Ted Roe of NARCAP — June 8, 2014

[Randall]

What community? Greer? Webre? Salla? What are you talking about? Ufology is a wasteland with a couple of efforts of merit shining in the dirt. It cannibalizes its own, its all about ego and sensationalism... There is no "community", there is no one that we can partner with without lowering our standards....

It's true that ufology has a number of colorful characters now and in its history, but so does virtually every field. Does that mean that the field as a whole has no past, present or future value? I don't think so. From a dispassionate point of view we'd file Greer, Webre, Salla, Vorhillon and such under the general heading of Ufology Studies>Culture >UFO Religions ( or cults or personalities, whatever the case may be ).

Serious ufologists aren't obligated to believe in or participate in every cultural aspect of the field. NARCAP is an independent organization. Your standards are yours to set, so there would be no need to lower them and IMO yours would be another "shining effort of merit" but the way your PR strategy is aligned now makes it look like you're kicking the dirt onto the rest of us in order to make yourself look better, while at the same time exploiting anything of value that we might be able to offer. Changing that perception would be mutually advantageous.

And,again, our stance regarding UFO as entertainment is directed at the media and you constantly bringing it up as some kind of personal insult against ufology or you is ridiculous. We do not consider UFO, UAP or the suspicion of ET incursions "entertainment" and appearing on shows that treat it that way is unacceptable....

Then let me help you make that clear in the NARCAP statement, because that's not what it says now, and there's plenty of anti-ufology overtones in our discussion and elsewhere. Let's do something really great here. Let's resolve this to our mutual benefit and prove to the naysayers and skeptics who would lump us both into the same boat anyway, that when differences arise, cooperation in the field is possible and that good things can come from it.

Let's face it, NARCAP isn't going to shake the image that UFOs are a serious issue for it ( think Leslie Kean's book cover ), so the better ufology looks, the better NARCAP is going to look as well. We've laid out our differences here pretty well up to this point, and we have a real opportunity to change perceptions for the better, so now let's find a way to make this work. What do you say?

 

[Ted Roe]

It's true that ufology has a number of colorful characters now and in its history, but so does virtually every field. Does that mean that the field as a whole has no past, present or future value? I don't think so. From a dispassionate point of view we'd file Greer, Webre, Salla, Vorhillon and such under the general heading of Ufology Studies>Culture >UFO Religions ( or cults or personalities, whatever the case may be ).

Serious ufologists aren't obligated to believe in or participate in every cultural aspect of the field. NARCAP is an independent organization. Your standards are yours to set, so there would be no need to lower them and IMO yours would be another "shining effort of merit" but the way your PR strategy is aligned now makes it look like you're kicking the dirt onto the rest of us in order to make yourself look better, while at the same time exploiting anything of value that we might be able to offer. Changing that perception would be mutually advantageous.

Then let me help you make that clear in the NARCAP statement, because that's not what it says now, and there's plenty of anti-ufology overtones in our discussion and elsewhere. Let's do something really great here. Let's resolve this to our mutual benefit and prove to the naysayers and skeptics who would lump us both into the same boat anyway, that when differences arise, cooperation in the field is possible and that good things can come from it.

Let's face it, NARCAP isn't going to shake the image that UFOs are a serious issue for it ( think Leslie Kean's book cover ), so the better ufology looks, the better NARCAP is going to look as well. We've laid out our differences here pretty well up to this point, and we have a real opportunity to change perceptions for the better, so now let's find a way to make this work. What do you say?

Are you not aware that NARCAP wrote a chapter in Leslie's book?

There is no need for clarification of our media statement. We have had plenty of media time with Nat Geo, History, NHK and a host of other production companies who have no problem with our position of not wanting to fan the rumor mill with contrived, sensationalist nonsense.

NARCAPs work is based on our own AIRCAT that Dr. Haines compiled over almost 50years of research including work with Hynek and others. He defined UAP. There is nothing in UFolgy that NARCAP needs to exploit. The brightest minds in the game are on staff or allies. None of them are complaining about having "dirt kicked on them". Many of them value their relationships with our team and Dr. Haines and we do extracurricular work to support those folks from time to time.... So you don't know what you are talking about...

Have you considered that "UFOLOGY" has done a fine job of kicking dirt on itself and that nobody who wants to be credible and do good work can afford Ufology's influence on it? The paradigm of Ufology is filled with rumors, nonsense, bad science, bad judgement and has a terrible image that it earned all on its own.

There is no centralization in Ufology and no regulating factors, no publication and peer-review, nothing. Its a free-for-all and there is no reason or need to be part of it. The subject of UAP and the ETH can be addressed in other ways...

 

[Constance]

I'd like to ask Mr. Roe a question based on my first ufo/uap sighting, seven years before I began to research these phenomena. It took place late at night in November of 1989. The weather was cold and the skies were clear. I was traveling in a Delta airliner flying along the western shore of Lake Michigan about 15-20 minutes north of Chicago. We'd passed over Chicago, not landing there, and would arrive in Milwaukee, our destination, in about a half-hour. My daughter (then 3 and half years old) was sitting next to me in the window seat over the starboard wing of the plane, facing out toward the lake. I was reading a children's story to her and she was playing with a small doll and happily sucking her thumb when she suddenly jostled my arm and pointed out the window toward an enormous and dazzling white light that appeared to hang in the air just off the plane's wingtip. Unlike the small balls of light or spheres photographed near aircraft wings in the NARCAP article by Olmos, this brilliant light was enormous and appeared to be encased behind an extremely thick and perfectly clear shield of glass. The light was round and the glass appeared to be square but rounded at the edges, and the whole visible unit was large enough to fill the cabin window. There was sufficient time between Annie's drawing my attention to it and my viewing it to sense that we moved past it while it remained stationery in the air. My highly uncritical first thought was that we had passed a lighthouse offshore in the lake, and I asked the friends who met our plane whether they had ever seen a lighthouse light while flying into Milwaukee. No one had, and it was years before I realized that it obviously could not have been a lighthouse light. (I was not at that time even thinking about 'ufos'.) No one else in the cabin reacted to this light so far as I was aware. Most people in the cabin were reading or sleeping. I do recall, however, that as we disembarked from the plane about 30 minutes later the pilot and several other crew members were standing together near the open cabin door and facing into the cabin, and studying the faces of the passengers as we left the plane.

My question for Ted Roe is whether you have had any similar sightings reported by commercial pilots. I reported this sighting about ten years later to Michigan MUFON, asking if they had received any similar reports, and I was told in return email that one similar case had been reported over Lake Erie within the preceding months.

