(Dr. Michael Salla) On July 16, leading UFO historian, Richard Dolan, released an article setting out his views about how to assess individuals who have claimed to have direct knowledge and experience concerning secret space programs. He explains his sympathy for the view that such programs exist, and that people have been through these programs where they have or want to come forward with what they know.
by Dr. Michael Salla, July 22nd, 2017
However, he describes his general skepticism about individuals who not only claim to be whistle-blowers with detailed knowledge about secret space programs, but who also achieve a certain degree of public acceptance, while providing no evidence in support of their claims:
But when it comes to significant claims being made–really big claims that are not only radical on their own merits but which transform the field (and bring fame and money to those making them), then we clearly need a higher standard than “he seems like a good guy with a detailed story so I believe him.”
Richard views such individuals as wittingly or unwittingly muddying the waters, making it increasingly difficult for independent researchers seeking to ascertain the truth about these programs.
He describes three whistle-blowers in particular who have come forward and gained a level of public attention with their incredible claims:
Some of the most prominent of these people include Andrew Basiago, Randy Kramer, and Corey Goode. These three individuals have each claimed to have gone to Mars for extended periods of time. That’s explosive enough, of course, but they have also stated that they have engaged in time travel.
Richard points out that the lack of evidence means that we need to take the whistle-blowers word for it, which can be a dangerous thing for researchers:
Again, I must emphasize that none of these whistle-blowers has made a claim that an independent investigator can confirm. Everything is based on trust. Believing such stories without genuine evidence takes us down a dangerous road within an already treacherous field that is constantly in the cross-hairs of a skeptical establishment.
He is here attempting to steer what he perceives to be the middle path between a highly critical group of skeptics and debunkers claiming such whistle-blowers are, at best, delusional or at worst pathological liars, and supporters accepting whatever the whistle-blowers have to say on trust alone.
Richard refers to a series of emails he received encouraging him to come out against Goode in particular, who has recently been subjected to sustained criticism from Bill Ryan and Daniel Liszt (aka Dark Journalist) in a series of interviews. Ryan and Liszt have been a focal point for an internet campaign to discredit Goode as a pathological liar.
I have responded to their alleged impartial investigation of Goode elsewhere in terms of how they ignore documents and expert testimonies that validate Goode’s claims about his two-decades long background in the Information Technology industry. By ignoring Goode’s verifiable background, both investigators have deliberately attempted to cast doubt on his credibility by asserting that he came forward purely for monetary gain, as opposed to genuine whistle-blower’ desire to reveal the truth about official wrong doing even at the cost of a once lucrative career.
I have reached out to Richard to share my assessment of Ryan and Listz’s hoax investigation, and included a link to the documents and experts.
I contacted and who corroborated Goode’s background. Richard has not replied, which I find surprising. Surely the willful obfuscation of a whistle-blower’s background deserves public scrutiny and rebuke when investigators have acted inappropriately!
Yet apparently, Mr Dolan doesn’t agree. He doesn’t bring up any problems with Ryan and Liszt’s investigation of Goode in his post, but he does mention a problem with me. Apparently I have a trust issue:
I’ve known Michael for over a decade, and have had several long conversations with him. What I say here I have said to him personally: I believe he has done genuine and good research on a number of matters, but has a tendency to be too trusting. From my perspective, it’s always been like that. There are people who love his work, and there are haters. I am neither, but am always looking for information I can use. Sometimes I get good information and insights from his work and so I find him worthwhile to listen to, even if I don’t approve of his quickness to jump to conclusions.
I find Richard’s assessment that I have a “tendency to be too trusting” unsurprising since it reflects my contrary view of his tendency to be too dismissive of those sincerely and honestly stating their experiences. They may well be telling the truth about extraordinary experiences, but are dismissed simply because they don’t provide sufficient evidence to satisfy whatever standard he and other UFO researchers arbitrarily set.
To me, it has always been far more dangerous to exclude witness testimony simply because they don’t provide sufficient evidence to some arbitrarily defined standard, as opposed to seriously investigating it based on their sincerity, honesty and often sacrifice in coming forward.
It’s wrong to assume that an investigator “trusts” a whistle-blower simply because he or she consider them sincere and thus worthy of serious investigation. I have found the above three whistle-blowers sincere and worthy of serious investigation. That doesn’t translate into trust, however, which is a different thing altogether.
[I left the following comment on the exopoltics version of this article.]
You nailed it Dr. Salla.
The epistemological fallacy of rejecting data because it can’t be assessed, with existing methods, greatly hinders ones capacity to make contact with the whole truth. I have the utmost respect for Dolan, and I understand the demands that considering all possible data sources places on a researcher. But as you say, when one properly divests themselves of a myopic focus, then considering all the data has incredible value.
For example, examining a somewhat dubious whistleblower, who is later proven to be untruthful, might seem like a waste of time—as you didn’t add more evidence to support the theorems you were attempting to substantiate, in this case, that said whistleblowers testimony was authentic. But what you did gain is a greater capacity to understand fallacious whistleblowers in general, their motivations, their psychology, and possibly even those forces who back them. The benefit of this greater data set is incalculable when considering the grander pursuit of truth in general, of which, ufology is merely one thread.
This is why I contend, while one should have a focus insofar as their research, they must be vigilant against the temptation to become overly myopic, and should cultivate an eclectic approach. The truth is a singular holistic all encompassing reality, and as such, our pursuit of truths needs to be governed within the a priori structure of reality, that is, all individual truths are actually threads within the fabric of the whole truth. If one is not careful, they can assume that their pursued version of truth exists within a vacuum—a persistent problem within a great many fields of study. However, as I said, reality is causally coherent and interconnected, and eventually all points around a given topic connect with all others in the universe.
Keep up the good work.
Much love. (Justin)
CONTINUE READING @ exopolitics.org