Richard Dolan

[ArchieBedford]

Right but note that...



....one thing Randle and Friedman agree on is the ETH. For both, Roswel indicates something far different from the notions of Vallee.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------



Randle certainly favors the ETH.


I'll say; it's the most parsimonious and best supported view.

In light of reported astronaut sightings, the peculiar structures on the Moon and Mars, the fact that so many anomalous radar-tracked objects depart from the scene upwards beyond 100,000ft and keep going until undetectable; the pervasive and multiplicity of types of craft and beings reported - not to mention the vast number of potentially habitable planetary ecologies in the galaxy, and the paucity of evidence for any other theory - the ETH is the only one which has any merit, or makes any sense.

If our friends appear to "travel interdimensionally" that's probably mastery of advanced physics, way beyond our current understanding. They have to originate somewhere, and come from somewhere - because it sure ain't here. People like Vallee, John Keel et al were generally barking up the wrong tree on this issue IMO. Just because they want to stir up the pot and put out something a bit controversial doesn't mean it's right. The evidence suggests anything fundamentally different to the ETH is mistaken; a blind alley, a distraction and a waste of time. Ideas of "cryptoterrestrials" (yes, I've read Tonnies' "Meditation") are also leading up a blind alley, a dead-end devoid of any supporting evidence and with no potential merit.

IMHO.

 

[Trajanus]

the peculiar structures on the Moon and Mars,

I don't know about that; smacks of Hoagland.

the fact that so many anomalous radar-tracked objects depart from the scene upwards beyond 100,000ft and keep going until undetectable the pervasive and multiplicity of types of craft and beings reported - not to mention the vast number of potentially habitable planetary ecologies in the galaxy, and the paucity of evidence for any other theory - the ETH is the only one which has any merit, or makes any sense.

Couldn't agree more.

If our friends appear to "travel interdimensionally" that's probably mastery of advanced physics, way beyond our current understanding.

Exactly. And even our understanding e.g. wormholes, gives us an idea of how "exotic" travel may occur.

They have to originate somewhere, and come from somewhere - because it sure ain't here. People like Vallee, John Keel et al were generally barking up the wrong tree on this issue IMO. Just because they want to stir up the pot and put out something a bit controversial doesn't mean it's right. The evidence suggests anything fundamentally different to the ETH is mistaken; a blind alley, a distraction and a waste of time.

BINGO.

Ideas of "cryptoterrestrials" (yes, I've read Tonnies' "Meditation") are also leading up a blind alley, a dead-end devoid of any supporting evidence and with no potential merit.

I don't see how anyone can propose "other dimensions" or "time travel" etc as explanations when these things are unverified themselves, if they're scientifically at all. We know life can evolve to an advanced state on a planetary surface--or we wouldn't be here. We know there is a vast multitude of extrasolar planets, and that some must be considerably older than Earth.
Now it's pefectly true that the phenomenon often looks and behaves quite strangly--unlike space ambassadors. But sophisticated ETs can easily cause all the bizarre appearances. Given their apparent, general secretiveness, maybe they want to keep us guessing about what they are.

 

[Ron Collins]

As far as complaints over the lack of first hand research by most ufologists--- unless someone is willing to fund them with an annual stipend in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--- they can not afford to do the type of research and investigation they are criticized for not doing. They are stuck to only making phone calls and the odd car trip if the researcher or witnesses are close by. Many have sacrificed their standard of life to this field to obtain what? Criticism, disbelief and ridicule for their methods or opinions.

As long as you are writing a book that is clearly an opinion thats fine and I would agree. However, this is not what Dolan does. He claims to be an historian writing a scholarly book on the history of UFO's and their relationship to the sociopolitical landscape. This is how Dolan markets himself and his work. I would not taking issue with general ufological research books on this factor. If I have problems with them it is purely a content/conclusion to evidence ratio problem.

Simply put, if you are going to market yourself as a professional academic researcher, like an historian, then claim to have written an historical "study" of the phenomenon and specifically one that catalogs the cause/effect of how it has contributed to our social, industrial, corporate, and political culture, be prepared to be held to a different standard then the normal UFO researcher. (sorry for the run on sentence there.) Using second hand research and interviews when the writer has had nearly a decade to get first hand interviews (from living witnesses) and do first hand document searches and other research should not be acceptable in this sort of work. It shows that the researchers conclusions and path may have been shaped by the interpretations of other researchers and/or contextually inconsistent quote mining. It is irresponsible and lazy to not do the leg work and THEN claim to have written an authoritative history. That is my issue with Dolan in a nutshell.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------

Randle certainly favors the ETH.

