Richard Dolan on UFO disclosure, good versus bad ET, and the consciousness question.
photo by: Skeptiko
I have an interview coming up with UFO researcher, Richard Dolan. Here are some clips.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:06] We met with the guy at the DOD, but he’s a whistleblower. All the information he revealed, well none of it’s classified or top secret. The kid who innocently took a selfie and inside the submarine, he’s in prison, and this is the biggest thing ever, even though it happened 15 years ago.
Richard Dolan: [00:00:26] I wouldn’t say that Elizondo necessarily classifies as a whistleblower. I don’t know. I mean, all these people are self-serving. So, the folks at TTSA, it’s not like, you know, they’re all angels and they have no other ulterior motives, what they do.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:41] All of these guys who are in the military, that was their pledge. Are we at a different point where we’ve totally given up on the idea that we need to hold these people accountable? Is that just kind of out of the window?
Richard Dolan: [00:00:53] Oh man, good question. Well, we are in a post constitutional phase. I mean, look we’re in an upside-down world. I call this thing now a legal illegality, that’s really what it is. It’s like this legal framework to protect what fundamentally should be illegal in any democratic oriented society.
Richard Dolan: Consciousness clearly is important in some fundamental way to the nature of our reality. And secondly, we have an enormous hole in our general understanding of reality itself. Like there are things we don’t get. So in that hole are things like UFOs. In that hole are things like synchronicities and spirituality and definitely psychic phenomena, PSI phenomenon, absolutely fit in there.
[00:01:49] Stay with us for Skeptiko.
Alex Tsakiris:: [00:02:01] When it’s all said and done, the UFO/ET thing is going to be understood as one of the biggest things in our history. I mean, it is after all at the center of just about every question we can ask, who are we? why are we here? And that makes it at the center of not just our history, but also the center of our science and maybe even the center of our spirituality.
So, if the UFO/ET thing is the big thing, then what are we to make of today’s guest? Because for the last 20 years, Oxford trained historian and Rhodes Scholar finalist, Richard Dolan, has been widely acknowledged as one of the most respected, authoritative, and influential researchers within his field. His many book, I have some of them up on the screen if you’re watching this, and his extensive research articles that I continue to profit from and lean on all of the time, have brought a new level of scholarship and in particular, respectability to a field that really needed it, especially needed it a few years back when Richard started this adventure.
He’s the author of a number of books, as I mentioned, including the seminal UFOs and the National Security State series. Also, another book we’re going to talk about, one that he wrote with Bryce Zavel. And as you all know Richard has appeared on many, many documentaries, TV programs. He’s the host of the very excellent Richard Dolan Show that we may play some clips of later in this interview. And it’s just a real pleasure and joy to have him join me.
Richard, thanks so much for being here.
Richard Dolan: [00:03:58] Alex, it’s a pleasure. Thank you for that very nice introduction. It’s nice to be here.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:04:02] Well, you’re welcome, and I don’t want to start off with a total cheese ball question, but this is going to maybe sound like one anyway — what are we to make of our legacy and have you thought about your legacy? That makes it immediately sound like we’re kind of putting you out to pasture or something. But I really want to hone in on this because the UFO field, anyone who’s in that has to pretty much accept the fact that you are going to be ignored by all of the mainstream praise givers, rewarders and honor giving entities. You’re going to be outside of the loop on that. But as a historian you know that sometimes history straightens out those oversights
So, you’re a pretty modest guy from what I can tell, but have you given any thought to what it might look like, in terms of your career in the longer lens of history?
Richard Dolan: [00:05:05] Interesting, I’ve actually never been asked that question before. Well, I have thought about whatever impact my contribution may have had to ufology in general. So when I think back on the publication of my first book UFOs and the National Security State and the first edition of that book I self-published back in the year 2000, that was about a year and a half before 9/11. I do remember the reaction that it got from some of the old timers in the field at the time and I was aware that it seemed to have a strong impact for a lot of people because I feel, even now, it was probably the first attempt to mainstream UFO history within a broader context of American and world history. So I don’t think anyone had ever done that before and that in itself at the time was kind of a radical thing.
I could have done that book a lot better looking back on it, but the funny thing is writing that first book was my education in the field. I started in 1995, 1994 at basically ground zero of knowledge of the subject, I knew nothing. So I started really throwing myself into the old literature, the old books, Keyhoe, Lorenzen, Hynek, Ruppelt, all of those guys and everyone else that had been forgotten. And then a lot of the modern, what was then modern work on it and put together a narrative.
Yeah, that had not really been done before and at the time it was a radical interpretation of the UFO cover up. I used the phrase “National Security State” in the title itself, which actually I borrowed from an essay by Gore Vidal from the 1980s who had written an article, I’ve got to think for the nation.
But I think it was a radical interpretation of the cover up, which when I look back on that book now it seems very, almost conservative in its thesis. I think people have gone far, far more radical and sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a very unproductive way.
