Richard Dolan
Paranormal Novice
Hello to the people at Paracast.
I actually published this as a reply to the previous thread on my work, but due to my inexperience at this forum, I didn't realize it would have been better simply to publish this as a new thread. So, sorry for the repetition, but here you are.
Richard Dolan
--------------
Richard Dolan: A Reply to Michael R. Schuyler's Critique of My Work
I suppose I might consider it something of an honor that Michael R. Schuyler has taken it upon himself to write a 15-page critique of my work. I would consider it more so if it were done with a sense of objectivity and professionalism. Unfortunately, in that regard, it misses the mark by a wide margin.
To paraphrase his critique, I might call this “a general systems theory against Richard Dolan.” For although Mr. Schuyler protests that he is confining himself to a critique of my book, he goes far beyond this.
Let me comment on as many specifics as I can, within reason. Early on, Mr. Schuyler criticizes my choice of cases, arguing that they are included with very little discrimination and are little more than rehashing accounts written by others. He cites a case I included from 1984, describing an odd ball of light. Schuyler feels this was an unworthy case, and criticizes my paraphrasing of the MUFON account itself.
Well, in fact, that case was in a section that I titled “Triangles and Balls of Light,” and given in the context of my treatment of the noteworthy Hessdalen phenomenon – which concerned some very strange light phenomena in Norway. The case in question was of interest to me for that reason, and I defend its inclusion in my book. There are, certainly, a number of alternate choices a researcher could have made, and undoubtedly if I were to do the entire book over again, I might well select alternate cases in certain instances. Overall, however, I think my selections are fair and representative. Regarding so-called paraphrasing, Schuyler misrepresents my work. Yes, there are instances where I paraphrased prior descriptions. Throughout, however, I sought to provide the most concise yet complete descriptions I could of every case I handled.
A more serious criticism is Schuyler’s claim of so-called ‘dead-end’ citations. He cites, for example, my use of Greenwood’s and Fawcett’s Clear Intent. He might as well have censored me for using their book at all, as they offer NO proper citations. There are many reproduced documents, certainly, but ... citations? The two authors frequently describe how they obtained their information, but unfortunately did not provide satisfactory source data. That is a problem, for sure.
A researcher is therefore faced with a problem. To use Clear Intent, or not? I elected to use it, as all serious researchers have subsequently done. I find it curious that Schuyler – apparently – would not.
My citations of Richard Hall are misleadingly described by Schuyler. Citations of "Richard Hall" are most typically of the "UFO Evidence," a two-volume collection of reports that Mr. Hall edited. The first volume was published by the organization NICAP, of which Mr. Hall was a long-time leading member, and many of those came directly from NICAP files. He includes these citations as among the so-called “dead end” citations. Really? In what way is using Richard Hall's collection of NICAP records a dead end?
Schuyler writes: “What Dolan has essentially done is summarize sightings reported and summarized by other authors, condensed them a bit, paraphrased the originals (or not, often using the original phrasing verbatim), then woven in some contemporary history surrounded by conspiracy theory. This is a daunting task by itself, but it isn’t exactly original research.”
Well, what I did certainly was a daunting task, I will agree with that. What I tried to do was to create a first-ever history of the period under review (1973-1991). As I should assume Mr. Schuyler would know, no history ever written, certainly not mine, should ever claim to be final. All historical research is a work in progress, mine included. I should hope that other historians of today and the future will correct my work wherever it is needed.
But when Schuyler claims that my work is “not exactly original,” he writes as if I did no independent investigation of these cases. I think that readers have a right to know that this is not true. I conducted direct interviews of dozens of direct participants in this story, often in great detail, frequently obtaining fresh information that existed nowhere else. But the real task was in attempting to consolidate an enormous mass of research into something that made sense – at least, to me. In every case, I had to review cases and events that were of enormous complexity and uncertainty, to find a way to understand them for myself, and to do so in a way that was careful and not sensational – despite Mr. Schuyler’s protestations to the contrary.
