Classic Episode: June 8, 2014 — UFOs: Ted Roe of NARCAP

Gene and Chris present 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." Listeners will notice that they refer to such objects as UAP, short for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. The term UFO is not used in their ongoing research, and we'll focus on the best cases they've investigated and, of course, listener questions. Curioiusly, it's a label later attached to such phenomena by the U.S. government, although nowdays it refers to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-paracast-the-gold-standard-of-paranormal-radio--6203433/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:22):
You're in the Power Cast, the gold standard of paranormal radio.
And now here's Jean Steinberg.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
You know, every so often here on the Power Cast
we answer the critics. Now, I know one particular critic
who actually posted a message in items complaining that we
dare to respond to critics. Now, I don't know about you,
but where is it written that we can't answer to
people who object to what we do and how we

(00:54):
do it. What do you think, Chris, should we not
talk about the critics?

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Well, I mean, come on, you know, if people want
to complain or you know, even have constructive criticism, I mean,
I think it's beholden to us to respond to it
and address that.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
Of course, the common criticism is that we have too
many commercials, but that applies to all commercial radio shows.
You know, we have a fixed amount of commercials. It
consumes about twenty five or twenty six percent of the
content of the show. The same is true for all
commercial talk shows in the United States, and as a
matter of fact, for TV shows, which even offer more commercials.

(01:32):
So your one hour TV drama takes forty three minutes?
Is there any other way to work it out? I
suppose I suppose as TV and radio mature, as radio
moves more and more online, we'll find better ways. But
that's the way the system works now. We can't say
we'd like all the commercials, but about nine minutes of

(01:54):
those commercials are our own. What that means is if
you find an announcement for a product or service that
we are advertising, we'd like you to consider it because
what that means is income to the show, or we
get to sell some of our own stuff. So I
don't think anything's wrong with that. There has been talk
of a premium and free version. I can't say it's

(02:17):
going to happen. I know other shows do it, but
I have been talking to the network, and let's just
say the door is not closed to the idea. But
if you're saying that we break for commercials every five
minutes and we have six minutes of commercials, that's exaggerated.
There you go. I will not respond or ask Chris
to respond to the problem where they attack his character,

(02:39):
or they say that he speaks with chewing tobacco in
his mouth or something, or is it a bagel? Is
it a bagel? You know, if you're eating a bagel,
it's hard to talk. It's bagels are so thick, you know.

Speaker 3 (02:51):
No, well, you know, what can I say? I'm you know,
doing the best I can. I've never claimed to be
a smooth professional podcaster like Eugene. I'm more of the
color commentary kind of guy. And as long as you
can hear what I'm saying, I you know and understand,
you know the meaning behind my words. I don't think

(03:12):
there should be any problems with that. If there are,
I don't know, recommend a speech therapist or something.

Speaker 4 (03:19):
You know.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
When I went to broadcasting school, which has got to
be over forty years ago, we had voice exercises where
we would sit there and read aloud all sorts of
tongue twisters and things. So imagine me sitting here doing
absolutely nothing but reading classic tongue twisters like she sells
Seashells down by the Seashore, Susie's sister sewd socks for soldiers.

(03:45):
That's why I keep this around, by the way, so
if my tang gets tuggled, I have an out.

Speaker 3 (03:53):
Well again, I think content is way more important than form,
and that's why so many podcasts out there that may
not have the production quality and production values.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
And you know, the.

Speaker 3 (04:07):
Trained voiceover personnel, but they have good guests. That's they
become popular and people listen to them because they're more
interested in the guests and the content than they are
in the delivery. Although I must say, Gene, you and
I do have a reputation of being up to speed
on the subjects that you know, our guests are expert

(04:29):
in or aspiring experts in. And you know, I've always
taken it as my challenge to come up with something
that challenges the guests and maybe gives them information that
they didn't know beforehand. So I mean I always kind
of look at that as my role of being as
up to speed in these subject areas as possible.

Speaker 2 (04:48):
You know, one of the criticism they make is that
we give our own opinions. Well, you know, this is
not the kind of show where we just sit back
and say, okay, tell me something. If we have an opinion,
and we will express it now whether you agree with
it or not. If you don't like it, well, there
are other radio shows where the hosts will simply ask
a few dumb questions, sit back, have a banana, and

(05:11):
listen to the response, or maybe listen to the response.
It's like the classic joke you say about lame talk
show hosts where someone says, Okay, what did you do
yesterday and the guest says, well, I am a serial killer.
I killed twelve people, and then the host says, do
you have any hobbies?

Speaker 3 (05:32):
Well, with the release of my new book, I've done
quite a number of radio shows and podcasts over the
last two months, and the ones that always get me
are the ones that you know, ask could you send
us like a list of a dozen or so questions
that we can ask you? And it's like, you know,
it's their job to be up to speed in the
subject matter that you know their guests are involved with,

(05:52):
And you know, to me, that's just that's a lazy
way of attempting to get information out to their to
their listening audience. I you know, we never ask anybody
to send us questions to ask our guests. It's I
don't know.

Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, I know with one or two of our guests
where they had major publicists, like they wrote a book
for a large publishing company, you would get a press
release where they would give suggested questions, and I pride
myself with never ever reading them. Yeah, I asked my
own questions for better or worse. Another criticism that we

(06:33):
constantly attack other talk show hosts. Now, I don't know
about you. I think the worst we've said is some
are lazy, but we don't name them. All right. We
named George Norri of Coast to Coast because that's the
number one show. But we're not attacking George Norry as
a person. I gather he's a very nice guy. I'm
sure Chris and I would sit back at our favorite

(06:53):
Middle East restaurant and enjoy some kebab with him or something.

Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, No, George is.

Speaker 2 (06:59):
He's a sweet guy.

Speaker 5 (06:59):
He really is.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
In he does. He's quite a singer too, from what
I've heard.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
Oh you know, I'll tell you what. If George sends
us one of his songs, maybe we'll play it as
long as we have permission to erit. Sure, well you can.

Speaker 3 (07:15):
Sing, Chris, Oh boy, Yeah, if.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
You're a musician andother thing, you're a rock and roller.
Excuse me, let me use the right voice. You're a
rocket roller. They'll now get me for doing bad invitations.
But let me say this. The one thing I could
say about that is both the late Wolfman Jack whose
real name is Bob Smith and Geen Steinberg were both
born in Brooklyn, New York. But he made about ten

(07:41):
thousand times more money than I did, except I'm still here.
He's gone, yeah, there you go. So that's the criticisms.
Now I'm going to play this little recording which Chris
is aware of, where I respond to the criticisms, CP.

Speaker 3 (08:00):
You're a liar, crep, you're lies gamingstin game, nasty cycle,
liquid crap.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
Okay, with apologies, ladies and gentlemen. To Stephanie Miller, a
talk show host who featured and or created that sound effect.
We've had such a run of great guests it's almost
impossible to top them from one week to the next,
but we're going to do it. This week, we're going
to feature Ted Rowe and he's associated with an organization

(08:30):
called the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena or NARCAP. Now,
some years back, we featured his associate there, doctor Richard Haynes,
their chief scientist, and this is an organization that is
devoted to scientific exploration of what they call unidentified aerial

(08:56):
phenomena that's your term for UFOs, and we're going to
ask had to explain how that works out. We're going
to talk about their best cases and maybe learn a
bit more about what he thinks youap may in fact be.
This is going to be a tremendous show. We've been
in touch with Ted for a number of years. Occasionally

(09:17):
he posts message in our forums that formed out the
powercast dot com. Our listeners have also been there asking
some really interesting questions. And this also means that if
you have a question, all you have to do is
go to forum dot thepowercast dot com. Look for the
board entitled the Question Bank, where we set up a

(09:37):
topic or thread for an upcoming guest. There's going to
be a lot of solid information here, not speculation information.
Our guests once again coming up next, Ted Row of
NARCAP with Gina and Chris.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
You're in the power Cast. We'd like to hear from you.
If you have a comment or question about the Paracast,
send it to news at the paracast dot com. That's
news at the paracast dot com, and don't forget to

(10:12):
visit our famous Paracast community forums at forum dot theparacast
dot com.

Speaker 2 (10:20):
This week on the power Cast, we welcome Ted Row
of NARCAP to the Powercast now some years back, as
our listeners recall, we had doctor Richard Haynes, who Ted
works with over at NARCAP and he presented a lot
of fascinating information. But for those listeners who haven't heard
us present discussions about NARCAP or are not familiar with

(10:42):
the organization because you don't have a reality TV show
based on nurcap as you do with like mofon, Ted,
Welcome to the show. Can you tell our listeners about
the organization? How was it established and why?

Speaker 6 (10:56):
Hello Eugene and hello to your listeners. Yes, we were
established in nineteen ninety nine after a number of conversations
between doctor Haynes and myself to address aviation safety factors
that seem to crop up in some aviation related UFO encounters.
At the time, we felt that the term UFO is

(11:18):
a bit limiting and inaccurate, so we adopted a term
that's more common in the international research community, which would
be unidentified aerial phenomena.

Speaker 5 (11:28):
The Chilean team uses.

Speaker 6 (11:30):
Anomalous aerial phenomena French is rare atmosphere phenomena. So we
tried to choose a term that was more accurate, and
then we have subheadings Unidentified aerial phenomena slash light, Unidentified
aeral phenomena slash object, or UFO.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
So now, therefore, unidentified aerial phenomena is not specifically an
equivalent of UFO.

Speaker 6 (11:54):
Well, it's not specifically an equivalent of an alien spaceship.

Speaker 5 (11:57):
Let's put it that way.

Speaker 6 (11:58):
It remains unidentifed after examination with adequate data by people
who are qualified to make an analysis. So if you
have enough information to identify it and it still remains
unidentified by people who know what they're doing, then you have.

Speaker 2 (12:13):
A UAP okay, but you're not prepared to say that's et.

Speaker 6 (12:17):
Well, it's a very difficult line to walk there because
some cases are clearly provocative, but we're always missing certain
key information that would allow us to make that statement.
If we didn't see it come from space or see
it leave to space, then we can't be certain that
came from space originally. For example, if you see something

(12:38):
hovering over a tree that's unusual. Sure, it's unusual. You
document everything you can, but what you can't do is
document what's going on inside it or where it came from.
You know what its intentions are, et cetera. So it's
difficult in that way to make a definitive statement.

Speaker 2 (12:54):
All right, This is a big discussion here because, as
you know, a lot of the people in UFO field
believe that UFOs are extraterrestrial. I always argue it's a
process of elimination on their part. They say, well, it
doesn't seem to be conventional, therefore it's got to come
from out there. But you're taking a far more nuanced

(13:14):
look on this thing, which to me, as a matter
of fact, is probably closer to the viewpoint that we
hear on the power cast Take.

Speaker 5 (13:21):
Well, nuance is the key here.

Speaker 6 (13:23):
There are probably natural phenomena that account for some UAP reports,
and until we can weed them out, learn what they are,
give them a name, identify them, and move them away
from the collective description of UAP. Until we can weed
it out and get down to the fine points, so
we can't be certain what it is we're looking at.

(13:45):
Not all UAP, not all unidentified aerial phenomena are technical
in nature, you know, or have technical.

Speaker 5 (13:52):
Attributes, let's put it that way.

Speaker 6 (13:55):
And some of them, there are some ideas of around
what's called extreme ball lightning, for example, which are large,
slow moving, bright balls of light with wopping potential in
them that could just evaporate an aircraft if it destruct them,
and they're not under intelligent control, and there's no.

Speaker 5 (14:16):
Reasona believe that they'll get out of the way if you.

Speaker 6 (14:18):
See one in your path, and pilots aren't really advised
that such things exist. And until we can sort those
out from the larger data set, we can't be sure
what all people are seeing out there, except in the
most obvious cases and taking them at face value.