Agreed, but deep down don't we all favor the ETH? In my view it is the most likely origin. But, I would stop considerably short of saying that this is definitely the case. We just do not have enough information to definitively say one way or the other. I think it is possible to eliminate some hypothesis's as being highly improbable. For instance, UFO's are thought projections from Giant Diamond Covered Ticks that live 57 miles below the earths crust. As compared to the ETH we can safely say that the GDCT has a higher probability of being wrong, but we can't say definitively that it is wrong. We just do not have the information to support that claim. Nor can w say definitively that the ETH is right. Again, we just do not have the data necessary to make the claim.

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

Excellent analysis in turn - especially poignant observation about the difficulties faced by anyone committed to investigating cases using their own resources. I know many genuine people committed to this issue who have suffered financially and in reputation as a consequence of their engagement, which is why I rarely have time for armchair critics who do no investigation themselves but are all too ready to criticise others for making the effort to do what they themselves are too indolent to attempt, if the results do not meet their arbitrary armchair-critical standards.

I respectfully disagree. I buy the books, watch the shows, read the articles, listen to podcasts and radio shows, attend meetings and symposiums, and participate in debates on these subjects. Who else better to offer a critique? After all, these books are written for my consumption not for the exclusive consumption of other researchers. In my opinion the intended audience/community is the perfect group from which critique should come.

If the authors intent is to proliferate this subject beyond the UFO community then their work must first pass muster with individuals within that community. This proliferation of their material is always the goal. Otherwise you are always preaching the same things to the same choir. If that is the case then why research this at all?

 

[Trajanus]

Agreed, but deep down don't we all favor the ETH?

Some are hostile to it, favoring occult or religious views.

In my view it is the most likely origin. But, I would stop considerably short of saying that this is definitely the case. We just do not have enough information to definitively say one way or the other. I think it is possible to eliminate some hypothesis's as being highly improbable. For instance, UFO's are thought projections from Giant Diamond Covered Ticks that live 57 miles below the earths crust. As compared to the ETH we can safely say that the GDCT has a higher probability of being wrong, but we can't say definitively that it is wrong. We just do not have the information to support that claim.

You don't necessarily need information. In science, you assume something is nonexistent if it is neither verified itself nor needed as an explanation. Actually, in this case, I think we do have enough data. No life, insect or otherwise can survive 57 miles down because of heat.

Nor can w say definitively that the ETH is right. Again, we just do not have the data necessary to make the claim.

It's true that (as far as we laymen know, for a fact) there is no conclusive proof. Still, the ETH should be assumed, because a plethora of evidence supports it. And not just witness testimony. One of the key scientific principles is parsimony. Generally speaking, as Archie and I have said, the phenomenon is highly suggestive of ETs. We know life can arise/progress on a planetary surface and there are a vast multitude of planets out there. In contrast, we can't be sure any alternative place of origin even exists. "Other dimensions" and "time travel" aren't verified or even theoretically acceptable, necessarily.

 

[ArchieBedford]

I respectfully disagree. I buy the books, watch the shows, read the articles, listen to podcasts and radio shows, attend meetings and symposiums, and participate in debates on these subjects. Who else better to offer a critique? After all, these books are written for my consumption not for the exclusive consumption of other researchers. In my opinion the intended audience/community is the perfect group from which critique should come.

If the authors intent is to proliferate this subject beyond the UFO community then their work must first pass muster with individuals within that community. This proliferation of their material is always the goal. Otherwise you are always preaching the same things to the same choir. If that is the case then why research this at all?

Ron, I don't disagree with your eloquent and reasoned statement, BUT:

There's a difference between on the one hand informed and carefully reasoned critique of methodology and evidence collection, and on the other, rejecting good evidence carefully collated and filtered by a diligent and thorough researcher through ignorance, incredulity and prejudice. Unfortunately there is too much of the latter in evidence, and these forums are no exception.