Another ufo researcher bites the dust

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: zatara

And it is sometimes difficult to seperate the liers from those who tell the truth..

Isn't that sort of his job?

Did he ever meet a UFO story he didn't like?

Right, what can we gather from certain skeptics.

They have no st trees in their garden, so they do not need money from their books, interviews or conferences.

They have the power to know when someone is lying, so when they do not do this, then they should all be trashed for being normal human beings.

They have bimbos for wives

They are all comment, who are only doing this for money, and do not care about the subject.

Most prob could go on and on!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: zatara

And it is sometimes difficult to seperate the liers from those who tell the truth..

Isn't that sort of his job?

Did he ever meet a UFO story he didn't like?

O yes.. there are a few I think. The one that I know for sure he doesn't really like is the one with the blue avian aliens from Mars...I think they are from. This story and personal experience with these aliens is told by Corey Goode. You should read about that one and you will understand why Richard Dolan is distancing himself from such stories and the people they come with like Mr.Goode.

originally posted by: IMSAM
a reply to: zatara

No i dont mount an attack. I stated some facts that show that he is coning people. Now you claim that he is a historian that is cataloguing ufo stories is that correct? How does it reconcile with this

"Richard Dolan is one of the world’s leading researchers and writers on the subject of UFOs and believes that they constitute the greatest mystery of our time.”

If he is a researcher how did all these cases escape him?

Sorry...I did not read all the replies in this thread but...what cases are you refering to?

a reply to: zatara

the one with the blue avian aliens from Mars

How very discerning of him.

a reply to: Phage

It will not take much discerning to take this blue avian story for real. To be honest...I was unpleasantly surprised to learn which and how many people completely believe this experience of Mr Goode....just unbelieveable.

Maybe this will give you an idea about what Dolan is about. Of course are words not deeds...that will take a close look at his deeds... read his publications maybe.

a reply to: zatara

Lol, you didnt read anything? Reading is hard innit? The tldr is that Dolan is a bonafide charlatan, a conman, a shoddy researcher.

originally posted by: PHDIKOULAS
a reply to: zatara

Lol, you didnt read anything? Reading is hard innit? The tldr is that Dolan is a bonafide charlatan, a conman, a shoddy researcher.

Obviously you cannot read, because it does not say that at all! Please post from those links that prove that Dolan is a Charlatan?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: Harte

Has Dolan written anything retracting some of the egregious "mistakes" he's made? 

I don't know, has he? I am sure if someone who it up, he would not shy away from the mistakes he has made. But people insulting him, calling his wife a bimbo, is not good, unless you think that is ok?

I don't try to control what other people say here. Especially in this section since I don't know much about it, which is why I asked you. But I bet that, unlike from you, I get answers from other posters here.

I do, however, know a con. I laid out exactly what would make him a con man. It has been posted here that he Dolen has recently repeated a long debunked claim.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Unfortunately Dolan was on a recent episode of Unexplained(William Shatner as host) using this as an early first picture that is still a mystery

Unless you can answer that claim made in a previous post, then there's really no choice but to consider Dolen to be a fraud. Mitigations might be that it was an old recording, or that Dolen is a complete moron and doesn't really do ANY research at all (which would also make him a fraud, but a lesser one.)
So, until I see that "Unexplained" episode debunked, or at the very least a couple of admissions of his "mistakes," then Dolen is a fraud. I can't think of any nicer way to put it. I CAN think of harsher ways to put it though.

originally posted by: Jay-morrisHancock is do obviously not a con! Seriously, people need to stop labelling people as con artists, only doing it for money, snake oil salesman, when that is clearly not the case.

Of course Hancock's a fraud. He built his career re-wording Von Daniken's claims. He's a parrot.
In his most recent "work," he actually writes right there in the book that he won't support his own claims. That's what makes him less of a fraud than some others.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

See, if you're a real researcher - true believer or not - you find out things. If people on ATS can find out certain of Dolan's claims are bogus, then Dolan (assuming he actually IS a "real" researcher) should have already found that he'd made a bogus claim.

Have you contacted him go ask him yourself? Are you certain he has not spoken about the mistakes he has made? Or are you bashing him for the sake of it?

No. I haven't contacted him. My question is why haven't you considered this yourself? I mean, you guys in this forum are the UFO people here. Has no one considered the implications of finding something from Dolen where he admits mistakes - and from then on doesn't repeat a bogus claim he's made?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

What else could you possibly call such behavior? How much he cares about the field and the depth of his belief and dedication to it don't even enter into that equation.

All i have seen on here are insult towards him and his wife. I know this is normal when it comes to fanatical skeptics, but still no evidence that he is a conman.

