Greeting from Richard Dolan

[Double Nought Spy]

Like it or not, Greer's credibility with sensible people is essentially zero. Some of what Von Daniken wrote about was true enough, but who quotes him?

 

[Kieran]

I think Rich is one of the best researchers we have, it just a shame he has to deal with these people who do more harm more than good.I think he is getting the message from people are not happy and he might just ignore it in the long run, but fair play to him for coming here and putting his points across. I Certainly not going to change what i have said before in regards to issue at hand.

I hoping Rich can also stop talking about an 9/11 conspiracy.. It hurts his credibility in my eyes since he believes it was was inside job.

 

[mikec]

I just looked up Greer on Amazon, and the book in question titled DISCLOSURE, right?

It is my understanding that this book catalogs the testimony (and relevant documents) of the military witnesses that spoke at the 2001 disclosure conference. Am I correct? This testimony can be corroborated by watching the video of the press conference. Am I correct?

As I recall, some of that testimony was entirely compelling. You can read thru the table of contents on the amazon page, and it presents a very persuasive case for the reality of this phenominon.

Reading thru the list of whiteness you find names like Alfred Webber and Sgt. Clifford Stone in among (what I am to understand) are entirely reputable people. The reputable testimony in this book quite probably has some very convincing information. And yes, it's a total bummer that the good stuff shares the same pages with some of the nut jobs out there.

It is my understanding that Rich Dolan is quoting the testimony in this book, and NOT directly quoting Greer. Do I have this right?

So, if Richard Dolan cites a witness testimony from this book he's somehow fraudulent? I'm sorry, that seems harsh.
__________________________________________________

Disclosure : Military and Government Witnesses Reveal the Greatest Secrets in Modern History (Paperback)
Steven M. Greer (Author)
Paperback: 573 pages

I encourage folks to go to amazon, and check out the table of contents where it lists the witnesses who gave testimony at the 2001 conference.

(LINK)
Amazon.com: Disclosure : Military and Government Witnesses Reveal the Greatest Secrets in Modern History (9780967323817): Steven M. Greer: Books
__________________________________________________

Let me add that I have NOT read the Greer book, nor have I read Richard Dolans 2nd installment in his series.

 

[Rocketsauce]

Like it or not, Greer's credibility with sensible people is essentially zero. Some of what Von Daniken wrote about was true enough, but who quotes him?

So if Von Daniken (who I honestly know nothing about) interviewed Robert Salas on a video and quotes from this interview were published in a 600 page book that has thousands of other citations that otherwise check out, than this book is now bollocks?

What if a took someone who I think is completely full of shit like Rush Limbaugh a pathological lying drug addict. Rush interviews someone about something and publishes it. I then reference it in my book. Does this negate all value of my book?

Indeed this field is so full of poop that in order to be taken seriously you need to go that extra notch and avoid the yellow tide. But based on the discussion here I just can't get too down on this Greer reference. Granted, I'm discussing 2 things I don't know very little about - Greer's book and Dolan's book, but I don't pretend to be a peer reviewer, just a dude on a message board who has a great interest in the topic.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

The point is that referencing Greer in any way--even with disclaimers--is likely to do more harm than good if your intention is to bring a real situation to the attention of people who need to take it seriously. If you can get your hypothetical quotes without involving Limbaugh, for instance, then why associate yourself, even obliquely, with a notorious source of bullshit? There is nothing to gain and much to lose in the way of credibility.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I understand why Dolan is associating on the side of the Greers et al. of this world, he has a book to promote and after all he can always denounce the claims of the greerites and such at these conferences. I understand that is hard to self promote and earn a living but as Paul Kimball, Double Nought and others have already stated, if you dive into the shit pool that is Ufology then you will climb out with shit still attached and Richard Dolan has to accept that (as i am sure he already does).

 

[Schuyler]

After Dolan's rather hysterical reaction to my asking him about interviewing and using data from questionable sources, saying such a ridiculous thing as "an interview is an interview," I wondered, why is this guy so defensive? He could easily have simply answered the question. I could envision an answer such as, "Yeah, I see what you mean. I only used Greer a couple of times. Like it or not, he IS in the field and is privy to some stuff. I don't think he's actually held any alien babies, but these couple of points I thought were pretty good." Seems to me that would have been a perfectly straightforward and honest approach that most could accept, end of story.

But he didn't do that. He just decided to tell me how wrong I was to dare ask him a question. Why? What's the deal here? So I began to read his book with a little more scrutiny than I otherwise probably would have. I actually followed some of his references. Has anyone here ever done that? Have you actually ever followed through on a footnote and looked up a citation? For that matter, have you actually read the book? Fortunately, I own many of the books Dolan references so this was pretty easy. Just go to the shelf and find the right page. Others I've ordered just to kind of check this stuff out.