Speaker 2 (14:34):
Let's focus further on the things you're doing. But let
me mention parenthetically here APRO which had lot ties to
Latin American cases, they would call it unidentified aerial object
as opposed to phenomena. And I guess the distinction being
here is you're looking at all sorts of things. They're

(14:54):
not explained, but they can't quite be put in the
category of an object.

Speaker 6 (14:59):
Right If you see a ball of light, you don't
know if it's masking an object or if it's just
a complete three sixty energetic radiator with no mass in
the middle of it. You know, there's a lot of
basic questions here. Earthlights, for example, it's a common manifestation
to see orange balls of light. I've seen them myself
at a site in the southwest US where they manifest

(15:21):
and pilots report orange balls of light at altitude and
are they the same phenomena?

Speaker 5 (15:27):
And how do we know? And can we be certain?

Speaker 6 (15:30):
And and you know, if you really want to understand
what's going on here, you realize it is nuanced and
it's going to take time. It's going to take time
and a lot of work to resolve these cases.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
So let me ask you here very briefly, and we'll
get into this in more detail in our other segments.
We have some people in the UFO field who not
only maintain that UFOs must be et and I'm separating
the term UFO from UAP because it's not the term
they use. They say, we're being visited by spaceships. Further,

(16:05):
that the governments of Earth, particularly the US government, have
guilty knowledge of this, and therefore we should urge them
to disclose what they know. Is that a cop out?

Speaker 5 (16:19):
Well, it's another track.

Speaker 6 (16:23):
I think that in sixty years of trying to persuade
governments that are believed to be withholding information to talk
about it, it hasn't been terribly successful. They've put their
cases out there, but if they've done any extracurricular work
on it, we're not aware of it. I don't think

(16:43):
it's a cop out, really, but I think that they
bring belief systems with them when they carry these ideas,
and if they haven't adequately proved it, their assertions are
hard on those of us who are actually doing the science.
It hurts our credibility when we go to try to

(17:06):
talk to representatives of government, for example, and we want
to convince them that we have research that indicates that
we should be looking more closely at these phenomena, and
others have come before with more airy, fairy kind of ideas,

(17:28):
less credible ideas.

Speaker 5 (17:31):
We tend to get lumped in.

Speaker 6 (17:33):
With them, no matter how careful we are, and it
doesn't help us. So yeah, I don't really know how
effective these drives that government are in terms of making
change on this subject. In my experience, most government officials
are as ignorant on this subject as everybody else is.

Speaker 2 (17:51):
Let's talk a little bit more about our cap and
more about the history they came together in nineteen ninety nine,
how to just set things up, and more about how
you do the things that you do and also about
maybe some of the most significant case histories you've accumulated,

(18:12):
so we get a sense of the kind of evidence
that you've looked at, and maybe also some of the
stuff that didn't pass muster and why. And we'll get
into that more as we progress with this week's episode.
Our guest is Ted Rowe. The organization is NARCAP and
if you go to narcap dot org you'll find more

(18:32):
about the organization and its mission. You're on with Gene
and Chris. You're in the para cast.

Speaker 7 (18:50):
This is Jerom Clark, author of uf or Encyclopedia and
other books. You're listening to the paracast.

Speaker 2 (19:07):
We have Ted Rowe from NARCAP and this is an
organization that obviously has a heavily scientific bent. So let's
start from the beginning there. We kind of went away
from it that you were founded in nineteen ninety nine.
How did you set this up and how do you

(19:28):
continue your focus?

Speaker 6 (19:30):
Well, I met doctor Haynes kind of under interesting circumstances.
I had had a UAP encounter of my own. Actually,
I was a lay person and pretty familiar with the
UFO community. I'd spent ten years studying trying to make
sense of things that I had seen and experienced myself,
and I ended up making a report to the NASA

(19:53):
PR office at Games Research Center, and doctor Haynes got
back to me, and in the cour of going through
that investigative process and sharing that information and learning a
bit about UFO research, we came to be friends, and
he eventually came to me with an idea he had

(20:14):
for a international aviation recording center. He had felt that
a lot of aviation cases had aviation safety factors that
were being overlooked by the aviation community, and that he
thought that champion those ideas might help reveal a little
bit of information about the UFO problem. And I agreed

(20:37):
with him it seemed to be one of the one
of the more relevant approaches. So we got to talking
about how to get it set up. He had many
contacts and friends of his own and to man the
research side of things, and I had plenty of experience
and administration, so I sort of took over the image
management and the internal processes of the organization itself, and

(20:59):
between we built it into about fifty five more or
less members technical specialists, research associates, international specialists, etc. In
twenty ten, I started getting emails from Chilean Air Force
generals and the result of that was a written agreement

(21:22):
of collaboration and research agreement with the Chilean government and
we've helped them on a number of cases since. Our
contacts in France are strong. So relationship with Japan is
pretty good. Although it's not official. We're presenting at one
of their close symposiums here in a month. So our
start just rose by sticking to the rules as far

(21:45):
as science goes, just sticking to the basics of what
we were trying to do and not extrapolating our data
very far. That's not to say that some of these
cases aren't provocative.

Speaker 5 (21:57):
There are.

Speaker 6 (21:58):
I think they need to be looked at all, need
to be looked at much more closely. And as far
as the idea of extraterrestrial incursions, we can't rule it out.

Speaker 5 (22:07):
A careful look at the.

Speaker 6 (22:09):
US Air Force studies the Battel Institute Special Report fourteen
was pretty clear that what the Air Force was claiming
outwardly and what their data was showing with two different things,
and that some of these unidentified are very provocative and
need to be resolved. So how you go about doing that.

(22:29):
It's a big subject.

Speaker 3 (22:30):
Yeah, and we obviously we want to get into that
subject and also discuss some of the cases that you're
working on with the Chilean officials. But ted you kind
of mentioned something there at the onset about your own
personal experiences that helped kind of jumpstart your interest in
this subject. Why don't you describe some of your own
personal experiences that you've had with UAPs and give our

(22:56):
listeners a sense of how you were motivated to get
involved in such an extensive manner.

Speaker 6 (23:02):
Well, it's a personal story and kind of convoluted. I
trended towards keeping it out of the media for the
last fifteen years, but I don't mind sharing it with
you guys in general. Over the course of my life,
I've been exposed to UAP of the kind that everybody
is most concerned about, probably a dozen times for the

(23:24):
most most part, sometimes at very close quarters. I don't
really understand why or what it's about, but it's provocative
and it's disturbing. And in nineteen ninety one, I believe
it was ninety one, I was watching CNN and General
Wilfrid de Brauer from NATO Command in Belgium was asking

(23:46):
the world for these aircraft that his air force was
chasing around the country belonged to with these unusual flight characteristics,
and it kind of sparked my memories of the family
seeing these things and having to deal with the fallout
of it. We all kind of just smoothed it over
and didn't talk about it really, but it was more

(24:06):
than one time, and then I had several of them.
I'd just kind of forgotten about them, but that triggered something,
and so I started reading and studying, and then next
thing you know, I'm having a cluster of these experiences again,
and I report them, and I end up one of
the people i'd been studying was doctor Haynes, and out

(24:27):
of the woodwork, here he comes, and we had a
meeting in two thousand and eight, I believe it was
in San Jose and who was present but former Major
General Wilbert de Brower. So it's been a very strange experience.
The UAP that I've seen of the technical type involve

(24:47):
spears and discs and cylinders, and then I've been out
in the desert and seen what are called earth lights
and other types of poorly understood phenom as well, so
I've been exposed to all of it. I don't have
any answers about any of it other than I listened
very carefully. When somebody says they've seen something, I know
how strange it can be.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
You know, now, what you're telling us here is very
very general, that you had sightings of all sorts of things, cylinders,
things like that in the sky. Can you give us
more details on any particular case, It just stands out
this is the most incredible one I heard.

Speaker 5 (25:28):
I can offer one for you.

Speaker 6 (25:30):
I was standing on my deck on his drive in Arenda, California,
which overlooks the freeway about a quarter mile below, and
I caught some movement out of the corner of my eye,
and I looked to my left and I saw a
black round spear moving up the ridge line towards the house.

(25:50):
And it came to a stop about fifty feet in
front of me. Out in front of the over the deck,
there was a guy down below mowing his lawn, and
I yelled at him.

Speaker 5 (26:00):
He looked up and I pointed at it.

Speaker 6 (26:01):
He looked at it too, and both stood there and
watched it, and then it just kind of retreated away
from me. And then went over the opposite ridgeline and
disappeared very close. No idea why. Like I said, maybe
twelve times in my entire life, I'm fifty four years old.
It probably all adds up to maybe ten twelve minutes

(26:22):
of experience direct and very very few answers. And I'm
not terribly satisfied with Euphology's engagement of it. So I've
tried to just hold to my own standards on this.
I'm a hard point on the sphere in terms of
listening to our reporters. I advocate for them, and I'm

(26:43):
careful in doing it. But that was one example. The
one that got me in contact with doctor Haynes was
a bit more puzzling. It was a very close approach
by a large cylindrical object that with very unusual attributes,
and it parked, it kind of parked itself in front

(27:05):
of our cars we were driving down the road, less
than its own length from our windshield.

Speaker 5 (27:10):
And that lasted for a bit.

Speaker 6 (27:12):
It was very uncomfortable, and for months afterwards, I wasn't
I wasn't able to explain it adequately. So I wrote
a terse, little note, little little couple of sentences to
the pr office at ames Or Research Center, asking if
anybody was interested in knowing anything about this. I wanted
to talk to somebody. Doctor Haynes got back to me.

(27:32):
We worked on it from there. Again, I have nothing
but empathy for people who experience these things. I advise
them all to be very careful with what they do
with their minds around these things. The urge to think
that you're special or different can be overwhelming and may
not be correct and may not serve you, you know, So

(27:56):
there's a there's a lot of considerations around I just
asked people not to hand their minds over somebody else
if they don't know the answer. Lothy, I don't know,
you know, be satisfied with that until you can get
an answer that you can depend on. Don't just adoptable.

Speaker 2 (28:12):
So don't just assume there's an answer and that someone
else has the answer, because you might find yourself barking
up the wrong tree. Ted row is executive director of NARCAP.
This is Gene with Chris. You're in the peri cast.

Speaker 7 (28:41):
This is the Wrong Clark, author of the UFO Encyclopedia
and other books. You're listening to the para cast.

Speaker 2 (28:52):
Gene and Chris and the Power Cast. We're talking to Tedrow,
executive director of NARCAP, and we're focusing on his personal experiences.
Briefly speaking, people will want to know, can you tell
us what's your day job?

Speaker 6 (29:08):
Well, I along with NARCAP, I teach free diving here
at a breathhol diver teacher I used to be. I
used to work in offices, project management type stuff on
the main Once the economy collapsed, I stepped over here
to do that. I also teach martial arts and preparing
to a course for the local Soto Daifukujis and temple here,

(29:33):
so I'll be teaching out of that shortly.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
So basically speaking, here, let's not get on your bad side.

Speaker 6 (29:41):
I try to have a bad side. I'm pretty open
to everybody. I'm not going to embrace what everybody thinks,
but they can think what they want to.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
Let me look at your sitings here. Now. The key
about it here is that from what you tell me,
these this phenomena does show evidence of intelligent control. Right.

Speaker 6 (30:01):
There are profiles of UAP that seem to do that
that they seem to be technical manifestations. I don't know
who's but they have technical qualities to them, and if
you can describe their behaviors, you would try to apply
attributes of intelligence.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Yes, I'm thinking specifically of the things you saw.

Speaker 6 (30:20):
Yeah, yeah, my personal experiences. I think some of those
are technical manifestations. I think others I'm not the juries out.

