Tuesday, May 26, 2015

THE MYTH OF "CREDIBILITY"

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.”
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.”
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.”

Post a Comment