Ted Roe of NARCAP — June 8, 2014

[marduk]

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.

Because that's now a really terrible emo candy rock band.

 

[Sue]

I was impressed that Mr. Roe gave Mr. Randall the innings he did. I would have cut it off much sooner with a "we must agree to disagree" as did Trained Observer way back when. Furthermore, Re UFO/UAP, precision in terminology and clearly defining the scope of inquiry are parts of basic science. It should not be weird or contentious for different acronyms, definitions, specifications of areas of interests to be stated clearly when discussing one's research interests.

 

[boomerang]

Because that's now a really terrible emo candy rock band.

Darn ! All the good blurbs are already taken.

 

[Constance]

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. . . .

Hi Ted. Thank you for this summary of the situation here a week ago and for your good wishes for the Paracast forums. If possible, I think it would be beneficial if you would continue in this thread a bit longer to clarify for us the research and hypotheses developed by the Italian physicist Massimo Teodorani, in particular an article of his I read a few years ago in which he theorized that an understanding of physical fields apparently involved in UAPs but not yet understood in current physics will require advances in scientific understanding related to quantum processes and interactions in these fields. At the time I also read a number of Teodorani's papers concerning UAP at Hessdalen leading to this more theoretical paper. I read some of his work at the NARCAP site and some of it through google searches and links from transcripts of one or two interviews with him available on the internet. I had links to a collection of his papers saved in Word but lost them in a computer crash. Would you comment on his work in cooperation with NARCAP?

I've just posted a new thread entitled "Physical Influences of a UFO on Water" which opens with the introduction to a detailed web page entitled "Physical Affects on Water - Tying It Together" by Carl Feindt. It seems likely to me that comparative analyses of physical effects of UAPs and Ufos in the air and in water would contribute to scientific progress in understanding the physical effects observed in both situations. Are any NARCAP researchers pursuing this kind of comparative study?

 

[Ted Roe]

Hi Ted. Thank you for this summary of the situation here a week ago and for your good wishes for the Paracast forums. If possible, I think it would be beneficial if you would continue in this thread a bit longer to clarify for us the research and hypotheses developed by the Italian physicist Massimo Teodorani, in particular an article of his I read a few years ago in which he theorized that an understanding of physical fields apparently involved in UAPs but not yet understood in current physics will require advances in scientific understanding related to quantum processes and interactions in these fields. At the time I also read a number of Teodorani's papers concerning UAP at Hessdalen leading to this more theoretical paper. I read some of his work at the NARCAP site and some of it through google searches and links from transcripts of one or two interviews with him available on the internet. I had links to a collection of his papers saved in Word but lost them in a computer crash. Would you comment on his work in cooperation with NARCAP?

I've just posted a new thread entitled "Physical Influences of a UFO on Water" which opens with the introduction to a detailed web page entitled "Physical Affects on Water - Tying It Together" by Carl Feindt. It seems likely to me that comparative analyses of physical effects of UAPs and Ufos in the air and in water would contribute to scientific progress in understanding the physical effects observed in both situations. Are any NARCAP researchers pursuing this kind of comparative study?

Aloha Constance,
Good questions. There are not lot of people who are familiar with Massimo over here. He has done a great deal of field work studying UAP at sites like Hessdalen and other locales so his hypothesis are based on direct observation and some instrumentation as well as experience with Erling Strand and Renzo Cabbassi's team (Then EMBLA now CIPH.org). The current perspective is that many of these UAP are plasma's but they seem to have unusual properties of organization and activity. NASA published a paper awhile back on "Weird Life" and conjectured that in low gravity, dusty environs like Saturns rings plasmas might find a means to organize, procreate and consume each other.

The abstract to the 18.2_teodorani.pdf offers some insights regarding your question about quantum processes. These phenomena have been observed at close quarters and appear as structured balls of light. They have forms, radiant boundaries, are coherent... they meet and meld into each other, or split into two from one, etc... they appear to be quantum systems but there is a lot to be resolved with this profile.