For instance, my treatment of several controversial cases: MJ-12, Gulf Breeze, and Bob Lazar. I think it is fair to say that these are among the more contentious and complex. In these and all other instances, my first goal was simply to describe as clearly as possible what actually happened. Sometimes that is difficult enough. Regarding MJ-12, I will quote one of those Amazon reviews that Mr. Schuyler disparages. It is from Brian Parks, someone that serious researchers into MJ-12 certainly do know about:
“A fine example is the way this author has handled the MJ-12 Controversy and related matters. From personal knowledge I can say that Dolan has done an excellent job of presenting these events and personalities in a well summarized form. He accepts the possibility of a very active Counter-Intelligence role in the UFO cover-up while examining this issue. And he presents all of this without jumping to conclusions!”
Well, I suppose Mr. Schuyler does not agree, or maybe he does – he didn’t really comment on my handling of MJ-12. But what I attempted to do with MJ-12, I attempted with every hot-button issue of the period.
Aside from what appear on the surface to be substantial complaints, Mr. Schuyler engages in no small amount of innuendo and even name-calling. Seeing these examples in his critique made me smile, as he complained that it was I who at times engaged in innuendo in the course of my book. But, my goodness, such statements as “to Dolan, there is a conspiracy behind every blade of grass.” Really.
He then (apparently) tries to dismiss the REAL problematic intelligence community connections that do crop up constantly within ufology. Names like John Lear, J. Allen Hynek, Gene Pope, Phillip Klass, Bill Moore, Charles Berlitz. Well, sorry, but these are problematic and do need to be discussed. The fact that Charles Berlitz’s NYT obituary mentioned his decades of work with the Counter Intelligence Corp (CIC) is something I find interesting. Perhaps others do not, and that is their prerogative.
Regarding Klass, I truly wonder what it is that Schuyler is unhappy about. I was the person who found direct evidence of Klass’s underhanded dealings while researching in the Canadian National Archives in Ottawa. I offered the opinion – clearly stated as such – that “the ducks certainly appear to be lining up” in the matter of Klass’s possible work for the U.S. intelligence community.
Regarding Gene Pope and the National Enquirer – something Schuyler spends a great deal of energy discussing – I will agree that there is much more detailed work that is out there. I certainly did rely on Terry Hansen’s work – and several conversations with Terry as well – for my primary ‘take’ on Gene Pope. To me, it does look like Pope worked for U.S. intelligence. At no point, however, do I state definitively that he worked for the CIA. Pope was a man who rubbed elbows with America’s political elite. He was friends with Richard Nixon. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird gave the eulogy at his funeral. There is good reason to wonder about Pope’s agenda, and I raise my concerns. I think it is very clear that the reader understands that I do not make the claim definitively. When dealing with the U.S. intelligence community, unfortunately we are seldom in a position to make definitive statements.
This is why, in fact, most academicians do not touch UFOs. Getting to government source material is extremely difficult. One simply cannot plough through old volumes of collections like Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) – which contains a wealth of first hand U.S. State Department records. It’s an unfortunate situation indeed, and in fact this is one of the problems when one is dealing with a cover-up – a point that Mr. Schuyler blithely ignores.
Which means that source material is often going to include information that does not come out of a government archive. I am quite aware that I took a chance on some of the sources included in my book, although Mr. Schuyler grossly misrepresents this aspect of my research. For instance, he cites Sean David Morton. To which I reply – you have got to be kidding me. Morton appears one single time in my book. He was one of several UFO watchers who was involved in publicizing events at Area 51/S4. I obtained his testimony from an interview he gave, featured on a video produced in the early 1990s. I spent exactly one paragraph describing his experience.
Then there is Steven Greer. Once again, Mr. Schuyler seems willfully incapable of understanding my treatment of Greer as a “source.” His fixation on this smacks of no small amount of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and I have seriously begun to wonder whether he is afflicted. I used several testimonies from Steven Greer’s collection, which Greer published under the title of “Disclosure.” Dr. Greer did not write any of those testimonies. I was very clear on this, and no other reader has been incapable of recognizing the distinction between the words of Dr. Greer and those of someone he interviewed. Notwithstanding this, in the few cases that I used testimony from that collection, I presented it with clear qualifications that it was not verified.
