How do you people feel about Richard Dolan

[Bergen]

So, after reading National Security State vol1&2 a few years back i was very optimistic about RD being the new knight in shining armour of ufology but the last couple of years it seems to me that he has been dragged down the quagmire of ufo personality , the ufo "scene" and the killer :" anonymous sources" ( yuck! ).

I dont know... it seems like it is impossible to combine the ufologist with the book seller without selling out. And i sort of get it. I assume that going to diverse conferences of dubious nature is a must to promote books etc but after a while it seems that some ufologists get caught up in the relative fame that come with speaking at such events. Even if the "fame&glory" only exists inside this miniverse it is real nontheless and it seems that most of them get infected with new age drivel in the process. Case in point , James Fox and George Knapp. Only ufologist i know who dont wright books and they just happen to be the ones who , in my opinion , do the most down to earth research of UFOs, even if they might be wrong in their opinions.


thoughts ?

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I think he has a great beat and is easy to dance to. (If you are old enough to know the reference to American Bandstand, then this video is for you).

Seriously, I once had great respect for him, but his recent affiliation with KGRA (which is a UFO internet radio network that promotes just about any wackjob that will host a show for free) and his tired focus on Disclosure and the new conspiracy "Break Away Civilization" Schtick (very popular with the Exopolitics crowd) have made him just another UFO celebrity. (to me)

He admitted in a recent interview that he makes his entire living off of his celebrity status in ufology. He has to keep cranking out new books and new conspiracies to keep food on the table. That bothers me since it removes his ability to be objective.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

So, after reading National Security State vol1&2 a few years back i was very optimistic about RD being the new knight in shining armour of ufology but the last couple of years it seems to me that he has been dragged down the quagmire of ufo personality , the ufo "scene" and the killer :" anonymous sources" ( yuck! ).

I dont know... it seems like it is impossible to combine the ufologist with the book seller without selling out. And i sort of get it. I assume that going to diverse conferences of dubious nature is a must to promote books etc but after a while it seems that some ufologists get caught up in the relative fame that come with speaking at such events. Even if the "fame&glory" only exists inside this miniverse it is real nontheless and it seems that most of them get infected with new age drivel in the process. Case in point , James Fox and George Knapp. Only ufologist i know who dont wright books and they just happen to be the ones who , in my opinion , do the most down to earth research of UFOs, even if they might be wrong in their opinions.


thoughts ?

I assume you are NOT referring to me... 'cause if you are, I would take exception to your POV. Just say'in

 

[Bergen]

I assume you are NOT referring to me... 'cause if you are, I would take exception to your POV. Just say'in

I haven't gotten around to cattle mutilations yet so I honestly couldn't tell. I do find the theory of government checking the cattle for radiation compelling though. I'll probably get your book soon

 

[DaveM]

Dolan has lost a lot of credibility with me. When your buddies are Bassett and Moulton-Howe, that speaks volumes. He went from being a researcher to a carnival barker these past few years.

I haven't heard a peep about volume 3 of 'The National Security State', have you? It's always ' I'm working on it.' He's been busy attending every ufo conference he can. No time for finishing up that project. It's kind of sad because he was a shining light there for awhile. Now he wants to be part of the Ancient Aliens crowd.

 

[Randall]

I guess if someone has made ufology into a commercial venture in an attempt to earn a livelihood, we're supposed to just accept that a certain amount of compromise goes with the territory. Personally, I have a ufology website that is monetized with books of all kinds, from the far fetched, to the best you can get. That doesn't mean anyone has to believe it all, but I do believe knowing about it is useful, and that provided it's all kept in context, it shouldn't be a problem. There is also the publicist angle. I imagine a lot of them work on the old adage "all press is good press".

Look at what it's done for Giorgio's career ( Mr. Ancient Aliens ). He started out as bit player on the Internet and is now the host of a major TV production. Part of me wants to be happy for the success of the Dolan's and the Tsoukalos' of the world. The other part of me is disturbed by the sensationalism and commercialization, and perhaps rarely, I might even feel the tiniest little pang of envy at seeing Giorgio fly all over the world checking out all the cool ruins and have chicks actually think he's hot too ... is it the hair? LOL .