Speaker 2 (30:29):
Okay, So, having seen things that show evidence of intelligent control,
unknown aerial phenomena showing intelligent control, obviously you have cases
on file at NARCAP of things also indicating some sort
of intelligent control. So it follows, then what sort of

(30:52):
intelligence are we talking about?

Speaker 6 (30:54):
Well, yes, that would be in the next round of questions.

Speaker 5 (30:58):
I suppose.

Speaker 6 (31:02):
There's a lot to be done in terms of just
teasing these profiles apart and understanding them. One of the
efforts we undertook in NARCAP was called Project Sphere, and
it was a case study of UAP that present as
spirit lights or objects. And so we took one category
one profile, and we examined it, and we examined the

(31:24):
scope of these manifestations, how big they are, the altitudes
they manifest at, whether they have dynamic trajectories or not,
and so on, what we would call their behaviors per se,
and that needs to be done for every profile of UAP,
and it just hasn't been done yet. We need to
do that for those that are reported as disc shaped objects,

(31:46):
those that are reported as cylinders, and so on, and
we really need to, as you mentioned earlier, look at
the nuance and then we can come to some kind
of conclusions in terms of just.

Speaker 5 (31:59):
What it is we're looking at.

Speaker 6 (32:00):
At the flip side of the problem, the gene is
the extraterrestrial hypothesis and the concern that if any one
of these things is a manifestation of an extraterrestrial incursion,
we as humanity cannot afford to be missing this. If
it's happening, it could be very toxic and very dangerous.

(32:20):
It's an incursion until we can determine whether it's benign
or benevolent or not. And as an incursion, it's a
security risk, and I don't think humanity is at all
prepared to deal with what that means we're to even
be able.

Speaker 5 (32:32):
To detect it accurately or correctly.

Speaker 6 (32:35):
Everything science tells us at this point is that we
live in a populated universe, and chances are very good
that those that populate that universe are much older than
we are and much more capable. So we need to
have an open mind and open eyes, and we need
to be looking at these phenomena carefully and making sure
that we know what they are and what they're not,

(32:55):
and making good judgment calls based on that information. And
I just don't think the infrastructure in place yet. I
don't think that the powers that are are focused properly
as they should be on this is what it means.
And that's assuming that there's no shadow government and you're
not buying into the conspiracies.

Speaker 2 (33:13):
You're not going that far as it suggests that there's
a shadow government or some kind of black project that's
aware of what's going on. In terms of unidentified phenomena.

Speaker 6 (33:24):
You know, there are certain clues in the history of
the examination of the phenomena that causes to suspect certain things.

Speaker 5 (33:31):
Nineteen fifty two, fifty three and fifty.

Speaker 6 (33:33):
Four were kind of watershed years where the government in
the military went from a positive relationship with the general
public or around the subject to a dismissive and closed
approach to the topic. And I'm not sure what was
disclosed in those years. I do know that there were

(33:54):
certain events are that would be considered provocative the manifestations
over Washington DCTY two, for example, But then we have
the Robertson panel with fifty.

Speaker 3 (34:04):
How was it just going to say that the Robertson
panel had a lot to do with the.

Speaker 6 (34:07):
Change exactly, and academia has has embraced those recommendations boleheartedly.
Whether that adds up to a shadow government or or
bad judgment or whatever it is, I don't know. There
are probably other historians, Richard Dolan and others that might
have a better take on that. But just assuming, just

(34:30):
assuming it all is as it's been laid on the table,
then I would say that that Earth is not prepared.
Earth could not protect itself from alien incursions, and the
fallout that that we face, even from potentially benign incursions
would be massive and difficult for the for a culture

(34:51):
to manage. And I don't really think it's been well
thought out by anybody. Just what that means if if
we find ourselves detecting these et incursions as as thousands
of people tell us every year.

Speaker 3 (35:06):
We're seeing, well, that brings something to mind that has
always puzzled me, and that is the possibility of a
sizeable percentage of these unknowns. UH could possibly be some
sort of exotic earthbound technology that's being tested and possibly
being being made operational that is then cited by pilots

(35:29):
spotted by by witnesses. And you know, of course, the
automatic assumption is that these are off planet intelligences operating
with impunity within our airspace. Have you guys seen in
your database a like an increase in citing events that
may be these types of black projects that say era

(35:51):
exotic aerial technology.

Speaker 6 (35:53):
It's probable that some of the profiles in our databases
are representative of black projects of one kind or another.
It whenever we think we might be looking at something
like that, we withdraw from it. We have an obligation
to respect the government, respect you know, our security, and
not dig into things that that are easily or that

(36:18):
the world is shouldn't really know about.

Speaker 5 (36:21):
Uh. And and we don't have a lot of cases
like that.

Speaker 6 (36:25):
I mean, most of the cases that we see fit
the high nicked standard of high strangeness.

Speaker 5 (36:32):
Uh. They fall into that general category.

Speaker 6 (36:34):
But uh, like I said, if we thought we were
dealing with anything that was nationally secure, national security orient.

Speaker 5 (36:40):
And we would drop it like a hot potato.

Speaker 6 (36:42):
We do have problems as as drones and and other
types of aircraft are operating in US airspace with reports
that that represent things that people hadn't seen before and
are a challenge to us.

Speaker 5 (36:58):
To weed out of the overall DTA.

Speaker 6 (37:01):
We put it, we we recently did a study examining
drone activity and asking ourselves whether we could determine drones
from UAP and how we might do that. So it's
a concern.

Speaker 2 (37:19):
Well, that raised a very big question here, which is
the guilty knowledge on the part of the government. I mean,
this stuff has been going on at least since nineteen
forty seven, sixty seven years, and possibly for many years
before that. So I'm going to ask you. We're going
to have to break in a little over a minute
so we can start the answer here and pick it

(37:39):
up in our next segment, and that is, do you
have any suspicion of what sort of guilty knowledge the
governments really have about what's going on?

Speaker 5 (37:52):
Well, yes to a point.

Speaker 6 (37:56):
I mean, the US Air Force was founded in September
of nineteen forty seven with early marching orders to acquire
intelligence information on playing discs and so on, and that
was based on a lot of information that had been
acquired prior to that by the military. I think the
phenomenon has been around all along. The reports increased as

(38:16):
we fielded a global army central reporting, and you see
the bellker go up in the mid forties as we
as we move out into the world. So to a point,
I would say, yes, there there is some guilty knowledge there.
Somebody knows something or suspects something. But again it's hard
to tell how far, how far, how deep that goes.

(38:39):
We've seen how incompetent government can be, so I have
to wonder about how competent they would be with something
so big.

Speaker 2 (38:47):
So basically here it may be they're so incompetent they
couldn't even recognize the existence of something strange if it
was staring at them in the face. I'll ask more
questions about this. Me and Chris, And next segment we
have ted Row of NARCAP with Gene and Chris. You're
in the Paragast.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
Welcome back to the Para Cast, the gold standard of
paranormal radio. And now here's Jean Steinberg.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
On the Power Cast with Gene and Chris. Ted Row,
the executive director of NARCAP, joins us and we got
so much to discuss. So obviously we can see where
the government can sometimes do things right and when it
comes to the VA do things very wrong. So is
there the suspicion here that the US government particularly is
not competent enough to recognize existence of something really strained,

(40:00):
really significant out there.

Speaker 6 (40:02):
Well, it might be, but it could also suffocate any
dialogue about it in its own ranks. For example, we
have these UFO research teams in France and in Chile
which are mandated to study these things and to provide
information to the to their their public and they're they're
tolerated within their government, but their recommendations and their studies

(40:25):
and so on don't carry a lot of weight. So
when we have the same kind of problem here, you
know where where these things are seen, And it's probable
that the military had quite a lot of activity around.
My father was involved in a UFO pursuit squadron of
refitted UH Saber jets out of El Toro back in

(40:45):
the mid fifties I think it was, and he said
they never found anything, but it was run by the
Air Force out of Marine Air Air Force Base.

Speaker 5 (40:53):
That a Marine air base.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
They were tasked with actually chasing after UFOs.

Speaker 6 (41:00):
They had refitted saber jets into two seaters with a
radar operator in the back, and my dad was fresh
out of air traffic control school and they were grabbing
radar operators out of that to fly on these sorties
against unidentified when they thought they had.

Speaker 2 (41:16):
Them, so they took them real seriously then.

Speaker 6 (41:19):
Well, certainly, and air force bases into the sixties and
seventies had every one of them had a UFO officer,
somebody who was tasked with dealing with the UFO on
the basis, and when there were encounters with UAP, they
would create up the aircraft itself and ship it off
to god knows where and along call relevant reporting. So

(41:40):
you know, there's been an interest in this all along.
But my concern is that really the focus has been
sort of moved out of government into private industry, and
if anybody's calling any shots in this area, it's probably
in the contractors that provide the sensing platforms for the
government and operate them on contract for the government. They're

(42:02):
the ones that probably detect these things and see what's
going on. They're more likely, I would think, to be
in the know on these matters than than even the
government itself might be. Certain military aspects are probably clued in,
Certain intelligence aspects are probably aware as well. This is
all speculation, you know, But but it seems there's a
rich history of government interest in this subject and hasn't

(42:25):
been very forthcoming about it.

Speaker 5 (42:27):
So we're left to speculate the.

Speaker 2 (42:29):
Implication being here they've outsourced UFO research.

Speaker 6 (42:33):
They could very well have and not necessarily done it voluntarily.

Speaker 2 (42:37):
How so not voluntarily?

Speaker 6 (42:39):
Well, you know, the corporations are very powerful, you know,
Eisenhower warnedness of the military industrial complex actually outweighing national interest,
you know, and that the issue of having control over
and control over our futures is jeopardized by corporate.

Speaker 5 (43:01):
Domination.

Speaker 6 (43:02):
And it wouldn't it wouldn't surprise me at all that
those who are tasked with building these black projects toward
the government, UH, at some point could have gained control
over the information itself.

Speaker 3 (43:14):
Right, and that would be out of the reach of
freedom of information requests and and any sort of attempt
by you know, the private sector to try to gain
information from proprietary companies that have no obligation to supply
that information answers to questions that sort of thing. So

(43:35):
it would make sense to me that's a great way
to keep it as out of reach and compartmentalized as
as possible.

Speaker 6 (43:42):
Absolutely, And then and then there's another way to look
at it too, if the if, if it was decided
amongst the intelligence community that there was truly a threat
related to the matter, like the Robertson panel suggested, Uh,
that and and but but more more than.

Speaker 5 (44:00):
What the Robertson panel suggested.

Speaker 6 (44:02):
Uh, their first concern was the the you know they
when when discussing a possible et incursion, was the sof
if this information somehow was determined to be detrimental to
human society, they probably wouldn't even want any aspect of
the information getting into human society. If they thought that

(44:24):
that influenced by an extraterrestrial intelligence would be toxic to humanity,
they wouldn't even allow the discussion of the possibility of
existing manifest.

Speaker 2 (44:37):
I mean, that's competent enough to even realize that.

Speaker 6 (44:40):
Well, if they are, I mean, if that's their logic,
you know that, then it's a tactical consideration managed by
a resistance. So then you find yourself wondering if you're
second guessing things, you shouldn't be talking about at all,
you know, uh, the uh and the answer really, we
don't know. And the best way I know to get

(45:04):
these answers is just to do science, to do the work,
to build the data, to understand the situation and all
of its nuances, and then come to a good conclusion
about what it is you're dealing with that's effective and
safe and that has the best interests of humanity in mind.

Speaker 3 (45:24):
Well, this is not a new problem that the government
has either publicly or privately been concerned with. Back in
World War Two, and then after World War Two we
had the onset of very intriguing phenomenal events that were
dubbed in the case of World War two food fighters,

(45:44):
and then later on in Sweden we had the ghost
rocket scenario, which also included possibility of like ghost planes
and that sort of thing. Now, what is an ourcap's
official opinion and what is your personal opinion of what
these food fighter objects reported by pilots in World War
two work.

