Debunking requires some credulity and a lot of
seriousness. The classical debunker thinks that the debunked believes in what
he says, but this is not so. On the contrary, the “public figures” of Ufology
and Exopolitics are intelligent enough to understand, after becoming professionals
that the whole thing belongs to the industry of entertainment, and in the show business,
the best show attracts more people (and money.)
In other words they sell a product regardless of their
beliefs. The difference between fiction and fact is secondary for the market,
and a book sells if it’s written following the public preferences.
The following comments about Richard Dolan, UFO historian
and “dark journalist;” show the difference between debunking and watching the
show.
Above Top
Secret
“Richard Dolan is a Smart guy who believes stupid things
without evidence.
Does the same mental and cognitive gymnastics other believers do.
Has some notoriety now because of some books, TV appearances on SciFi Channel, and now his own radio program.
So now that he's economically invested in the nonsense he will defend his cash cow and discount any disconfirming evidence as part of a conspiracy.”
Does the same mental and cognitive gymnastics other believers do.
Has some notoriety now because of some books, TV appearances on SciFi Channel, and now his own radio program.
So now that he's economically invested in the nonsense he will defend his cash cow and discount any disconfirming evidence as part of a conspiracy.”
Paul Kimball
“The key, however, is to make sure your speculation is
grounded in evidence – that you can offer something to back it up beyond just
saying “well, it could have happened.” A historian might not be able to prove
something beyond a reasonable doubt, but he should be able to show that it was
more likely than not that a certain thing happened.
With this in mind, an objective read of UFOs and the National Security State, on which Dolan’s reputation in the UFO field as a serious researcher is largely based, shows it to be nothing more than conspiracy theory masquerading as a serious historical study.”
With this in mind, an objective read of UFOs and the National Security State, on which Dolan’s reputation in the UFO field as a serious researcher is largely based, shows it to be nothing more than conspiracy theory masquerading as a serious historical study.”
UFOculture
“The Washington Post article makes Richard Dolan mad. He
loses his nice guy image and writes: “This article is another shameful and
absurd attempt by the Washington Post to debunk something that the publication
has never, ever bothered to do the slightest bit of real investigation about.”
Of course, this is pure, unadulterated nonsense. Either
Dolan doesn’t read the commentary, or he is blinded by his resentment.”
Reddit
“I saw two of his books (National Security State series)
listed as recommended reading recently in a thread here, and I thought, before
reading his book, that he was a reasonable and well-regarded researcher in the
UFO field. I have read through some of his book, and it's fraught with
delusional conspiracies about Freemasons and Trilateralists. He also cites
dubious sources like Jim Marrs (who himself doesn't source any of his claims.
I've read one of his books--absolute crock).
Am I right to think that Dolan is unreliable? I can't see
how someone can plan out a historical overview of the phenomenon if a lot of
what he supplies are unverifiable anecdotes and questionable inclusions of
transnational banking conspiracies.”
UFOwatchdog
“The problem is that Richard Dolan appears to take all
evidence at face value. He will quote Morris K. Jessup on an equal basis with
Jacques Vallee. He will talk of Gray Barker on the same level as J. Allen
Hynek. He puts Philip Corso at the same level as Jerome Clark. In other words,
he does not seem to discriminate between sources. He considers them all valid.
Rather than sifting through vast amounts of disinformation for the Truth, it’s
more like he’s amassing a mound of evidence without regard to its veracity or
corroboration. He doesn’t even allude to the possibility that there might be
some problems with some of this evidence. The clowns are thrown in with the
professors.
Dolan also comes to some dubious conclusions. It’s quite
clear he believes James Forrestal was killed for his knowledge that he might
spill the beans. And what about Ruppelt’s early death? No one dies of a heart
attack at age 37. Hmmm. And James McDonald. Did he commit suicide, really, or
was he murdered because he was getting too close to the secrets? This stuff is
not corroborated at all. His standards of proof are way too low. This would not
be allowed in academia. You wouldn’t be able to get away with this and be
considered seriously.”
Magonia
“I think it's important to remind everyone that Dolan's
scholarship is not competently questioned _anywhere_ and it is largely
uncontested, moreover... ...Excepted, that is to say, by a few more concerned
with the disruption of their personal paradigms than chips falling where they
may.
I disagree. Anyone who reads his book UFOs and the
National Security State carefully will find that a lot of what he has written
is anything but scholarly, especially his reliance on single, unreliable
sources and his giving credence to wacko conspiracy theories. For more detailed
criticism, read my review, which I wrote shortly after the book was published
and is available here.
If Dolan has written any scholarly works, this book is
not one of them. It is an example of a book written to provide entertainment rather
than reliable information.”
