-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Greeting from Richard Dolan
- Thread starter Richard Dolan
- Start date
As far as I am concerned Rich is one of the few remaining lights in this (so-called) field of ufools. Its a tough job and he's doing it! I admire his courage diving into such a fetid true-believer pool in an attempt to rescue ufological sanity from drowning in a sea of burbling pop-culture baby-food and avoiding needy diapers. I'm sure he thought once or twice about the risk of getting slimed (not to mention the smell) but hey (I know the feeling) he's got a book to promote and a message of realism to promulgate. I applaud his pluck and I'm one of his biggest fanz! Its funny how some (present Co. excluded)
find it easy to caste judgment having never investigated a case, written a book or expressed anything more than an opinion. Bottomline? I LOVE it when sources are cited and research is conducted properly and conveyed with such elegance... Kudos and much luck to Richard Dolan, I say!
Gareth
Nothin' to see here
Richard (if you read this) thanks for taking the time to come here and engage personally.
There are two things I'm confused about though...
The first one is the claim that Gene/David said publicly that they would not have you back on the show if they didn't receive the book. I definitely hadn't seen anything to that effect anywhere on the forums.
And secondly, Schuyler, I haven't read Richs new book (yet!) or Greers book, so I have no clue about either apart from what I've read here. So the citing in Richs book doesn't actually reference one of Greers wacky claims, but rather a response by a 3rd party while being interviewed by Greer?
There are two things I'm confused about though...
The first one is the claim that Gene/David said publicly that they would not have you back on the show if they didn't receive the book. I definitely hadn't seen anything to that effect anywhere on the forums.
And secondly, Schuyler, I haven't read Richs new book (yet!) or Greers book, so I have no clue about either apart from what I've read here. So the citing in Richs book doesn't actually reference one of Greers wacky claims, but rather a response by a 3rd party while being interviewed by Greer?
Tom From Hong Kong
Sleeping with one eye open . . .
I am not as immersed in the subject as many on this forum, but two quick personal observations: (i) it is especially important for sober, balanced, informed researchers such as Mr. Dolan to participate in popular conferences, often alongside the kooks and frauds, if the 'more serious' or 'more civic-minded' wing of the UFO movement is to have a chance of winning in the "marketplace of ideas" and have the whole field taken seriously (poor analogy, but it is akin to a reasonable man having the courage to speak up in the midst of a mob in an effort to try to restore civility) , (ii) I very much hope Mr. Dolan will appear on the Paracast in the near future -- there are far too few serious researchers & commentators and we can't afford not to have them talking to one another. To point (i), in these conferences the more Mr. Dolan can draw contrast between his findings and what the kooks are saying -- while remaining respectful and constructive -- the better.
Gareth- this is true. I commented on it because I was confused as to why it was said. As if there was nothing to talk about with Richard Dolan than his book. It was Gene that wrote it. I can find the thread if you want. He wrote, "no book, no interview". It's funny though because I remember David being a little pissed off because during an interview (can't remember which one) nobody had even read the material except him. So I wonder how long it's going to take trying to get through a 600 page one. It would take me a while.
Either way I think the fact the Dolan is sending another book shows a lot of class. He has taken a lot of hits here for no apparent reason without even being able to defend himself or offer up any explanations. Hopefully we'll get some good conversation in the near future.
Kieran
Paranormal Adept
Look Dolan is a leading light in as far as how he discusses the topic and i do not think i would have any argument there. This topic is serious for me and i am not going to kiss anyone's Arse when i see problems in how they do things. Would you mingle with fraudsters in real life? It obvious he does and mentions them in his book, if people want to praise this go right ahead.When you speak alongside this fraudsters even though your message is different, your speech is tainted.
I have seen things all my life and just because Dolan writes good books for a living on this topic, which are applauded does not excuse him from being taken to task. One person wrote here all these armchair researchers who have never took the time to look or investigated a case, who are they to speak and criticize. What a load of crap.. everybody who has seen things has the right to speak his mind. This topic is not a game for me.