But I guess what I would say as far as legacy is that that work and then my subsequent volume and other work that I’ve done since have helped to open up, I guess I’ll say a better political analysis of the UFO phenomenon and cover up.
And if there’s any other legacy that I would have, this isn’t mine specifically, other people have done this as well, better for sure, but it’s to try to study this subject with respect. That is by looking at the data, not trying to pretend that I’ve understood all of the data and all of the information and showing respect enough to the phenomenon itself to have questions and to puzzle that out and not to pretend that I know everything.
One thing that I get frustrated by sometimes is by individuals in this field who act like they’ve got everything figured out.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:08:21] That’s interesting. The one thing I can really relate to having followed the UFO field, kind of from the outside, especially when you got started, but was still super aware of the shift that came about with you doing things in the way that you did it. Bringing this level of just confidence, authority and scholarship.
One more question on this then we’re going to move on because I have so many things I want to talk to you about, but did you get a sense for that shift, because I think a lot of people felt that shift? You know, Dolan comes out and he’s hitting this stuff hard, in terms of the real stuff, but he’s doing it in a very matter of fact, scholarly way, we can handle this stuff. Boo, here it is. Were you surprised by the shift? Did you notice the shift?
Richard Dolan: [00:09:10] I didn’t notice it for a while, I have to honestly say that, because I wasn’t active in this field in the 1990s. I was a lone wolf researching this all through the 90s, no one knew who I was. So I didn’t go to any conferences, I didn’t really know anyone, I didn’t talk to anyone. I had very limited correspondence, it’s crazy when I look back how I did that book over that five-year period.
So when I entered the field, I don’t really think I had a true appreciation of how others were perceiving me, that’s the truth. I could tell that there were individuals who told me that they appreciated what I did, and I got that early on and that has grown over the years, certainly in the last decade, even 15 years. It’s been shocking to me, to be honest, to see the response that people get for me, it’s humbling I’ll honestly say.
But in the early years, no, I can’t say that I was really aware. I think that I was very focused on pursuing what I felt was an original approach to this, at least, as far as I could tell. It’s a hard question to answer. I think over time I’ve come to appreciate that whatever it is that I’ve done has had its own niche, its own place in ufology and that’s definitely a good feeling.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:10:42] So one of the things that you’ve done, I guess, is really give us a reorientation to the word “disclosure” and what that means, and you’ve kind of come back to that again and again. When we chatted before the interview, one of the things that I said I really was anxious to talk to you about was, kind of a follow-up to a book that you published a few years ago, After Disclosure, which I thought at the time was, again, it’s such a… I’m going to stop singing your praises here in a minute because it’s getting uncomfortable, but it really was a novel way to kind of deal with the question of how can there be this reality that seems to be acknowledged by so many people and understood by so many people, and yet it’s kept under wraps? And we keep spinning around in that circle and then somebody jumps ahead and says, “Okay, wait a minute, let’s say what happens after disclosure.” Anyway, that’s what the book was about, and many people will know about that book.
But then I found a fantastic presentation you did, The New Face of Disclosure and the YouTube video is up, you gave it in Copenhagen in July of 2019, and back to the pre-interview thing we were having, I wanted to ask you what you think now, now that a lot of us would look around and say, “Disclosure has happened or is happening.” What do you think about disclosure now?
Let me play a clip from your presentation and then let’s chat about that a little bit.
Richard Dolan: [00:12:18] So can the establishment truly dominate the narrative, if they are rolling out this disclosure narrative? I think it would be very difficult, or anyone who’s trying to control the narrative, really. There are a lot of questions that will come up. When we did After Disclosure 10 years ago, Bryce and I really asked about these things. For me, the big question is, if you make an acknowledgement that UFOs are real, ever, then wouldn’t it be the case that people would say, “Oh my God, so how have you been lying to us all of this time?”
Alex Tsakiris: [00:12:55] Okay, let’s talk about that. I mean, that’s enough of a tee up right there. What do you think?
Richard Dolan: [00:13:01] Well, first thing I’ll just say is, it’s funny about disclosure. I did not ever want to write about disclosure, ever. 15 plus years ago people were talking about disclosure. This is back in 2002, 2003, 2004, and I would say, “Ah, way too early to talk about that. We still have to get into the nature of the cover up and disclosure is premature.” But the problem is I kept getting roped in to Steve Bassett’s ex conferences, which are about disclosure and all of these other disclosure conversations, I was naturally brought in because of the political analysis that I used to do and I have always done.
So yeah, when we wrote After Disclosure, that’s a book I’m really happy I had a great co-author. Bryce Zavel was and is a screenwriter, producer, he’s got a lot of good Hollywood experience. He did the TV show Dark Skies, which many still remember, and his imprint is really definitely visible on that book.
But in terms of what I was talking about in that clip there in Copenhagen, I still maintain this, I’ve always believed that any kind of official announcement from any government body, particularly the United States government, is going to be a really difficult one for them to control because UFOs, people think they can tame this subject and it cannot be tamed. It’s too big of a reality transformation and that is why I actually don’t believe that we’re seeing disclosure right now.