Again, this 'thing' did not at all resemble a plasma (I encountered one of those, as large as a Volkswagen, swirling along next to my car and quickly passing it one late night in Georgia, again a cold winter night, in 2005 or 2006. The object off the Delta wingtip in 1989, by contrast, was crisply detailed, dazzlingly bright, looked to be manufactured with precision, and looked as if it could be part of a larger object.

 

[Randall]

... Have you considered that "UFOLOGY" has done a fine job of kicking dirt on itself and that nobody who wants to be credible and do good work can afford Ufology's influence on it? The paradigm of Ufology is filled with rumors, nonsense, bad science, bad judgement and has a terrible image that it earned all on its own ...

OK Ted, fine, I've extended an olive branch here in the spirit of cooperation for our mutual benefit, but if you just want to waste that opportunity and continue trashing ufology, that's your call. I've heard enough of it. It's not like I don't understand the problems in the field. It's that despite your otherwise excellent work on one side of the equation, your present attitude on the other side is destructive to ufology. It doesn't have to be that way. It can be a win-win situation on both sides, and I'll leave the door open if you should ever have a change of heart and want to pursue that course.

 

[Ted Roe]

I'd like to ask Mr. Roe a question based on my first ufo/uap sighting, seven years before I began to research these phenomena. It took place late at night in November of 1989. The weather was cold and the skies were clear. I was traveling in a Delta airliner flying along the western shore of Lake Michigan about 15-20 minutes north of Chicago. We'd passed over Chicago, not landing there, and would arrive in Milwaukee, our destination, in about a half-hour. My daughter (then 3 and half years old) was sitting next to me in the window seat over the starboard wing of the plane, facing out toward the lake. I was reading a children's story to her and she was playing with a small doll and happily sucking her thumb when she suddenly jostled my arm and pointed out the window toward an enormous and dazzling white light that appeared to hang in the air just off the plane's wingtip. Unlike the small balls of light or spheres photographed near aircraft wings in the NARCAP article by Olmos, this brilliant light was enormous and appeared to be encased behind an extremely thick and perfectly clear shield of glass. The light was round and the glass appeared to be square but rounded at the edges, and the whole visible unit was large enough to fill the cabin window. There was sufficient time between Annie's drawing my attention to it and my viewing it to sense that we moved past it while it remained stationery in the air. My highly uncritical first thought was that we had passed a lighthouse offshore in the lake, and I asked the friends who met our plane whether they had ever seen a lighthouse light while flying into Milwaukee. No one had, and it was years before I realized that it obviously could not have been a lighthouse light. (I was not at that time even thinking about 'ufos'.) No one else in the cabin reacted to this light so far as I was aware. Most people in the cabin were reading or sleeping. I do recall, however, that as we disembarked from the plane about 30 minutes later the pilot and several other crew members were standing together near the open cabin door and facing into the cabin, and studying the faces of the passengers as we left the plane.

My question for Ted Roe is whether you have had any similar sightings reported by commercial pilots. I reported this sighting about ten years later to Michigan MUFON, asking if they had received any similar reports, and I was told in return email that one similar case had been reported over Lake Erie within the preceding months.

Again, this 'thing' did not at all resemble a plasma (I encountered one of those, as large as a Volkswagen, swirling along next to my car and quickly passing it one late night in Georgia, again a cold winter night, in 2005 or 2006. The object off the Delta wingtip in 1989, by contrast, was crisply detailed, dazzlingly bright, looked to be manufactured with precision, and looked as if it could be part of a larger object.

Hi, this does remind me of the Neal Daniels sighting that involved a large ball of light, as big as his aircraft if I recall... and there are a number of sightings in the literature, both aviation and ground-based observations, of very large balls of light. So the short answer is "Yes, we have encountered this profile of UAP and there are examples in the literature probably dating back to at least the 1950s. As a resource you might look at Weinstien's catalog of aviation sightings for some leads... NARCAP Tech Report 4 http://www.narcap.org/files/narcap_revised_tr-4.pdf
Also consider Capt. Ray Bowyer's sighting
Aurigny Airlines captain Ray Bowyer, 50, described what he thought to be a UFO as 'a cigar-shaped brilliant white light" Two Pilots See Mile Wide UFOs, Sighting Confirmed By Crew & Passengers: Video | <b><i><a href="http://www.educatinghumanity.com">Educating Humanity</a></i></b>
(first article I came by)

If you like you can prepare a sighting report and forward it to us, I will make sure Dr. Haines gets a look. You can put it into a doc and email me at ted(underscore)[email protected]... Just outline the case thoroughly so we can get a feel for the information we might need. Time, date and location to the best of you ability....

You have offered some interesting details and I look forward to learning more should you send us the report.

 

[Ted Roe]

OK Ted, fine, I've extended an olive branch here in the spirit of cooperation for our mutual benefit, but if you just want to waste that opportunity and continue trashing ufology, that's your call. I've heard enough of it. It's not like I don't understand the problems in the field. It's that despite your otherwise excellent work on one side of the equation, your present attitude on the other side is destructive to ufology. It doesn't have to be that way. It can be a win-win situation for both endeavors, and I'll leave the door open if you should ever have a change of heart and want to pursue that course.

You have extended an olive branch after attacking me and my program and mostly ignoring my responses....
I am not certain why you feel Ufology needs to be defended. It has created its own problems and can fix them without our help. When we started NARCAP in 99 we looked around and carefully examined trends in the field and trends with certain groups and organizations. We saw clearly that Ufology is stalled, no peer review, no publication, no new ideas. Just an ever expanding rumor mill.
Since most of our work involved dealing with aviation and officialdom it was clear to us that we needed to manage our image as carefully as our budget if we wanted to influence the system and change attitudes about UAP research. We felt that by avoiding certain types of situations we actually helped the overall image of the field. We declined Greers Disclosure Project, we avoided most conferences though we have done a couple including MUFON INT in 2008, we are very selective about media appearances and our media presence, and we have focused on developing relationships with the most credible efforts and fostering interactions and communications between them.
As a result we have done work for the GAO, we have had papers published on the DOT website as a resource for aviation accident investigations, we have participated in a number of low-profile initiatives. I wrote copy for the Coalition for Freedom of Information - Leslie Keans website, we have signed an official research agreement with the gov of Chile's team, we are working with other official efforts in the EU as well as establishing branches in Germany and other places...
With the exception of you, nobody has ever accused us of "using Ufology". We have made a point of differentiating our program from the rumor mill and it has worked just great.
As someone that has created a successful program that in spite of your claims to the contrary is interested and responsive to all aspects of the UAP matter from the aviation perspective my advice to you is to tone back your beliefs and get behind the data.
What do you really know? A lot less than you suspect. When I talk about what I know about UAP and the ETH it is a short conversation.
Suppose for a moment that you have fully engaged the UAP matter and have zero doubt that the ETH is valid.... knowing that how then should you live? Can you second guess the decisions of those who are charged to protect all of us? What does a responsible person do? Create a website and spout opinions? Do you have a clear understanding of what is at stake? If so, where do you get your mandate? Your own research of your own work or do you use everyone else's work to prove your point? If you really believe that Earth is experiencing incursions and you honestly don't know why, then maybe being responsible and conservative because you recognize the risk is a better path..