Speaker 6 (46:04):
Well, you know, the foo fighter term, if I remember correctly,
came out of a black Widow squadron that was operating
off the coast of Japan, I believe, and they were
encountering u U A P that that were giving them
radar returns and they called them food fighters. There there
were also reports in the bomber squadrons of all the

(46:26):
participants in the European theater and the Japanese as well,
that that encountered u AP lights and objects in the
course of their missions. And so again that this kind
of tells me that the phenomenon has.

Speaker 5 (46:42):
Been around for a while. What they were, I don't know, uh.

Speaker 6 (46:46):
These uh organized plasmas. I mean, the list could be
anything that could be an energetic relationship between the aircraft
and the environment. One of our researchers, Richard Spaulding, offered
a study of that particular focus uh to the project
Spirit Analysis and and it's a bit provocative is he

(47:07):
works for Sandia Llabs atmosphere businesses. But uh, there there
are there are some ideas, but but again we have
to work the new instance. We have to actually do that,
do the work and to have anything to suggest.

Speaker 5 (47:22):
Uh. In my own personal opinion, I.

Speaker 6 (47:23):
Think that it's it's consistent with what's been reported right
up to the present, and that recently the Argentinian government
UH tasked a team to study U A P phenomena,
and uh, we received a a compendium of U A P.
Reports involving aviation safety from from the Argentinians. And they're

(47:47):
just the same types of reports that we have here.
You know, they're they're they're they're really no different. You
could be reading, except for the Hispanic names. You would
be reading the same kinds of reports that we have
here in the US back over fifty years. We have
a report in our files in nineteen twenty six of

(48:07):
a guy who was accosted by six blind manhole covers,
as he called. So again, the jury's out is in
terms of what they are, but they are.

Speaker 2 (48:19):
I think long term listeners to the Power Cast are
quite aware of this. But I realized some of you
have not listened to the show all these years. Some
of you are new listeners. So let me just say
this again. You know, when you say flying manhole covers,
I started thinking about certain UFO photographs that we all
know about and we're not going to mention, especially certain

(48:42):
photographs from the so called one Armed Man in Europe.
Then you don't want to mention his name.

Speaker 3 (48:49):
Or the twins that shall not be named in Hawaii, Well.

Speaker 2 (48:52):
Yeah, we don't. He knows what we're talking about.

Speaker 5 (48:55):
I know exactly what we're talking about.

Speaker 2 (48:57):
Ted Row is definitely with it for I'm NARCAP with
Gene and Chris in the parro cast.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
We'd like to hear from you. If you have a
comment or question about the para cast, send it to
news at the paracast dot com. That's news at the
paracast dot com. And don't forget to visit our famous
paracast community forums at forum dot theparacast dot com.

Speaker 2 (49:34):
So you see, we don't want to mention those twins
in about the fact that they cast a bad light
on people in Hawaii, but they also film Hawaii five.

Speaker 6 (49:43):
Oh there, Oh yeah, all right, And I see dog
driving around here every now.

Speaker 5 (49:48):
And then too. He lives here on the app.

Speaker 2 (49:50):
Who is that dog?

Speaker 3 (49:51):
The boundary dog, the boundy Oh yeah, kind of hard
to miss.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
Yeah, you kind of started with this in the last second,
and maybe we should talk about it. Since narcaf has
been around now one over fourteen years, can you mention
maybe one or two of the best cases you've gotten.

Speaker 6 (50:10):
Well, sure, we have one. We've been doing photo analysis.
That's one of doctor Haynes' fortes and one of our
photo analysis cases, I think is pretty good. It involves
an airliner coming in on approach to San Jose International
in the South Bay area, San Francisco, and it's coming

(50:33):
over the sam Bruno and there was a group of
astronomers who were set up at sunset and had what
was at the time a very expensive and powerful camera
and noticed that a small ball of light was following
this airline and proceeded to take a series of pictures
of this thing as it pulled up under the tail

(50:54):
of the airliner and sort of parked there for a
little bit and then broke away and left it leak angle.
I think it's one of the one of the best
photo cases we've got in our files in terms of
explaining just what it is we're looking at and and
how what what one profile of ap may be. I

(51:16):
think it's a very good case. Other cases we've we've
done some work for the Chilean government and we did
a at their request, we did a study of some
video segment referred to as the El Bosk case, and
that's available on our CAP website. You have to go

(51:36):
into the CEPHA section section where we talk about.

Speaker 5 (51:40):
A relationship with the Chileans.

Speaker 6 (51:42):
But it's in the case files there, and it's analysis
of video shot during an air show by.

Speaker 5 (51:50):
The Chilean Air Force and the capture of.

Speaker 6 (51:54):
Some very high speed UAP movie jumping from frame to
frame at thirty frames per second.

Speaker 5 (52:01):
We we came back thinking that yes, those were u
A P.

Speaker 6 (52:04):
But for four different analysis were done of the study,
and two of them came back negative and two came
back positive. So the Chileans declared that it was inconclusive.
And I think we got to be a little careful
about those types of conclusions and how we score cases.
But I thought it was a particularly interesting case.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
All right, we say too that you say too negative,
meaning that they were fake.

Speaker 6 (52:30):
Know that that that the belief was that the camera
was picking up insects and art facts that weren't external.
So there we we determined that that uh though the
cameras were set far apart, that on at least one
occasion they captured the same object at.

Speaker 5 (52:51):
The same time. And uh uh.

Speaker 6 (52:53):
And there's a number of examples of of what we
what we filmed, that we do not what we analyze,
that we do not believe our insects, that we did
pixel stretching around it to see if there were wing
beats and this kind of stuff in their work. So
in our in our perspective, we came down with a
solid Yeah, those are UAP. They're moving, They're jumping from

(53:15):
frame to frame at fractions of a second.

Speaker 5 (53:17):
They're very fast.

Speaker 6 (53:18):
They weren't very big, uh, disc shaped maybe peter across
and all kinds of questions could arise from that.

Speaker 2 (53:27):
Are the actual pictures posted online that our listeners can check.

Speaker 6 (53:32):
Yes, I actually I had intended to get up the uh.
I actually collected a bunch of this information based on
your listeners questions, and I had it prepared to go
on your I was going to post it on your site.

Speaker 2 (53:44):
Well, you know what, why don't you do that between
the time the show airs? Yeah, now, and that way,
when listeners go to forum dottorpowercast dot com, we'll have
a section right for an our cap a different one
from the question section. We are have a section there
just so people have questions on the show. We'll set
up a thread or a topic area where people can

(54:07):
discuss the show, and there you can post any further responses,
links to photographs, that kind of thing.

Speaker 5 (54:12):
Sure, that's that's fine.

Speaker 6 (54:14):
So to answer your question now, the studies posted on
the nar CAP site in the SEPA off section section.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
That's interesting here too. The fact is that you're able
to work with the authorities in Chile, able to work
with authorities, say in other countries, but not in America.

Speaker 5 (54:33):
That's right, that's right.

Speaker 6 (54:35):
The AIM manual, the Airmin's manual basically spells it out
and it says that if you're a pilot or an
air controller and you want to record a UFO, you
can contact a UFO sporting center or an aerospace company
that will remain unnamed, and they don't want to know.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
The one that's unnamed is that like Bigelow. Yeah, okay.

Speaker 6 (55:00):
My point is that nothing is going to come of
it that will help aviation safety or help pilots.

Speaker 2 (55:05):
Doesn't this also serve as a disincentive for pilots to
report anything. I mentioned this on a previous show about
this that we have that telltale scene and close encounters
of the third kind where the traffic controllers are in
touch with these pilots reporting UFOs and they asked, you
want to report a UFO and they say no. I

(55:26):
wonder how many good sightings are never reported because the
pilots don't want to get involved.

Speaker 6 (55:32):
It's pretty clear from our experience that it's we're looking
at the tip of a very large iceberg, and as
pilots learn about us, they report to us, and it's
usually soon after they retire. It's rare that we get
a working case. We don't get them that often that
are with. We have to hear about the case within

(55:52):
two weeks of the event so that we can, for you,
request rate our data and this kind of stuff from
the FAA audio tapes and that sort of things, and
we don't get those very often. We do get them sometimes,
but not very often. Usually our reporters are concerned about
their image and we'll wait until they can talk about

(56:13):
it without affecting their careers.

Speaker 3 (56:16):
Well, how much cooperation have you received from the commercial
pilot organizations and commercial aviation. I'm sure you've done an
outreach program, you know, urging pilots to come forward or
aircraft traffic controllers to come forward with any pertinent information

(56:37):
regarding up sidings. How cooperative have you found the aviation
community to be?

Speaker 6 (56:45):
Well, when you're dealing with pilots and retired pilots, like
like Retired Airline Pilots Association, that sort of thing. It
isn't too too difficult, but when you start dealing with
administrators and managers middle managers in FAA, for example, or
in commercial airlines themselves, it gets a little dicey. We

(57:09):
did a survey of pilots and air crews. We approached
a number of commercial airlines and didn't want anything to
do with us. Then one airline took us on a
regional air carrier and made sure that we ended up
in the mailboxes of everybody in the ready rooms and
so on. We had an almost twenty six percent response rate,

(57:30):
which is practically unheard of for surveys, and out of
that we did get some helpful data. So it really
it seems to vary with the culture of the commercial organization.
The FAA, on the other hand, are just doggedly not
interested in docuing anybody.

Speaker 2 (57:50):
We have Ted Rowe, executive director of NARCAP, with Gene
and Chris. You're in the peri cast.

Speaker 5 (58:04):
This is Leslie Kane and I'm with see Coalition for
Freedom of Information and you are listening to the paracast.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
You're in the para casts with Gene and Chris we
have Ted Rowe, executive director of NARCAP are focusing on
the strange phenomena happening in our skies, and some call
it UFOs, but we're referring to I guess the more
serious stuff. Isn't it also true that when you talk

(58:33):
about UFOs it has kind of an aura about it,
like flying saucers once did, where you say ufo and
they look at it and say, ah ha haha, spaceships.
But once you refer to it in a different way
strange phenomena, it's taken more seriously.

Speaker 6 (58:51):
Well, that was our experience once we adopted the term
UAP in two thousand. I mean you could go back
to the Internet archives and see that no know US
organization was using that term, and now it's commonplace everywhere.
And and it's specifically because it has an objective objective quality,

(59:11):
which it may be losing a bit given people using
the term. But uh yeah, there's there's definitely a stigma
with the term UFO, and it's one that we try
to avoid using, uh with it all possible, particularly in
conversations with government and that sort of thing. We did

(59:32):
a study for this, the General Accounting Office interrogating the
Air Force on uncorrelated incursions into US air defense zones.
We spent three years on that project, and at the
time we didn't use the term UFO at all. I
don't think it's it's really important. It can alienate people

(59:53):
and create problems if you don't understand your terminology, know
your audience.

Speaker 3 (59:58):
That's really important. We do have a number of questions,
as you're aware of Ted at form doctor paracast dot com,
where our listeners are able to post questions for our guests.
And Eric the Red who is one of our news
sign ups here at formed dout the paracast dot com.
He's been he's been with this about a year and
a half. He has a couple of interesting questions and

(01:00:20):
in this I think kind of goes into the whole
mindset of the skeptic and he's wondering if you and
in doctor Haynes having a hypothesis as to why many
or most skeptics refuse to admit the reality of UAPs.

Speaker 6 (01:00:33):
Well, well, it's probably I'm sure the reason is fairly
similar to why many people are true believers without direct
experience and without the evidence they need to make the
claims they claim.

Speaker 5 (01:00:45):
I don't.