There is more I could deal with regarding Mr. Schuyler’s critique, but it just goes on like this. Still, I will say a word or two about Linda Moulton Howe, someone that he goes out of his way more than once to insult. He refers to her as “the Drone Queen” and seems to imply that she is part of “the lunatic fringe.” At one point Mr. Schuyler discusses researchers who have made great contributions to ufology, and those who have contributed nothing. He then states that those who have contributed nothing are in little position to attack those who have contributed. Well, I think this reasoning is weak. But one might use his logic against him in his schoolyard smearing of Linda Moulton Howe, a person who for over three decades has done some of the most demanding investigations of any researcher out there. Any one who does that much work is going to make mistakes. Her contributions, however, have been formidable. What, exactly, have been Mr. Schuyler’s contributions?
Schuyler also seems to complain that I don’t discuss the aliens themselves. Odd, since elsewhere he complains that I draw too many unjustified conclusions. One wonders what would make him happy.
Finally, there are the previous critics of my work. It is perfectly fair to bring these up. Other commentators are entitled to their opinions. Of course, I am allowed to take issue with them! Richard Hall, who wrote the first negative review of my book, was actually “offended” (his words) by how I criticized the Central Intelligence Agency and discussed people like James Forrestal and James McDonald. Mr. Hall, now deceased, was typically described by those who knew him as a “curmudgeon” (I heard this more than once). He did not like my politics, such as they were, and did not like how I wrote about him personally. I did, incidentally, write an extended reply to his review, which was published in the IUR. Dr. Swords, in his turn, borrowed very heavily from Richard Hall, almost to the point of being derivative. Fair enough, that is his choice. The people at Magonia – well, if Mr. Schuyler wants to focus on them as doing the kind of research that he thinks we need, what more can I say?
I am happy to receive any corrections and constructive criticism of my work. That is the only way any of us learns and grows. For the record, I do know that an E-4 is a Corporal, and I thank Mr. Schuyler for pointing out that I made that oversight. It is unfortunate, however, that his critique descends so frequently to name-calling, insults, innuendo, and even smear tactics. That is not true criticism. Sadly, however, it is an all-too-typical tactic taken by certain people. Those who engage in it, as Mr. Schuyler does, diminish their own reputability.
Nevertheless, I certainly would encourage Mr. Schuyler to try his hand at writing an alternative history. Clearly, he is up to the job. I for one would appreciate his contributions to the field, provided that they are made with a serious tone, and not mere name-calling.
Richard M. Dolan
Rochester, New York
Febuary 1, 2010
I actually published this as a reply to the previous thread on my work, but due to my inexperience at this forum, I didn't realize it would have been better simply to publish this as a new thread. So, sorry for the repetition, but here you are.
Richard Dolan
--------------
Richard Dolan: A Reply to Michael R. Schuyler's Critique of My Work
I suppose I might consider it something of an honor that Michael R. Schuyler has taken it upon himself to write a 15-page critique of my work. I would consider it more so if it were done with a sense of objectivity and professionalism. Unfortunately, in that regard, it misses the mark by a wide margin.
To paraphrase his critique, I might call this “a general systems theory against Richard Dolan.” For although Mr. Schuyler protests that he is confining himself to a critique of my book, he goes far beyond this.
Let me comment on as many specifics as I can, within reason. Early on, Mr. Schuyler criticizes my choice of cases, arguing that they are included with very little discrimination and are little more than rehashing accounts written by others. He cites a case I included from 1984, describing an odd ball of light. Schuyler feels this was an unworthy case, and criticizes my paraphrasing of the MUFON account itself.
Well, in fact, that case was in a section that I titled “Triangles and Balls of Light,” and given in the context of my treatment of the noteworthy Hessdalen phenomenon – which concerned some very strange light phenomena in Norway. The case in question was of interest to me for that reason, and I defend its inclusion in my book. There are, certainly, a number of alternate choices a researcher could have made, and undoubtedly if I were to do the entire book over again, I might well select alternate cases in certain instances. Overall, however, I think my selections are fair and representative. Regarding so-called paraphrasing, Schuyler misrepresents my work. Yes, there are instances where I paraphrased prior descriptions. Throughout, however, I sought to provide the most concise yet complete descriptions I could of every case I handled.
A more serious criticism is Schuyler’s claim of so-called ‘dead-end’ citations. He cites, for example, my use of Greenwood’s and Fawcett’s Clear Intent. He might as well have censored me for using their book at all, as they offer NO proper citations. There are many reproduced documents, certainly, but ... citations? The two authors frequently describe how they obtained their information, but unfortunately did not provide satisfactory source data. That is a problem, for sure.