When the mainstream narrative changed, starting at the end of 2017, when the New York Times did their few pieces, Politico, and then all of the follow-up, and we have seen so much transformation, it is easy to come to the conclusion, “Oh, well, this is completely government controlled. It’s a PSYOP. It’s a disclosure narrative,” whatever.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:14:56] I know, you really pushed back hard on me when we were talking and I said, “Richard, to me, this is obviously a political PSYOP kind of disclosure.
Richard Dolan: [00:15:05] No, I totally disagree.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:15:07] You totally disagree?
Richard Dolan: [00:15:09] I mean, well, I can understand the point of view, but I’ll tell you why I disagree.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:15:13] Can I ask you to pause that? Let me add a clip to it and then you can respond directly because I think you know and appreciate Leslie Kean right, who has the byline to that New York Times story, and I had a chance to interview her. I love Leslie, she’s awesome, she’s been on the show a couple of times, a lot of respect for her, but I hammered her pretty hard. Let me play this clip.
Richard Dolan: [00:15:41] Yeah.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:15:42] Leslie, who comes forward? He’s not a whistle blower, right?
Leslie Kean: [00:15:49] Yeah, he kind of is.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:15:52] You are such a good journalist, writer, investigative journalist beyond this group here.
Leslie Kean: [00:15:58] I had two colleagues at the Times that are even more experienced than I am that we’re in on this with me, so not just me.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:16:03] Just looking at it from the big picture, where is an example of, where anyone inside the government has come out and said anything even like this? I mean, the kid who went to jail for having a picture of a submarine in his background, this is not a day and age where people inside the government with deep state secrets like this are allowed to speak freely. He was not breaking boundaries or saying all of this crazy stuff that no one wanted him to say, this is a controlled release.
Leslie Kean: [00:16:35] No, I don’t agree with that. I mean, none of our work ever led me to get to that conclusion or any of us and we talked to a lot of people.
The point is, none of the information that he brought forward was classified information. It’s about classified information, that’s the distinction.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:16:52] Right. That distinction is meaningless at this point. This is the biggest story probably in the history of our lives, certainly, a lot of people are saying in the history of the world, and to suggest that this somehow and some phony baloney classified, not classified, top secret, this isn’t classified and that’s supposed to be the mark? I don’t see it.
Okay. So of course the he we’re talking about is Luis Elizondo, and what do you make of that? You know, this thing that, “Oh, this wasn’t classified, so that’s why it came out.”
Richard Dolan: [00:17:27] It’s so funny, I find myself agreeing with Leslie on this issue. I mean, I’ve known Leslie for many years and like and respect her and I just chatted with her again last summer, but I haven’t always agreed with her perspective on her public statements on this, but I agree with her here, although I didn’t probably initially agree.
So, I’ll tell you why I would agree with you. I would agree with you because, perhaps like you, I don’t have a trust of the New York Times, and I don’t have a trust of any of the mainstream corporate journalists, media establishments that exist in the Western world. I think all of it is hopelessly corrupt and servants of the national security apparatus and the global financial apparatus. So anything that comes out of the New York Times, I think you have to be very, very careful of, and considering that the New York Times has 75 years or so of consistent anti-UFO, I mean the worst snarky, smarmy, only exceeded by the Washington Post probably, which is actually the worst. But the New York Times has been so bad on this, and then suddenly boom, what’s this all about?
So I’m going to give you my take on what happened here. You can really lay this at the doorstep of the folks at TTSA. Now, we can talk about what we think TTSA is.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:18:52] Yes, we will.
Richard Dolan: [00:18:52] You can say, “Oh, they’re a CIA op, but let’s just leave that aside for a moment and let’s put a pin in that, as they say.
So TTSA roles out their press conference in October of 2017 and as you’ll probably remember, that’s where really the first public statement of what became known as the Tic Tac UFO, even though that had been discussed in Above Top Secret, all of that, but really, you have these guys talking about it and it’s a heck of an encounter. And they’re talking also about ATIP in that October press release. I’m not sure if they used the name ATIP but they certainly said the Pentagon has been studying this. So it was actually that TTSA press conference that outed the Tic Tac and the ATIP program.
So now you’ve got a legit journalist like Leslie, who is legit interested in UFOs, not pretend, but she’s genuinely interested and she’s got her inroads with the New York Times and she’s got a couple of allies there, Blumenthal and Helene Cooper and they’re dealing with the New York Times establishment that does not want to cover this. I asked Leslie about this myself last summer and she didn’t give me an answer as to why the New York Times covered this, but I’m going to give you my answer as to why.
I believe the New York Times covered this because they knew that this story was going to break and I believe that they said, “Alright, we’ll do this but we’re going to handle it our way.” And what they ended up doing, if you look at those articles, is they brought in, particularly with the ATIP piece, ridiculous skeptical statements that had no meaning, like by James Oberg, like, what is he even doing in this article? And this meaningless astronomer from I think Yale or Harvard who had zero to say about this. But these were skeptical placeholders, psychological placeholders.
