It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Boylan: Good, Bad and Ugly of the UFO scene.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I was under the impression that Richard Boylan has a lot of respect in UFOlogy. He has written a list of who, in his opinion, are the good guys (truth seekers), bad guys (disinformation) and ugly (unreliable) in the UFO scene.

The Good, Bad and Ugly of the UFO scene.

I am interested in opinions on the value of this list. In particular some of the more experienced researchers must have evidence of whether Boylan is right about the people on the list.

I do agree with some of the names positions on the list but am not sure about others. What do you guys think?

I would consider working with some of the other research focused members in producing a list with links to details about why they should be considered 'good guys' or not. I think it could be of enormous value to UFO research if we had a good list of who tends to be reliable and who not to trust.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I scanned though the good list and there are definitely people on there who I believe are full of BS. I think if I made my own list the Good section would be pretty short.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
I was under the impression that Richard Boylan has a lot of respect in UFOlogy. He has written a list of who, in his opinion, are the good guys (truth seekers), bad guys (disinformation) and ugly (unreliable) in the UFO scene.


Hi Pimander,

I'd start with the UFOwatchdog website rather than Boylan's list. I don't agree with everything on Royce's UFOwatchdog website (and large parts of it are somewhat dated), but it is an extremely useful resource.

It includes a page on Boylan at:
www.ufowatchdog.com...

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 24-2-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by goatfish
I scanned though the good list and there are definitely people on there who I believe are full of BS. I think if I made my own list the Good section would be pretty short.

I'm with you there. Boylen's list and mine would definitely have some differences. He has some real crackpots on his "good" list, for sure, and a few on the "bad" that I disagree with, too.

I did enjoy his "disinformation" deal at the bottom, though.

Quick Test for Disinformation:
Does it paint the Star Visitors in a bad light?
Does it pick a particular star race to disparage?
Does it insinuate bad motives for why the Star Visitors are here?
Does the writer claim to "channel" one or more Star Visitors bearing florid, extravagant, politicized and/or sensationalized messages?


It looks like anyone who believes differently than he does is a definite disinfo agent.
He knows no more about the motives of any "star visitors" than anyone else on the planet

I guess that makes me a disinfo agent, too.

Damn...
edit on 24-2-2011 by subject x because:




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I don't know if I would go with the lists are not I'm knew to the scene and I feel Like I am still learning on the subject I also believe we all are, but as far as this lists goes i would have to agree on the fact that maybe we need to go somewhere else for the lists or at least not just this one set.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by malicacid922002
 

Good for you! Keep thinking like that and you won't go to far wrong.

Just keep in mind, anyone who claims to know the "truth" about the subject is full of crap, and probably wants your money.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by goatfish
I scanned though the good list and there are definitely people on there who I believe are full of BS. I think if I made my own list the Good section would be pretty short.

I'm with you there. Boylen's list and mine would definitely have some differences. He has some real crackpots on his "good" list, for sure, and a few on the "bad" that I disagree with, too.

I did enjoy his "disinformation" deal at the bottom, though.

Quick Test for Disinformation:
Does it paint the Star Visitors in a bad light?
Does it pick a particular star race to disparage?
Does it insinuate bad motives for why the Star Visitors are here?
Does the writer claim to "channel" one or more Star Visitors bearing florid, extravagant, politicized and/or sensationalized messages?


It looks like anyone who believes differently than he does is a definite disinfo agent.
He knows no more about the motives of any "star visitors" than anyone else on the planet

I guess that makes me a disinfo agent, too.

Damn...
edit on 24-2-2011 by subject x because:



Yeah, thats what I thought too. Not you being a disinfo agent, the bit about him appearing to think anyone who thinks differently is a disinfo agent.
edit on 24-2-2011 by BoneMosaic because: because!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Bleh. You could just as easily put all the names in a hat, draw them out one by one, and randomly assign them to one of 3 categories. I think his list is about that reliable.

But that's my opinion, just as he has his. Either is worth about whatever value you choose to assign.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 

Thanks to all of you for replying. Some intelligent comments there. I'm also grateful that we didn't get a series of rows about who is good guy bad guy.