 

[Constance]

Hi, this does remind me of the Neal Daniels sighting that involved a large ball of light, as big as his aircraft if I recall... and there are a number of sightings in the literature, both aviation and ground-based observations, of very large balls of light. So the short answer is "Yes, we have encountered this profile of UAP and there are examples in the literature probably dating back to at least the 1950s. . . .

Thanks for offering to share my sighting report with Richard Haines. I’ve read the pilot sighting catalogues that he and Dominique Weinstein have compiled and am familiar with Ray Bowyer’s and others’ sightings over the Channel Islands a few years ago. All I can add to the description of the 1989 sighting over Lake Michigan that I provided in my post is that the flight we were on was a direct Delta Airlines flight originating in Atlanta and ending in Milwaukee with no intermediate stops, and that it took place late on the day the Berlin Wall fell, which as I recall was November 10, 1989. I’d be happy to answer any specific questions about the appearance of what I saw through the cabin window. The similar sighting report received by Michigan MUFON would have been in about 1999.



I have to add that while I at first thought Randall went too far in his critique of NARCAP's (and your own) dismissive attitude toward ufo research, I now see his point based in this extract from one of your posts tonight:

Have you considered that "UFOLOGY" has done a fine job of kicking dirt on itself and that nobody who wants to be credible and do good work can afford Ufology's influence on it? The paradigm of Ufology is filled with rumors, nonsense, bad science, bad judgement and has a terrible image that it earned all on its own.

There is no centralization in Ufology and no regulating factors, no publication and peer-review, nothing. Its a free-for-all and there is no reason or need to be part of it. The subject of UAP and the ETH can be addressed in other ways...

As you noted, ‘Ufology’ is not a centralized, funded institution. It has largely been an effort by private citizens over the last 65 years to find out what they could about the phenomena witnessed in the skies around the planet since WWII. Peer-reviewed ufo research does appear in one or two specialized ufo journals and also in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. As a field of research, it began with questions and has continued to pursue questions in an uphill struggle to obtain information since 1947. It does not constitute or support a single ‘paradigm’. The ETH has over time emerged as “the best available hypothesis” to account for the complement of case data collected by private researchers here and elsewhere and by governmentally-connected researchers in France (the COMETA group).


I’ve spent years reading the creditable private ufo research produced since the modern ufo era began and I’ve frequently been amazed by the persistence demonstrated by the major researchers in the face of immense obstacles – primarily the secrecy imposed on the subject by most governments, especially ours, but also, in our country’s case, additional interference by governmental injection of disinformation; unconscionable manipulation and exploitation of individuals for the purpose of discrediting the subject; infiltration and disruption of effective citizen research organizations such as NICAP; CIA infiltration since the 1952 Robertson Panel of major news and entertainment media to control public access to actual information about ufos and to manipulate public perception of the subject. All of the above factors laid the groundwork for the circus that has developed around this subject in recent decades in the US. The responsibility for this circus cannot reasonably be laid at the feet of the serious ufo researchers of the last six decades, whose considerable work most people do not read (and without which none of us would know much today about the key aspects and extent of the phenomenon). I think, like Randall, that it is most unfortunate that NARCAP has developed its project in isolation from the serious private ufo research that has been accomplished in the US and elsewhere. I also see why the decision was made to proceed that way in this country given the repression and distortions of ufo history carried out by agencies of the US government and its widely implemented policy of encouraging marginalization and ridicule of the ufo subject matter. The whole situation is lamentable.


At some point NARCAP could perhaps begin to bring UFO and UAP research into public communication by gradually providing references to significant ufo research such as that by Robert Hastings, Richard Dolan, and the UFO Research Group headed by Michael Swords, which published two years ago its compendium of information concerning UFOs and Governments in a half-dozen countries. I don’t think these histories can be blinked forever. Perhaps one of NARCAP’s researchers could initiate detente by presenting an article investigating the possibilities of how UAPs could scramble computers buried deep underground in missile silos and cause shut-downs of SAC missiles in the US and similar nuclear weapons in Russia.

 

[Ted Roe]

Thanks for offering to share my sighting report with Richard Haines. I’ve read the pilot sighting catalogues that he and Dominique Weinstein have compiled and am familiar with Ray Bowyer’s and others’ sightings over the Channel Islands a few years ago. All I can add to the description of the 1989 sighting over Lake Michigan that I provided in my post is that the flight we were on was a direct Delta Airlines flight originating in Atlanta and ending in Milwaukee with no intermediate stops, and that it took place late on the day the Berlin Wall fell, which as I recall was November 10, 1989. I’d be happy to answer any specific questions about the appearance of what I saw through the cabin window. The similar sighting report received by Michigan MUFON would have been in about 1999.



I have to add that while I at first thought Randall went too far in his critique of NARCAP's (and your own) dismissive attitude toward ufo research, I now see his point based in this extract from one of your posts tonight:



As you noted, ‘Ufology’ is not a centralized, funded institution. It has largely been an effort by private citizens over the last 65 years to find out what they could about the phenomena witnessed in the skies around the planet since WWII. Peer-reviewed ufo research does appear in one or two specialized ufo journals and also in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. As a field of research, it began with questions and has continued to pursue questions in an uphill struggle to obtain information since 1947. It does not constitute or support a single ‘paradigm’. The ETH has over time emerged as “the best available hypothesis” to account for the complement of case data collected by private researchers here and elsewhere and by governmentally-connected researchers in France (the COMETA group).


I’ve spent years reading the creditable private ufo research produced since the modern ufo era began and I’ve frequently been amazed by the persistence demonstrated by the major researchers in the face of immense obstacles – primarily the secrecy imposed on the subject by most governments, especially ours, but also, in our country’s case, additional interference by governmental injection of disinformation; unconscionable manipulation and exploitation of individuals for the purpose of discrediting the subject; infiltration and disruption of effective citizen research organizations such as NICAP; CIA infiltration since the 1952 Robertson Panel of major news and entertainment media to control public access to actual information about ufos and to manipulate public perception of the subject. All of the above factors laid the groundwork for the circus that has developed around this subject in recent decades in the US. The responsibility for this circus cannot reasonably be laid at the feet of the serious ufo researchers of the last six decades, whose considerable work most people do not read (and without which none of us would know much today about the key aspects and extent of the phenomenon). I think, like Randall, that it is most unfortunate that NARCAP has developed its project in isolation from the serious private ufo research that has been accomplished in the US and elsewhere. I also see why the decision was made to proceed that way in this country given the repression and distortions of ufo history carried out by agencies of the US government and its widely implemented policy of encouraging marginalization and ridicule of the ufo subject matter. The whole situation is lamentable.