So what the New York Times did is basically their attempt to control this narrative so as not to let it get out of control. What happened is that because the New York Times gave even some validation to UFOs, I think this became much bigger than the leadership at the Times would have expected.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:21:05] Boy, we will have to disagree on this, and we’ll move on.
Richard Dolan: [00:21:10] I’d like to have this out.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:21:13] Okay, just address the point. I mean, to me it’s so patently just ludicrous and the other thing I always like to add to people.
Richard Dolan: [00:21:22] What’s ludicrous? What’s ludicrous exactly?
Alex Tsakiris: [00:21:24] First of all, the idea that Luis Elizondo is a whistleblower it just doesn’t add up, it doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Richard Dolan: [00:21:31] Well, I wouldn’t necessarily call him a whistleblower.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:21:35] Bur she just did. She said he’s a whistle blower, and then the idea that, “We met with the guy at the DOD, but he’s a whistleblower. All of the information the he revealed, well none of it’s classified or top secret.” It’s like I’ve mentioned, the kid who innocently took the snap photo, a selfie of being inside the submarine, he’s in prison and this is the biggest thing ever, even though it happened 15 years ago.
Richard Dolan: [00:22:04] I wouldn’t say that Elizondo necessarily classifies as a whistleblower. I don’t know. I mean, all of these people are self-serving. So the folks at TTSA, it’s not like, you know, they’re all angels and they have no other ulterior motives, what they do. It’s all about money, it’s all about getting a piece of the action. I would hazard to guess that maybe they want some defense money, maybe they want some contracts, maybe they want access to what they know is classified technology. There may be other things going on here where it’s not all philanthropic. I would be shocked if it were, whoever acts like that. So I don’t know if I would call him a whistleblower.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:22:42] Here’s the alternative read on that, that I take and a lot of other people take, is that, number one, it’s political. The word political is important here, not because I have any political stake in the left versus the right, I think the whole thing is a scripted, nonsensical joke at this medium level and that there’s a layer above it that just ignores all of that anyway. But this is clearly coming from the Podesta, Clinton camp that was trying to release it the year before. They were hooked up with Tom DeLonge and that whole thing and they were announcing, they were kind of preheating us for the release. They didn’t win the election, so they just kind of rolled it out anyways, is how it looked to me.
I think the whole thing, the whole Peter Levenda, Tom DeLonge thing, the story just never made any sense. Peter Levenda, “Well, you know, Tom DeLonge called me up and I was like, ‘Wow, is this really Tom DeLonge?’ He was like, ‘Yeah buddy, we’ve got to go to the CIA and get to the bottom of the UFO story because it’s never been told.’” It’s like, is this like some kind of bad script or what?
Richard Dolan: [00:23:49] I think there’s some reality and some non-reality in that. So I would say, I’ve never believed that Hilary and Podesta were ever going to be a disclosure team, ever. I didn’t believe it then, I don’t believe it now, I don’t think it would ever have happened. If she had been elected president, there would be no more disclosure than there is now. I don’t think that was a plan.
I do believe Podesta is very smart and as a UFO savvy guy, which he clearly is, recognized that his candidate, who was desperately in need of an additional cool factor in her campaign, could benefit from being, kind of a UFO… Knowing also that the New York Times would not trash her, since they basically own the New York Times coverage anyway. So she could get away with being a UFO candidate, go on Jimmy Kimmel, try her hand at that whole thing and maybe win a few votes, that’s all that I’ve ever believed.
There’s no evidence to me that in any of the DeLonge, Podesta communications that Podesta was actually serious about this. Someone please show me, where does Podesta show that, “Yes, we’re going to do a disclosure”? This is all DeLonge, all his thing. Podesta allowed some communications to happen and then, of course, the whole thing was, they turned the lights on, WikiLeaks came out and they all ran for cover and DeLonge came us with his B team. But the Hilary thing, I don’t think I believe that. I think DeLonge’s people might have had these illusions, yes, I think that’s entirely possible, that they would have thought, “Oh yes, we’re going to get Hilary and Podesta to be disclosure candidates,” but I seriously doubt that Hilary Clinton or Podesta would have considered moving ahead with the UFO disclosure.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:25:43] Well, one of the things that people really appreciate about your work, Richard, and I respect as well, is you move very carefully according to. Direct evidence that you have or you are, we can’t really say direct evidence, but as close as you can get to the evidence.
I respect that.
Richard Dolan: [00:26:00] Try
Alex Tsakiris: [00:26:00] at the same time, I think, I think there is a need to kind of fill in some of these planks and that’s what I’m trying to do here as well. But let’s move on to
Richard Dolan: [00:26:10] kind of a reliance. I enjoyed discussing this with you.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:26:14] Well, when I listened to your Copenhagen presentation, I kind of think you’re in many respects in the same camp when you lay out really the, the, the, like you say, the wop, the Washington post and his appearance on Fox, that as well as Hondo and then all this other stuff.
