• 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!

Questions for Ted Roe of NARCAP


Forums New posts
Gene Steinberg

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Recent episodes of The Paracast have been above and beyond anything we've done before and the upcoming episode, to be recorded on June 3 (for June 8 broadcast) will be no exception.

We'll be presenting Ted Roe, Executive Director of the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena. NARCAP was founded in 1999 by Chief Scientist Dr. Richard Haines and Roe. Their information page says, that, "Through careful planning and execution, NARCAP has grown to be a respected research organization dedicated to studying UAP and aviation safety for the public's benefit."

You'll notice that, to them, a UFO is a UAP, short for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Ted has been an occasional participant in our forums, and we're pleased to have him on the show.
 
Does NARCAP focus exclusively on UAPs, or does it incorporate data and testimonies concerning associated phenomena (e.g. cryptids, abduction experiences, lost time, etc.)?
 
Good Question, SillyRaabit.... we go where the data and testimony take us. With aviation cases
most of the stranger stuff doesn't apply but we have a few cases that overlap...

This is our working definition of UAP....
UAP ~ Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
"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)

The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" or UAP is an attempt to address the fact
that not all UAP are described as unidentified flying objects or UFO. Many are simply
described as unusual lights. NARCAP feels the term "UAP" more accurately reflects
the broad scope of descriptions in aviation reports as well as the possibility that these
phenomena may arise from several different sources.

The answers to the questions regarding the existence, source and nature of the
subcategory of UAP referred to as UFO will be found in the data. Given that pilots do
report aerial phenomena that they describe as structured objects, NARCAP feels it is
appropriate to give attention to the witness' description of what was seen or detected
and engage it objectively.
 
Dear Gene and Chris, please ask MR Roe:

(1) To talk about any reported incidents where onboard equipment has been "interfered" with by "UAP".
To be more specific, to his knowledge are there any incidents where a pilot has observed technical malfunctions or failures in their equipment or Aeroplane, and flight data (cockpit recordings, automated diagnostic logs, black box etc) has recorded the same.
What I am trying to ask is: what is MR Roe's opinion on whether "UAP" effect only the pilot/s perception or can they be responsible for interference or damage that can be demonstrated with physical/tangible evidence.


(2) I have heard mention of UAP reports that involve odd looking "aircraft" that is to say: that the witness reports seeing a plane or helicopter but something in its configuration is strange or out of place, can MR Roe recall any similar reports.


(3) Also if time permits, please ask MR Roe to talk about the differences in "protocol" between military and civilian pilots when they encounter an UAP and how this varies between different nations or states. And any changes he would like to see in that "protocol".

Thank you, best wishes. Harry.
 
1) As a follow up to Han's first brilliant question could Ted please list what he feels are the best cases of UAP's causing mortal danger to human pilots, or are there not many verified examples of this?

2) How would you generally categorize the main ways UAP's interact with human craft in the air and do what do these say about UAP's being under some form of intelligent control?

3) How often do multiple witness statements for individual cases conflict with each other or with other physical evidence and do such cases suggest that EM effects related to UAP's cause human misperceptions?
 
With regard to the topic of UAPs it’s well understood that there can be a difference between the official and for-public view of the topic, and what is said in private. Can you relate to us, while of course respecting any privacy agreement implicit or otherwise, any communication you’ve received from people you would consider highly credible, admitting 'off the record' that they think there is something real and unexplained to this phenomenon? I’m thinking here of people like scientists, government officials, Federal Aviation Administration officials, control tower personnel, pilots with distinguished careers, astronomers, NASA scientists and engineers, etc.

Do you and Dr. Haines have an hypothesis as to why many or most skeptics refuse to admit the reality of UAPs?

How often have you encountered the scenario of a skeptic--scientists in particular--doing a 180 in their view of this subject on account of being exposed to NARCAP research?

In the UAP literature, what to you are the most credible books, papers or bodies of research that you would recommend to a scientifically minded but open minded skeptic?

Have you Roe, or Dr. Haines, had any encounters with a UAP? If so, could you provide a detailed description?

Thank you!
-Eric
 
What is your opinion on the similarities in the Coyne helicopter incident and the Fredrick Valentich disappearance? Specifically having to do with the green light/beam that was reported in both encounters. Do you know of any other similar cases?
 
Q. Do you believe there is some kind of extra-governmental 'Control group' that dictates policy toward UFOs/UAPs - be it one of several national groups or one that global in it's reach/control? (as an aside, Col Charles Halt answered yes to this same question).

Q. If yes to the above, can you speculate on the possible make-up of such a group (angencies, personnel, charter, legality etc)?

Q. How do we rid Ufology of the 'big names' still peddling cases known to be fraudulent? (I say there probably isn't a single UFO conference that does not have such people on the bill)
 
Good day! Please ask Mr. Roe if he is familiar with a case from June of last year involving a Chinese jetliner that landed with a badly damaged nose cone. I'd like to hear his opinions regarding this incident. I recall that bird strike was ruled out due to the lack of blood transfer. Based on the photograph of the damage to the nose of the plane, my opinion is that the incident could have ended in disaster.
 
Back
Top