Speaker 6 (01:00:46):
We've been invited to debate with Michael Shermer and some
of these other guys and just nothing good comes of it,
so we decline there. They have an agenda, they have
a perspective. I don't think the term skeptic is accurate.
A skeptic is open to the potentials, and that's not

(01:01:09):
what we see with these folks. They consider themselves the
vanguards of rationalism, and you know, they're just another aspect
of what happens when we don't engage the unknown.

Speaker 5 (01:01:22):
Honestly, it's just.

Speaker 6 (01:01:24):
Part of the problem, along with a lot of other
problems around the study.

Speaker 3 (01:01:28):
It's kind of hard to see a UAP if you
have your head buried in the sand.

Speaker 6 (01:01:34):
Well, you know, and that's true. But at the same time,
my experience just I kept sort of an unofficial poll
and it seems to be about one in six people
have direct experience with.

Speaker 5 (01:01:45):
One in their lifetimes.

Speaker 6 (01:01:47):
One in six, yeah, has seen one themselves. And that's
just informal. I just kind of chat my way along,
see who pops up and says they saw something, and
kind of what the odds are there. It's very informally,
but you know, my point is is that that there's
no given that you could. I mean, you could spend
every day looking up and not see ub.

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
Well nowadays everybody's looking down at their iPhone or phone.

Speaker 5 (01:02:14):
Well sure, sure you know. We don't know what UAP are,
and neither do they.

Speaker 6 (01:02:21):
They can assert all sorts of reasons why there are
no UAP and certainly no incursions taking place, and I
hope they're right, but the reality of modern science doesn't
support their contentions, and the only way out is through
We have to do the work and get the answers.
And if they want to sit on the sideline and
take potshots, they can do that.

Speaker 5 (01:02:40):
I read.

Speaker 6 (01:02:42):
McGaha's recent report on the Valantage matter and it was disappointing.

Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
Would you detail that more for our listeners who don't
know quite what you say?

Speaker 3 (01:02:53):
We just had the anniversary, Yes, yes, ready.

Speaker 6 (01:02:57):
Valantage was a young man, a pilot flew out of
Australia one day on on.

Speaker 5 (01:03:04):
A on a short leg trip and ended up disappearing.

Speaker 6 (01:03:08):
But when he did, he had a radio transmission and
he was describing to the air controllers that he was
seeing a UFO as he described it, and that it
was accosting him and Uh. The last bit of audio
involves metal on metal, so they're not really sure what
happened to him. Doctor Haynes wrote a book about it,

(01:03:32):
and he offered four perspectives, including an abduction in the air,
along with three other more practical explanations. McGaha's explanations a
bit short. Uh, and and prior to that, the same
organization offered another explanation that that was equally useless. So

(01:03:54):
I I you know, if these guys were really skeptics
and they were really good at what they did, I
did invite him to join.

Speaker 5 (01:04:00):
You know, we need good minds that are that are
able to roll with the data and do good work.

Speaker 6 (01:04:05):
But I'm no more interested in seeing them on board.
A number of the UFO believers and so called researchers
out there that I wouldn't lie any reization.

Speaker 2 (01:04:17):
Now, what about these reality TV shows that come on
and there have been several where they seem to all
have the same plotline with a night vision goggles. Sensationalists
approach focusing on cases that have maybe the buzz value
of attracting listeners, but aren't necessarily factual.

Speaker 6 (01:04:40):
It's entertainment to sell advertising, I don't it doesn't help
hit us at all. I don't spend any time watching
these things. I don't think they have anything really to
contribute to the conversation. They come to us for talking
points and UH and occasionally approach us to participate in
their shows, and for the most part we don't. We've
done a couple of things for National Geographic recently, and

(01:05:02):
nh K came by and we did a.

Speaker 5 (01:05:04):
Segment for them. They were pretty good, But.

Speaker 6 (01:05:08):
As a whole, we tend to avoid these UH, these
types of productions.

Speaker 7 (01:05:12):
UH.

Speaker 6 (01:05:12):
They rarely pay you the first part, for all the
time that they take to have you present and in
their production.

Speaker 5 (01:05:19):
Well they do.

Speaker 3 (01:05:20):
They do supply you with a lot of slime that
you have to wipe off afterwards.

Speaker 5 (01:05:24):
Oh. It's disgusting, it really is.

Speaker 6 (01:05:26):
And I'm I'm you know, I nothing personal, but I
can't say that I've been very satisfied with the way
things have been handled programs I've been involved with UH,
and I wouldn't encourage anybody to do it. I think
that the narcissism present in this field is just out
of control in that a lot of a lot of

(01:05:47):
books just you know, they get invited to a podium
and they can't resist. You know, it doesn't matter if
they don't have anything to say and no leg to
stand on. You know, the fact that they're there makes
them credible.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
You know, well, they're making a living rather than spreading
valuable information.

Speaker 6 (01:06:06):
That's my opinion. You know, the same with UFO conferences.

Speaker 5 (01:06:09):
For that. You could read that as UFO shows, you know.

Speaker 6 (01:06:12):
And they're not conferences that people aren't pulling together and
breaking out their data and you know, marching into new
territory and developing project plans and coming up with funding
and that sort of thing. That's not what they're doing,
which is what a conference is. You know, it's supposed
to be. Yeah, yeah, so you know, it's it's more

(01:06:34):
just I don't know, I don't think it helps one
thing it is is a good indicator of the interest
in the subject and that people are struggling with it.
Believe was right when he presented to the u N
in nineteen seventy eight. He suggested that a failure by
science to engage on the UFO topic would encourage con
men and societal ills of various kinds. And it certainly

(01:06:58):
has you know, everything from the heavens Heaven's Gate suicides
to to a certain one arm researcher in Switzerland, do
you name it. There are a lot of folks taking
advantage in this situation.

Speaker 3 (01:07:11):
And hey, you got two brothers right there in Hawaii.
They are making a lot of dough promoting hoaxes and
uh and disseminating ridiculous footage and photographs that that are
being passed off as real. And and to me, that
does such a disservice to the subject, and it just
it digs it deeper into the hole.

Speaker 2 (01:07:32):
We're going to break ourselves out of some holes.

Speaker 5 (01:07:35):
Here.

Speaker 2 (01:07:36):
We have Ted Row joining us with Jane and Chris.
You're in the para cast.

Speaker 4 (01:07:51):
Hi, this is Don Ecker, and you are tuned into
the para cast. Let me tell you what you're going
to hear Steph here that you probably won't hear anywhere
else here That George Snoring.

Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
Ted Rose, executive director at NARCAF. We're talking about the
serious side of research into unidentified aerial phenomena.

Speaker 3 (01:08:14):
The two twins promoting you know, I mean, there are
some actual good photographs and good video clips on there,
but for every good one, there's there's got to be
at least fifty that are just absolutely ridiculously transparent in
terms of it being a hoax or misidentified natural phenomena.

Speaker 6 (01:08:33):
Well, well yeah, and there are a lot of folks
taking advantage, and not just those brothers. There's a certain
exopolitics may even living here on the island too, but
promotes a lot of things that are unfounded. The problem
is that people are looking for information, and there's a

(01:08:53):
lot of information out there.

Speaker 5 (01:08:54):
Most of it is incredible or useful.

Speaker 6 (01:08:57):
And that's why, like with I've had to kind of
differentiate us from the general eupology field because it hurts
our message to be associated because they don't manage their
own image as well. And that's where I got off
the worse with the citizens' hearings recently and some of

(01:09:19):
the other things that have gone on.

Speaker 2 (01:09:21):
I was going to ask about the citizens hearing. Okay,
so they get ex members of Congress to participate in
faux hearings on UFOs, and to be fair, some of
the presenters are pretty straight ahead, but other presenters, maybe
very few, were a little bit of the woo wuh category.
So you think this is a waste of time or what.

Speaker 6 (01:09:42):
Well, if somebody would hand me a million dollars for
my research budget, I could probably come up with better information,
more helpful data than a dog and pony show like that.
I mean, if I actually had research budget that I
could work with, that I could set up close symposia

(01:10:04):
with the top research teams and efforts of merit in
the world. I had the kind of budget that would
allow me to have the freedom to travel the way
we need to in order to cement these relationships into
coalesce into a larger scientific and global discussion on UAP.

(01:10:24):
I mean that those are the directions that are going
to make a difference in this. So you can bang
on the doors of government all day long and hey,
I mean, you know, as doctor Phil would say, how's
that working for you? Doesn't it doesn't seem to have
made a lot of difference so far.

Speaker 3 (01:10:39):
Well, what really got me was the final speaker or
presentation of the entire you know, five six days, and
it was the honorable, uh, you know, ex Defense Minister
of Canada, Paul Hellier. And I just couldn't believe that
he picked up a book of a very dubious abductee
and started reading and what the ets were were telling him,

(01:11:03):
and I just I wanted to do the you know,
the the vaudeville and the it's not too graphic, it's
I'm being I'm not being graphic enough. I was so
just jumping up and down inside.

Speaker 5 (01:11:18):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:11:18):
Of course I was there working as a video camera person,
so I you know, I had a job to do.
But I just the fact that Baskett allowed that to
happen just totally Any sort of credibility that you know,
a few of the presenters had was just totally thrown
out the window with these these ridiculous, uh you know,

(01:11:39):
comments that were made supposedly from the mouth of et
and it just me it was so ludicrous. I just oh, man,
I got me, got me going, and I'm it's getting
me going again.

Speaker 6 (01:11:50):
Well he can I ask you a question, Chris, have
you ever seen a UFO yourself?

Speaker 5 (01:11:58):
Many?

Speaker 3 (01:11:58):
Many, many in the San Luis Valley during the nineties,
they were almost a nightly occurrence. I've seen as many
as thirteen objects in one siding, which I actually got
some pretty good video footage with night vision.

Speaker 6 (01:12:10):
So it's in your nervous system, it's in your body.
You've seen these things. It's made in print on you.

Speaker 3 (01:12:17):
I've had a daylight sight in one hundred and fifty
feet away from me. The zips right.

Speaker 6 (01:12:21):
So when these people start, if you pardon the fund
the term, you know, talking out of their back ends,
it upsets you.

Speaker 5 (01:12:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:12:33):
I just can't believe that people are so gullible that
they actually buy into this stuff. I mean that particular
we're talking about.

Speaker 6 (01:12:41):
My point, Chris is that it upsets me too. Yeah,
exactly what you're talking about. And when we're trying to
get to the root of what this is about, and
you have all of these folks just standing around, putting
up noise and trying to seem important and putting their
own images in front of the importance of the subject itself,
it's really hard to tolerate. It's really hard to sit

(01:13:03):
quietly and let the griers and the bassets and the
so on out there weighed around in this. You know,
there's not nothing to be done about it other than
to avoid it and to decry it when when it's appropriate,
and you know, you've got a radio show, it's appropriate.
I don't think that these sort of things help and

(01:13:25):
and have If we really want to get to the
bottom of this, we need to do the work and
that really, with a few efforts of merits set aside,
is really not done.

Speaker 5 (01:13:36):
And that's that's just what it comes down to.

Speaker 3 (01:13:38):
Yeah, I absolutely agree, and it's it's unfortunate. Not only
does it do these individuals, grandstanding individuals, not help, they
actually are a detriment. They actually set us back, They
make it they make the task of getting funding, getting
you know, real involvement by academia in the scientific community,

(01:14:00):
all that much more difficult and almost impossible because they're
just screwing everything up.

Speaker 6 (01:14:06):
I mean, if somebody would come to me and hand
me one point one million, you know, they get their
money's worth out of it, it wouldn't be some UFBO show.

