Another ufo researcher bites the dust

originally posted by: PHDIKOULAS
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

Then please post the evidence that he is a Charleton? I mean real evidence thst he is, because so far, no one has.

There is a huge difference to someone being a Charleton to someone who has made mistakes in the field.

So please post away. I just hope you are not another wannabe debunker who knows nothing about the subject

originally posted by: Jay-morris
....

There is a huge difference to someone being a Charleton to someone who has made mistakes in the field.

So please post away. I just hope you are not another wannabe debunker who knows nothing about the subject

It would clarify some of the fog if you listed three or four 'mistakes' you admit Dolan has made -- bogus claims enumerated and documented in previous posts in this thread.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jay-morris
....

There is a huge difference to someone being a Charleton to someone who has made mistakes in the field.

So please post away. I just hope you are not another wannabe debunker who knows nothing about the subject

It would clarify some of the fog if you listed three or four 'mistakes' you admit Dolan has made -- bogus claims enumerated and documented in previous posts in this thread.

I've been listening to Richard Dolan talk about "UFO" cases and all kinds of related topics for many years and have never heard him make a single "Claim" about anything. Just commentary and interest in the things that happen and how he feels about them. Do you have a smoking gun that you can use to crucify Dolan with? Anything he's done that deserves the things you are saying or other people are saying to defame him?

You have an agenda that would be better served if you didn't travel so far outside your domain. Know what I mean?

Those bogus claims documented and enumerated are indeed just bogus. You say, he say's, she say's.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
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.

So Dolan is senile because he repeats the same "mistakes" multiple (I assume) times.

I write a book containing several claims and give my evidence for why they are true.
A year later I find my claims weren't true at all.

If I write another book containing those same claims, what am I doing?

If I write another book with other claims (and my evidence) that actually comes out and states that my previous claims were wrong, what am I doing?

It would seem to me that people that write books (or give interviews, lectures, etc.) have ample opportunities to correct themselves as stated above. If you are serious about your subject, then that is obviously what you do.

And sure, it could be the debunker is wrong. But in the specific case that caught my attention (the post with the Unexplained William Shatner thing) there's a solid debunk. Remember, it's a picture of frost, not clouds. Given the documentation for that, and assuming Dolan does ANY research at all, even you must see that this "mistake," if repeated, is a lie.
Of course, lying is also a "mistake."

Harte

a reply to: Harte

So Dolan is senile because he repeats the same "mistakes" multiple (I assume) times.

I write a book containing several claims and give my evidence for why they are true.
A year later I find my claims weren't true at all.

If I write another book containing those same claims, what am I doing?

Give me an example? I mean YOU give me an example?

So you disagree with what Oberg said yet? I see you skipped that part, I wonder why?

Excellent Interview with Richard Dolan on CRASH RETREIVALS and the NYT STORY.

He is doing EXCELLENT WORK!!!

a reply to: celltypespecific

Not really

originally posted by: Harte
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.

There are sites on individual cases that are better than whats here, but in totality, ATS certainly has the best research and normally has the links to the offsite info. I have noticed through the threads there arent too many people who know the ins and outs of all the better known cases though, its more of a collective. Im sure Carddown has all beat on Cash-Landrum.

This issue is what makes ufology so difficult. Once debunked, it never comes up again. If you were researching for a book or lecture, you might miss it in the news cycle. Im not sure this photo is known by some common name to check if it had been debunked before he did the show. Is there some site you can go to and check for the recently debunked?

How disjointed is ufo information in general? Isaackoi attempted to compile a list of the best cases taken from different researchers... you would think at least a few cases would come up much more than others, that there would be some kind of general consensus on this basic question(there are many threads with this topic, as one might expect). But, not so much.

Cases Recommended by various writers/investigators, compiled by Isaackoi

Cases I would expect to show up more consistently

Levelland 57 - Several motorist encounter a glowing sphere that stops their motor, police try to locate the object and also see it.
New Guinea 58 - Father Gill and others wave at the aliens
Westall 66. Daylight sighting of a drone like craft that levitates up on a school campus.
Ravenna 66 - Several police chase ufo through 2 states
Minot AFB B-52 incident 68 - radar confirmation case
Colares 1977 - UFOs burning residents
Tehran 1977 - UFO engaged by Iranian F-4s.
Portugal 1982 - Pilot has extend daylight UFO encounter, confirmed by 2nd airplane.
Eupen 89,90 - (start in at 3:58min) start of the Belgium wave

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

So Dolan is senile because he repeats the same "mistakes" multiple (I assume) times.

I write a book containing several claims and give my evidence for why they are true.
A year later I find my claims weren't true at all.

If I write another book containing those same claims, what am I doing?