I have seen things all my life and just because Dolan writes good books for a living on this topic, which are applauded does not excuse him from being taken to task. One person wrote here all these armchair researchers who have never took the time to look or investigated a case, who are they to speak and criticize. What a load of crap.. everybody who has seen things has the right to speak his mind. This topic is not a game for me.
Tom From Hong Kong
Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Following up on my earlier post, I subsequently watched the Youtube video which Mike C. kindly posted above. On two separate occasions during his presentation Mr. Dolan directly took Stephen Greer to task for various statements Greer has made in the past. On each occasion, to my pleasant surprise, Mr. Dolan received enthusiastic applause from the audience. In short, Mr. Dolan is winning in the marketplace of ideas through a 'policy' of constructive engagement. Without him, the audience (both live and on Youtube) hear only the nutcases. In my view, few people find Mr. Dolan's message diluted or tainted by the fact that he presented at the same conference with some of the frauds in this field.
Rocketsauce
Haagen-Dazs Addict
Good thread, kudos to Rich for jumping on here.
We all agree Greer is sketchy to say the least. I may be completely wrong but I think that the Greer book Rich is referring is mainly transcripts of witnesses from the disclosure project. If this 'Greer' citation is from an interview transcript in the 'Disclosure Project' book from someone like Robert Salas than that wouldn't bother me personally. I'm not saying this is the case since I haven't read it, just my initial thought.
Greer certainly interviewed some highly credible people in between his alien energy moth pictures. Of course any of us would go out of our way to cite any other source beside Greer, but perhaps if this book is literally transcripts of video interviews and testimony it would remove any spin Greer would add. I have no idea if there is anything to what I just wrote, but these are my initial thoguhts in reading through these posts.
Anyone who has the patience to put a book like this together is to be commended IMO. With so much crap in this field, it seems at some point during a 600 page book you'd include something somewhat sketchy.
I admire both Rich for his ability to mingle with people he disagrees with and I admire David for his supreme upfront honesty regardless of the consequences. No one can question either's passion for this subject and trying to get some honest answers. I look forward to hearing Rich again on the show.
We all agree Greer is sketchy to say the least. I may be completely wrong but I think that the Greer book Rich is referring is mainly transcripts of witnesses from the disclosure project. If this 'Greer' citation is from an interview transcript in the 'Disclosure Project' book from someone like Robert Salas than that wouldn't bother me personally. I'm not saying this is the case since I haven't read it, just my initial thought.
Greer certainly interviewed some highly credible people in between his alien energy moth pictures. Of course any of us would go out of our way to cite any other source beside Greer, but perhaps if this book is literally transcripts of video interviews and testimony it would remove any spin Greer would add. I have no idea if there is anything to what I just wrote, but these are my initial thoguhts in reading through these posts.
Anyone who has the patience to put a book like this together is to be commended IMO. With so much crap in this field, it seems at some point during a 600 page book you'd include something somewhat sketchy.
I admire both Rich for his ability to mingle with people he disagrees with and I admire David for his supreme upfront honesty regardless of the consequences. No one can question either's passion for this subject and trying to get some honest answers. I look forward to hearing Rich again on the show.
Chuckleberryfinn
Paranormal Maven
I liked the part about how so and so reported that so and so took so and so to an air show from which the two departed towards "the real show." There, so and so and so and so saw fully functioning flying saucers hovering off of the ground. So and so also learned that the entire solar system, planets and moons all, had already been explored in the objects and had found no evidence of life elsewhere in our system. It is most reasonable to believe what so and so has reported to so and so, certainly. Probably the entire Galaxy has been explored in these objects. The story is absolutely not a grotesque falsification of reality.
marmer
Skilled Investigator
Richard Dolan joins the forum and promptly gets into a dustup with, of all people, Schuyler. David slaps Gene down publicly in the forum.
Damn! You can't make this stuff up, folks. I've gotta start scrolling farther down the forum lists, that's all there is to it. I'm missing all the action!
Welcome, Rich. Don't be a stranger.