Speaker 3 (01:14:17):
Now, No, no, I mean in anybody thinks the US
government's going to disclose the extent of their knowledge about
this subject. You know, we've already discussed that a lot
of this information is probably being held in the private
sector number one, and that government officials really are pretty
much in the dark for the most part. But even
if there is a body of evidence that's that's being

(01:14:39):
held maybe in a classified manner, it would be the
last thing that they would want to reveal to the public.
And I think all these other countries coming forward and
opening up their UFO files. Obviously we're not getting them all,
but they're doing that, I think to take the heat
off the US, to throw everybody a bone so that

(01:14:59):
the US may be conscurred by for a little bit
longer without having to really deal head on with the issue,
which will never be dealt with. It is a national
security issue. I don't care what they've said in the past.
I don't care what they say now. There's no question
in my mind, and you're a perfect person to validate
this comment that these objects do represent lack of control

(01:15:23):
of our airspace by government, and when government's not in control,
that's the last thing they want to talk about.

Speaker 6 (01:15:29):
Well, that's right, and in particular this situation, we've learned
quite a lot about what our governments can do and
what they can't do on the subject of ET incursions.
And regardless of whether they're happening or not, even in
the hypothetical, we're not in a good position to deal

(01:15:49):
with them, and the effects and fallout of these of
an ET incursion shouldn't be underestimated either.

Speaker 5 (01:15:59):
Yeah, oh, ap not.

Speaker 3 (01:16:00):
I I think the classic example would be Barry Goldwater
approaching his longtime friend, uh, you know, General Curtis LeMay
and and asking to see you know, the blue room
at right pad and and and you know, find out
more about about some of the rumors that were floating around.
And it was the only time in Goldwater's whole relationship

(01:16:21):
with le May that le Maay yelled at him and said,
don't you ever ask me that again? I mean that
should tell you something right there.

Speaker 6 (01:16:28):
Well, you know le May, Uh, le May was a
powerful personality. I mean we might not have survived if
May had gone much further in his career. But but yeah,
there's that truth, the Forestall matter. There's doctor James McDonald.
So so there's there there's a lot of intrigue around

(01:16:48):
this subject. And and I I don't think that we're
ever going to get to the bottom of it by
seeking accountability. Uh, these events occur every day in the
public domain, and good observation skills are the first requirement
we want to get to the bottom of this. I
don't have a lot of respect for those who stand
on a podium and declare that an et presence is

(01:17:10):
a good thing, you know, because some voice in their
head told them. So, you know, there's just a lot
of this stuff going on out here that it really
makes you wonder. Yeah, you get Stephen Hawkings. You know,
here's one of the eminent minds of our time.

Speaker 2 (01:17:28):
Let's pursue Stephen Hawkings in our next segment.

Speaker 5 (01:17:30):
Sure.

Speaker 2 (01:17:31):
Now, some of you listeners have asked us why we
don't take telephone calls as other radio shows do, so
you can ask questions directly of a guest, and the
biggest reason is logistics. We record these shows in advance
and not always the same day and time. It depends
on the schedule of a guest. So we have a

(01:17:52):
separate mechanism for you to ask questions. It's over at
forum dot thepowercast dot com. That's forum dot thepowercast dot com.
In our forums, we have a place called the Question Bank.
When we have enough warning about a future guest, we'll
put up a topic or thread there and that way
you can ask the questions and we'll read them on

(01:18:12):
the air, or at least we'll get as many in
as we can. Tedrow joins us with Gene and Chris.
You're in the parra Cast.

Speaker 1 (01:18:35):
Welcome back to the para Cast, the gold standard of
paranormal radio. And now here's Jane Steinberg.

Speaker 2 (01:18:51):
We have Ted Row, executive director of NARCAP. We're talking
about the serious side of unidentified aerial phenomena. No wa
woo stuff here, too much of that already with Gene
and Chris. You were about to say something in our
previous segment Ted about Stephen Hawking. Is this his comment
about aliens?

Speaker 6 (01:19:09):
Well, sure, and it's not just about aliens. He commented
that it was appropriate to talk about aliens, that the
numbers were right, that the potentials were there, The probability
would be that we would that any Aians we would
encounter would be marauding nomads who would rape the earth
and leave us all destitute.

Speaker 2 (01:19:27):
That sounds like Independence Day of the movie, right.

Speaker 6 (01:19:30):
And then his next comment was he gives no credit
to UFO reports. They seemed only come from crackpots and weirdos.
And you know, there's this cultural disconnect where on one
hand they can talk about the touxicity and the danger
of an extraterrestrial incursion and then in the very next

(01:19:51):
breath discount anything that might indicate that it's happening. Enrico
Fermi did the same thing with his famous Ernie paradox
that he and Edward Teller and Copaninsky were all sitting
around and over lunch one day and talking about UFO reports,
and then they got to a point where Fermi did

(01:20:14):
some math, some deductive fractions, kind of like the Drake equation,
and came to the conclusion that he should have been
visited many times over.

Speaker 5 (01:20:23):
Where are they?

Speaker 6 (01:20:24):
So here they are on money and they're talking about
UFO reports, and then on the other hand, where are
the aliens? And there's this this disconnect that exists in
our culture, particularly amongst the bright ones, that I think
is direct ball out from the Robertson panel and related activities.
Uh and and if even one of these UAP reports

(01:20:44):
really is an ET incursion, we're behind the eight ball.

Speaker 5 (01:20:47):
And it's because of attitudes like that.

Speaker 6 (01:20:50):
Doctor Hawkins is obviously oblivious to the fact that some
of the best reports out there come from military and
involved military engagements and radar and so on, cases like
the might not be fifty two case in sixty eight
North Dakota, things like that, very well documented cases, and
yet they don't They just get discounted.

Speaker 5 (01:21:09):
They don't even give it the time of day. I
think it's sloppy thinking what.

Speaker 3 (01:21:13):
Yeah, absolutely, And that leads me to another question from
one of our posters, Eric the Red, who's posted his
question at forum doctor paracast dot com, and he's wondering
in the UAP literature, Ted, what do you think are
the most credible books, papers, or bodies of research that
you would recommend to a scientifically minded but open minded
skeptic that could possibly inform him and bring him up

(01:21:36):
to speed on some of the really amazing cases that
we do have.

Speaker 6 (01:21:40):
Well, I think if they're at all scientifically minded or
have heart science or mathematics, I would recommend Paul Hill's
book on Unconventional Flying Objects for starters. I would also
offer Richard Dolan's work as far as a historical annalysis goes.
To put it in a context, I would offer, oh,

(01:22:00):
the various government reports like the Ministry of Defense of
the UK's uh so called Condyine Report, which is a
very good and large study on UVP, although the conclusions
are a bit rocky. I would recommend the Comita report
from the French even though it was an independent study
and involved many officials involved with UAP research in France

(01:22:24):
and former directors of their official research teams.

Speaker 3 (01:22:28):
Leslie Keane's book has some good, very good uh you know,
firsthand reports by military personnel up close and personal encounters,
especially the Chilean Air Force case.

Speaker 6 (01:22:39):
I was going to mention her last and give her
the most time because she certainly has done a good
job with her book and and as a resource that
it is a good research resource to open people's minds
on this subject. I think though, if you want science involved,
it's a combination of documentation and you need some somebody
to to help you get published somewhere where you get attention.

(01:23:06):
Most mainstream science journals won't touch the subject, although one
of our guys managed to get a paper in to
the British Planetary Society called Inflation Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation.

Speaker 5 (01:23:20):
So basically, if you embrace certain.

Speaker 6 (01:23:22):
Cosmologies, then you have to deal with the SETI aspects
that come along.

Speaker 5 (01:23:27):
So I would recommend those for reading starters.

Speaker 3 (01:23:30):
I think that's a good list for our listeners to
jot down. If you have any high powered scientists in
your sphere of influence, lay a list on them and say, hey,
what do you think of some of this information? When
you can carve out some time why don't you peruse
this information and tell us what you think. I think

(01:23:51):
that's really important. Have you ever encountered this scenario, that's
another Eric the Red question. Have you ever counted the
scenario of a skeptic, a scientist in particular, doing one
hundred and eighty degree turn in their view on this
subject on account of being exposed to let's say your research.

Speaker 6 (01:24:08):
Well, you know, Eric's asking some good questions here, and
let's just go back to what a skeptic is for
a minute here. A true skeptic doesn't require any convincing
from me. He'll look at the material and he'll make
his own decision out of it, and it'll be based
on his skill set and his understanding what you're looking at.
And nine times out of tenants for materials parent are

(01:24:30):
presented correctly, he'll understand it and it'll become part of
his perspective as he looked forward, and he won't discount
it because because it's preposterous or an unfortunate interest or
something like that. The debunker, on the other hand, needs
to be convinced. And I don't have any time for
that mind. That that mind has got all up that

(01:24:51):
it needs to do something.

Speaker 5 (01:24:52):
About and it's not my problem to fix that.

Speaker 6 (01:24:57):
That mind is convinced and it can believe and do
what it wi wants to do like any mind can
and should. But I'm not going to waste any time
trying to convince it otherwise. I've had a lot of
people who are on the fence come off the fence,
or at least a little further to my side of
the fence, looking at the material, but I've never I
can't say I've ever had anybody who was adamantly against

(01:25:17):
it ever come around to my thinking. So it's not
really there's a good portion of science today. The scientists
today were raised in the Star Trek universe. You know,
you don't have to they are already thinking about these
things are for everyone scientist. That is an absolute no.

(01:25:38):
I mean what a dozen that are at least open.
You know, science isn't the problem here. It's the data
and how it's presented and who it's presented to and
as we pull it together. This is what I'm finding
very heartening about our work with the Chilean government and
now our presentation in our work with the French government
coming up next month, is that these these organizations of

(01:26:01):
fairly high credibility are pulling together now. They're starting to
interact with each other. They're starting to share data and
methodology and concerns and starting to talk.

Speaker 5 (01:26:12):
A little bit. And this is really really important.

Speaker 6 (01:26:15):
It's a very important first step that's been in the
offing for the last fifty years. So it'll be those
guys that make the change. It'll be that that effort
that makes the change.

Speaker 3 (01:26:27):
In mindad Well, another thing that would help is possibly
related to this next question by Canna Karas, who's a
poster it formed dot theparacast dot com, and he wonders
about the numbers are reports that you guys are reive receiving?
Are they declining? Are Is there any sort of patterning

(01:26:47):
within these reports? Are we seeing an upsurge of reports
because people may be more apt to report them now
maybe this subject is getting less toxic. Let's talk about
your dad base a little bit. Any sort of patterns
of activity, ebbing and flowing, any any anything that you

(01:27:07):
can address there.

Speaker 6 (01:27:09):
Well, I wouldn't say the report numbers are going down
at all. The A lot of it has to do
with who we reach and when we reach them, you know,
as far as pilot reporters go, as work gets to them,
they get to us, and it's just been a process
of word about putting it out there.

Speaker 5 (01:27:28):
We haven't had a huge budget.

Speaker 6 (01:27:29):
Doctor Haynes and I run our gap out of our
own pockets for the last fourteen years. We're getting our
nonprofit status shortly, so the Ironis tells me and then
we can start looking for a real budget. But even
even at that, you know, we've seen a steady increase
in reports over time, and a lot of people are recognized.
As I watch our website statistics and so on, and

(01:27:52):
I've seen a steady uptick there as well. So the
general as the general population becomes more awareness than we
get more sports.

Speaker 2 (01:27:58):
Now in regard to the freak and see if UFO
sightings now move on, reported quite a few in their newsletter. Also,
Chris Rutkowski, the Canadian UFO researcher has been on the
paracast on several occasions, reported a wave of UFO cases
last year. I'm going to ask you more about that
in the moment. Ted Rowe joining Gene and Chris. You're

(01:28:20):
in the paracast.