Give me an example? I mean YOU give me an example?

So, I am to ignore the previous poster's statement that Dolan repeated a long-debunked BS claim?
Why should I do that?
One lie makes him a liar, when he purports to be a UFO "researcher."

originally posted by: Jay-morris
So you disagree with what Oberg said yet? I see you skipped that part, I wonder why?

Did Oberg say Dolan didn't repeat a long debunked BS claim implying it was true?
Why are you dodging this? Why are you talking to me if you refuse to communicate?

I told you already I'm here to learn and I have. But the main thing I've learned is that you will do anything conceivable to maintain your fantasy world view.

Harte

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Im not sure this photo is known by some common name to check if it had been debunked before he did the show. Is there some site you can go to and check for the recently debunked?

There was a link in the post about it:

originally posted by: CardDown
In the Aug. 1, 2020 episode of "The UnXplained," Richard Dolan touts the 1870 picture of a yardstick as the earliest known photo of a UFO, something that has never been explained. It was soundly debunked in 2013.

Is This the Oldest Known UFO Photo? One NH Researcher Finds Out

here's what it says:

After six years of off-and-on digging, he found an important clue: a 2003 Weirs Times newspaper article unearthed by Kathy Brisendine, another UFO researcher. The article identified the photographers of the stereoscopic image as Amos Clough and Howard Kimball. The image had been taken in the winter of 1870-71 during a meteorological expedition, which he would learn later included a study of frost architecture.

Mullahy googled the expedition and discovered that the New York Public Library had a copy of the original high-resolution, uncropped photo (see above) in its digital library, along with a number of photos from the same set. After examining them closely, he decided his initial reaction was right: "The object in the photo is not in the cloud, but on the surface of the mountain itself. In the original photo, there is a clear distinction between the surface of the mountain and the sky above the mountain range. The brown object is lying on, or suspended in, the snow on the mountaintop." He says it could be a wooden ruler used to measure the snow or to show scale, but definitely is not a UFO.

If Dolan really cared about the field, he would not only have NOT repeated this claim, he would also have disseminated the actual explanation. That's how you separate the wheat from the chaff. It would seem that Dolan is either a very poor researcher, or has an interest in maintaining the chaff.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Personally I am not an avid reader of www.nhmagazine.com... and notice they dont have a name for the photo. Even if it is commonly known by some name, this article would not come up when trying to search for it.

Im not aware of a MUFON type site that goes through the trouble of listing sitings that have been resolved.

The real issue I have with the photo is why it was ever held up as anything spectactular to begin with, one would think they could have come up with something better, especially given the background of the photo. The entire unexcplained show was pretty fluffy though, they phoned this one in.

a reply to: Harte

So, I am to ignore the previous poster's statement that Dolan repeated a long-debunked BS claim?
Why should I do that?
One lie makes him a liar, when he purports to be a UFO "researcher."

So, in other words you cannot be bothered to do the research yourself. Which means you are an arm chair debunker.

You cannot even give me an example, so you are debunking for the sake of debunking.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Did Oberg say Dolan didn't repeat a long debunked BS claim implying it was true?
Why are you dodging this? Why are you talking to me if you refuse to communicate?

Sigh

This is what Oberg said

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

What does that sound like to you?

I have not once said that Dolan has not made mistakes. I have not once said that I agree or believe everything he says. What I am saying, is there is absolutly no evidence that he is a con man.

If you do not agree, then that means you disagree with Oberg right?

I told you already I'm here to learn and I have. But the main thing I've learned is that you will do anything conceivable to maintain your fantasy world view.

You cannot even post an example to back up what you are saying, so you are clearly not learning anything at all. So why are you here?

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

So, I am to ignore the previous poster's statement that Dolan repeated a long-debunked BS claim?
Why should I do that?
One lie makes him a liar, when he purports to be a UFO "researcher."

So, in other words you cannot be bothered to do the research yourself. Which means you are an arm chair debunker.

I guess I have to say this once again. Show me where I've made ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to debunk anything in this thread.

So, in other words you cannot be bothered to do the research yourself. You're comfortable with Dolan lying to you then. Otherwise you'd have shown me where he admitted even a single one of his many "mistakes," as you call them, and ceased repeating them.

Harte

a reply to: JimOberg

And rightly so, Klass was a rather abhorrent individual. Aside from Klass i believe Mr Dolan has been respectful to others. I think he mentioned Corey Goode as not reputable for obvious reasons.

I’m frankly astounded by the vitriol on this thread. Schoolyard name calling, mirageman insulting his wife. It’s not a respectful discussion is it?