At some point NARCAP could perhaps begin to bring UFO and UAP research into public communication by gradually providing references to significant ufo research such as that by Robert Hastings, Richard Dolan, and the UFO Research Group headed by Michael Swords, which published two years ago its compendium of information concerning UFOs and Governments in a half-dozen countries. I don’t think these histories can be blinked forever. Perhaps one of NARCAP’s researchers could initiate detente by presenting an article investigating the possibilities of how UAPs could scramble computers buried deep underground in missile silos and cause shut-downs of SAC missiles in the US and similar nuclear weapons in Russia.

Aloha and thank you for this thoughtful examination. I will compile the info about your sighting and forward it to Dr. H. I will let you know if we need more info.

As I mentioned, there are efforts of merit and I seek them out. That is how I first came across Randall... I am always looking for good work and good image management. I worked on a project with Michael Swords some years ago. Very good researcher and he has assisted us on some studies since. I have maintained contacts with Richard Dolan and others. We have people on staff like Vallee, Don Ledger, and others that we consider to be "serious ufologists"..... We presented at the SSE in 2001 and I have met with everyone from John Mack to Hal Puthoff and a host of others here and abroad as NARCAP associates or contacts.

While we are focused on all types of UAP we are well aware of the concerns around the ETH. Many of us have direct experience with UAP that present in the profiles most commonly associated with ETH claims and have interviewed many people including pilots that report those profiles. As we say on our website, it is our obligation to respect the description offered by the witness... Of course forensic investigations are only one part of the puzzle.

Our comrades in the official research teams around the world face a similar situation regarding the ETH and now that there is some actual dialog between teams perhaps more can be done to address those concerns. I know firsthand that it is a primary concern for them. The issue is how to develop the data and spoon-feed it into the system. A conservative approach that doesn't force too much too quickly might be the way to open up the discussion at an international level. Aviation safety offers a context that allows them to actually read the data and react to it... and while I mentioned that the study I did for Project Sphere identified 44 cases presenting as probable spherical UAP/ balls of light, the remainder of the safety cases did not involve lights... There is no avoiding that part of the data and the best excuse to get them to read it is to provide it along with information they need to have or appear negligent - like Extreme Ball Lightning... Carefully present the material in a conservative way...

I posted Tech Report 11... how do you explain the actual event itself without some thoughts about intelligence and the ETH? And its published on our site, factual and direct, and anyone reading it faces some uncomfortable conclusions if they think it through. Same with the OHare study... The data speaks for itself if it is presented clearly with respect for reasoning minds.

Just for fun, I spoke at a symposium at George Washington U in Washington. DC a few years ago. This function was hosted through the Podesta group. The subject was Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Interstellar Travel. Three NARCAP staff are present, Dr. Vallee, Dr. Haisch and myself along with John Callahan, Dr. Peter Sturrock, Dr. Richard Henry and Dr. Michio Kaku. The moderator was Ray Suarez, NPR ...

 

[Randall]

You have extended an olive branch after attacking me and my program and mostly ignoring my responses.

Nonsense. I've used direct quotes from the interview and the NARCAP website to expose NARCAP's anti-ufology "image management" strategy, and I've made a sincere appeal for you to change that and to work toward a mutually beneficial resolve. I've also applauded NARCAP's efforts to convince pilots to come forward with their stories, and I've complimented you personally as an intelligent person with a sincere interest in the subject matter. You even claim to have witnessed craft yourself, and if the details of those experiences leave you personally convinced that those craft weren't manufactured within the boundaries and constructs of our civilization, then whether you choose to recognize it now or not, you're part of a larger family, a cross section of the population of our species who knows from firsthand experience that alien visitation is real.

What do you really know? A lot less than you suspect. When I talk about what I know about UAP and the ETH it is a short conversation.

It's probably better not assume what I know or don't know and focus on the issues.

Suppose for a moment that you have fully engaged the UAP matter and have zero doubt that the ETH is valid.... knowing that how then should you live?

I don't know if the ETH is true. I only know that alien visitation is true, and I only know that because of my personal experience. Otherwise I would be among those who have chosen to believe it. Why? Because it's not reasonable to assume that everyone who claims to have had a UFO experience is lying or so incompetent that they can't tell the difference between something alien and something mundane. To answer your question "How do I live knowing alien visitation is real?" It's not that hard. It's something I've come to accept as a fact of life and have incorporated into my worldview. It's harder for me to secure a steady income and dental benefits.

Can you second guess the decisions of those who are charged to protect all of us?

I could but I'm not sure what good it would do.

What does a responsible person do?

Like anyone else, a responsible person can only do what is within their power, and what was in mine was to setup USI for the purpose of providing the public with free and/or easy access to UFO related information so that they could learn for themselves that the subject of alien visitation isn't merely entertainment; not that UFO themed entertainment is necessarily bad. It's a facet of ufology culture that when experienced in the context of a solid ufology foundation, can be enjoyed even more ( e.g. the scene in Close Encounters that Gene mentioned on the show. ) But that's another discussion.

Create a website and spout opinions?

A lot of people have spouted their opinions on this website and on the Paracast , and some of the discussions that follow have been quite illuminating.

Do you have a clear understanding of what is at stake?

I have a clear understanding about certain things, but you need to be more specific. What exactly are you alluding to?

If so, where do you get your mandate?

My personal mandate ( in the context of mandate = authority ) is a duty to pursue the truth. What more should I be concerned about?

Your own research of your own work or do you use everyone else's work to prove your point?

The process of critical thinking makes use of all the available evidence. Personally I'd like to do more field work, but that isn't within my means, so I mostly make due with the information provided by others ( which is voluminous ), especially with the advent of the Internet. It's enough to provide any student of ufology with a lifetime's worth of resource material.

If you really believe that Earth is experiencing incursions and you honestly don't know why, then maybe being responsible and conservative because you recognize the risk is a better path..

Maybe a conservative approach is better sometimes. Maybe other times it's not. Either way, if you believe that's what you're doing, then this discussion just got a lot more interesting. Is it your personal belief ( outside of your role with NARCAP ), that Earth is experiencing incursions, you honestly don't know why, and you believe there is a significant risk that merits a conservative approach?

 

[Ted Roe]

Nonsense. I've used direct quotes from the interview and the NARCAP website to expose NARCAP's anti-ufology "image management" strategy, and I've made a sincere appeal for you to change that and to work toward a mutually beneficial resolve. I've also applauded NARCAP's efforts to convince pilots to come forward with their stories, and I've complimented you personally as an intelligent person with a sincere interest in the subject matter. You even claim to have witnessed craft yourself, and if the details of those experiences leave you personally convinced that those craft weren't manufactured within the boundaries and constructs of our civilization, then whether you choose to recognize it now or not, you're part of a larger family, a cross section of the population of our species who knows from firsthand experience that alien visitation is real.