Speaker 1 (01:28:28):
We'd like to hear from you if you have a
comment or question about the Paracast, send it to news
at the paracast dot com. That's news at the paracast
dot com, and don't forget to visit our famous paracast
community forums at forum dot theparacast dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:28:48):
Ted Row is joining Gene and Chris and the Paracast.
He's executive director of narcap Now, just to recap something
you mentioned the previous segment, you're in the process of
getting your nonprofit status. Of course, you're not a member
of the Tea Party, so it's easier, right.

Speaker 5 (01:29:05):
I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:29:05):
You know, we've been We've had our application in for
two years.

Speaker 2 (01:29:08):
Now, so you're not involved in any politics, but it
still takes a long time. It's not so easy.

Speaker 6 (01:29:13):
Yeah, Apparently my last conversation with the IRS was very promising,
so I anticipate that our status will come through shortly.

Speaker 5 (01:29:20):
But it took a long time, and I'm not sure
why that was.

Speaker 2 (01:29:24):
In other words, it's nothing personal.

Speaker 5 (01:29:27):
I'm hoping it was nothing personal.

Speaker 6 (01:29:30):
But yeah, they've we're moving forward now with bi OPENC
three status. We are a nonprofit corporation in the state
of Washington, So if.

Speaker 2 (01:29:38):
You are a resident of the state of Washington. You
could donate and take it off your tax returns.

Speaker 6 (01:29:44):
Absolutely, And of course we have a lot of aviation
being done in Washington State, so I'm hoping that there's
an interest there that might express itself and some support
for our efforts. Are our travel budget alone is daunting.
Just to deal with the Chileans and the branch on
their terms, we have to be able to to move
to them, you know, so we appreciate any help.

Speaker 5 (01:30:04):
Absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:30:05):
Have you thought of having like a newsletter or something
to maybe bring in some money.

Speaker 6 (01:30:09):
Yes, yes, I'm actually in the process of preparing Volume one,
Issue one as we speak. I'm putting together a couple
of things that should be incentives for people to make donations,
and I'm trying to expand and change our program a
little bit because we've been in our own organization for
fourteen years and beholden to nobody.

Speaker 5 (01:30:27):
Nobody's claimed in.

Speaker 6 (01:30:28):
Our caps as an expense, and we haven't made any
money through our cap but we've had absolute control of
what we do, and we've been able to control and
protect our image, and we've been able to keep certain
interests from buying into our organization and gaining control that
sort of thing. So now we have to change and
adapt a little more to the public environment and find

(01:30:51):
other strategies to maintain our autogomy.

Speaker 2 (01:30:54):
There was one question here from Han where he said,
please ask mister Rowe 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

(01:31:16):
their equipment or airplane and flight data cockpit recordings, automated
diagnostic logs, black box, et cetera has recorded the same.
What I'm trying to ask is what is mister Rowe's
opinion on whether UAP effect only the pilot's perception or
can they be responsible for interference or damage that can

(01:31:37):
be demonstrated with physical, tangible evidence.

Speaker 6 (01:31:42):
Interesting, Well, that's a great question on that, really good question.

Speaker 5 (01:31:47):
And yet there are.

Speaker 6 (01:31:48):
Many examples of concurrent em effects on electrical systems, and
there are examples of those effects being documented either by
third parties, direct examination, etc. One good example is I
mentioned earlier or the nineteen sixty eight might not be
fifty two case that along with gun radar detection of
the UAP included a loss of communications as documented by

(01:32:09):
both aircrew and control tower. Tom Toolean did an excellent
job of documenting that case, and I'll provide the link later.
There are other cases as well, are our technical Report
three and our CAP Technical Report three is titled a
Preliminary Study of sixty four pilot siding reports involving alleged

(01:32:29):
electromagnetic effects on aircraft systems. It was written by doctor
Richard Haynes and Dominic Weinstein, who's a member of the
French College of Experts supporting JEPAN, and in it most
of the effects that we see involved loyaltsy. In their

(01:32:50):
study of the cases involved electrical systems, six percent involved
power plants, systems, onboard radar contacts, and six percent of
the cases et cetera. Radio function was affected most often,

(01:33:10):
followed by compass reading errors and that general aviation aircraft
are more likely to be affected than commercial or military
type aircraft and most commonly those cases involving concurrent em.

Speaker 5 (01:33:22):
Effects involved around you or lights.

Speaker 6 (01:33:27):
So yes, they do happen, it's beyond the perceptual range
of the pilot. It's a physical manifestation and they have
been documented in third party situations.

Speaker 2 (01:33:39):
Let me go to the follow up question from Han.
All right, we're having this other question from Han. 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 mister Rowe recall any similar reports?

Speaker 6 (01:34:03):
Well, yes and no, And I kind of wrote a
response for Han here, so pardon me if it sounds
a little bit red out. For the most part, UAP
reports fall into general profiles of singular lights, objects with
lights on the unlit objects. Those that appear as objects
seem to fall into general profiles, most commonly representing basic
geometric forms sphares of blade, spirits or discs, cylinders, triangles, cones,

(01:34:27):
and occasionally forms that morph into different shapes. There are
those that seem to morph into various shapes with no
seeming rationale, and then there are up that seem to
display characteristics of terrestrial aviation, like flashing running lights, though
they are clearly not attached to a commonly recognized airframe.
We have heard of UAP that morph into vaguely recognizable
aircraft that have yet to see many such reports in

(01:34:48):
the data. I recently came across a report from a
local fisherman whereby he described putting a handheld spotlight on
an object hovering over his boat. It looked a lot
like a jet aircraft, but was quiet, and when it left,
it moved towards or been at a very high rate
of speed from a dead stop. So these cases are
not unheard of, but we don't have many of them
in our particular database.

Speaker 2 (01:35:07):
Let's move into another question here, and this is something
that we kind of asked in one direction, but not completely.
If time permits, please ask mister Rowe to talk about
the differences in protocol between military and civilian pilots when
they encounter a UAP, and how this varies between different
nations or states, and any changes you'd like to see

(01:35:30):
in that protocol. As we said, we kind of covered
the pilot reporting procedure earlier, but maybe you can expand
upon it there well.

Speaker 6 (01:35:38):
As I mentioned, the FAA really doesn't want to know
unless it's unless it's reported to the Aviation Safety Reporting
System Compindentially, they really don't have a portal to take
those cases. And if a pilot does encounter one I
encourage them to do that, to make a report to
the ASRS, because we have access to their database and
can work with it from there. Of course, the military debriefs,

(01:36:01):
it's pilots and everything. All data there is protected by
security oaths. You know, other countries, it's a bit different
to French collect data and train their air controllers and
pilots to make you a b reports.

Speaker 5 (01:36:15):
So do the Chileans. The Argentinians are getting into that mode,
I believe.

Speaker 6 (01:36:20):
I'm not sure about how the Peruvians handle it yet,
but I think they have an education program and a
data collection program goes across their bureaucracy. Personally, these are
all good steps. I think every nation should have some
kind of a dedicated UAP research group. They should be
coordinating with other national UAP research groups. I think there

(01:36:40):
should be some overarching authorready around the subject, maybe located
in the un ICO, their International Civil Aviation.

Speaker 2 (01:36:50):
Organ We have more of your questions coming, and we
have more comments from our guests. This week. We're joined
on the Powercast by Ted Row, executive director of NARCAP,
and we've covered a lot of ground, but there's more
to come. With Gene and Chris you're in the Power Cast.

Speaker 7 (01:37:18):
This is Jerome Clark, author of the ufor Encyclopedia and
other books. You're listening to the PA.

Speaker 2 (01:37:35):
We have Ted Rowe with Gene and Chris on the
Power Cast. He's executive director of NARCAP, which of course
puts them in a wonderful, enviable position of getting loads
and loads of cases. Now, I want to just cover
one particular question here. This is from Eric the Red
and it's a long questions. I'm going to kind of
be brief about it because by and large this is

(01:37:59):
something where you know he may not be able to
give the answers. So, have you received any communications either
written or verbal, Ted Row, either you or doctor Haynes,
from scientists, government officials, FAA officials, Control Tower personnel, pilots,
with distinguished careers astronomers, NASA scientists, engineers, etc. Where they admit,

(01:38:23):
off the record they think there's something real, there's something
genuine about UAP.

Speaker 6 (01:38:31):
Good question and the short answers, Yes, Well, Gene, I
could answer that for you, but then I'd have to
kill you.

Speaker 2 (01:38:38):
Well, just get in line.

Speaker 6 (01:38:42):
No, But really the short answer is yes. Privately, many
people off the record are very curious about this subject
and have opinions about it, and that includes astronomers and
air controllers and just about everybody on that list. I've
heard from some example there who's very concerned and interest
in the interested in the subject.

Speaker 2 (01:39:04):
And they all have reasons, I suppose for not coming forward.

Speaker 6 (01:39:08):
Well they do, they do, and some of those reasons
may involve their their concern for their image, and probably
rightly so. In most cases, it's not a safe subject
to be too open about.

Speaker 5 (01:39:22):
And then.

Speaker 6 (01:39:25):
You know, the other half of it is is that
we as a as a race may not be able
to handle but what is already known. And I'm a
big fan of democracy and I don't like other people
telling me what I can handle. But at the same time,
I don't know everything around the subject, so I can't
really sit in judgment of those who might have made

(01:39:47):
decisions around us.

Speaker 2 (01:39:50):
Let me ask you something here which is maybe implicit
in the previous question and the response. Do you know
of any of these high profile UFO UAP skeptics who
privately believe in their reality but publicly have to maintain
this skeptical posture.

Speaker 6 (01:40:09):
Well, no, I know, not in particular. Again, when you
say skeptic, I'm taking debunker, yes, so in that sense, no,
they're they're pretty entrenched. If anything, they won't touch cases
that they can't introduce some plausible denial too. So no, I,
like I said earlier in the show, if I could,

(01:40:31):
if I could get a true skeptic on board, that
would be just.

Speaker 5 (01:40:34):
Fine with me. That's the kind of mind I want
in the study.

Speaker 6 (01:40:38):
But debunkers just really don't have much to add to
the conversation in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (01:40:45):
So I'll ask, then, have you ever converted a skeptic
to believing something serious about the subject because of your research?

Speaker 6 (01:40:54):
I brought people who are scientists and who are critical
minded closer to the subject, but that was because of
their mindset, not because.

Speaker 5 (01:41:03):
I influenced them differently.

Speaker 6 (01:41:05):
People believe what they want to believe, and until they
decide that their belief needs to be upgraded, changed or dropped,
they won't do it. And I can spend all the
time in the world showing them charts and graphs and
photographs and stories and claims and everything else, and it
won't make any difference to a person who's already made
up their mind. A true skeptic hasn't made up their mind,

(01:41:27):
and they understand that science is a philosophy, one of
many philosophies that we use to determine knowledge in our reality,
and that it's generally the slowest but the most meticulous
in terms of developing knowledge. So there's a lot of
frustrations with science and scientists out there, but you know,
to do the work, then the science comes right along.

Speaker 5 (01:41:49):
You're doing it, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:41:51):
Let's move on to the next one here. Okay, I
know we have one person who says, sorry, I'm interested
in UFOs not UAPs. Better move along to the next question.
I think somebody's goofing there. Let me ask you about
another focus of UFO research, and that is abductions, and
that gets to be pretty controversial, pretty dicey. Yeah, Obviously,

(01:42:12):
it goes to follow that if UFOs are et, it's
always possible they came in contact with Earthlings. It's always
possible one of these cases involves something related to a
real UFO or UAP. Does NARCAP get involved in that
kind of research?

Speaker 4 (01:42:32):
Not know.