I have been preparing a crowdfunding project for Massimo and I to conduct a long field study at a site here in the US that is like Hessdalen and is very active. I met Erling Strand there and he described it as "like Hessdalen on steroids". Massimo has been there once already and prepared a paper for Marsha Adams that is a preliminary overview of the site, it is attached below "Massimo.pdf". FYI, he and I both swore we would never spend another moment in the desert with Marsha...lol.. But the site is quite interesting and the UAP are very intriguing. It will make a good laboratory. I will be rolling out the funding drive in a month or so....

He has published extensively on many aspects of physics, astrophysics, seti, astrobiology, etc. We are fortunate to have his confidence and contributions.

Regarding your question about comparative studies between UAP in air and in water, that isn't being examined at the moment. I think that there are a lot of angles to work on this study and examining fluid dynamics in air and water is a good idea. I think we touched on it in Project Sphere in examining the aerodynamics of spheres but not deeply enough. We do have a list of topics waiting for motivated researchers...

Good questions. I also recommend Milan Circovic, another European with a deep view of the problems around SETI, etc...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Just a follow-up: We gave Ufology a couple of weeks off to reconsider his approach. As of today, he has unsubscribed to our weekly newsletter, leading me to believe his departure may be permanent. I do hope there's a lesson learned here, however. But I'm not betting on it.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

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.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Again, I hope he comes back with a fresh start and no grudges. I really enjoy his posts, and ability to articulate in words, much of my own thoughts regarding the ufo phenom.

 

[marduk]

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.

Well, I for one want him back.

 

[Burnt State]

Again, I hope he comes back with a fresh start and no grudges. I really enjoy his posts, and ability to articulate in words, much of my own thoughts regarding the ufo phenom.

Randall was an ambassador to the forum for me when I first started posting here and he was an excellent introduction to ufology and thinking & writing about it. Sometimes his position could be a little unshakable on certain topics, but that's what makes for a dynamic community voice. Conflicting views create new ideas, and the study of this phenomenon is certainly desperate for new ideas. He always pushed me to think harder about topics.

There never has been a truly defined school of UFO study. It's always been more of an Invisible College and sometimes a bit of a Beta Reticulan Funny Farm. Trying to tune that wide line of inquiry into something respectable could take many forms, such as a collection of voices that proclaim the college, who's in and who's out. Or you could just create a whole new UAP way of seeing it, minus past assumptions and allegiances.

Ufology can't clean its own house as it cant't be policed. Severing yourself from the cultists and crackpots is a necessary means to create a more respectable body that can perhaps might one day ultimately champion ufology's great voices and investigators, including contemporary practitioners in the field. That all needs $$$ and serious scientific inquiry. Those can't be achieved out of thin air, hence the surrendering of control of this pursuit to bigger agencies long ago. So why is this underfunded field so continuously toxic emotionally when clearly the College should be banding together in support?

The things I learned here: It's a choice to bring emotion and offense to a discussion. It takes two to tango and a band to play for them. If you can't find common ground then agreeing to disagree is a better way. People get banned for being insistent about their position. Debating UFO's/UAP'S requires one to wear protective mental armour.

Lots of bitterness in this thread.

 

[Burnt State]

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.

This is a very interesting position. But what core beliefs are there to Ufology and who has defined them? I don't see Randall as the personification of Ufology at all; the field is far too diverse and untested. His position is more closely aligned with a history of serious inquiry as he perceives it. His version of ETH, or the alien among us, is still a unique position worthy of consideration. He has always championed critical thinking about Ufology and believes there already is an integrity to the field that simply needs some delineation and some unity. I'm not sure the position of 'true believer' is accurate as he has debated the phenomenon in the past. His position is a little more complicated than that.

All i know is each generation will proclaim the college as they see fit. Some voices get displaced. Some get erased. It's the way things are done.