It's probably better not assume what I know or don't know and focus on the issues.

I don't know if the ETH is true. I only know that alien visitation is true, and I only know that because of my personal experience. Otherwise I would be among those who have chosen to believe it. Why? Because it's not reasonable to assume that everyone who claims to have had a UFO experience is lying or so incompetent that they can't tell the difference between something alien and something mundane. To answer your question "How do I live knowing alien visitation is real?" It's not that hard. It's something I've come to accept as a fact of life and have incorporated into my worldview. It's harder for me to secure a steady income and dental benefits.

I could but I'm not sure what good it would do.

Like anyone else, a responsible person can only do what is within their power, and what was in mine was to setup USI for the purpose of providing the public with free and/or easy access to UFO related information so that they could learn for themselves that the subject of alien visitation isn't merely entertainment; not that UFO themed entertainment is necessarily bad. It's a facet of ufology culture that when experienced in the context of a solid ufology foundation, can be enjoyed even more ( e.g. the scene in Close Encounters that Gene mentioned on the show. ) But that's another discussion.

A lot of people have spouted their opinions on this website and on the Paracast , and some of the discussions that follow have been quite illuminating.

I have a clear understanding about certain things, but you need to be more specific. What exactly are you alluding to?

My personal mandate ( in the context of mandate = authority ) is a duty to pursue the truth. What more should I be concerned about?

The process of critical thinking makes use of all the available evidence. Personally I'd like to do more field work, but that isn't within my means, so I mostly make due with the information provided by others ( which is voluminous ), especially with the advent of the Internet. It's enough to provide any student of ufology with a lifetime's worth of resource material.

Maybe a conservative approach is better sometimes. Maybe other times it's not. Either way, if you believe that's what you're doing, then this discussion just got a lot more interesting. Is it your personal belief ( outside of your role with NARCAP ), that Earth is experiencing incursions, you honestly don't know why, and you believe there is a significant risk that merits a conservative approach?

Perhaps you should reread your lengthy critique that I imbedded my responses in, and the several others.... You have attacked everything from our budgetary plans and referring to our funding efforts as "panhandling" to our media policy regarding UFO shows - and on that subject you have yet to admit you are misrepresenting the message and its intended audience. You have criticized our model and our business plan without knowing a thing about it. You have misinterpreted Haines definition of UAP, you were wrong about the use of the term UAP in the international community, you are wrong about your claims that we think of the ETH as "entertainment", etc., and haven't read my responses or acknowledged that you were wrong..... You are far too unfamiliar with our program, didn't know we wrote a chapter for Leslie Kean's book, didn't know who is on our staff, etc., to criticize us.

The rest of my point regarding the ETH is that if you don't know and you understand that the risk could be beyond catastrophic for humanity and Earth then have some respect for that. Running around demanding answers and acting like you can criticize without the facts is not a mature perspective. Claiming you know something that you only suspect only serves to raise the tension around the subject. It doesn't resolve the issue, it just scares people. Same goes for the geniuses that think its a good idea to stand on a podium and tell the world that their suspicion of an ET presence is a good thing because a voice in their head told them so...

We earned our way into the opportunities that we have by sticking close to the data and keeping our own opinions in check. What we have learned based on our experience justifies that approach without a doubt. Tactically, the facts are far more important than the opinions whether its about dealing with a bona fide ET incursion or working with the system and the data to engage UAP studies.

Criticize all you want but I am not going to fix what isn't broken.

 

[Constance]

Ted Roe wrote:

Claiming you know something that you only suspect only serves to raise the tension around the subject. It doesn't resolve the issue, it just scares people. Same goes for the geniuses that think its a good idea to stand on a podium and tell the world that their suspicion of an ET presence is a good thing because a voice in their head told them so...

and I have to agree. I realized at one point in researching the early history of the ufo phenomena in the US that military, governmental, and scientific insiders -- in the Air Force, the Navy, the DOD (earlier the Department of War), the Batelle Institute, and the nuclear research facilities clustered in the US Southwest -- were alarmed and confused by the first waves of ufos in the US and that, from the beginning, individuals with responsibility in those agencies took various points of view on what information to share with the public. All along there have been insiders arguing for public disclosure of what was increasingly understood by experts of various kinds, and the burden of insider knowledge sat very heavily on those that bore it. As we know, policies of secrecy won out then and have been maintained to our time. And we know from Paul Hill's long suppressed work, and from Bernard Haisch's personal testimony -- that scientists known to him have confided to him that they work in black projects involving ufo research and even back-engineering of crashed ufos -- that there is much more that is known on the inside about physical objects responsible for some 'ufo' sightings and events and that there is pressure from the inside to disclose it. It seems to be inevitable that eventually more concrete information about some ufos will become known to the general population. But it remains a valid question when, how, and under what circumstances insider knowledge should be made public.

NARCAP is making a very important contribution to the development of further scientific insight into the range of phenomena associated with ufo sightings and building an international assembly of scientists and researchers in a position to influence eventual disclosure presented in a rational manner to the public. The public, as we see, constitutes a very mixed bag of both rational and irrational personalities and groups that will run in all directions with information it does not understand. That's been recognized from the outset of the modern ufo phenomenon and it conditioned the official secrecy that some of us find so frustrating at this point. I now see NARCAP and its international associates as the best hope for a reasoned and gradual presentation of the situation of earth relative to visitation and monitoring by more advanced species than ours from somewhere in our vicinity. No doubt the scientists and ufo researchers involved in these integrated research programs, some in direct cooperation with government officials and agencies, will have sufficient influence with government insiders to encourage their eventual cooperation in disclosing whatever evidence of extraterrestrial interest in earth can be proved to exist.

Thus NARCAP's program of investigating the UAP issues first is a sound one in my opinion because, if there turn out to be unexplainable ufo data that UAP does not ultimately account for, this recognition will reopen the ET question on firmer ground -- and globally. The following extract from one of Ted's posts last night confirms that a number of the most accomplished ufo researchers and research groups of recent decades are involved in the projects sponsored and facilitated by NARCAP and parallel affiliated organizations in other countries. I think these combined efforts will eventually produce meaningful progress in the beleaguered field of 'ufo research' itself.

. . . I worked on a project with Michael Swords some years ago. Very good researcher and he has assisted us on some studies since. I have maintained contacts with Richard Dolan and others. We have people on staff like Vallee, Don Ledger, and others that we consider to be "serious ufologists"..... We presented at the SSE in 2001 and I have met with everyone from John Mack to Hal Puthoff and a host of others here and abroad as NARCAP associates or contacts.