The bottom line for me on Dolan is that I hope he is very successful. He has himself and a family to provide for, and the ufology community could benefit from a trustworthy publisher in the field. I just hope he manages to juggle it all so as not to do more harm than good, and for the time being I trust that doing that matters to him, even if there are times when it might make us question his motives. In fact I would encourage the ufology community to visit his company page ( rdpress ) and to buy books there. I think if Richard were really successful, he would probably be one of those who would help put something back into the community. To me he seems like he's OK as a person. Though I've never actually met him, he comes across as that sort of person. I hope that's not misplaced faith.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

There's no fine line between 100% integrity and cash-flow when you find yourself in the "paranormal/UFO" public eye. You either have integrity, or you don't.

To digress: For some inexplicable reason I was virtually pushed out front into the public eye (w/o any self-promotion, I should add) because of two newspaper articles in a small-town monthly newspaper and I've been surfing this wave of public exposure for over 20 years..

For me it boils down to expressed and/or self-imposed agendas, of which I personally have none, except to prove there is a reality at the core of these phenomena and if you don't think so, you are in denial and a part of the problem...etc

My rule of thumb has always been this: If the person-in-question has an unrelated day job(s) that pay(s) the majority of their bills and all the investigator/researcher stuff is simply a passion, chances are they're OK and their motivations and work is above reproach. But, if they are relying on the paranormal/UFO books, DVDs, TV& conference appearances, etc as their sole source of income, their work and opinions should be carefully watched. I'm not suggesting the Dolan is bending, twisting or confabulating anything (of course there are exceptions to every rule) but (IMHO) his work (and the work of others of this ilk) should be placed under an extra vigilant microscope of scrutiny. It must suck when you have to constantly top yourself and/or come up w/ headline producing material several times per year, etc

My books have been written because I was the only person with access to the data who was in a position to objectively address the particular subjects, i.e., the San Luis Valley phenomena and cattle mutilations, etc. Stalking the Tricksters is stand alone in this regard and was written because I sensed a need for this overlooked subject to be included as a part of the debate, etc, etc.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

If I see Dolan hanging out with Alfred Webre (and other Exopolitics people) much more than he already has, then I will drop him like a bird that has just pooped in my hand.

 

[Constance]

My $0.02: Celebrity is a mixed blessing. Yes, conferences and radio programs. These put an individual researcher in touch with more researchers and with a larger percentage of the public. Researchers who are in frequent touch with other researchers hear about more happenings behind the scenes concerning new cases and developing concepts than those who sit locked in their studies documenting ufo history. I don't doubt that Dolan will complete volume 3 of the National Security State trilogy at some point and that it will be as responsibly researched and written as the first 1,200 pages of the trilogy. I don't question his right to produce other books of his own (several in recent years) and I applaud his assisting other researchers in the publication of their work. Yes, food on the table; he has a family. And he has a life of his own and should be able to pursue it in the directions he considers to be appropriate and productive.

The downside of gaining celebrity is that a lot of people you don't know get the idea that they own a piece of you and can criticize everything you do and don't do. This goes too far when it inclines observers to discount an individual's solid research accomplishments, even dismiss them, and demand that he/she dance to their tune today.

 

[DaveM]

I used to listen to Dolan on KGRA Radio until this one episode. Richard was bemoaning the fact that he had a difficult year making money in the ufo trade. I thought he was close to crying. He has said on numerous occasions that he could never bring himself to work in a 'normal 9-5 job.' Too demeaning. Well boo-hoo.

My mother had a saying, 'You made your bed and now you have to lie in it.' You chose this life Richard and now you have to deal with it, just like everyone else in the world. There is nothing worse than listening to someone whine on internet radio about how hard his life is when he has it better than 95% of the people I know. He gets to wear nice suits and fly all over the country giving speechs about ufos, of all things. That doesn't sound too bad to me. End of my rant.....

 

[Randall]

There's no fine line between 100% integrity and cash-flow when you find yourself in the "paranormal/UFO" public eye. You either have integrity, or you don't.

I don't think it's that cut and dried. People can believe they have "100% integrity" and be fooling themselves at the same time. They can be participating in an event like a conference where their name lends credibility to the event, believing it's all "100% integrity", when it's not, and find themselves rationalizing that it's OK because they're not concerned how their presence affects the bigger picture. They're could be more concerned about increasing their notoriety, how that might translate into product sales, and get their message out there.