A researcher is therefore faced with a problem. To use Clear Intent, or not? I elected to use it, as all serious researchers have subsequently done. I find it curious that Schuyler – apparently – would not.
My citations of Richard Hall are misleadingly described by Schuyler. Citations of "Richard Hall" are most typically of the "UFO Evidence," a two-volume collection of reports that Mr. Hall edited. The first volume was published by the organization NICAP, of which Mr. Hall was a long-time leading member, and many of those came directly from NICAP files. He includes these citations as among the so-called “dead end” citations. Really? In what way is using Richard Hall's collection of NICAP records a dead end?
Schuyler writes: “What Dolan has essentially done is summarize sightings reported and summarized by other authors, condensed them a bit, paraphrased the originals (or not, often using the original phrasing verbatim), then woven in some contemporary history surrounded by conspiracy theory. This is a daunting task by itself, but it isn’t exactly original research.”
Well, what I did certainly was a daunting task, I will agree with that. What I tried to do was to create a first-ever history of the period under review (1973-1991). As I should assume Mr. Schuyler would know, no history ever written, certainly not mine, should ever claim to be final. All historical research is a work in progress, mine included. I should hope that other historians of today and the future will correct my work wherever it is needed.
But when Schuyler claims that my work is “not exactly original,” he writes as if I did no independent investigation of these cases. I think that readers have a right to know that this is not true. I conducted direct interviews of dozens of direct participants in this story, often in great detail, frequently obtaining fresh information that existed nowhere else. But the real task was in attempting to consolidate an enormous mass of research into something that made sense – at least, to me. In every case, I had to review cases and events that were of enormous complexity and uncertainty, to find a way to understand them for myself, and to do so in a way that was careful and not sensational – despite Mr. Schuyler’s protestations to the contrary.
For instance, my treatment of several controversial cases: MJ-12, Gulf Breeze, and Bob Lazar. I think it is fair to say that these are among the more contentious and complex. In these and all other instances, my first goal was simply to describe as clearly as possible what actually happened. Sometimes that is difficult enough. Regarding MJ-12, I will quote one of those Amazon reviews that Mr. Schuyler disparages. It is from Brian Parks, someone that serious researchers into MJ-12 certainly do know about:
“A fine example is the way this author has handled the MJ-12 Controversy and related matters. From personal knowledge I can say that Dolan has done an excellent job of presenting these events and personalities in a well summarized form. He accepts the possibility of a very active Counter-Intelligence role in the UFO cover-up while examining this issue. And he presents all of this without jumping to conclusions!”
Well, I suppose Mr. Schuyler does not agree, or maybe he does – he didn’t really comment on my handling of MJ-12. But what I attempted to do with MJ-12, I attempted with every hot-button issue of the period.
Aside from what appear on the surface to be substantial complaints, Mr. Schuyler engages in no small amount of innuendo and even name-calling. Seeing these examples in his critique made me smile, as he complained that it was I who at times engaged in innuendo in the course of my book. But, my goodness, such statements as “to Dolan, there is a conspiracy behind every blade of grass.” Really.
He then (apparently) tries to dismiss the REAL problematic intelligence community connections that do crop up constantly within ufology. Names like John Lear, J. Allen Hynek, Gene Pope, Phillip Klass, Bill Moore, Charles Berlitz. Well, sorry, but these are problematic and do need to be discussed. The fact that Charles Berlitz’s NYT obituary mentioned his decades of work with the Counter Intelligence Corp (CIC) is something I find interesting. Perhaps others do not, and that is their prerogative.
Regarding Klass, I truly wonder what it is that Schuyler is unhappy about. I was the person who found direct evidence of Klass’s underhanded dealings while researching in the Canadian National Archives in Ottawa. I offered the opinion – clearly stated as such – that “the ducks certainly appear to be lining up” in the matter of Klass’s possible work for the U.S. intelligence community.
Regarding Gene Pope and the National Enquirer – something Schuyler spends a great deal of energy discussing – I will agree that there is much more detailed work that is out there. I certainly did rely on Terry Hansen’s work – and several conversations with Terry as well – for my primary ‘take’ on Gene Pope. To me, it does look like Pope worked for U.S. intelligence. At no point, however, do I state definitively that he worked for the CIA. Pope was a man who rubbed elbows with America’s political elite. He was friends with Richard Nixon. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird gave the eulogy at his funeral. There is good reason to wonder about Pope’s agenda, and I raise my concerns. I think it is very clear that the reader understands that I do not make the claim definitively. When dealing with the U.S. intelligence community, unfortunately we are seldom in a position to make definitive statements.