Again, I don't try to control what other people say. I don't know Dolen OR his wife. Don't care to.
"But he's such a nice guy" doesn't excuse his lying repeatedly, as has been claimed here.

originally posted by: Jay-morrisWhat qualifies for you that someone is lying, and only doing it for money? Let's take Stanton Friedman. He believe that a Alien craft crashed at Roswell, and skeptics do not. Does thst mean Stan was lying and just a con man because he dies not hold the view the mainstream was holding?

I see. You are either unable or unwilling to grasp the point - which is not about Friedman.
You actually quoted what I said about what I think qualifies as lying, yet you're asking me what I think?

Harte

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: zatara

And it is sometimes difficult to seperate the liers from those who tell the truth..

Isn't that sort of his job?

Did he ever meet a UFO story he didn't like?

O yes.. there are a few I think. The one that I know for sure he doesn't really like is the one with the blue avian aliens from Mars...I think they are from. This story and personal experience with these aliens is told by Corey Goode. You should read about that one and you will understand why Richard Dolan is distancing himself from such stories and the people they come with like Mr.Goode.

Hell, that's almost redemption.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I don't try to control what other people say here. Especially in this section since I don't know much about it, which is why I asked you. But I bet that, unlike from you, I get answers from other posters here

People like you pretty much prove my point went it comes to certain debunkers. It's annoying as hell when someone will try and debunk something they know nothing about, or care about. Why do that?

Do you think it adds an extra 20 points on your IQ if you want with the debunking gang and use words like "woo woo" and "critical thinking"

Maybe, instead of just reading what people are saying as gospel, why don't you actually take the time yourself to look into it?

do, however, know a con. I laid out exactly what would make him a con man. It has been posted here that he Dolen has recently repeated a long debunked claim.

No it has not! Nothing posted on here proves he is a con man. Please, do your own research and actually post something for me that proves it. Don't just agree with certain people because you want to be in their little group. Do it yourself and come back to me with the evidence.

course Hancock's a fraud. He built his career re-wording Von Daniken's claims. He's a parrot.
In his most recent "work," he actually writes right there in the book that he won't support his own claims. That's what makes him less of a fraud than some others.

Expanding on someone's ideas is not a sign if a con man. Everything we learn is ftom what we know already, so really, that's a really stupid thing to say.

No. I haven't contacted him. My question is why haven't you considered this yourself? I mean, you guys in this forum are the UFO people here. Has no one considered the implications of finding something from Dolen where he admits mistakes - and from then on doesn't repeat a bogus claim he's made?

Why should I contact him and ask him if he is a con man when there is absolutly no evidence that he is. The ones making the claim that he is a con man or a fraud need to back that up with evidence, and not me.

Has no one considered the implications of finding something from Dolen where he admits mistakes - and from then on doesn't repeat a bogus claim he's made?

Do you know, well of course you do not know, but I will say it anyway. Do you know how many ufo cases have been so called debunked, that have not actually been debunked at all? Because a skeptic will call a case debunked, does not mean it's debunked, as it's just opinions. Because you disagree with a debunkers opinion, does not make you a con man.

I do not agree that the O'Hara ufo was a weather phenomenon, so people believe it is. Does that mean I am wrong and they are right?

Again, I don't try to control what other people say. I don't know Dolen OR his wife. Don't care to.
"But he's such a nice guy" doesn't excuse his lying repeatedly, as has been claimed here

Please, do your research and come back on here and both evidence that he is a con man. Agreeing with people on a subject you know nothing about is not evidence. But you get wannabe debunkers doing this a lot, and they are pretty easy to shut down because if their lack of knowledge. But please, give it a go!

I see. You are either unable or unwilling to grasp the point - which is not about Friedman.
You actually quoted what I said about what I think qualifies as lying, yet you're asking me what I think?

Just please answer the question. Was stanton Friedman a fraud and con artist?

originally posted by: IMSAM
Who is Richard Dolan? but the wiki is being too modest. According to him

"Richard Dolan is one of the world’s leading researchers and writers on the subject of UFOs and believes that they constitute the greatest mystery of our time. "

So, there was a wiki page on Richard Dolan on July 31? Apparently it's been deleted since then, that link goes to a page that says there is no such page, and on the talk tab it says a page with that name was deleted.

originally posted by: JimOberg
REALITY CHECK” The Apollo-11 mid-flight UFO story is a classic that requires a lot of technical context to properly assess, here's my stab at it == and critical comments are welcome: www.jamesoberg.com...

One problem with Dolan's citation is he quotes Aldrin but he doesn't give the exact source of the quotes. The quotes are probably real, but context matters. Aldrin said things very much like what Dolan quoted twice that I heard. One time was on Larry King, where Larry King let him finish his story, and another time was for a "documentary" where he said nearly the same things early on as he said on Larry King, but the documentary didn't air the final explanation Aldrin gave. Aldrin was apparently annoyed that the documentary didn't air his final explanation that he provided, so documentary telling of Aldrin's story was distorted by omission of his final explanation, and basically Dolan did the same thing as that documentary, left out Aldrin's explanation that the "UFO" was one of the 4 panels covering the LM that were jettisoned earlier.

