• 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

Free episodes:

Schuyler

Schuyler

Misanthrope
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
 
Your review is an incredible piece of work, Dr. Schuyler. You should have been the author of those books -- maybe we'd learn something compelling about this alleged "National Security State." :)
 
Did you email Dolan with your critique? Seems like the right thing to do.

Also, what's the chances of getting both y'all on for an episode to discuss these issues? I guess that would be up to Rich Dolan.

Also, I haven't read Rich's new book yet so Ill hold off on reading your work Schuyler, until Ive read Volume 2. Gene - have you and/or Dave managed to get a copy yet?
 
Schuyler, you did a really great job here. Your willingness to conduct critical analysis is refreshing.
 
Within academic and historical circles, peer review & comment is the cornerstone in the search for the truth, so many thanks for posting this. As someone who served as an editor for, and published a Note in, the Law Journal back in law school, I can also confirm that many of these practices, if true (I have not yet read & researched Mr. Dolan's books), are not acceptable in academia.

If true, Mr. Dolan is essentially serving the same role in UFOlogy as someone such as Paola Harris, a re-packager of second hand stories, except perhaps on a higher plane of existence.

I second the comment above -- Gene and David should invite Mr. Dolan back on the show to defend his methods, or at least provide the opportunity to post a written reply on the Forum.
 
Wow Schuyler. What a well crafted dissection.

Really cool to have some <STRIKE>Cliff's</STRIKE> Schuyler's Notes for the paranormal field!

Thank you for taking the time to do that.


On a side note -- say, if I were to take the time to tediously write down all the stuff my wife does that annoys me, could you write a.... aww hell, nevermind.
 
Hmmm, I said I wasn't going to read this until I read V2, but I'm finding it hard to stop. Very interesting.

So is there any chance at all of a Dolan/Schuyler round table on the Paracast? I think would be some value in that.
 
Schuyler thanks for putting this together and posting.

I haven't read the whole paper yet (I'm on the 6th page) but I think it's valuable to point out Dolan's methods in comparison to those in peer reviewed academia when it comes to citing materials. Certainly puts his work in more accurate perspective.

By the way, not to make light of someone dying but I found it amusing in a sick way that the guy who wrote, "World Control, The Encyclopedia of Mind Control .... died after falling off a stage and breaking his leg at Burning Man and neglecting to get medical attention."

That sounds like the ultimate new age way to go out.
 
Schuyler has demonstrated, yet again, what someone with a logical, methodical mind can accomplish with some hard work and proper diligence. Sorry to gush, Schuyler, but you never cease to amaze me with your intellect and integrity. Thanks for taking the time and effort to put this together and sharing it with us.
 
I was just reminded when reading through your paper about a former co-worker of mine who was a family friend of Philip Klass. I remember he told me Klass would say something along the lines of, "If this stuff is true, really, how hard would it be to grab an ashtray or some souvenir when you leave the ship?". :)
 
On page 10 Schulyer writes:
--------------------------------------

"His second book has a foreword by Linda Moulton Howe, the Drone Queen, a researcher who is not known for her lack of gullibility. One can only conclude that Dolan is attracting a different sort of fan base these days, and that it is increasingly from the lunatic fringe."

Okay - to me that line it sounds a little bit mean spirited.

I have heard Dolan (on audio interviews) praise LMH and her dedication to this field. He seems to respect her greatly. I'll add that I agree with you (Schulyer) to some degree, and that LMH has pursued some stories that seem to make her come off as gullible. But, I still seek out her reporting, because I feel that some of it (not all) is entirely valid.

This long document is presented as an academic review, but there are some overt jabs that come off as unnecessarily spiteful. It's one or the other, it's an objective review of the content, or its editorializing.

I've read a goodly percentage of the review (not all of it) - and I think it's important to have some critical analysis. Just be careful of the tone.

I'll also add that I am an artist, and there is nothing in my training (I am a film school drop-out) that makes this sort of peer review seem all that important to me. This is probably a knee jerk reaction to the way I made fun of anyone NOT in the art program during my very short time in college. Feeble baggage from my dorm at NYU in 1981. I deal with my emotions to a fault. And I make sure that anyone who listens to me (or reads my stuff) knows that I am inserting personal opinions by using phrases like - I feel - I think - it seems to me - and - in my opinion.

Schulyer, you do include those personal disclaimers throughout the text, but there are places where it could have been done a little more often.

That said, Richard Dolan has become the darling of this tiny community of UFO weirdos - true enough. A critique is totally appropriate and required and I think your analysis is very good - but I recognize the editorializing.