What I've found is actually quite interesting. I'm preparing a full-scale review of Volume 2. I think you'll find it interesting as well. It'll take me a few days before it is done. I'll post a link here, or if this is gone, on another thread.

 

[Jonah]

I'm about half way through your book. 600 pages takes me awhile. I expect to review it in a generally positive manner. I have no problem with you 'making money' by writing books. I paid my mortgage for 20 years on my writing earnings and no one 'accused' me of writing about computers to 'make money.' Well, duh! Of course I did.

But I wonder if you would comment on some of your sources. I notice, for example, that you have cited Steven Greer a couple of times so far.

If you would please Schuyler, could you clarify for us if Rich cited Greer directly from his own work or is it, as MikeC questioned, from one of Greer's books regarding the experiences of those involved early on in the Disclosure project . You've already stated you read these passages that seemed to concern you and your non-response to MikeC's question has me curious. A simple quote or two would go a long way in clarifying your concerns.

I'm also curious, in a respectful way, what -your- exact qualifications are that we should could consider your review of Dolan's book anything other than colored based on your interaction with him here. You've characterized his response as "hysterical" and "defensive", which I see as prepping your audience in a way for what I now expect to be a somewhat critical appraisal. Since you're the guy that cares so much about hidden identities, I'm wondering how you feel about that when it comes to your own?

Or are you just some guy on a forum?

~J

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Has anyone here ever done that? Have you actually ever followed through on a footnote and looked up a citation? For that matter, have you actually read the book? Fortunately, I own many of the books Dolan references so this was pretty easy. Just go to the shelf and find the right page. Others I've ordered just to kind of check this stuff out.

I did that a few times with the old book. I remember finding that he claimed a case had radar data when the source said otherwise, that he mis-represented NICAP data, and a few other things. Long time ago, details are hazy and from memory.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

If you would please Schuyler, could you clarify for us if Rich cited Greer directly from his own work or is it, as MikeC questioned, from one of Greer's books regarding the experiences of those involved early on in the Disclosure project . You've already stated you read these passages that seemed to concern you and your non-response to MikeC's question has me curious. A simple quote or two would go a long way in clarifying your concerns.

I'm also curious, in a respectful way, what -your- exact qualifications are that we should could consider your review of Dolan's book anything other than colored based on your interaction with him here. You've characterized his response as "hysterical" and "defensive", which I see as prepping your audience in a way for what I now expect to be a somewhat critical appraisal. Since you're the guy that cares so much about hidden identities, I'm wondering how you feel about that when it comes to your own?

Or are you just some guy on a forum?

~J

Jonah, I think it's pretty clear that Scyuler's issue has to do with how Greer undermines the credibility of a study. As Kimball aptly put it, why not get the info from another source. For example, in Salas' case, you can go straight to Salas.

 

[Gareth]

Schuyler's cookin up a batch of uh-oh stew!

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Whatever type of review is done of Mr. Dolan's work, I would hope it is presented in an objective and balanced manner, with rigor and transparency. If Mr. Dolan's work is sloppy, then it is fair game to be critiqued (considerately) -- ultimately we are after the truth. But please note that in academic circles the review itself is also subject to peer scrutiny . . .

 

[Jonah]

Jonah, I think it's pretty clear that Scyuler's issue has to do with how Greer undermines the credibility of a study. As Kimball aptly put it, why not get the info from another source. For example, in Salas' case, you can go straight to Salas.

I understand the position taken by Schuyler wrt to Greer and I am certainly no fan of what has become the Exopolitics movement. That said, those who chronicle history don't really have a choice when it comes to reporting it. Whether or not we agree with the personalities involved, it was Greer who gathered those with some relation to the "National Security State" at the Press club in Washington to tell their UFO stories, some for the first time, back in 2000. That was "historic". Leaving it out of the book because of what has transpired since wrt to Greer, would be akin to the author shaping the history towards the reader, rather than chronicling it. IMO, that would have been much more odious an offense. With that understood, and with Schuyler admitting having read at least half the book, I'm just hopeful he'll share what he finds of concern with us, if indeed, it's something other than that. I really don't know, either way.

I am one to assume a modicum of good will, both towards Dolan and Schuyler. They are both obviously very astute gentlemen and both are working towards the same goal one would hope. Which is why I am somewhat saddened at the direction this seems to be taking. Characterizing Rich's response here as "hysterical" is, IMO, unfair. Defensive?. Possibly. But it wasn't Dolan throwing the first stone here so at this point, any response would appear defensive. Which makes the characterization beside the point.