It’s very easy to copy and paste a person’s past mistakes related to his chosen field/profession on a forum and gleefully dissect it. I’m quite sure if the op had the courage to lay his/her life bare to the public for twenty plus years I rather bet I could cherry pick a much longer list of genuine embarrassing Faux pas and wrong steps made.

Would you think I painted a fair representation of YOUR character if I did that IMSAM?.

I believe it’s fair to constructively criticise a person if it’s done respectfully, but from what I have seen here today, from members that have been here a very long time, is abhorrent. It’s shameful to bring a man’s work down by shaming his wife, Linda Moulton Howe and other pioneers trying to get the truth out. Dolan is the best we’ve got, and if you all genuinely think in the grand scheme of things that he is a fraud when you have Wilcock, Goode, Emery Smith and a plethora of other dullards in the field there’s something seriously wrong in your thinking.

Or maybe it’s your refusal to think Impartially that’s brought you here, I’m guessing the latter.

October.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think it’s about proportion, Making a comparison between these two characters is disproportionate in my opinion.

originally posted by: October
...

Or maybe it’s your refusal to think Impartially that’s brought you here, I’m guessing the latter.

...

We all have hopes for this fascinating subject. Mine is that when anyone makes specific evidence-based claims about specific cases that have previously been mistakenly endorsed, the grownups can acknowledge that [without having to change their overall views of the phenomenon] and focus on possibly better ones. As long as too many players stubbornly cling to old conclusions, it makes any investment in further research seem pointless.

Sorry to interrupt the flow, but I want to confirm something mentioned earlier by NoCorruptionAllowed...

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Straight out of the horses mouths say in the Walton case we have witnesses who passed multiple lie detector tests say point blank that Phillip Klass tried to bribe them to betray the other's testimony, and then on this thread the liars come out and attempt to debunk that verified fact.

Ironically, a few days ago I decided to only lurk on ATS as the site winds down, but since my thread about Walton was used earlier to confirm that Klass did NOT bribe the witness Pierce (not a 'debunking' thread, by the way, rather it established to some extent that there was indeed a "fire in the sky" as seen by Walton's six co-witnesses), can you provide me with the evidence of the "verified fact" regarding the witnesses (plural) you insist WERE bribed by Klass?

I'm genuinely interested. Thanks in advance.

a reply to: October

I’m frankly astounded by the vitriol on this thread. Schoolyard name calling, mirageman insulting his wife. It’s not a respectful discussion is it?

I can only assume MM is married to some high IQ stunner like Natalie Portman(hopefully not as liberal, gasp!) that allows him to make such judgments. I mean, whose wife doesnt have some crazy thoughts from time to time.... By most normal standards, give Dolan an A+ in the marriage dept.

As you saw in the video on the previous page, they are both seen talking about remote viewing which is crazy talk for most people, even on a nutter site. You are going to take some hits for that.

I see people in various threads also claim time travel and inter-dimensional possibilities for various sitings, which imo is equally as ridiculous as remote viewing, but its accepted, perspective I guess. Luckily for them, in MUFON type circles, remote viewing is no different than time travel on these boards..

It’s very easy to copy and paste a person’s past mistakes related to his chosen field/profession on a forum and gleefully dissect it.

I liked the early stuff I read from him, but he is a little on the gullible side and the alien slide thing didnt help. I dont think the "oldest ufo photo" is such a big deal. But Im sure when Unexplained people came to him about it, they figured "the expert" would fill in the blanks and not allow them to promote a pictured that had been resolved 7 years ago. Again, going to take some hits for that when you are "the expert".

a reply to: Harte

I guess I have to say this once again. Show me where I've made ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to debunk anything in this thread.

You are debunking Dolan on the claims if other people on this thread, without looking into it yourself. I ask you to use your own exame, and you cannot even do that.

So, in other words you cannot be bothered to do the research yourself. You're comfortable with Dolan lying to you then.

I am not the one making the claim that he is a con man or scam artist. So why should I have to provide the evidence for that. If you are so sure he is, then post me evidence of that.

Otherwise you'd have shown me where he admitted even a single one of his many "mistakes," as you call them, and ceased repeating them.

I never said he has never made mistakes! This is getting embarressing now!

Nice how you completly ignored Obergs Quote. Are you too scared to say you disagree with him?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
...

I have not once said that Dolan has not made mistakes. I have not once said that I agree or believe everything he says. What I am saying, is there is absolutly no evidence that he is a con man.
...

Wile you're on the quoting-Oberg train, and since you indirectly admit Dolan HAS made mistakes, would you comment on the mistakes about spaceflight-related UFO stories that I explicitly enumerated in my earlier posts?

The preferred format is for you to write "Yes, Dolan was wrong when he claimed... [insert]."