(I got accused of being a name-dropper in some previous forum postings, and now, I'll live up to that moniker)

I'll also add that I've met Richard Dolan and his wife a few times. I've sat in a restaurant and had lunch with them. I like both of them enormously. So, I'm writing this from a place of perfect non-objectivity. My base-line standards are clouded with human emotions. I'll add that he's funny. We have had long conversations about channeling, I've read a goodly amount on this subject, and I've talked to multiple people who claim the "gift" of being a channel. It's a topic I do not dismiss out of hand. Richard Dolan (with encouragement and support from his wife Karyn) listened closely, and took notes, as I spoke and as I recommended books. He was very clear that this was a subject he knew nothing about, but he recognized it seemed to show up in the claims of abductees. He was obviously skeptical, but he was clearly open to researching this subject. And - Believe me, I am well aware that channeling is the domain of the "lunatic fringe." I include myself in that category - for good or for bad.

--------------------------------------

Whew - I should be careful of commenting and drinking coffee at the same time!
 
Let me get this straight, mikec. You've got all this to say, yet you haven't finished the review, and I take it you haven't read the book either. And you're an artist and you've met Dolan. That's great, really, really great.
 
Yes. Correct on all counts. I haven't read the book, and I haven't read all of the review - yet. I'll get to it.
 
Oh, don't get me wrong! Criticism from the lunatic fringe is an honor and always appreciated as well as expected. I've been warned by several people that the doe-eyed Dolan lapdogs would leap to his defense. I also know that researchers such as Stan Friedman, Kevin Randle, Jerry Clark, Brad Sparks, Richard Hall, Paul Kimball, and many others share my opinion of Dolan's work, even though some of them won't say so publicly. 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. I just think it's time to call a loud halt to this hero-worship bull shit. Dolan and his acolytes are part of the problem, not part of the solution, but, of course, they don't see it that way.
 
I think Mike C.'s point is that laying off the language surrounding individuals such as LMH (cf., bona fide criticism without inflammatory statements) ultimately strengthens your arguments and the perceived legitimacy of your position. Some of these comments do in fact jump out of the text of your paper, serving as a distraction.
 
A general comment about this. I will flat out say I have not read the review or Dolan's new book (read the first one) so I am not talking about details with this comment.

I can't say that I like the wording of the title and the manner at which that suggests. I really like what Schuyler has to offer in general, but forming your opinion on someone that shouldn't get that kind of disrespect is wrong. If you don't like his newer work then fine, but that title suggests you are reviewing a book by someone like Steven Greer rather then someone who has done good work before and who is not a known jerk in the UFO field.

It's the tact of it which bothers me, just reading the title and a synopsis of it. Using those terms in general with the common interests we share is a bit odd to me. Prime example, your views on Global Warming, which I totally agree on. There are groups of people who would insult you with saying "tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist" for those views. Heck, in general the paranormal field gets that rap.

I'll read the review tonight, but I wanted to make this comment. Dolan has never done anything to cause talking about him in that manner. That is reserved for people that EARN it and I think a lot of us here are aware of who those people are. So often I see this "field" act like this and I don't get. One day you respect someone, then they do/say something you don't agree with and it's some conflict. Friends one day, enimies the next. Makes me happy I just view this stuff from a far. :D
 
Great work Schuyler. A very in depth critique indeed. I will try and get a hold of Dolan's books before passing full judgement but i must say i had become suspicious of Dolan for quite a while before i came across your observations.
I appreciate your time and effort.
PHIL
 
I've read it and for the most part agree with Schuyler. There was line that Schuyler wrote, that for me personally I'd agree with. To paraphrase; Dolan seems never to have come across a conspiracy he didn't like. That alone should tell you something about his judgemental skills. I haven't read his books and I've no intention or have any pressing need to buy his books. I am not posting he're to pass judgement on Dolan the family man, and our attack him personally. I'm basically just giving an opinion; to what I've read. I won't be surprised if Dolan doesn't respond to Schuyler. I hope he does?

In a recent interview Dolan undertook with his wife on her Paranormal show. He verbally questioned the sanity of Webre, and said Salla with his recent Disclosure releases was harming Ufology. That brought a little warmed to my heart hearing him do that.

But still; many underline issues still remain. When Dolan spoke about the 9/11 attacks and gave his views to what happened. Sorry, in my eyes. This guy will believe anything he hears or come's across. He Believe's the Towers where brought down by Explosives, He also believes according to him, on that day a military plane had some involvement with the attack on the Pentagon.They're is nothing to be believed in the official story according to Dolan. That is his view. Isn't just me saying this. It is on audio for everyone to hear. Idiotic nonsense. And this is supposed to be one of the shining lights in the field of Ufology. Give me a break.
 
Irishseekers said:
But still; many underline issues still remain. When Dolan spoke about the 9/11 attacks and gave his views to what happened. Sorry, in my eyes. This guy will believe anything he hears or come's across. He Believe's the Towers where brought down by Explosives, He also believes according to him, on that day a military plane had some involvement with the attack on the Pentagon.They're is nothing to be believed in the official story according to Dolan. That is his view. Isn't just me saying this. It is on audio for everyone to hear. Idiotic nonsense. And this is supposed to be one of the shining lights in the field of Ufology. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Back
Top