• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Richard Dolan's Tin Foil Hat; a general systems theory of conspiracy

Forums New posts
I personally always had issues with Mr. Dolan's portrayal of David Rockefeller as kingmaker -- the force behind the Bilderberg Group and the American elite who strongly influences a range of public policies. Yes, the Rockefellers have money, but relative to many others, the name surpasses the wealth and influence. A good portion of the wealth has been disbursed throughout the younger generations and charities.

Taking a step back, to be fair, Mr. Dolan doesn't explicitly profess to be a historian or academic. However, he effectively occupies that position given how many view him and the nature of his books. The dearth of talent in the UFO field positions him there. As Schuyler rightfully points out, what is somewhat dangerous here is the less-than-rigorous use of secondary sources (if true) to subtly drive a pre-conceived agenda (i.e., conspiracies), which potentially creates more folklore than fact. The field certainly doesn't need more folklore, particularly if it is more polished than the norm, making it more difficult to detect.

Nevertheless, a rhetorical question: is Mr. Dolan to be blamed if people in UFOlogy hold him up on a pedestal which he never asked to occupy? Outside of a few disclaimers I have heard him make, he certainly doesn't object too loudly to his portrayal as the field's historian. However, if it allows him to sell books (which may be mere compilations of existing material) should we blame him for not putting himself in his rightful place? Is anyone accusing him of downright fraud or deception? At the end of the day he may be nothing more a more sophisticated version of some others in the field -- but certainly still not a crook. Perhaps his word just now carries less weight than it did previously.
 
cottonzway said:
You just summed up EXACLTY what I was saying. I just don't get this type of attitude. It's "insane" to question if human beings did bad things but "sane" to question about beings that we don't know anything about? In particular on a topic MILLIONS of people have some similar view on. It's not like he was talking about the Webre nonsene about space beams or anything, it's a view a lot of people have yet people who are interested in very odd things (right, wrong, or indifferent) have this attitude to call everyone else a nut when so many people suggest the same thing about them. Sometimes the level of hubris the whole paranomal field has amazes me.
Click to expand...

I see your point cotton. But how others view me our you; is not relevant to the discussion They're is of course people who will obviously, think we're not
all that sane for believing in UFOs. They would Consider me nuts; That is their opinion. I'm not sure who the nutty flakes are though. The doubters, me our you.

The Evidence for something visiting our planet and having superior technology to us is evident and overwhelming. If 9/11 was an inside job. I eat my hat. Not a one piece of evidence, substantial evidence has been shown to prove the case for Explosives in the towers; our that a military plane having had some involvement with the attacks on the Pentagon. The evidence is and come on the evidence is pretty good. Islamic terrorists crashed those planes into the three buildings. They leadership of Al Qaeda often, numerous times said; they we're responsible for the attacks. O they must have been Lying and keeping this a secret for eight years. O they're where paid. Yea that is what happened?
 
Folks, Some of you are acting as if the boy who pointed out the Emperor has no clothes is to blame for pointing it out. To those of you who have said I have been spiteful, you don't know what the word means. THIS is spiteful: News to Chew! Get it? (Page down a bit.)

Now, to someone without any background in History, they will say Dolan is 'an Historian.' To someone with a PhD in History, they will say Dolan is an apprentice at best. Depends on your point of view. But my point is that even if Dolan is 'an historian,' his writings DO NOT REFLECT how an academic historian would write and do research. He writes like a popular writer, not like an academic historian. That's just a fact; you can't get around it no matter what you call me or what I have written. His writings are NOT up to standards vis-a-vis academic research, period. To those of you who have never been exposed to academic standards of writing, you could not possibly know this. That's not to your discredit at all. I have made a case for it. If you don't believe me, do your own research. The reason this is important is that his fan base likes to say he is a scholar and that his writings have never been successfully challenged. THIS - IS - NOT - TRUE. I've heard the same arguments said on behalf of 'Dr," Salla and "Dr." Greer. They are DOCTORS, THEREFORE whatever they say must be given extra credence. This "argument from authority" is logically invalid.

Secondly, I have pointed out, along with others like Richard Hall, that Dolan has problems with logic. He uses 'conclusions from ignorance,' turning musings into facts. He uses selective evidence. He most usually DOES NOT go to the original sources, but relies on others' compilations. And he doesn't always understand the significance of sightings he DOES list. If you follow some of the footnotes, you'll figure this out. But you have to read the book first. How many people commenting here have READ THE BOOK? Deal with the issues. deal with NSB Bangor. Deal with a ten inch ball of red light and how that fits in with the Bilderbergers. How about taking off the rose tinted glasses here and LOOKING at what Dolan has written with a critical eye. Everyone is fond of saying people ought to be more critical about the UFO field, yet when someone actually is, it's a problem for them.

As one UFO researcher said to me, "You've been much more charitable to Dolan that I would have been, not that he's not a nice guy." What I find most interesting is that some folks on here who have criticized Dolan in the past or his 'just being in it for the money' are now defending him. Now THAT'S peculiar.
 