Damn! You can't make this stuff up, folks. I've gotta start scrolling farther down the forum lists, that's all there is to it. I'm missing all the action!
Welcome, Rich. Don't be a stranger.
marmer
Skilled Investigator
OK, I just did a very quick look at Amazon. Forced my fingers to type "Stephen Greer Disclosure" and "searched inside the book."
Based on a very cursory look it looks like Rocketsauce's take is correct. The introductory paragraphs and what I assume are Greer's words of interpretation and explanation look like fatuous crap to me. Nonetheless, there are several familiar names among the witnesses quoted: Mitchell, Salas, Cooper, plus quite a few other names with military rank. The quotations seem like fairly legitimate descriptions of sightings or encounters. There's no evidence based on what little I saw to assume any of the quotations have been tampered with.
I have a lot of respect for Schuyler's perspectives and writing. I have a lot of respect for Richard Dolan's perspectives and writing, too. I hope this doesn't lead to an ugly situation. I thought Schuyler's original post was not up to his usual level of penetrating analysis and clarity of expression, and I thought Richard turned surprisingly defensive very quickly. The whole question of: "Is there anything useful, and if so, what, in Greer's book _Disclosure_?" seems to be the crux of this whole argument and neither of them really seemed to be willing to actually address that.
Based on a very cursory look it looks like Rocketsauce's take is correct. The introductory paragraphs and what I assume are Greer's words of interpretation and explanation look like fatuous crap to me. Nonetheless, there are several familiar names among the witnesses quoted: Mitchell, Salas, Cooper, plus quite a few other names with military rank. The quotations seem like fairly legitimate descriptions of sightings or encounters. There's no evidence based on what little I saw to assume any of the quotations have been tampered with.
I have a lot of respect for Schuyler's perspectives and writing. I have a lot of respect for Richard Dolan's perspectives and writing, too. I hope this doesn't lead to an ugly situation. I thought Schuyler's original post was not up to his usual level of penetrating analysis and clarity of expression, and I thought Richard turned surprisingly defensive very quickly. The whole question of: "Is there anything useful, and if so, what, in Greer's book _Disclosure_?" seems to be the crux of this whole argument and neither of them really seemed to be willing to actually address that.
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
My take, for what it's worth:
Greer's work should never be used as a source, because his association undermines the good witnesses that were featured therein. Credible accounts like those of Bob Salas can and should be sourced elsewhere (in Bob's case, directly from his own book). In short, Greer should be cut out of the equation entirely, so as to avoid any confusion or taint.
Paul
Greer's work should never be used as a source, because his association undermines the good witnesses that were featured therein. Credible accounts like those of Bob Salas can and should be sourced elsewhere (in Bob's case, directly from his own book). In short, Greer should be cut out of the equation entirely, so as to avoid any confusion or taint.
Paul
marmer
Skilled Investigator
Man, it must be Halloween, or a full moon, or something! The Mac Tonnies Metafilter kerfuffle. Rich Dolan and Schuyler. Paul Kimball and Chris O'Brien in the Zamora obituary thread. Me and everyone else tonight! For that matter, me even trying to argue for anything having to do with Greer being credible! Sheesh. Must be the cold medicine.
Paul, I hear you. The only thing I can say us that Greer's book came out four years before Salas' and maybe the timing is pertinent. Although I recognized the names that I mentioned earlier, there were several I didn't recognize and maybe their statements can't be found anywhere else. It's also possible, I guess, that Greer's "credibility" might have been a little higher in 2001 than it is in 2009. Knowing Rich's feelings about Greer as he has stated recently, I'm a little more inclined to trust him to tease any meager signal out of all the noise.
Paul, I hear you. The only thing I can say us that Greer's book came out four years before Salas' and maybe the timing is pertinent. Although I recognized the names that I mentioned earlier, there were several I didn't recognize and maybe their statements can't be found anywhere else. It's also possible, I guess, that Greer's "credibility" might have been a little higher in 2001 than it is in 2009. Knowing Rich's feelings about Greer as he has stated recently, I'm a little more inclined to trust him to tease any meager signal out of all the noise.