You kind of make the case on both sides and then you come down on one or the other, which is totally,
Richard Dolan: [00:26:37] I get
Alex Tsakiris: [00:26:38] respect. Here’s something we’re all going to move on to. What do you dubbed. The leak of the century. And we’re gonna talk about that, but we’re gonna and that is the release of the Thomas Wilson memo.
But I’m going to do it through the words of this guy who we see up on the screen. Doctor Edgar Mitchell Apollo astronauts support our troops. Dr Edgar Mitchell. Let me play a couple of clips from this and I might have to skip around cause it’s a long clip, but I want to get a couple of things in there.
So first I thought we’d just play a little bit of the outro cause the guy is. So yeah. I will now call
to the podium a distinguished
Edgar Mitchell: [00:27:23] a man who, um, is in fact someone who has the right stuff, which includes, uh, a doctorate in aeronautics and astronautics from MIT selection to the NASA Apollo program selection to eight NASA.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:27:40] So basket’s going to go through his long list, which, which he should and he deserves, but we’re going to skip the handle here a little
Richard Dolan: [00:27:47] bit.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:27:47] This. Now he’s going to be talking about
Edgar Mitchell: [00:27:50] Ross from French. Some of the people in our area who hadn’t been involved, what I call the old timers
who are, because I’ll just add in here.
Uh, Edgar Mitchell is from Texas, but he really claims to be from Roswell cause he’s
very young age people, like in the Sheriff’s department who had been to the press shy. And we’re sure providing traffic. Uh, my friend and friend of our family, the major who was an office mate,
Alex Tsakiris: [00:28:21] so because he does have a little bit of that Texas drawl, and you’re a new Yorker and I’m a Chicago guy, we need a little bit to speed up here.
He. Basically says, and I want you to respond to this, you know, any doubters about Roswell should be doubters. No more of our Apollo astronaut walked on the moon, 2009 he comes and says, Hey, it’s real. I know it from the best authorities that I have, and I’m a local and I know it. And it also jives with what I know from my professional career.
So that we’re going to put a pin in that, but I do want you to come back to address it. And I wanted to. Bring, go forward a little bit in this conversation to the real point of what I was trying to get you to respond to here. Let’s see if I can get that.
Edgar Mitchell: [00:29:06] and some point about 10 years ago, and I can’t remember what date it was right now, when the disclosure movement was under Gordon strongly, I came here to Washington with a baby commander by the name of Miller.
And Dr. Steven Greer, and we have, we’re able to get an appointment at the Pentagon to talk about what we do, who or what we allegedly knew of what we thought we knew and went and told our story. And, uh, the powers that be as the intelligence committee of the joint chiefs of staff listened to her story and said.
The Advil said, well, I don’t know that story. I don’t know that that’s true, but I will find out. So we
Alex Tsakiris: [00:29:59] departed hammer down because I want you to pick up, and you’ve written extensively and done some extensive shows on this, and again, you dubbed it the, what leak did you say? UFO leak of the century. So people lay on a little bit and tell us what Edgar Mitchell’s talking
Richard Dolan: [00:30:17] about.
Absolutely. I’m glad you found that clip, by the way, Alex. I was sitting in that audience looking at him. He did that. And it’s funny how I forgot this is 2009 that was, yeah. Uh, yeah, but anyway, um, I’ve known about this since 2006, so I’m, and in fact, I. Communicated with Edgar about that in back in Oh six as well.
But essentially, here’s, here’s the story. Back in 1997, April of that year, uh, Edgar Mitchell commander will Miller, who we just mentioned, Dr. Steven Greer, a couple of other people, uh, Greer was really leading this effort at the time to make the rounds in Washington to, uh, talk to anyone within Congress, anyone in power about the UFO coverup issue and, and his particular take.
Uh, largely accurate, I would have to say on the black budget, uh, nature of the UFO cover up the privatization, the rogue nature of the secrecy is, I think he would call it and I would call it. So
Alex Tsakiris: [00:31:19] let me just interject here, cause I want you to break that down for people because I’ve listened to like two hours that you’ve.
Given on that, and it’s spellbinding in terms of these secret programs, how the different levels of authorization, non-authorization, knowledge outset, and then the privatization thing and the, it’s really a ploy to move it outside of the purview of the freedom of information act. So just kind of at a high level, go over that game that’s being played that fits into this.
Richard Dolan: [00:31:51] Well, I’ll, uh, let me, I’ll continue by just by telling the story, but I will definitely want to bring that analytic and because it’s important when a ended up happening and, and everyone has agreed to this, that, that Greer and his group were able to meet with Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, who at the time was vice chair of intelligence for the joint chiefs of staff, the position known as J to, uh, very shortly after that, Wilson became head of intelligence for the joint chiefs.
And then. Uh, within two years of that became head of the defense intelligence agency. Then retired, went off into private industry in the early Bush years. But here we are in 97. And Greer, um, actually did a presentation for Wilson and Wilson’s colleagues and one of Wilson’s bosses and other colleagues were there.