While we are focused on all types of UAP we are well aware of the concerns around the ETH. Many of us have direct experience with UAP that present in the profiles most commonly associated with ETH claims and have interviewed many people including pilots that report those profiles. As we say on our website, it is our obligation to respect the description offered by the witness... Of course forensic investigations are only one part of the puzzle.

The issue is how to develop the data and spoon-feed it into the system. A conservative approach that doesn't force too much too quickly might be the way to open up the discussion at an international level. Aviation safety offers a context that allows them to actually read the data and react to it... and while I mentioned that the study I did for Project Sphere identified 44 cases presenting as probable spherical UAP/ balls of light, the remainder of the safety cases did not involve lights... There is no avoiding that part of the data and the best excuse to get them to read it is to provide it along with information they need to have or appear negligent - like Extreme Ball Lightning... Carefully present the material in a conservative way...

I posted Tech Report 11... how do you explain the actual event itself without some thoughts about intelligence and the ETH? And its published on our site, factual and direct, and anyone reading it faces some uncomfortable conclusions if they think it through. Same with the OHare study... The data speaks for itself if it is presented clearly with respect for reasoning minds.

Just for fun, I spoke at a symposium at George Washington U in Washington. DC a few years ago. This function was hosted through the Podesta group. The subject was Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Interstellar Travel. Three NARCAP staff are present, Dr. Vallee, Dr. Haisch and myself along with John Callahan, Dr. Peter Sturrock, Dr. Richard Henry and Dr. Michio Kaku. The moderator was Ray Suarez, NPR ...

Are videos or transcripts available from that symposium? If so we here at the Paracast should do what we can to provide links to them in this and other relevant discussion groups, blogs, and websites.

 

[Randall]

Perhaps you should reread your lengthy critique that I imbedded my responses in, and the several others.... You have attacked everything from our budgetary plans and referring to our funding efforts as "panhandling" ...

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call asking for money without exchanging a product or service in return panhandling. At least the squeegee kid who hangs out with his bucket and wiper on the street corner actually cleans my windshield, and he doesn't even expect any money unless I roll down my window and offer it to him. I also think it's perfectly fair that if you're going to start soliciting for donations, that the donors get to see where their money goes. I'm no big spender, but when I sent money to Gene I got some advertising in return, and when I sent it to Chris I got books and a DVD. You want plane fare to France and South America and still haven't explained what it is that can't be accomplished less expensively via telecommunications.

... to our media policy regarding UFO shows - and on that subject you have yet to admit you are misrepresenting the message and its intended audience.

It might be possible that I'm misinterpreting the media statement, but I'm not misrepresenting anything. I've used direct quotes. In fact, below we can see a screenshot. In it we see a single paragraph in which immediately after saying NARCAP doesn't support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences, it says, "NARCAP reports and studies are not entertainment."



By including the two statements above within the same paragraph you are indicating that you are expressing a single idea ( that's standard composition ), and it is reinforced by the component of NARCAP's "image management" strategy that recommends distancing itself from ufology, which to my understanding, based on what I've seen so far, is at least in part because ufology is concerned with alien visitation, something NARCAP clearly says it doesn't support. So don't blame me if I'm misinterpreting the words. I didn't write them.

Solution: If the words don't mean what they say in the context of a single paragraph, then separate the two ideas into their own paragraphs ( that's what paragraphs are for ). Or even better, all you really need is the last part at the bottom: " If you would like to interview a NARCAP representative or you are interested in having a NARCAP representative make a presentation at your conference or event, please contact [email protected]". That's perfect, and if anyone contacts you, then explain the details to them.

You have criticized our model and our business plan without knowing a thing about it.

I don't recall mentioning your "business plan" anyplace. Please be more specific.

You have misinterpreted Haines definition of UAP ...

In what way? Please be more specific by way of example.

... you were wrong about the use of the term UAP in the international community,

How so? I didn't claim nobody uses the term UAP in the international community. I did however show how the word UFO is used internationally.

... you are wrong about your claims that we think of the ETH as "entertainment", etc., and haven't read my responses or acknowledged that you were wrong ....

We covered that already above.

You are far too unfamiliar with our program, didn't know we wrote a chapter for Leslie Kean's book, didn't know who is on our staff, etc., to criticize us.

At least I've provided examples and quotes. In contrast you're merely objecting and making assumptions.

The rest of my point regarding the ETH is that if you don't know and you understand that the risk could be beyond catastrophic for humanity and Earth then have some respect for that.

What is the "beyond catastrophic" risk you speak of, and how does saying that I know alien visitation is real, in any way contribute to that "catastrophic risk"?

... Running around demanding answers and acting like you can criticize without the facts is not a mature perspective. Claiming you know something that you only suspect only serves to raise the tension around the subject. It doesn't resolve the issue, it just scares people ...

It seems to me that there is already a substantial portion of the population who believe alien visitation is real, but I don't see mass panic in the streets.

Same goes for the geniuses that think its a good idea to stand on a podium and tell the world that their suspicion of an ET presence is a good thing because a voice in their head told them so ...

Are you alluding to claims of telepathic communication with aliens? That is an interesting one for sure. Personally I don't dismiss the possibility of some sort of direct to mind communication, however I remain analytical regarding the content. Even if such claims are real, I haven't heard any alien messages delivered via contactees that are substantial and/or verifiable.

We earned our way into the opportunities that we have by sticking close to the data and keeping our own opinions in check. What we have learned based on our experience justifies that approach without a doubt. Tactically, the facts are far more important than the opinions whether its about dealing with a bona fide ET incursion or working with the system and the data to engage UAP studies.

That sounds reasonable, and again, it's not your work I have an objection to.

Criticize all you want but I am not going to fix what isn't broken.

I'm not suggesting that you fix what isn't broken, I'm suggesting that you fix what is. The anti-ufology component of your image campaign has been exposed and yet here you are on the Paracast asking for donations from people with a sincere interest in ufology, and in my case that extends to a group of over 2000 of such people, in 22 countries, each of whom has declared a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon. So if you'd kindly take my request more seriously, you'll be making a change for the better. As for the rest of it, by all means, keep up the good work.

 

[Bonzo4880]

This was a great interview. I am currently about an hour into it and i'm loving all of the information being thrown at me. Thank you again.

Chas

 

[technomage]

I liked Ted's distinction between skeptics and debunkers. By objecting to calling debunkers skeptics, he prevents them from claiming the word and applying it incorrectly to make themselves sound like they're rational, when they're really not.

If we agree to call them skeptics, it implies we don't have critical thinking and are just true believers.