This is why, in fact, most academicians do not touch UFOs. Getting to government source material is extremely difficult. One simply cannot plough through old volumes of collections like Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) – which contains a wealth of first hand U.S. State Department records. It’s an unfortunate situation indeed, and in fact this is one of the problems when one is dealing with a cover-up – a point that Mr. Schuyler blithely ignores.
Which means that source material is often going to include information that does not come out of a government archive. I am quite aware that I took a chance on some of the sources included in my book, although Mr. Schuyler grossly misrepresents this aspect of my research. For instance, he cites Sean David Morton. To which I reply – you have got to be kidding me. Morton appears one single time in my book. He was one of several UFO watchers who was involved in publicizing events at Area 51/S4. I obtained his testimony from an interview he gave, featured on a video produced in the early 1990s. I spent exactly one paragraph describing his experience.
Then there is Steven Greer. Once again, Mr. Schuyler seems willfully incapable of understanding my treatment of Greer as a “source.” His fixation on this smacks of no small amount of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and I have seriously begun to wonder whether he is afflicted. I used several testimonies from Steven Greer’s collection, which Greer published under the title of “Disclosure.” Dr. Greer did not write any of those testimonies. I was very clear on this, and no other reader has been incapable of recognizing the distinction between the words of Dr. Greer and those of someone he interviewed. Notwithstanding this, in the few cases that I used testimony from that collection, I presented it with clear qualifications that it was not verified.
There is more I could deal with regarding Mr. Schuyler’s critique, but it just goes on like this. Still, I will say a word or two about Linda Moulton Howe, someone that he goes out of his way more than once to insult. He refers to her as “the Drone Queen” and seems to imply that she is part of “the lunatic fringe.” At one point Mr. Schuyler discusses researchers who have made great contributions to ufology, and those who have contributed nothing. He then states that those who have contributed nothing are in little position to attack those who have contributed. Well, I think this reasoning is weak. But one might use his logic against him in his schoolyard smearing of Linda Moulton Howe, a person who for over three decades has done some of the most demanding investigations of any researcher out there. Any one who does that much work is going to make mistakes. Her contributions, however, have been formidable. What, exactly, have been Mr. Schuyler’s contributions?
Schuyler also seems to complain that I don’t discuss the aliens themselves. Odd, since elsewhere he complains that I draw too many unjustified conclusions. One wonders what would make him happy.
Finally, there are the previous critics of my work. It is perfectly fair to bring these up. Other commentators are entitled to their opinions. Of course, I am allowed to take issue with them! Richard Hall, who wrote the first negative review of my book, was actually “offended” (his words) by how I criticized the Central Intelligence Agency and discussed people like James Forrestal and James McDonald. Mr. Hall, now deceased, was typically described by those who knew him as a “curmudgeon” (I heard this more than once). He did not like my politics, such as they were, and did not like how I wrote about him personally. I did, incidentally, write an extended reply to his review, which was published in the IUR. Dr. Swords, in his turn, borrowed very heavily from Richard Hall, almost to the point of being derivative. Fair enough, that is his choice. The people at Magonia – well, if Mr. Schuyler wants to focus on them as doing the kind of research that he thinks we need, what more can I say?
I am happy to receive any corrections and constructive criticism of my work. That is the only way any of us learns and grows. For the record, I do know that an E-4 is a Corporal, and I thank Mr. Schuyler for pointing out that I made that oversight. It is unfortunate, however, that his critique descends so frequently to name-calling, insults, innuendo, and even smear tactics. That is not true criticism. Sadly, however, it is an all-too-typical tactic taken by certain people. Those who engage in it, as Mr. Schuyler does, diminish their own reputability.
Nevertheless, I certainly would encourage Mr. Schuyler to try his hand at writing an alternative history. Clearly, he is up to the job. I for one would appreciate his contributions to the field, provided that they are made with a serious tone, and not mere name-calling.
Richard M. Dolan
Rochester, New York
Febuary 1, 2010
m. Automatically awoke a little after midnight, and (psychically?!) turned on my radio. 