And, uh, it was all about UFO is in fact, one of them things mentioned was Phillip J Corso his book, the day after Roswell, so UFO crashes. Um, so all of that is official in 2006. Someone very close to all of that, but not at the meeting, but someone close to Mitchell’s, someone close to that whole group, um, met with me personally and we.
Uh, and showed me a couple of pages and I, I’ve never remembered if it’s two or three pages. It’s one or the other. Might be two pages. It might be three pages of what looked like a transcript of sorts. It turned out to be Eric Davis, his notes, uh, but a transcript between, uh, uh, one person writing down his interview with someone else.
And this individual that I was speaking with told me, yeah. Uh, this person was in the joint chiefs and met with career and was. Told about the black budget program of UFOs and went looking and within two months was, uh, found the program or one of the programs and then was denied access by the lawyers.
By the corporate lawyer and the program manager because he didn’t have a need to know and was very upset about it. So, um, and then the other thing was that he got, that I remembered reading is that he had confirmation that this was technology, not of this earth, not made by human hands. Um, I wasn’t given any names during that meeting, but shortly after that, I read Steven Greer’s book, hidden truths, forbidden knowledge, where he wrote about his meeting with Wilson.
And I wrote back to my contact, I said, Oh, I guess I know who it is. It’s Wilson. And he said, yep. Uh, ended up having a quick phone conversation with Admiral Wilson. I communicated with Edgar Mitchell about this. I even communicated with Steven Greer briefly. Mmm. And. Long story short, Wilson would not admit whatsoever first that even had the meeting.
Then he was forced to admit it in the meeting and then said, no, but I never did anything after that. I never looked into what I thought was nonsense, which is patently untrue. And here’s you have Mitchell’s statement saying that, that a Wilson did look into it. Of course, we don’t really know, like no one literally would know.
But what we do have is Eric Davis of national Institute of discovery science. Who was friendly with Edgar Mitchell. They were all on the needs board back in those days, run by Robert Bigelow. The head of the board was Kip green. Another important member was how put off calm Kelleher. All of these people, they all knew each other and what I always call them as Bigelow’s club.
Bear the people trying to work their way into the labyrinth. They all have their own security clearances to one extent or another. They all knew a lot about UFOs. They all shared what they could share on this matter, and they did it for years, and they still do the extent that they can. So, so here in 2002 Davis has an opportunity to meet with Wilson.
Or is it 2003 2003 excuse me. He has an opportunity to meet with Wilson and he goes, and it’s a roughly an hour or so long meeting and it’s in a car. And Davis either had recorded it or wrote these notes down and brings it back to the crew, back to green, back to putt off, back to Bigelow, back to Mitchell.
And, and when Mitchell died. In a, in a, it was a 2017 his papers, uh, mostly were taken by his family, like his Apollo stuff and all of that. But the papers that had to do with Ned’s, the papers that had to do with consciousness, that had to do with UFOs. Mmm. They were going to be destroyed. And the family had no interest in it.
But one individual, and I’ve, I’ve. Actually, I don’t know the person’s full name anyway, so it’s no point, but I know about this person a was able, allowed legally to take a certain amount of these papers out of the house, and they have, some of them had been JPEG and one of those papers are the Eric Davis notes.
you know. We’re about his meeting with Thomas Wilson that confirmed things like MJ 12 that confirm the deep privatization of the UFO secret, which we can get into that confirm Wilson’s utter frustration at attempting and failing to get into this black budget, a world of special access program, reverse engineering, UFO tech, and maybe even ETE bodies.
All of that didn’t come up in the notes. So all of that, and. I am personally waiting for more of these notes to come out. I know that there are more, I don’t know if they’re bombshells. I don’t know if they’re duds, but I know that there’s more, and I think. I’m hopeful that they will be normally as a come out now relating to UFO privatization.
I’ll, I’ll simply,
Alex Tsakiris: [00:37:38] before you get into that, let me just jump in there because one thing I want to say are you a little bit too comfortable with that? Have you been desensitized to that a little bit, Richard? Because here’s my point. You know, you’ve done an awesome job, so this is now reached the Dolan level of credibility, which you already have told us is pretty high.
You need the sources, you need the documents, you know, and now you have the documents. You said a D after disclosure. Are we after constitution when we have these high-level people, it disclosing that you know this support and defend the constitution against all powers, foreign and domestic, which is what everyone pledges.
All these guys who are in the military, that was their pledge. Edgar Mitchell, that was his pledge. And you can say he’s a good guy, or he didn’t disclose enough, but that was his pledge. Wilson. That was his pledge. And they’re not doing it. And, you know, are we at a different point where we’ve totally given up on the idea that we need to hold these people accountable?
Is that just kind of out the window?