Speaker 6 (01:42:33):
Doctor Haynes has had an interest in it over over
his career, but as it's not our we fall a
pilot testimony where that leads us where we go. And
interestingly enough, we have one or two cases involving missing
time aircraft returning with more gas than they should have
and after having been in the airline than they thought

(01:42:53):
to be planned to be and you know the the
juries out on exactly happened. But those are fairly rare.
We tend to have more common aviation cases where observations
and incidents involving objects, but not as the crew effects
being more medical than anything nightline. It's that kind of

(01:43:15):
stuff versus being abducted per se.

Speaker 2 (01:43:19):
Okay, so your focus obviously is on aviation related sightings.
For those who call you up or write you or
something and say, hey, I saw something in my car
or while walking in the street or something or in
my backyard, where do you send them?

Speaker 6 (01:43:34):
Well, And first off, it kind of depends on where
all that is. You know they're near an aviation facility.
We might dig a little deeper see if there's any
reports coming out of the air or even reach out
with a FOIA request. If it looks like it might
be promising, I usually send them to move On or
Newfork to make reports so that the data itself doesn't

(01:43:57):
get lost.

Speaker 2 (01:43:59):
Let's talk about out your ongoing research, what programs in
addition to working with the authorities in Chile and the
people in France, what projects are you engaged in now
that you feel might bring some fruit to your investigation.

Speaker 6 (01:44:15):
Well, part of it is the participation with these teams.

Speaker 5 (01:44:19):
We have a JPAN.

Speaker 6 (01:44:21):
The French team is holding a closed workshop next month,
and we submitted a paper for their approval, which we
did receive and now we get to present that at
their workshop. So participating in the global discussion around this
is really really important. And as an administrator of the organization,

(01:44:42):
I don't run the science. I'm a team administrator. I
think it's very important for us to develop these relationships
and to focus a lot on what makes science move
in the larger culture versus well particular science projects. I'm

(01:45:06):
working on some papers right now that are kind of
addressing this idea that more needs to be done at
a global level and to try and address the questions
around the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Because all of these organizations, whether
it's the French, or the Chileans, or the Argentinas, the
Pruvians and even US are constantly assailed with this question

(01:45:28):
of do you think they're et and we need an
answer for that. The world needs an answer for that.
So we're working a bit on how to make a
proper statement there that that might be of some help
and further conversation. So those are just some of the
things on the table that we're kicking around right now.

Speaker 2 (01:45:46):
What portion of sightings you encounter are indicative of possible
test aircraft of some sort?

Speaker 6 (01:45:53):
Well, I couldn't give you a percentage of cases that.
I will say that whenever we come across a case
that might involve national security, we drop it like a potato,
and generally speaking that's handled by doctor Haynes and his
research group. I don't know how many cases he's just dug,
but there's been a couple that we just said no Brook, Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:46:14):
The carolliary question then, is do you think some of
the high profile UFO cases might have involved test aircraft?
I'm thinking as far back as Roswell. Was it a
mogile balloon? Was it a test aircraft that crashed and
people thirty years later maybe expanded the memories. It's a
question I'm going to leave for you to answer. In

(01:46:35):
our final segment, We've got ted Row he's executive director
of NARCAP. If you go to narcap narcap dot org
you'll learn more about the organization. And Ted also drops
into the power Cast forums from time to time with
Gene and Chris. You're in the Peri cast.

Speaker 5 (01:47:08):
This is Jacques Really.

Speaker 4 (01:47:10):
You're listening to the podcast The gold Standard of kynd
on the radio.

Speaker 2 (01:47:22):
Ted Row of NARCAP joins us. He's executive director. And
the question I posed to him, which is kind of
a related to whether they've received reports of possible test aircraft,
what about some of these older classic cases like Roswell.

Speaker 6 (01:47:37):
I don't think we're ever going to get a definitive
answer on Roswell. The Air Force certainly hasn't provided adequate answers,
and the research is starting to chase its tail now,
so it's hard to be certain what's coming out of Roswell.
They offered it it was a mot test array, but
the dates aren't right. The the idea that that UAP

(01:48:00):
reports reflect either classified aircraft or maybe drones isn't lost
on us, and we are doing studies on drones and
drone lighting patterns and all kinds of.

Speaker 5 (01:48:09):
Things in order to be able to determine a drone
from a UAP.

Speaker 6 (01:48:14):
I think it's possible. I read a study a while
back suggesting that maybe Kenneth Arnold's original sighting near Mount
Rainier back in the forties that kind of started the
whole media fury. You those might have reflected a test
flight of German hortant aircraft that were sort of moon

(01:48:38):
shaped or flying wing kind of aircraft. So I do
think there's a potential for some of these cases. At
the same time, you have cases where UAP manifest directly
over facilities like o Air, or they show up over cities,
this kind of stuff which doesn't seem very prudent for
black projects to be doing, unless it's syops of some kind.

Speaker 2 (01:48:58):
What do you think about government disinformation, the feeling that
some of the information being followed in the UFO field
itself is actually placed there just to confuse everybody.

Speaker 5 (01:49:12):
Well, it wouldn't surprise me, if nothing else.

Speaker 6 (01:49:14):
It's a fascinating laboratory to work on meames and this
kind of stuff. I would think the intelligence community would
be dabbling more active in it just for the exercise
of it. I do think that there are a lot
of people looking for conspiracies and a lot of folks
who are seeing aliens under behind every tree and under

(01:49:35):
every rock, And I think at some point you have
to get that under control and really consider what your
government is and what it does. Look at how it
acts in the world, look at the competence that brings
to the other activities that it engages, and then ask
yourself if it's really capable and something as delicate as
this in that fashion, I do think that there's probably

(01:49:59):
some some disinformation involved. I don't know the reasoning behind
it all, because I don't know government story in it all.
But that's why I tend to go back to the
data itself and just say, just look at the cases.
You know, do the work, treat it like you treat
any other study, and don't extrapolate too much, and just

(01:50:20):
let the data stack up, and you can recreate pretty
much whatever's known in the private sphere in the public domain,
because it happens in front of everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:50:29):
So let me ask you a crazy hypothetical question you
may not want to answer. A certain multimillionaire, Well, it's
a lot of hotels and has been involved in the
paranormal field with grants like to move on. If he
went to an OAR captain. Maybe he's not already and
you won't tell us. But if he came to an
our cap and said, look, here's five million dollars, what

(01:50:52):
would you do? How would you handle it?

Speaker 5 (01:50:55):
Well?

Speaker 6 (01:50:55):
In my experience, that personality doesn't come without strings attached,
and generally speaking, every time I've seen that personality go
into that mode, these strings attached are unacceptable, and I
would say no, and I've said no in the past.

Speaker 2 (01:51:11):
Has he come to you the one we're talking.

Speaker 6 (01:51:13):
About, Yeah, yeah, for various reasons. He has an interest
in buying up researcher files in this kind of stuff,
and I put a strong no vote on all those activities.

Speaker 2 (01:51:29):
How closely do you work with other organizations exploring uap
UFOs E set for you mentioned, for example movefon as
an alternative for reporting sightings that aren't the ones that
you will particularly.

Speaker 6 (01:51:42):
Cover right right, It just depends. Sometimes will help with
an aviation case, for example, the Merlin C twenty six
case out of Mexico that had everybody all excited with
orange balls of light near the airplane out. We were
approached rather quickly with data on that to offer a

(01:52:06):
second opinion, and once we got a hold of the
manufacturer of the of the infrared system and we had
the asthmuth and the heading and the altitude of the aircraft,
we were able to determine fairly conclusively that it had
detected oil flares on oil rigs at a distance. And
even so the case won't die. But that's been confirmed

(01:52:27):
by other researchers as well. So we will work with
people from time to time and not publish. It just
depends on what the subject matter is and what kind
of relationship we have with them.

Speaker 2 (01:52:39):
Speaking of cases don't pass semester or are conventional, are
you exposed to many hoaxes at all? Do people come
to you with stuff they know to be fake, hoping
to full Narcype?

Speaker 6 (01:52:54):
Well, so far we haven't had any cases that were
manufactured out of whole cloth.

Speaker 5 (01:52:58):
But we did fairly intensive study of.

Speaker 6 (01:53:02):
The O'Hair matter whereby a UAP allegedly manifested over sea
terminal at O'Hare for twenty five minutes or so and
was seen by a lot of people. And I handled
the photographic evidence portion of that study, which isn't my
strong suit, but fortunately there were literally no photographs submitted
to me that were credible of the phenomenon at the time,

(01:53:25):
and there were a number of them that were clearly
not and were submitted to throw us off track, I
would assume, And there was one in particular, I think
it was.

Speaker 5 (01:53:36):
I think it was David Vietney.

Speaker 6 (01:53:38):
Yeah, one of the guys at above top secret did
a study on a particularly promising picture, but it turned
out to be a.

Speaker 5 (01:53:45):
Little too spooky for us to get by. It didn't
have the it had some data markers in it that
were we couldn't resolve.

Speaker 2 (01:53:54):
As to the case itself.

Speaker 6 (01:53:56):
What do you think, Well, I think that something happened
at O'Hare. I think it was seen, and it was
documented described, and it was pretty much as described by
them controller and various people on the ground. I don't
think there was radar data that that was conclusive out.

Speaker 5 (01:54:12):
Of it, and that's to be expected in these cases
as well.

Speaker 6 (01:54:16):
I think it was a classic example an incursion into
a class be restricted airspace by an unidentified and nobody
had a proper answer for dealing with it when happened,
because nobody's been educated that it can happen. So there
was more backdoor information out of that that we couldn't publish,
but we have contacts, we have we have some NASA

(01:54:38):
officials on staff and at our as resources as well.
That implied that there were safety issues around that manifestation,
but we don't. I don't have anything I can publish
or speak about in public.

Speaker 2 (01:54:52):
But okay, just what our appetite though safety issues. But
certainly the presence of any aircraft that's unknown out of
their controller purview can present some kind of threat, can't it.

Speaker 6 (01:55:06):
If you're on final approach and this thing's hovering off
the edge of your run, you don't know if it's
going to move into your path with traveler or not.

Speaker 5 (01:55:13):
And these things are unpredictable.

Speaker 6 (01:55:14):
Nobody knows what direction they're going, just that when they go,
they tend to go quickly and then it's not in control.
So yeah, it's a hazard to aviation safety. Appear in
soud ted row. We're just about out of time.

Speaker 2 (01:55:29):
Would you tell our listeners if they're interested in learning
more about an OAR CAP, how do they get a
hold of you.

Speaker 6 (01:55:35):
Certainly we can be reached at www dot RCAP dot org.
There's a contact us forum in there. If you're a
pilot or an ear controller or you want to talk
to us. We also need volunteer help, both in an
administration as well as research. We can certainly use funders
and funding help. We need to come up with a
trip to Paris in about five weeks to get one

(01:55:57):
of our team there for working with the French government team.
So any help that any of our your listeners can
be We welcome potential funders and volunteers and we look
forward to her.

Speaker 2 (01:56:13):
That's in ourcap dot org. We've linked it over at
the powercast dot com and he's also participating in our
forums at forum dot thepowercast dot com. Tedrow. You can
find us on Twitter, where we're known as the Powercast.
Look for the Powercast on Twitter, look for a since
there are two of them, power Cast Fanclub on Facebook

(01:56:34):
and on Chris O'Brien has his own site, Our Strange
Planet dot com. Ourstrange Planet dot com. He also has
a new book out, Stalking the Herd, a definitive book
on cattle mutilations. You can order a copy from his site.
He'll autograph it for you and of course he makes

(01:56:55):
all the profit because it's not all going to Amazon. Tedrow,
thank you so much, thanks for joining us this week
on the Paracast.

Speaker 5 (01:57:02):
Thank you gin it, it's a real pleasure.

Speaker 1 (01:57:13):
The para Cast, featuring Jean Steinberg and Christopher O'Brien, is
a copyrighted presentation of Making the Impossible Incorporated. Tune in
next week for a new adventure in the Para Cast.