I noticed Dolan mentioned you by name and said these things have been debunked according to you and Dolan said he prefers to believe the witnesses. The problem isn't with the credibility of Aldrin, it's with Dolan and others distorting his story by omission of the ending, as Aldrin tells it, when he solves the mystery, but Dolan apparently wants to perpetuate a mystery, not solve it.

You already wrote half a book with many other points which Dolan didn't seem to research at all, so I understand you can't cover everything he said. But he showed this liquid droplet from STS-51A and at 46:49 in his video, Dolan said you said it was orange juice and would make fun of people who didn't agree with you. Did you say it was orange juice? See the droplet in the upper right part of the frame:

Screencap from 10:39 in STS-51A video


Notice how the light/dark is reversed in the droplet? That's a characteristic of water in space, it forms a round shape which acts like a lens, and I found another video which clearly shows this:

Example of lens effects of water:

That clearly shows how the water in front of his shirt reverses the image on his shirt horizontally and vertically, which is the same effect we see in the "UFO" segment from STS-51A at video time 10:39.

So he goes on and on about this thing, says he corresponded with the optical physicist Bruce Maccabee about it. So I'm wondering how a "researcher" can not do enough research to realize this is a liquid droplet, when he happens to mention after going on and on about this thing that people have told him it's a water droplet. So why is he making it out to be such a mystery, if he's already been told it's a water droplet? It's ridiculous.

But then his wife weighs in. Someone called her a bimbo, that's actually half complimentary meaning an attractive woman which I think is a compliment, but it also infers someone who is not that bright. Don't her comments on the "water droplet" "UFO" prove she's not a bimbo? Here's what she says about it at time 49:40:

"It's hard to say, really, it's hard to say. Some of these things, we look at them, we're not photo experts, it looks unusual, it doesn't look like some of the other things, ummm... It seems anomalous. It seems as though it is."

She is attractive though, so at least I agree with the complimentary part of that characterization.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, there was a wiki page on Richard Dolan on July 31?

Try this:
www.richarddolanpress.com...

originally posted by: zatara
Maybe this will give you an idea about what Dolan is about. Of course are words not deeds...that will take a close look at his deeds... read his publications maybe.

I watched that video, and yes, you're right, words are not deeds. Those are some truly great words in the video, saying that UFO research should be evidence based. But if you watch his video about UFOs in space, the so-called "evidence" is in some cases completely made up, like the fake Apollo 12 transcript Jim Oberg discusses in his post. That fake transcript is NOT evidence, he's not doing what he said in his speech about getting evidence, instead he's using a made up transcript. In other cases, Dolan's "evidence" is from sources like Ken Johnston and Timothy Good who have passed along made up stories about Neil Armstrong's encounters with aliens on the moon. I can find a third made up story to "confirm" that story about Armstrong meeting aliens on the moon, but none of those are evidence.

So Dolan's deeds in that UFOs in space video of using fake and made up transcripts and claims are very, very far indeed from his words in that great speech he made in the video you posted about UFO research needing to be evidence based, unfortunately.

originally posted by: Phage
Try this:
www.richarddolanpress.com...

I knew who he was, but if there really was a working wiki page just a few days ago, and then this thread about him being a con-man appears, and the wiki page is deleted, is that coincidence, accidental synchronicity, or related?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The quote is from Dolan's advertisement. Verbatim. The wiki biography came from Dolan himself.

The wiki page was deleted on August 1.
Deletion

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: Harte

I don't try to control what other people say here. Especially in this section since I don't know much about it, which is why I asked you. But I bet that, unlike from you, I get answers from other posters here

People like you pretty much prove my point went it comes to certain debunkers. It's annoying as hell when someone will try and debunk something they know nothing about, or care about. Why do that?

Please quote me trying to debunk anything in this thread. Anything at all.
What I see here is you avoiding the subject of my posts, once again.
It has been claimed (not by me) that Dolan has repeated a known bogus claim that was debunked years ago.

I asked you a question about this. That's the extent of my involvement.

Now, I asked YOU because you stepped up to defend the guy. Who else am I gonna ask?

Then you return with some bull # about how I'm trying to debunk something when I don't know anything about it.
Don't forget how you know that I don't know anything about it - I told you. But sure, keep on imagining I'm pretending to know something when I flat out told you I didn't.

So tell me, did Dolan know the claim was bogus? Because if not, then there are far better "researchers" right here at ATS than Dolan is.