 

[Bonzo4880]

WOW! Spirited conversation to say the least. I do think it's healthy and there should be more of it. Ted and Ufology are both very passionate and more people in the field should take notes and learn from both. Thank you guys.

 

[Ted Roe]

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call asking for money without exchanging a product or service in return panhandling. At least the squeegee kid who hangs out with his bucket and wiper on the street corner actually cleans my windshield, and he doesn't even expect any money unless I roll down my window and offer it to him. I also think it's perfectly fair that if you're going to start soliciting for donations, that the donors get to see where their money goes. I'm no big spender, but when I sent money to Gene I got some advertising in return, and when I sent it to Chris I got books and a DVD. You want plane fare to France and South America and still haven't explained what it is that can't be accomplished less expensively via telecommunications.

It might be possible that I'm misinterpreting the media statement, but I'm not misrepresenting anything. I've used direct quotes. In fact, below we can see a screenshot. In it we see a single paragraph in which immediately after saying NARCAP doesn't support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences, it says, "NARCAP reports and studies are not entertainment."



By including the two statements above within the same paragraph you are indicating that you are expressing a single idea ( that's standard composition ), and it is reinforced by the component of NARCAP's "image management" strategy that recommends distancing itself from ufology, which to my understanding, based on what I've seen so far, is at least in part because ufology is concerned with alien visitation, something NARCAP clearly says it doesn't support. So don't blame me if I'm misinterpreting the words. I didn't write them.

Solution: If the words don't mean what they say in the context of a single paragraph, then separate the two ideas into their own paragraphs ( that's what paragraphs are for ). Or even better, all you really need is the last part at the bottom: " If you would like to interview a NARCAP representative or you are interested in having a NARCAP representative make a presentation at your conference or event, please contact [email protected]". That's perfect, and if anyone contacts you, then explain the details to them.

I don't recall mentioning your "business plan" anyplace. Please be more specific.

In what way? Please be more specific by way of example.

How so? I didn't claim nobody uses the term UAP in the international community. I did however show how the word UFO is used internationally.

We covered that already above.

At least I've provided examples and quotes. In contrast you're merely objecting and making assumptions.

What is the "beyond catastrophic" risk you speak of, and how does saying that I know alien visitation is real, in any way contribute to that "catastrophic risk"?

It seems to me that there is already a substantial portion of the population who believe alien visitation is real, but I don't see mass panic in the streets.

Are you alluding to claims of telepathic communication with aliens? That is an interesting one for sure. Personally I don't dismiss the possibility of some sort of direct to mind communication, however I remain analytical regarding the content. Even if such claims are real, I haven't heard any alien messages delivered via contactees that are substantial and/or verifiable.

That sounds reasonable, and again, it's not your work I have an objection to.

I'm not suggesting that you fix what isn't broken, I'm suggesting that you fix what is. The anti-ufology component of your image campaign has been exposed and yet here you are on the Paracast asking for donations from people with a sincere interest in ufology, and in my case that extends to a group of over 2000 of such people, in 22 countries, each of whom has declared a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon. So if you'd kindly take my request more seriously, you'll be making a change for the better. As for the rest of it, by all means, keep up the good work.

PANHANDLING? Asking for money without offering goods or services in return? We have maintained our group, our website and conducted our studies based on our own database, AIRCAT, and put our studies in the public domain at our own expense for 15years. We have worked thousands of hours - For Free. You are welcome for all the work, the original cases that are accurate documentation of UAP incidents, etc that you enjoy FOR FREE. Many of those cases speak for the UFO matter to any thinking mind without our help. I am not the least bit embarrassed about asking for donations to support the efforts of my team and our business plan - which is not any of your business to criticize as well. You are welcome for our efforts that are rasing the level of the conversation in science and internationally that we participate in , so far, at our own expense while we keep jobs and sweat out life. NARCAP doesn't owe you anything.

ENTERTAINMENT? Again and for the last time, this is our message to media. We don't participate in shows that treat UAP, etc... as entertainment. Its on our media contacts page which you neglect to show. Do you have some disability that keeps you from understanding this? Its on our media page, directed to production companies. They seem to get it. We have appeared on NatGeo, Discovery, NHK, History, etc... speaking seriously about the UAP matter based on what we know about it (vs what you believe you know) and none of it undermines Ufology. We don't support any claims about the ETH because nobody has made a good claim worth risking 15years of work by a lot of people on...

ANTI-UFOLOGY? The XO of the largest UFO research group, one we all know, contacted me this morning to request that we collaborate..so you are wrong about most of your concerns. Nobody has ever accused us of being "anti-ufology" but you. We have many of the core minds that you refer to as "Ufology" in our corner supporting our work much like Constance upthread. If I was so "anti-ufology" I wouldn't do media at all and much of the media we do isn't about your belief in aliens as it is.

You seem to have some kind of problem with reading my comments, I have no idea where you got the idea of "telepathy and aliens" but I think you misunderstand and misinterpret a lot of things.

Bottom line is that we aren't changing, your criticisms are unfounded and you fail to even acknowledge my responses when they challenge your claims..... you keep attacking us on every level and I really don't feel like giving you any more time.

 

[Ted Roe]

Ted Roe wrote:



and I have to agree. I realized at one point in researching the early history of the ufo phenomena in the US that military, governmental, and scientific insiders -- in the Air Force, the Navy, the DOD (earlier the Department of War), the Batelle Institute, and the nuclear research facilities clustered in the US Southwest -- were alarmed and confused by the first waves of ufos in the US and that, from the beginning, individuals with responsibility in those agencies took various points of view on what information to share with the public. All along there have been insiders arguing for public disclosure of what was increasingly understood by experts of various kinds, and the burden of insider knowledge sat very heavily on those that bore it. As we know, policies of secrecy won out then and have been maintained to our time. And we know from Paul Hill's long suppressed work, and from Bernard Haisch's personal testimony -- that scientists known to him have confided to him that they work in black projects involving ufo research and even back-engineering of crashed ufos -- that there is much more that is known on the inside about physical objects responsible for some 'ufo' sightings and events and that there is pressure from the inside to disclose it. It seems to be inevitable that eventually more concrete information about some ufos will become known to the general population. But it remains a valid question when, how, and under what circumstances insider knowledge should be made public.

NARCAP is making a very important contribution to the development of further scientific insight into the range of phenomena associated with ufo sightings and building an international assembly of scientists and researchers in a position to influence eventual disclosure presented in a rational manner to the public. The public, as we see, constitutes a very mixed bag of both rational and irrational personalities and groups that will run in all directions with information it does not understand. That's been recognized from the outset of the modern ufo phenomenon and it conditioned the official secrecy that some of us find so frustrating at this point. I now see NARCAP and its international associates as the best hope for a reasoned and gradual presentation of the situation of earth relative to visitation and monitoring by more advanced species than ours from somewhere in our vicinity. No doubt the scientists and ufo researchers involved in these integrated research programs, some in direct cooperation with government officials and agencies, will have sufficient influence with government insiders to encourage their eventual cooperation in disclosing whatever evidence of extraterrestrial interest in earth can be proved to exist.