Thanks Isaac for the UFO watchdog link. If the report is correct, I won't be taking Boylan too seriously. However the trouble with these types of site is they rarely link to credible sources for their assertions and you still have to check for yourself. I will try to formulate an idea for a thread or site, where assertions about the credibility of researches can be checked and the links to sources be viewable by interested parties. I would like it to be open to a number of us to contribute evidence - in particular when a researcher can be shown to be unreliable or a liar. It would be a great resource in my view and could save lots of wasted hours looking in to the background of past researchers.

Does anyone have other sites set up with this aim in mind?


edit on 25/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Not sure if I agree with this list. Some he says are good I wouldnt agree with, and the same goes for the bad.
Also, his bias seems to be that all "Star visitors" are kind and of a beneficial nature. I think thats naive, people are people, whether they are covered in fur feathers or scales.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Richard did have some correct, but for the most part he just arranged the order based on whether the researcher believes aliens are different than his view of a "star visitor." In my opinion this is making me put him in the bad list. A great list of names though, I have marked the researchers that I have rearranged in my good list.


- Major Gordon Cooper, USAF, (ret.), Apollo astronaut, UFO reality publicist
- Lt. Colonel Phillip Corso, USA., (ret.), custodian of Roswell UFO; UFO reality publicist
- Command Sgt.-Major Robert O. Dean, USA/NATO, (ret.), UFO reality publicist
- Timothy Good, sincere UFO investigator, but not discriminant about disinformation from his sources
- Charles Hall, former USAF Airman stationed at Nellis AFB, Nevada who reported his interactions with the Tall Whites star race living there
- Robert Lazar, former physicist at Los Alamos and Area 51/S-4, gave talks, made famous video on UFO reality at Area 51
- Roger Leir, D.P.M., implants investigator-extractor
- John Mack, M.D., Harvard Psychiatry Professor, Star Visitors encounters researcher-therapist
- Jesse Marcel, Jr., M.D., son of Army Intelligence officer at Roswell Army Air Corps Base who participated in crash retrieval, says UFOs are real
- Edgar Mitchell, Ph.D., Apollo astronaut, UFO reality publicist
- Richard Sauder, Ph.D., underground bases investigator, UFO reality publicist
- Dan Sherman, Tech Sergeant, USAF, NSA (ret.), Star Visitors communications expert/UFO reality publicist
- R. Leo Sprinkle, Ph.D., psychologist, Star Visitors encounters researcher
- Colonel Wendelle Stevens, USAF (ret.), UFO investigator/journalist
- Clifford Stone, Sergeant, U.S. Army, tells spending 22 years in the US Army as a part of an extremely elite and secret group that was rapidly dispatched to crash sites in order to recover UFO craft, Star visitor bodies, and artifacts.
- Barbara Bartholic, UFO writer, propagandist of Star Visitors as “evil”
- Dan Burisch, cryptonym for a hoaxster who pretends to have worked at Area 51, puts out Star Visitors-as-evil standard Cabal hostile propaganda
- Stanton Friedman, M.S., engineer, defamer of relevant researchers, tries to mis-focus people on a half-century old crash instead of current Star Visitor contacts
- Budd Hopkins, artist, abductions investigator /disinformer
- John Lear, Jr., former CIA-operative/disinformer
- Linda Moulton Howe, journalist manipulated by disinformation operatives to spread their sophisticated UFO pseudo-information and propaganda
- Michael Salla, Ph.D., investigator, spreads anti-Star Visitor disinformation
- Philip Schneider, government engineer and (perhaps unwitting) spreader of disinformation he had been indoctrinated with during his employment in classified underground installations.
- Jacques Valle, Ph.D., scientist/super-sophisticated UFO disinformer
- A.J. Gevaerd, publisher of a Brazilian UFO magazine full of lurid UFO tales, many of which are disinformation scare stories.
- William Hamilton, III, UFO investigator/dispenser of disinformation
- Norio Hayakawa, investigator, “evil aliens” disinformation propagandist



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Far too many hoaxers and known frauds on these lists, regardless if they are marked as "good" or "bad"...



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join