A little history: back in 1994 he assured us attendees of the "Crestone II" private conference that US government disclosure would happen within "90 days … I guarantee it!." Two of us recorded this claim. Then we have the 1998 "Blanca Gas Attack" confabulation boondogle (google it), then we have "ATTU training" stories from '98-99, Joshua Tree, CA of the laying trainee's hands on the good doctor to help him vector in UFO craft. Of course the more recent fantastic claims and promises around "free-energy" devises should be mentioned… Credibility? Should I continue?
Back in '94, after I had turned down a free "lifetime CSETI membership," I spent quite a bit of time with him and Shari, At one point I suggested to him that "your message is more important than you are… Don't become a lightning rod, etc" Shari agreed.
The rest is an equivocal, convoluted history of his own design.
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
The problem comes when you cite Greer in any work (or frankly, when you cite any of the exopols). It undermines your credibility with just about anyone outside ufology, and most people within it. It's one of the reasons why Bob Salas and many others have completely disassociated themselves with Greer and the exopols.
To me it's like writing a book on the Nuremberg Trials, wanting to use testimony by someone like Rudolf Hoess, and snagging it from a neo-Nazi publication that happens to have quoted it, as opposed to taking it from another, more reliable and respectable source.
Note that I haven't read Rich's new book, and I'm not talking about him in particular here. Also note that I'm not saying that in a book about the history of the "UFO movement" that Greer shouldn't be discussed, anymore than I would say that the contactee movement shouldn't be discussed. That's a different matter than using him as a source for material discussing something else.
A final note about Greer's credibility in 2001. A number of respected, "senior" UFO researchers, including the late Dick Hall and the late Karl Pflock, have told me that they thought years of work trying to bring about congressional hearings into the UFO phenomenon were completely torpedoed by Greer back in 2001, and I tend to agree. In fact, if one was to speculate, one would have to look very closely at where ufology was before Greer, and where it is after he arrived, and then ask a simple question: who has he really been working for?
Of course, one would only do that if one was to speculate.
Paul
Rocketsauce
Haagen-Dazs Addict
It's hard to argue that Greer isn't a total putz outside of the effeminate power-lifting community.
Citing Greer as a source for interviews particularly if those interviews are available via other sources at the time it was written (which we don't know) ain't good for credibility certainly. But on the other hand, if that's the main criticism of a 600 page book with otherwise compelling information and sources, I can live with it. I would not be surprised if some of the most widely accepted history books used today contain elements that could also be questioned, yet are still thought of as the standard.
Just for old times sake I feel like I have to post this old article from Outside magazine about Greer - http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/outsidemagazine.pdf
If we compiled a list of his claims it would be a thousand page laundry list of crazy talk, it's almost a futile exercise at this point. If he was taken to mayo clinic today and had an exhaustive mental examination what disorders do you think they'd find?
- Messiah Complex? Check
- Pathalogical Liar? Check
- Victim of Childhood Abuse/Blocked Out Memories? Wouldn't surprise me.
- Split Personality Disorder? Perhaps
- Off the charts Narcissism? Indeed.
Citing Greer as a source for interviews particularly if those interviews are available via other sources at the time it was written (which we don't know) ain't good for credibility certainly. But on the other hand, if that's the main criticism of a 600 page book with otherwise compelling information and sources, I can live with it. I would not be surprised if some of the most widely accepted history books used today contain elements that could also be questioned, yet are still thought of as the standard.
Just for old times sake I feel like I have to post this old article from Outside magazine about Greer - http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/outsidemagazine.pdf
If we compiled a list of his claims it would be a thousand page laundry list of crazy talk, it's almost a futile exercise at this point. If he was taken to mayo clinic today and had an exhaustive mental examination what disorders do you think they'd find?
- Messiah Complex? Check
- Pathalogical Liar? Check
- Victim of Childhood Abuse/Blocked Out Memories? Wouldn't surprise me.
- Split Personality Disorder? Perhaps
- Off the charts Narcissism? Indeed.