If so, then Dolan lied, didn't he?

originally posted by: Jay-morrisDo you think it adds an extra 20 points on your IQ if you want with the debunking gang and use words like "woo woo" and "critical thinking"

I can't see what my IQ has to do with it. But since you brought it up, with you having gone all the way in for Dolan, it strikes me as odd that you never even thought to see if he has ever admitted these "mistakes," as you so generously characterize the debunked claims he still (apparently) stands behind. I wonder if it's an IQ issue for you, and maybe that's why you bring it up?

originally posted by: Jay-morrisMaybe, instead of just reading what people are saying as gospel, why don't you actually take the time yourself to look into it?

So, you refuse to answer my question. That leaves Dolan as a fraud and con man you know. I'm not looking into it. I spent too much of my time in other unrelated rabbit holes. I thought I could learn about this subject from posters in this section. I'm sure I still can, but not from you, who accepts everything Dolan claims and then declares "people make mistakes" when he's shown to be lying.

No need to waste any more of my time with you I can see. I certainly won't learn anything from fantasy boyz.

Harte

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

But then his wife weighs in. Someone called her a bimbo, that's actually half complimentary meaning an attractive woman which I think is a compliment, but it also infers someone who is not that bright. Don't her comments on the "water droplet" "UFO" prove she's not a bimbo? Here's what she says about it at time 49:40:

"It's hard to say, really, it's hard to say. Some of these things, we look at them, we're not photo experts, it looks unusual, it doesn't look like some of the other things, ummm... It seems anomalous. It seems as though it is."

She is attractive though, so at least I agree with the complimentary part of that characterization.

These arent the worst e-standards, ive seen much worse on the misc of bodybuilding.com, but I still struggle to believe most people here wouldnt marry this gal if you were Dolan. Hes lucky she even talks to him, maybe hes making more money at this ufology thing than I think = )

originally posted by: PHDIKOULAS
a reply to: zatara

Lol, you didnt read anything? Reading is hard innit? The tldr is that Dolan is a bonafide charlatan, a conman, a shoddy researcher.

I don't know what it is but you are not making any sense.. Did Dolan his dog poop on your lawn or something...? The way even his wife is drawn into this "conversation" makes me wonder if this is about Dolan his work at all.. And that is why I leave this thread... it is pointless.

Have a nice day...

a reply to: Harte

So tell me, did Dolan know the claim was bogus? Because if not, then there are far better "researchers" right here at ATS than Dolan is.

If so, then Dolan lied, didn't he?

One or the other.

a reply to: zatara

Run away from all the facts presented and continue talking about his wife and anything else that is irrelevant. Dolan is a charlatan and the more this thread continues the more evidence appear that prove this

a reply to: Harte

So tell me, did Dolan know the claim was bogus? Because if not, then there are far better "researchers" right here at ATS than Dolan is.

If so, then Dolan lied, didn't he?

Seriously, it's like talking to a brick wall. I have stated many times on this thread that he has made mistakes, as he is only human.

What I have said though, is there is no evidence that he lied, and no one can post evidence that he lied.

Ok, do you remember what Oberg said in this thread earlier. Here, I eill quote it for you.

I have never detected any indication he's not sincere and genuinely enthusiastic

Now, please tell me why he is saying that and what it means?

can't see what my IQ has to do with it. But since you brought it up, with you having gone all the way in for Dolan, it strikes me as odd that you never even thought to see if he has ever admitted these "mistakes," as you so generously characterize the debunked claims he still (apparently) stands behind. I wonder if it's an IQ issue for you, and maybe that's why you bring it up?

Wrong again! If you actually read my posts, you would know that I have said he has made mistakes, so stop trying to make out that this is not the case.

So, you refuse to answer my question. That leaves Dolan as a fraud and con man you know.

I have answered it, but you just do not listen.

I'm not looking into it.

So, you are willing to label someone a con man and a fraud , without looming into it yourself. You k ow what, this is classic debunking. Someone who debunks with little to no knowledge in the subject he is debunking.

Well done!

 I spent too much of my time in other unrelated rabbit holes.

Well, maybe you should stick to that instead of talking about stuff you know nothing about.

 I thought I could learn about this subject from posters in this section. I'm sure I still can, but not from you,

How can you learn something when you do not look into it yourself? Seriously, how does that make any sense?

but not from you, who accepts everything Dolan claims and then declares "people make mistakes" when he's shown to be lying.

Ah the icing on the cake right here. Please post anywhere on this thread where I said, or hinted thst I believe everything Dolan claims. Do now you are putting words in my mouth! You do not come out of this looking very good.

No need to waste any more of my time with you I can see. I certainly won't learn anything from fantasy boyz.

Yes, please leave this thread. One thing I cannot stand is wannabe debunkers who know absolutly nothing about the subject, or care about the subject, yet feel they have to try and debunk it will the little knowledge they have.