Being on the outside of that ketchup bottle, it's easy to see how it could get murky real fast. Then there's the whole aspect of subjectivity. Not everything that one person believes is 100% clean is believed to be 100% clean by other people. So IMO, chances are that if you're in the "business of the paranormal" and think you have "100% integrity" you're probably already fooling yourself. How much of that is forgivable is for another post. But I think a certain amount of consideration should be granted to those who are obviously well intentioned, even if they may not be entirely objective.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I don't think it's that cut and dried. People can believe they have "100% integrity" and be fooling themselves at the same time. They can be participating in an event like a conference where their name lends credibility to the event, believing it's all "100% integrity", when it's not, and find themselves rationalizing that it's OK because they're not concerned how their presence affects the bigger picture. They're could be more concerned about increasing their notoriety, how that might translate into product sales, and get their message out there.

Randall, sometimes I think you get some weird sort of thrill arguing semantics and creating ya-but scenarios. OK, agreed, human motivations are subject to interpretation and everything is relative... Happy?

Case in point: I was invited to speak at a new conference in Santa Clara in 2012. The organizers invited me and I asked who else would be speaking. They said Richard Dolan, Derrel Sims and someone else. I had no major problem w/ any of them, so I agreed. A couple of months later (after I had signed a contract w/ them) come to find out Alfred Weber, Andrew Basagio, Laura Eisenhower, Douglas Deitrick, etc etc were on the same bill w/ several others of the wingnut variety as well. I was absolutely furious, but what could I do? I was legally bound to appear. So, in keeping w/ my point of "maintaining integrity," I made sure my presentation called the BS into question and pointed out the danger of true-believerism that is permeating the UFO subculture. I told the audience they were sitting in the pews of a new 21st Century religion had shouted out, "can I get an AMEN?" like a fire & brimstone UFO preacher. I kept it up until I got my AMEN. I heard that I pissed off quite a number of people who had their glaring blindspots shoved in their face by my presentation. So, by going and speaking (maintaining my integrity to the contract) did I sell out? Is this just a rationalization (as you put it)? No, I turned the situation to everyone's advantage (IMO) communicated what these yahoos needed to hear and got my point across that UFOs are NOT necessarily connected to abductions, crop circles, religions and mutilations, among other phenomena. That was the subject of my talk, btw.

I wish you wouldn't be so wrapped up in passive aggressive adversarial-ism Randall. Sometimes it's better to just read things and not have to continually attempt to play semantic games and splash the forum mud puddle dry. We all know you are a smart guy and by now we have a pretty good idea of where you stand on most issues. These kinds of yabut posts have a tendency to push people away and have a dampening effect on some of the threads. Just MY opinion of course, but I bet there are more than a few posters that will agree..

 

[Randall]

Randall, sometimes I think you get some weird sort of thrill arguing semantics and creating ya-but scenarios. OK, agreed, human motivations are subject to interpretation and everything is relative... Happy?

Case in point: I was invited to speak at a new conference in Santa Clara in 2012. The organizers invited me and I asked who else would be speaking. They said Richard Dolan, Derrel Sims and someone else. I had no major problem w/ any of them, so I agreed. A couple of months later (after I had signed a contract w/ them) come to find out Alfred Weber, Andrew Basagio, Laura Eisenhower, Douglas Deitrick, etc etc were on the same bill w/ several others of the wingnut variety as well. I was absolutely furious, but what could I do? I was legally bound to appear. So, in keeping w/ my point of "maintaining integrity," I made sure my presentation called the BS into question and pointed out the danger of true-believerism that is permeating the UFO subculture. I told the audience they were sitting in the pews of a new 21st Century religion had shouted out, "can I get an AMEN?" like a fire & brimstone UFO preacher. I kept it up until I got my AMEN. I heard that I pissed off quite a number of people who had their glaring blindspots shoved in their face by my presentation. So, by going and speaking (maintaining my integrity to the contract) did I sell out? Is this just a rationalization (as you put it)? No, I turned the situation to everyone's advantage (IMO) communicated what these yahoos needed to hear and got my point across that UFOs are NOT necessarily connected to abductions, crop circles, religions and mutilations, among other phenomena. That was the subject of my talk, btw.

