.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Take a couple of weeks off and think about it Randle. It just takes "I'm sorry if I offended you," and you can move on. And maybe not get involved in this thread any further when you return.

 

[Han]

I would like to apologise to MR Roe, Environmental_one, Gene, and the Paracast users.
I deeply regret any offence caused, and if MR Roe sees fit: I will resign from the forum, if by my doing so he will reconsider returning to the show.
I am sorry that I over stepped the mark.
yours sincerely Harry Newton.

 

[Jimi H.]

First of all, great show! I sure hope to hear Ted Roe back on the show another time..

About the clash of UFOs/UAPs:
The first time the UFO/UAP topic came up in such heated manner was after a Leslie Kean show, where poster Ufology seemed afraid that Leslie was trying to split the 'field' into two groups:
1) UAPs - naturally occuring events, credible events
2) UFOs - supposed of non-human manufactured origins, at least according to the uncredible sources

So, I think that Ufology was afraid that Kean was a 5th column actor out to discredit everything that had to do with possible non-natural phenomena. I explained that I felt this was the wrong reading of Kean. Likewise, I think that Ufology is reading Roe incorrectly, from fear that Roe is some kind of 5th column actor out to discredit anything related to the ETH.

1) But you have to be able to communicate in a way that allows interest from scientists and politicians and so forth, for such persons to take in the information without shying away from it. You have to 'help' them understand what you say.

No matter if you feel that it is unfair, if NARCAP feels that the term UAP allows such groups to deal with the topic of unknown flying objects, from a factual scientific angle, then that's just good for them imo. The natural phenomena will be categorized and the rest will be the inexplicable stuff that allows for more exotic explanations.

2) Both Kean and Roe both come on a paranormal show that is very interested in the possibility of non-human visitations, and they aren't here to debunk cases that we find interesting and fascinating and plausible. They are as curious as everyone else, that is quite obvious to me, having listened to their Paracast interviews, but they are careful to signal to the public that their foundation is not the exciting and often entertaining UFO history (including the shady stuff like Billy Meier, suicide cults, disinformation and what have you..) but diciplined dry research with no 'ideological' connection to UFO history and with no expectation of confirming the ETH.

So, Ufology, I think you should be less defensive, and simply do what you do from your angle. Neither angle is exclusive, and I'm afraid that you are alienating (pun intended) people that work the topic from a different angle than the ETH, if you persist on attacking those who go for the more politically correct UAP angle.

-edited, cut down on the longwindedness

 

[Jimi H.]

About the statement on the Narcap Media page which provoked Ufology:
Media

Some things came to my mind when I read the Media page:

1) NARCAP's mission statement is about UAPs, so why is it relevant to communicate so much about the ETH? One can sense a kind of tension between the lines. And why make conclusions beforehand, namely that UAPs are not ever, and can't ever be, ET?

2) We are informed that the ETH is simply not welcome:
"Please do not contact NARCAP to gain participation in programs that engage
in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien
spacecraft.
..
Pilots rely on NARCAP to maintain confidentiality and to make it clear to the
world that this is not entertainment."

This sends a problematic message to pilots. I understand that the negative statement is directed at "programs that engage in..", but for instance, take the pilot of the JAL 1628 flight over Alaska where the pilot reported a strange object which was confirmed on radar. His immediate response was that it was something not of this Earth.

While I sense that it is completely unintended (because the statement is directed at 'organizations'), I think the statements imply that pilots and people in general should forget the ETH completely. Yet, NARCAP's mission is to give pilots a forum for speaking freely without the usual censoring, and for dealing with their observations in a scientific manner. The fact that their observation may turn out to be completely mondane shouldn't be cause to discredit them beforehand just because they thought it was a 'spaceship'.

So, eventually, I think this is a valid point by Ufology.

But apart from that, I completely understand why NARCAP wants to seperate itself from the history of ufos, to start on a clean slate, - I think it is basically a good communications strategy.

Perhaps the page could be written to both signal that NARCAP is not for the woo-woo crowd and not about getting confirmation for the ETH, nor that it is about ridiculing or discrediting those aviation professionals who think that they have witnessed something 'not of this Earth', be that in 1947, 1986, or 2014.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I would like to apologise to MR Roe, Environmental_one, Gene, and the Paracast users.
I deeply regret any offence caused, and if MR Roe sees fit: I will resign from the forum, if by my doing so he will reconsider returning to the show.
I am sorry that I over stepped the mark.
yours sincerely Harry Newton.

I don't think resigning is necessary.