Just out of interest, is it typical for any historian in academia to have a phd? If so, I didn't know that.
 
I read the entire review. It was very informative, and well presented. Schuyler, you are a skilled writer - and an excellent editorialist.

On page 1, Schuyler writes:

"This is a critical review. This is not a happy-talk ‘He’s so wonderful!’ review so often found on places like amazon.com." And, sure enough, it ain't happy talk.

You make some good points, and I respect your hard work. But, be careful, this review gets a bit catty. Your editorializing seems mean-spirited, and this (to me) diminishes the overall effect of the critical review.

- also -

Schuyler wrote (on page 14) in reference to glowing praise from Alfred Lehmberg:
"If I were Dolan I would worry about a fan base like that. It’s not doing any good for his credibility."

I'll respond by paraphrasing from memory. Dolan (during some audio interview, and maybe even a PARACAST episode) says: "Someone asked me if doing UFO research might have a negative effect on my credibility, and I replied - I research UFOs - I have no credibility!"

I include this just because I thought that was a funny line.

===

And - Just so y'know, I have not read Dolan's new book. I have the first volume.

==

In an earlier reply to a posting of mine, Schuyler wrote:
"I don't particularly care and have nothing to lose, and I'm not one of those guys with no musical talent that likes to wear a "I'm with the band!" T-shirt, if you catch my drift."

In catching your drift, I assume that you are saying I am "one of those guys with no musical talent" because I don't quite adhere to your same critical standards?
 
Thank you for articulating the issues I had after reading UFO's and The National Security State 1947 – 1973 and what makes me hesitant to buy volume two. When I finished the book I started to wonder where the source of some of the information came from and what criterion was used to include certain things and not others. Since this book was compilation of information trying to paint a larger picture there wasn’t space to go into specific events in detail and IMO the devil is in the details when it comes to the subject of UFO’s. This is why I enjoy listening to The Paracast - the only show I've heard that gets down to the nitty gritty.

So the question that becomes louder for me is “What are the best books to read with original research on UFOs?" I put the query out there to prevent myself and others from having to read ten crap books to find a decent one. "Decent" being a source that deals with documented facts.

 
Excellent Work. Thanks for doing it.

Schuyler said:
https://www.theparacast.com/images/dolan.pdf

Above is a link to my review of Richard Dolan's second volume of UFOs and the National Security State, titled Richard Dolan's Tin Foil Hat; a general systems theory of conspiracy. It also touches a bit on the first volume. I do hope that if you choose to comment critically, that you have actually read both volumes.

I'm only one person and I probably have not picked up on some issues that some of you, by virtue of having different backgrounds and being in different places, might have picked up on. Some of the stuff I mention, such as the Bangor incident, were just lucky finds for me because I happen to have first-hand knowledge of the area. I have this sneaking suspicion that there are a lot more issues out there. If you have additional information, by all means email me and I'll consider a version 2.

Thanks very much to those who have helped me along the way here, including 'our own' Don Ecker, Dr. Mark Rodeghier, Scientific Director of CUFOS, Dr. John Bayley of the University of Washington, Alan Rader of Portland State University, Gail Goodrich and Carolyn Neal, both historians at Kitsap Regional Library, and authors where I cited their published works such as Richard Hall, whom I will never be able to thank personally. Also, thanks to Gene Steinberg and David Biedny.

I have chosen to embed my references in situ rather than stick them at the end. I have provided links to sources where they are on-line. I have personal PDF copies of all the IUR Journals, including Hall's extensive review of Dolan's first book. I did not include it here for fear of copyright issues, but there is such a thing as fair use, so if you want it, email me.

I guess the one thing this experience has taught me is to never trust anyone to give you the straight scoop. If someone provides a footnote, follow it and see if it leads where the author tells you it leads. It might not. It might lead to a circus of fools. And although I quite realize absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it isn't evidence either. There is a lot of 'sleight of hand' here where the unverified musings of one author turn into facts with a few twists of words over a few dense pages when you're not sure where you are.

The evidence for this has been out there for a decade, of course, but it is often well-hidden in un-indexed journals and obscure web sites, leading some to naively suppose that it does not exist. Some of it has been hiding in plain sight. In fact, it was rather late in the game when I came across Hall's extensive review. I was gratified to realize that he and I had come to exactly the same conclusions over a decade's abyss and sadly, life's abyss as well. And some people, whom I know have serious issues with Dolan, aren't talking. They don't want to rock the boat. Yes, I know who you are, but I'll keep the faith. It's your decision whether you want to come forward, even though I think you are chicken.

I don't intend to get into arguments about this on this thread. If you think Dolan is the best Ufology has to offer, I really don't much care. The linked document is my sole contribution to it. Frankly, it took me a couple of months and I'm kind of tired of it. I suspect Dolan will not be very happy with me for it, but, then, I'm not very happy with Dolan, either.

Schuyler
Click to expand...
 