I wish you wouldn't be so wrapped up in passive aggressive adversarial-ism Randall. Sometimes it's better to just read things and not have to continually attempt to play semantic games and splash the forum mud puddle dry. We all know you are a smart guy and by now we have a pretty good idea of where you stand on most issues. These kinds of yabut posts have a tendency to push people away and have a dampening effect on some of the threads. Just MY opinion of course, but I bet there are more than a few posters that will agree..

To respond as objectively as possible: Internet forums use primarily written language and therefore the meaning of words are very important, so when topics could have an effect on the reputations of people ( like this thread ), communicating clearly and with precision is preferable to sloppy generalizations. So when you say "100% integrity", knowing you're a writer, I take it that you mean exactly what you're saying, and that makes me curious because I know you are aware of the issues surrounding Integrity in the field, and are immersed in it yourself. So in the content of the discussion, I see a discrepancy that in my mind needs to be reconciled before I'm sure I understand your thinking. That is all I'm trying to do. I'm not being critical of you personally, and I'm not being "passive aggressive".

Turning to your example: Your experience described above doesn't surprise me in the least, and I would suggest that because you became furious, the kind of thing I was getting at with paranormal conferences is indeed important to you. It's one of the reasons that I have the respect for you that I do. But if it bothers you that I'm interested in the topic, and want to participate, and want to understand what you have to say about it, then I would appreciate knowing why. Let's hash it out so we can be friends about it. OK? Please, let's get it all out now so that we don't have to drag it around all year.

BTW I don't think I've ever used the word "yabut" because way back in high school English class, my teacher ( Mr. Johnson ) clearly told us all that "yabut is not a word" and anyone starting a sentence with that word would be ignored ... LOL ... I suppose anyone who wants to ignore me can do the same thing here. That is; if they can find any sentence where I actually start with the word "yabut".

 

[Bergen]

I don't think people should be judged ( in this context) by anything other than their own work. My point was that the more one associate with scam artists and sharlatans the more likely one is to be accepting of their views. In some ways I hope there would be more money in ufology, that would maybe make it so that one only had to writone or two successful books to be set. That way people like Dolan who has written about basically every ufo encounter and story at various length wouldn't have to resort to overly speculating and anonymous sources to constantly push out new material. He could talk at the Martian Ass Men Conference for all I care as long as he "keeps it real"

 

[Phil]

I read Dolan's "National Security State" Volume 1 years back, and was impressed with it, comparing it to a lot of other ufo books on the market. I even had some email exchanges with Richard, and he came across as a friendly guy. I concur that he has, in my opinion, crossed the boundary of objectivity and joined the ufo congress camp, telling people what they want to hear. Thus, he, unfortunately has lost credibility...

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Randall, sometimes I think you get some weird sort of thrill arguing semantics and creating ya-but scenarios. OK, agreed, human motivations are subject to interpretation and everything is relative... Happy?

Case in point: I was invited to speak at a new conference in Santa Clara in 2012. The organizers invited me and I asked who else would be speaking. They said Richard Dolan, Derrel Sims and someone else. I had no major problem w/ any of them, so I agreed. A couple of months later (after I had signed a contract w/ them) come to find out Alfred Weber, Andrew Basagio, Laura Eisenhower, Douglas Deitrick, etc etc were on the same bill w/ several others of the wingnut variety as well. I was absolutely furious, but what could I do? I was legally bound to appear. So, in keeping w/ my point of "maintaining integrity," I made sure my presentation called the BS into question and pointed out the danger of true-believerism that is permeating the UFO subculture. I told the audience they were sitting in the pews of a new 21st Century religion had shouted out, "can I get an AMEN?" like a fire & brimstone UFO preacher. I kept it up until I got my AMEN. I heard that I pissed off quite a number of people who had their glaring blindspots shoved in their face by my presentation. So, by going and speaking (maintaining my integrity to the contract) did I sell out? Is this just a rationalization (as you put it)? No, I turned the situation to everyone's advantage (IMO) communicated what these yahoos needed to hear and got my point across that UFOs are NOT necessarily connected to abductions, crop circles, religions and mutilations, among other phenomena. That was the subject of my talk, btw.