 

[dyingsun]

Just the usual infighting. banning....well , for a time, ...Gene, he just expressed his opinions...your place, your rules. I abide by that, as much asI can.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Sometimes a time-out is just good for the soul.

 

[dyingsun]

He did NOTHING wrong though, reconsider, maybe.

 

[dyingsun]

ok , I get that

 

[Gene Steinberg]

He did NOTHING wrong though, reconsider, maybe.

Ufology? It's done with already. His time-out is pretty much over, so it's up to him whether to return or not.

 

[dyingsun]

What was it, 'Randall' ?Well, he seems like a dude that one can reason with.He was harsh on Ted, no doubt, but jot out of spite...ah well...as said before. I like both viewpoints, somewhat.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

The irony here is that Wilbert Smith, the Canadian radio engineer who tried to encourage his government to study the phenomenon in the 50's, was never a fan of using the term UFO; a term he thought had been coined by the American Air Force in order to add ambiguity & imprecision to the phenomenon. That's why he personally chose to stick with the term 'flying saucers.'

What goes around comes around, I guess...

 

[Ted Roe]

I personally think that Randall would have continued dissecting everything I said and everything written about NARCAP to make his point. I told him several times that his position was his own business but that I wasn't changing mine. He refused to accept any explanation I offered and only engaged on issues he found exception with. I patiently engaged him every time he responded and I think that a lot of the time he was just looking for conflict. I say that because he simply ignored a lot of my explanations and repeated his concerns as if I had said nothing.

I didn't come here for an interview so one inquisitor could sit in judgment of everything I said, everything my team has done, everything we are planning to do. An inquisitor who was not involved with my team, who knew nothing about our process or programs or staff and has no vested interest in the project.

Frankly, he is a member of your forums and I am just an occasional visitor. It is not up to me to encourage any particular action or reaction when it comes to your members. If you feel he has a place then don't worry about my opinion. I am not around enough.

Randall and HAN were both aggressive and Randall simply couldn't stop trying to undermine the discussion with declarations about what he had "uncovered" about NARCAP and Ufology - and when I reminded him that our media statement is not about our policy towards witnesses it was like he was autistic. He refused to even acknowledge that its a media position... and he took the same pattern on every point that he felt was relevant regardless of what I had to say about it. His comments about "marring" the memories of people like Hynek and Vallee were ridiculous and intended to be inflammatory. When I posted a pic of Vallee, who is alive and on our staff and is very supportive of our program, he ignored it. He made an issue about aviation safety as if we were disingenuous so I showed him pics of our NASA aviation safety administrators and he ignored it and started in on attacking the qualifications of Dr. Haines... I told him probably five times that I was no longer interested in talking with him.... he ignored that too.

It didn't matter that we are specialists working in a specialized and conservative environment and have to be careful how we present our work it was all about what he thought about what we were doing with no understanding of why we do it that way. Just criticisms and pressure to accept his agenda for our own...

I will say that there is no incentive to participate in interviews and forums if it means that one individual can spend the entire effort on himself and attacking and abusing my team and whatever I have to say about it. We have avoided Ufology proper for the same reason. My program is not a public committee meeting and I don't have to subject my staff or myself to any outsider's public analysis and disapproval. 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.


Again, I wish everyone well. If there are specific questions you can email me through our website.

 

[IsaacKoi]

We have avoided Ufology proper for the same reason.

In my experience, quite a few people associated with NARCAP are actually fairly active participants on some UFO discussion forums and, particularly, several UFO email discussion Lists (both public and private) - including Dick Haines, Martin Shough, V-J Ballester-Olmos, Jacques Vallee and others.

I don't post much on this forum, which is one reason for my lack of participation so far in this thread - but don't mistake my silence (or, probably, the silence of quite a few others that lurk on this forum) as a lack of interest in the work of NARCAP and its associates or your posts here.

(My main reason for refraining from posting in this thread so far is actually that I didn't want to impose on your time by posting various questions and comments).