Thus NARCAP's program of investigating the UAP issues first is a sound one in my opinion because, if there turn out to be unexplainable ufo data that UAP does not ultimately account for, this recognition will reopen the ET question on firmer ground -- and globally. The following extract from one of Ted's posts last night confirms that a number of the most accomplished ufo researchers and research groups of recent decades are involved in the projects sponsored and facilitated by NARCAP and parallel affiliated organizations in other countries. I think these combined efforts will eventually produce meaningful progress in the beleaguered field of 'ufo research' itself.



Are videos or transcripts available from that symposium? If so we here at the Paracast should do what we can to provide links to them in this and other relevant discussion groups, blogs, and websites.

Hi Constance, Its nice to talk with someone who gets it... The symposium was produced into a video by SyFy channel, sometimes they play it late nights....

This entire matter is nuanced and a sophisticated approach is the challenge. Ufology has gone about as far as it can go without stepping up its game.
I was contacted by the XO of a major UFO group we all know, today, asking to develop a collaboration. Do I ignore it or do I see if they can meet the standards and try to godfather them into the next level? There is so much more to this than declaring that aliens are here and demanding that somebody do something even if we had definitive proof.

 

[marduk]

Ufology has gone about as far as it can go without stepping up its game.

Man, do I agree with THAT.

 

[Randall]

PANHANDLING? Asking for money without offering goods or services in return? We have maintained our group, our website and conducted our studies based on our own database, AIRCAT, and put our studies in the public domain at our own expense for 15years. We have worked thousands of hours - For Free. You are welcome for all the work, the original cases that are accurate documentation of UAP incidents, etc that you enjoy FOR FREE.

Hey Ted, I never said your work wasn't good or that you shouldn't be commended for all the effort you've all put in at your own expense. The Paracast has a donation button, and I've even thought about putting one on the USI website. It's not a crime, and I gratefully accept any donation anyone wants to send. I've managed to keep USI operational ( barely ) of my own pocket for over 20 years. So, so far as I'm concerned. Good luck getting your charity money.

ENTERTAINMENT? Again and for the last time, this is our message to media ...

I've used a screen capture to explain how you can clarify your position on your website, or even better, avoid any misinterpretation altogether. It wouldn't take much to fix it, but if you choose to leave the association between alien visitation and entertainment intact ( as illustrated ), knowing full well how it can be interpreted because of that association, then your claim that they weren't meant to be associated will no longer be believable. For now I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. I'll check back in a week or two to see if it's been changed, or if you like, I'd be happy to fix it for you. You've seen the USI website. I built it myself and can do the job easily.
[/quote]
ANTI-UFOLOGY? The XO of the largest UFO research group, one we all know, contacted me this morning to request that we collaborate..so you are wrong about most of your concerns. Nobody has ever accused us of being "anti-ufology" but you. We have many of the core minds that you refer to as "Ufology" in our corner supporting our work much like Constance upthread. If I was so "anti-ufology" I wouldn't do media at all and much of the media we do isn't about your belief in aliens as it is.
[/quote]
Again, I've never said I don't support your work, we're talking about the flipside of your involvement in the field, and whether or not you want to admit it, you are involved in the field of ufology, and prior to finding the anti-ufology component of your image strategy buried in your documentation, and then watching how it's handled by people associated with NARCAP, I never had a problem with NARCAP either. And if other ufologists haven't caught onto it yet, or worse yet, don't care, then ufology has an even bigger problem to deal with. Let's have a closer look again to another quote ( in addition to the one already mentioned courtesy of Nick Pope ):

--- Begin Quote ---

Recommended Actions to Improve the Current Climate
of Denial within the Aviation World about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
and Related Commentary

Richard F. Haines Chief Scientist

National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena
Oak Harbor, Washington

November 18, 2010

/-- Slice here to item 41 --/​

“41. Dissociate from ufology. It is critically important that this initiative disassociates itself from ufology and ufologists…because of the reputational damage that would arise from association with a field that is widely perceived by key decision-makers as being unscientific and full of cultists, charlatans and crackpots.

--- End Quote ---

So instead of working to change the perceptions you're talking about by pointing out the good work done in the field, and by recognizing that many people welcome the opportunity to discuss their experiences, and that many people already believe that alien visitation is either real or entirely possible, and understanding ( or at least you should understand ) that the perceptions you're afraid of are those that have been capitalized on by anti-ufology skeptics, scientists who don't know any better, and religious people who think it's the devil, what do you do? You introduce your own jargon and try to make the thinly veiled claim that you're not interested in ufology, because after all, you don't want to be associated with all us "cultists, charlatans and crackpots" !

So back when I started out saying that the two-faced approach to ufology isn't something I can endorse, how much more do I need to point out using your own documentation and other examples from those associated with NARCAP? There's more out there besides the "critically important component "of your "initiative" above.

Item 41. is a mistake. It throws serious ufology under the bus along with all the "cultists, charlatans and crackpots". You think it's serving your purpose well, but I doubt you're fooling anyone that matters. Item 41. should read more like:

41 (SAMPLE). 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.​

You seem to have some kind of problem with reading my comments, I have no idea where you got the idea of "telepathy and aliens" but I think you misunderstand and misinterpret a lot of things.

Given the context of your comment on the person at the podium who hears an ET voice in his ( or her ) head, it is fair to ask if you were alluding to direct to mind communication. See my response again here, and you will see above it a direct quote of what you said. Why you don't get why I would make that connection is somewhat surprising. Are you not aware of the claims of telepathic communication between humans and ETs?

Bottom line is that we aren't changing, your criticisms are unfounded and you fail to even acknowledge my responses when they challenge your claims..... you keep attacking us on every level and I really don't feel like giving you any more time.

The quotes and examples I've provided more than justify my commentary, and your responses have been largely based on denial & evasion. Anyone who follows this discussion can see that. Again, I offer you the opportunity to do the right thing by amending item 41. of your initiative and to work with ufology to our mutual benefit. USI is not a cult and not every ufologist is a charlatan or crackpot, and it's not fair that your initiative lumps all ufology together in the same boat, and then uses that strategy to make yourself seem more credible. Not to mention topping it off with a solicitation ( since you don't like the word panhandle ) donations.

 

[Polterwurst]

I hereby propose to refer to the importunate 1 to 5% remainder of unexplainable UFOs by the acronym of WTFs so I may call myself a WTFologist.
*and off*
what? it's still better than being called a ufologist.