I wish you wouldn't be so wrapped up in passive aggressive adversarial-ism Randall. Sometimes it's better to just read things and not have to continually attempt to play semantic games and splash the forum mud puddle dry. We all know you are a smart guy and by now we have a pretty good idea of where you stand on most issues. These kinds of yabut posts have a tendency to push people away and have a dampening effect on some of the threads. Just MY opinion of course, but I bet there are more than a few posters that will agree..

I understand that someone on the UFO/Paranormal Lecture Circuit may not always know who he will share billing with. But when someone like Richard Dolan consistently shares the limelight with Exopolitics clowns (and now I put Steven Greer in that camp), it is at best sad. It is sad because Richard put all his financial eggs in 1 basket, that basket being ufology. He is subject to the uncontrollable whims and fads of ufology. If he needs to make money from lecturing at conferences, and most of the available conferences feature delusional people and loons, does he refuse to participate? This would be the ethical stance to take. But if you have to make a car payment and your kids need shoes, how can you say no? I agree that a long term association with the wacky side of ufology (which is gigantic) would necessitate compromise on Richard's part. Otherwise, he might lose favor with conference attendees and no longer be invited to participate. So if the typical UFO conference attendee thinks that Exopolitics is the future of ufology (based on a subconscious belief that Star Trek was real), then Richard would have to bow to this or lose popularity. I agree he has in a sense painted himself into a corner by making this his financial source of income. I was one of those people who worked in the corporate world from 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. each week day, and often on weekends. I have no sympathy for Richard's publicized "nose-in-the-air" refusal to work in such an environment to make ends meet. I did not like it, but I did it for financial reasons. Ufology was a vocation....something I worked on in my spare time. I thank God I was not too "pure" to be sullied by participating in corporate America.

 

[Sand]

It’s funny. I happened to come across this thread a few hours after attending a talk Dolan gave in the Phoenix area yesterday.

I’m actually not that familiar with Dolan’s work. I’ve heard him on The Paracast and Coast To Coast. But the “Breakaway Civilization” and “the transistor is derived from alien technology” stuff has never really intrigued me, and I haven’t yet gotten around to reading one of his books.

He is quite a good speaker, easily keeping the audience’s attention for the almost 3 hours he spoke. I had walked into it expecting somewhat of a huckster. But as a speaker he came across as genuine, and very into what he was saying.

His material on UFOs was basically what you’ve heard on The Paracast and elsewhere. I found the most interesting part of his talk to be a large segment he did that had little to do with UFOs. He went on at length about a CIA initiated coup in the Ukraine, and the U.S. and OPEC coming together to damage the ruble by dropping oil prices. He tied it back into UFOs by asking whether Russia will retaliate by disclosing on UFOs (disclosing what, I’m not sure). This might not have been a topic the UFO audience was anticipating. But his enthusiasm, and as he said “obsession”, with the topic carried the audience along with him. It’s a topic I only have a casual familiarity with, but his presentation of it seemed quite reasonable.

I left there wondering if this economic war with Russia has become a hot topic in some circles. I have a friend who follows right-wing alarmist discussions. It’s interesting that a few weeks ago he was trying to talk to me about how Russia might retaliate to all this.

For those in the Phoenix area who might be interested, Phoenix MUFON hosts a speaker each month at the Arizona Historical Society Museum in Tempe. The speakers range across the paranormal spectrum, from serious researchers to an author who said he has acquaintances who are sasquatches and aliens. I believe Chris has spoken for them in the past. Alejandro Rojas typically, and Travis Walton occasionally, are in the audience if you should have any questions you’d like to speak with them about.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I used to be on their mailing list, but not in several years, despite being a MUFON member for most of that time.

 

[Richard Hawkins]

I used to have a lot of respect for Richard Dolan because every ufo was not a little green man or grey alien however I have to say in recent times I have found Micha Hanks to be closer to the truth.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I used to have a lot of respect for Richard Dolan because every ufo was not a little green man or grey alien however I have to say in recent times I have found Micha Hanks to be closer to the truth.

What is the truth? This is a sincere question.