Richard Dolan: [00:38:45] Oh, man. Good question. Where we are in a post constitutional phase, I mean, look, we’re in a, an upside down world where, what I call this thing now, legal illegality. That’s really what it is. It’s like this legal, um. Framework to, to protect what is fundamentally should be illegal in any, uh, democratic oriented society.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:39:07] should we eat? That’s huge. Say that again. I mean, that’s why I say you’re awesome, but some
Richard Dolan: [00:39:15] calmness,
Alex Tsakiris: [00:39:16] the calmness that you bring to that Holly side call myth, you know, it doesn’t fully. Bring people into what you’re saying about this point. We are in this thing we call the United States. I mean, we’re talking about really jumping past,
Richard Dolan: [00:39:34] I haven’t been desensitized.
I’ve been talking about this for 20 years. I mean, since nine 11 I got into a lot of trouble. Uh. To some, at least over my nine 11 comments. That’s a whole other episode perhaps, but I’ve been, I’ve been on the other side of this for a long time and I’ve, I don’t think I’ve been under an illusion that we have a truly functioning democratic Republican system.
I hold onto the dream of that because what else can I hold on to? What we’re living in is a world of. 24 seven global fascistic type of surveillance that in which no one will ever have an inkling of privacy ever again for the rest of our lifetimes and our grandchildren’s lifetimes. And I’m still trying to wrap my head around that.
So that’s a whole other thing. So we’re, we’re living in a completely different world than what we were taught in our fifth grade civics class of what American. Life is supposed to be. And that goes for any country. But in terms of the secrecy of UFO, it’s so, it is so profound. It’s so deep. So for example, when, uh, this whole leak came out, all right, I wrote, um, I got a, I got a no comment from how put off, and I got to no comment a month later from kid green.
And I’m just going to say, like, I know both of these guys reasonably well, particularly put off, I’ve known for years and, uh. I just said, you know, look, why don’t, why doesn’t your group out and own these documents? Because you know they’re real. You know, it’s the real deal just for posterity. You’re all getting up there.
Like, what are you hanging onto? Why are you doing this? And you know, all of them. It’s not just, it’s not just him, it’s all of them there. All right? In this world of. Clearances and they are terrified of losing their clearances. All of them, every last one, they, um, they don’t want to acknowledge. And, and the funny thing about this particular document, this, this is Eric Davis, his private notes.
The document itself is not a classified government document. It’s a private document about a classified program. And legally there’s nothing classified about that document. Like there’s no reason that it. Should have to be classified as a private document written by Eric Davis about a meeting he had with someone about a classified subject, and yet they still won’t own it because it will reflect badly on them and they don’t want to lose the clearances that they’ve had.
I spoke to someone in that, in that crowd a number of years ago who told me explicitly about their knowledge of deep black programs that have alien tech and alien bodies, and. And they, this person said, yeah, and what, what do I do with this information? He said, what if I told you that I know the names of like the top 10, 12, 15 people who are most in on this secret?
And, and uh, I leak that information. Let’s say I leak it to the New York times a, what would the New York times do with it? Probably nothing, but if the New York times where to publish it, it would very likely be traced back to me and I would lose all of my clearances and then I’m out of the game. And so that’s the game.
All these people are playing now. Then there’s threats. I wrote to Mitchell on one occasion about this. Uh, I was writing to Edgar Mitchell a lot in Oh six, Oh seven Oh eight. And uh, I said, look, you know, you told me personally one time, and Mitchell dated Oh four, he told me alone in a room. He said he had two individuals at the highest level clearances who confirmed to him the existence of
Alien bodies and ITI tech being held. Mitchell said this to me in 2004 and he made this statement once or twice publicly, but he said it to me and I wrote to him a few years later and I said, look, do you tell me you like my work? So why don’t you throw me a bone and point me in a direction that can help me?
I’m not asking you to give up anyone, but can you just. Give me something. And, and what he wrote back was kind of amazing. He said, look, I support what you do. However, the people who came to me did the, who gave me this information, did so at great risk. He said, professionally. Personally and risk to their families.
And I will not, essentially, he will not throw them under the bus while they were still alive and he never did so risk to their families. You know, you fill in the blank what that means, but, uh, these people, there’s carrot and stick for them. Both like the carrot is you play ball, you’re a team player. It’s like being in good fellows, like you’re a made man.
You get, you get all of these nice little openings in your career for you. If you do not play ball, they bring the hammer down and however hard one, one of them also said this to me, all right? I’m not giving up names when I. Cannot give up a name. I will not give up a name. But one of them said, a lot of these programs do not require you to sign an NDA or a security.
He says, look, when you get into these programs, you no, you don’t talk about it and
Alex Tsakiris: [00:44:43] assume blood out
Richard Dolan: [00:44:46] the mafia. Like the mafia. Yeah. So, yeah. But anyway, the privatization, I’ll just leave you with this. Um, uh. There was a very good article I was led to early on in my research, like, Oh one Oh two by a fellow named bill Sweetman, who is an aviation writer, if he’s still around.
