Credibility Eater

[DBTrek]

I was listening to the lastest Paracast on my way to work this morning and I heard Richard Dolan say a phrase that I hear repeatedly from those in the 'paranormal' field. I don't have the context handy, but my complaint isn't about Dolan's particular statement, rather it's about all statements similar to it.

It goes like this: "Oh yeah, I have verification from top level people about (insert extraordinary claim here), but unfortunately I can't reveal their names".

This statement is a credibility eater, not enhancer. It's a fancy way of saying "Well, a lot of experts agree with me, but I can't tell you who they are" . . . which immediately makes one sound like a braggart and a liar in one fell swoop. Additionally it sounds like a feeble attempt to sound believable while claiming the unbelivable. It's reputation poison.

I urge people in the paranormal field to stay away from statements like this. It would be better to say nothing about the supposed 'experts' that agree with you than to claim that they exist but then refuse to name them.

Richard is not the only person guilty of saying stuff like this. We hear it again and again from folks in this field. It's lame. Let's all agree to stop doing it.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

But.. but....Steven Greer and Sean Morten would have nothing to talk about then.

 

[Brian Now]

It goes like this: "Oh yeah, I have verification from top level people about (insert extraordinary claim here), but unfortunately I can't reveal their names".

This statement is a credibility eater, not enhancer.
-DBTrek

I thought the same thing. I think real journalists can get away with that because, compared to this stuff, they report on tamer, more believable stuff. Plus, if they get caught making something up it is professional suicide. If a ufologist makes something up he/she just keeps on truckin' (it seems). Maybe people like Dolan think they have less to talk about if they stick with verifiable facts and named sources so they add these "unnamed" sources as a kind of fluff or filler.

Did anyone else get the idea he was including astronauts among his high placed sources? Astronauts might be a good source for things like objects seen in space, but they are not senior officials nor highly placed sources at all.

 

[Richard Bailey]

Correct, credibility is the problem. Most of the folks that are supposed to be the leading the way for us all will eventually do something small that destroies any crediablity the had out of the water. Folks like Linda Howe. Right now she is standing her ground on her position that it doesn't matter what the photo experts say the Chad photos are the real deal. Even Steve Kulls swears the New York Baby footage is proof of Bigfoot in New York State when it is clearly an ape of some kind.

Today most researchers in the paranormal field want people to recognize them as legitimate researchers but they don't understand that being a light to lead the way doesn't mean pouring gasoline on your self and striking a match

 

[Paul Kimball]

I was listening to the lastest Paracast on my way to work this morning and I heard Richard Dolan say a phrase that I hear repeatedly from those in the 'paranormal' field. I don't have the context handy, but my complaint isn't about Dolan's particular statement, rather it's about all statements similar to it.

It goes like this: "Oh yeah, I have verification from top level people about (insert extraordinary claim here), but unfortunately I can't reveal their names".

This statement is a credibility eater, not enhancer. It's a fancy way of saying "Well, a lot of experts agree with me, but I can't tell you who they are" . . . which immediately makes one sound like a braggart and a liar in one fell swoop. Additionally it sounds like a feeble attempt to sound believable while claiming the unbelivable. It's reputation poison.

If you use anonymous sources but then can corroborate the things they say with hard evidence, or non-anonymous sources, as Woodward and Bernstein did with Watergate, then that's okay. But anonymous sources should be used extremely rarely, and never as the sole source of the truth of a statement. This is one of my biggest problems with Dolan, who does this frequently, while at the same time claiming status as a legitimate historian - however, it's a practice that no legitimate historian I know of would use with anything but the utmost caution, and then never to prove something unless he or she had corroboration. Unfortunately, Dolan does this all too often - along with his penchant for putting a veneer of credibility to the most outlandish conspiracy theories, i.e. Dr. Jim McDonald was killed by the US government because of his UFO work - an allegation that is belied by the facts, and which any reputable ufologist (i.e. Dick Hall, Jerry Clark, Stan Friedman, Brad Sparks, etc., etc.) rejects out of hand, especially those like Hall and Friedman who knew McDonald.

Dolan wows them at conferences like Laughlin. But so does Michael Horn.

Paul

 

[Brian Now]

Unfortunately, Dolan does this all too often - along with his penchant for putting a veneer of credibility to the most outlandish conspiracy theories, i.e. Dr. Jim McDonald was killed by the US government because of his UFO work - an allegation that is belied by the facts, and which any reputable ufologist (i.e. Dick Hall, Jerry Clark, Stan Friedman, Brad Sparks, etc., etc.) rejects out of hand, especially those like Hall and Friedman who knew McDonald.

Dolan wows them at conferences like Laughlin. But so does Michael Horn.

Paul

I didn't know this about Dolan. The only exposure to him I have had is this episode of the Paracast. If what you say is true then it is pretty sad he keeps getting attention and publicity.