Gareth said:
Just out of interest, is it typical for any historian in academia to have a phd? If so, I didn't know that.
Click to expand...

Gareth, yes, the strong majority of historians in academics (and otherwise) have advanced degrees, although not entirely. And yes, I think most on this Forum now concede that Dolan's work fails to live up to the standards of academia and perhaps just good research, thanks to Schuyler's work. Some of his paraphrasing and sourcing indicate these failings quite readily, even with a cursory examination.

The point of my prior post is that Dolan is a difficult case when you really think about it: he doesn't expressly hold himself out as a historian or academic, despite his advanced degrees, although he certainly benefits from being placed there by others. He also talks the talk. Nonetheless, if I have a Masters or PhD what is to say that I can't write tabloid press, and conversely if I am without a college degree what is to say I can't write damn good history? This is why peer review & comment is so important. My personal conclusion, at the present moment, is as follows: Mr. Dolan is in the same category as other generalist writers and commentators in the field, but more educated / polished and therefore perhaps more 'dangerous' in the sense that his conclusions may carry more weight than his work merits. Frankly, this describes people in many fields of human endeavor, just not UFOlogy.

To Schuyler's work, it is much appreciated, particularly in this rag-tag field of UFOlogy, but if I was his editor the first thing I would do is drop the language around Dolan and LMH. In and of itself, this language fails to live up to academic standards, and very well may get his note quickly dismissed at most journals (I say this having been the editor on the Law Journal at my law school). The editors could quickly come to the view that this is an ad hominem attack rather than a bona fide peer review, and question the validity of everything that is presented in the piece, even before fact- and cite-checking (not to say academia isn't fraught with personal agendas & dislikes). What editor wants to run the risk he/she misses something embarassing to his journal in editing the piece in question before publication? The end result? -- unfortunately, all the hard work and research right in the trash bin.
 
Understand that Schuyler's review is clearly not meant as an academic paper, but as a report designed for consumption by the general public. I'm sure that he will confirm my impression.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Understand that Schuyler's review is clearly not meant as an academic paper, but as a report designed for consumption by the general public. I'm sure that he will confirm my impression.
Click to expand...

Gene, I unfortunately have a different viewpoint. If one is going to spend months writing a paper for public distribution, carefully footnoted, in which you hold others to the high standards of academia, your piece itself should live up to the same standards. Contrast a quick note posted by one of the members on a Forum thread. In fact, someone with the time should check Schuyler's note for accuracy (perhaps Dolan will do it himself).

To be clear, my comments in my post above are intended to be constructive criticism, because I do see tons of merit in what Schuyler is doing.
 
Tom from Hong Kong said:
Gene, I unfortunately have a different viewpoint. If one is going to spend months writing a paper for public distribution, carefully footnoted, in which you hold others to the high standards of academia, your piece itself should live up to the same standards. Contrast a quick note posted by one of the members on a Forum thread. In fact, someone with the time should check Schuyler's note for accuracy (perhaps Dolan will do it himself).

To be clear, my comments in my post above are intended to be constructive criticism, because I do see tons of merit in what Schuyler is doing.
Click to expand...

I take your point. But I differ as to its target audience, and thus the contents would be expected to be different. I speak as someone who has written computer instruction books and consumer commentaries.
 
Seeing people's reactions to Schuyler just tells me why we need people like him in any field. I admit I have not completely read Dolan's books. After starting the first volume I quickly became bored with it as it seemed like a retelling of stories I already knew, seems I was right. I genuinely enjoy hearing UFO related stories even if they are debunked because there is still a high entertainment value in good stories, but they remain just that. It's bizarre how quickly these things become dogma.
 
Question:

What are the plans for that review? Is it just going to sit on the PARACAST forums, or is there a plan to post it elsewhere?

I personally don't like some of the "tone" in that review - but I do feel it is an important piece of work, and it should find it's way out there into the mix for others to read.
 
A good critical review of Dolan's work.However I would caution any one in citing Alfred Lehmberg for any reason; it calls into question the validity of the rest.That being said I would argue that the non-belief in conspiracy in the mechanizations of the world is naive.I enjoyed your paper and would enjoy seeing a rebuttal by Dolan.I should mention,I think,that this type of review is is refreshing.no one should receive a pass.
 
To be totally fair, we did recently invite Dolan to come on the show.

He declined to participate, at least for now.

So there you go.
 
Well,it certainly does look like Richard Dolan wont want to come on the show again. It seems no one around here will miss him anyway, although I for one have found him to be a pretty interesting character and he certainly is interesting to listen too.
As for the so-called review of Mr Dolans work,well, I think it would be more apt to call it a piece on character assasination myself. It seems Mr Schuyler goes beyond a mere book review and implies that the man is an outright charlatan, whose motifs seem to be the limelight, and of course; money. Dont say that is not what Mr schuyler implied, because lets face it, he did! He implied that Dolans sources are not really sources at all, and that he pilfered from other writers and didnt do the research himself, which makes him a fake.
 
Back
Top