]Whatever type of review is done of Mr. Dolan's work, I would hope it is presented in an objective and balanced manner, with rigor and transparency. If Mr. Dolan's work is sloppy, then it is fair game to be critiqued (considerately) -- ultimately we are after the truth. But please note that in academic circles the review itself is also subject to peer scrutiny . .

Well said Tom...thanks.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

As others have mentioned, I think it's great that Dolan would show up in various conferences such as Project Camelot ones. When you realize something is amiss and you start checking stuff out and looking for information, sadly Project Camelot is likely one of the first ones you come to. Also, if you don't know a lot of the back story and history of many of these guys, you may be drawn in by some (not all) of these guys not realizing their shady backgrounds and previous statements. When guys like Dolan show up at these events, it offers many people not as well versed in the politics and questions of credibility in the field a glimmer of light in some very dark places. And... hopefully this glimmer of light can aid those people to some better research and information sources.

I hope that made sense...

 

[Decker]

"By their fruits, ye shall know them..."


Decker

 

[Rocketsauce]

After Dolan's rather hysterical reaction to my asking him about interviewing and using data from questionable sources, saying such a ridiculous thing as "an interview is an interview," I wondered, why is this guy so defensive? He could easily have simply answered the question. I could envision an answer such as, "Yeah, I see what you mean. I only used Greer a couple of times. Like it or not, he IS in the field and is privy to some stuff. I don't think he's actually held any alien babies, but these couple of points I thought were pretty good." Seems to me that would have been a perfectly straightforward and honest approach that most could accept, end of story.

Agreed, his response to you was strange. He certainly didn't bother to address your concern in any real detail about Greer so all we can do is speculate for now, but hopefully you can get some answers from him, perhaps in an upcoming episode of the show?

 

[Poi]

While I might have had a knee jerk reaction to reading anything referencing Greer in Dolan's new book, as I understand it, Dolan is referencing an interview in Greer's book, right? Wrong? If right, I don't get Schuyler's beef so I look forward to his review.

I agree that Richard didn't give Schuyler's comments much time or attention, but I've reread the thread for those salvos and still don't find a legitimate attack on Schuyler by Dolan, just disagreement.

As support for Jonah, Dolan's written a history from his perspective, hopefully on my part, only quoting an interview between Greer and a witness. Though Greer is entirely suspect in his practices, he did introduce us to a good number of credible witnesses imo. That's all the good I'll ever say about the man, however.

A history is what it is, whether we choose to accept it as fact or fiction.

 

[Kieran]

While I might have had a knee jerk reaction to reading anything referencing Greer in Dolan's new book, as I understand it, Dolan is referencing an interview in Greer's book, right? Wrong? If right, I don't get Schuyler's beef so I look forward to his review.

I agree that Richard didn't give Schuyler's comments much time or attention, but I've reread the thread for those salvos and still don't find a legitimate attack on Schuyler by Dolan, just disagreement.

As support for Jonah, Dolan's written a history from his perspective, hopefully on my part, only quoting an interview between Greer and a witness. Though Greer is entirely suspect in his practices, he did introduce us to a good number of credible witnesses imo. That's all the good I'll ever say about the man, however.

A history is what it is, whether we choose to accept it as fact or fiction.

It was a simple question asked. It does matter if he knew the credentials of Schuyler or not. It was how he gave his response that was annoying.

 

[Poi]

Annoying maybe. An attack? I just didn't see an attack.

 

[marmer]

While I might have had a knee jerk reaction to reading anything referencing Greer in Dolan's new book, as I understand it, Dolan is referencing an interview in Greer's book, right? Wrong? If right, I don't get Schuyler's beef so I look forward to his review.

I agree that Richard didn't give Schuyler's comments much time or attention, but I've reread the thread for those salvos and still don't find a legitimate attack on Schuyler by Dolan, just disagreement.

Yeah, I've thought about this a lot and, like you, have re-read the thread a few times. I was tempted to post several times, but you have stated it more succinctly and eloquently. With all respect to Schuyler, I think his original comment was off the mark concerning _that particular book by Greer_. And, I think Richard did make a sincere effort to answer the questions about sources and philosophy that Schuyler raised. With all respect to Richard, I think he could have made a more sincere effort to explain the content of _that particular book by Greer_. It wasn't clear to many of us what was under discussion, which is why Rocketsauce and I had to go look and see. I think we Paracasters shy away from anything by Greer. I certainly couldn't name another of Greer's books without looking. Additionally, he was perhaps a little peremptory, which is kind of understandable since he's been living with this stuff for the last few years and answering lots of questions, probably many of them frustrating. Still, peremptory doesn't play well here. Especially toward Schuyler. I hope this blows over and that Richard will drop by occasionally.