He, um, did a lot of work with Jim Goodall, Mmm. On like stealth technology, not UFO so much. Really just advanced aerospace aviation, uh, work. Sweden’s a really good writer. He wrote on the Aurora craft around the stealth fighter stealth bomber. A lot of other Israel area 51 expert, and he wrote this article for Jane’s international defense in 2000 early 2000 on, I forget the name of it, black budget, special access programs, and it was a good analysis for a mainstream journalist for sure.
And he talked about how the SAP world is dominated, was even then by private money, not by DOD personnel. He said, when I looked into this, to my surprise, I found that this is a. Totally privatized and all the security clearances are, are held in private industry. And you know, 10 years later, the Washington post of all publications did a study called, I think, America top secret.
Uh, Dana Miller. Bill Arkin did that similar conclusions. Uh, it just last summer, I’m talking with kid green about this, and he says, absolutely. It’s all when you retire from the CIA or any federal group. And you go into private industry, your clearances go up and they become better and more numerous. He said, because that’s where the brain power is.
That’s where the money is. That’s where the power is. The federal government, in other words, is just holding the ball for these guys and your tax dollars. My tax dollars pay for the security of these privatized programs to make. Shitloads of money, if I could say that on your show. If not, you’ll have to edit me out to save to make a lot of money off of exotic technology, some of which I think has been acquired, uh, through, uh.
Not our own work. So, um,
Alex Tsakiris: [00:47:00] well we had, we had Diana Walsh Basilica on, and you know, her book, American
I mean, she just directly lays it out, you know, here it is. Here’s the, here’s the , secret college. You know, where stuff is brought in. Here’s the privatized Silicon Valley guys. And there’s just no reason to believe that isn’t true.
Richard Dolan: [00:47:18] No. She can also write into that very, very. Like
Alex Tsakiris: [00:47:23] in a weird way too, because we’re going to come back and swing about that cause the spirituality part, you know, she kind of gets into too with the Catholic church and all that, but I just want him to close the loop on what you just said, because privatization first and foremost.
It’s an end run on the constitution. Right. Sadly, that’s really what it’s at.
Richard Dolan: [00:47:43] That’s, that’s exactly. So you have a, I mean, this is something that’s been going on since the bullet went through Abraham Lincoln’s brain in 1865. If you really want to go back to American history, this has been going on since that moment, and, um, and it’s just one degree after another after another, and we’re now in this upside down world where, and it’s like, um.
In my very first book, I brought him to quote by Niccolo Machiavelli from his discourses on Livy. It’s a good book. It’s a great book. And he essentially said, look, if you really want to have a a functioning revolution, like a revolution from above, he says, the way to do it is you’ve got to retain assemblance of the old forms, because that’s all people notice.
I saw that they’re used to. So, uh, it says, if you, you can change the fundamental structure of something, but if you keep the exterior looking the same way, people will almost inevitably go along. And that’s what’s exactly happened here. So we’ve got, you still have presidents, we still have Supreme court.
We still have a. Two houses of Congress. Uh, we have this system in place, but the body’s kind of dead. And it’s like in that movie alien where the thing comes out of the chest. So you’ve got this corpse and this new thing has come out. Uh, I called it the national security state. You can call it the deep state.
You can call it the global financial system. I mean, it’s something that is standing behind and much more powerful than our official political institutions and how to get control. Back in the name of the people is really our single most important thing. And, and, uh, relating to UFOs. I mean, it’s a fascinating subject on every level to me philosophically, scientifically.
Absolutely. But to me, the most important thing is politically because, Mmm. I’m not interested in a world where. This disclosure happens to me, uh, in a completely controlled manner by our social betters and our political betters. Like, I have no interest in that. I’ll just put me in a rocket ship and I’ll live on the moon.
I don’t want to live on this world. Um, I’m interested in, in getting to some level of truth so that citizens can at least have a dream of some level of sovereignty. And I think the UFO secret has. Has seriously moved us. Mmm. It’s not the only thing that’s created this, this world that we live in of, uh, uh, privatized secrecy and legal illegality.
But it’s definitely contributed a lot. And, and political science people to this day don’t appreciate just how important it has been in creating that world. Okay. I
Alex Tsakiris: [00:50:27] want to move on. I want to talk about good E, T, batty, T because one of the things I also really respect about your work, Richard, is I feel like even though the political side, the national security side is your swing zone, you’ve allowed yourself to be stretched.
In some really important ways and you seem willing, and I’m just surprised at how many people are unwilling to go over that next Hill. Be it consciousness, be it spirituality, be it your , unbelievable. Four part interview series, and maybe even grow beyond that with Chris Bledsoe where he’s talking about angels and we’re going to play a clip from that.
So. You and your what? Tracy? Who is an experiencer? I don’t know. Does she call herself an experiencer or an abductee? I mean, that’s something we can even pull
Richard Dolan: [00:51:25] apart. She would probably say experience there. I would thing that’s her go to. Okay. She doesn’t, she wouldn’t say that. She knows she’s an abductee, so I would say that she, she does.
She does believe strongly that she’s had a couple of experiences with nonhuman intelligences.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:51:41] Well, you guys did an incredible YouTube video on this that is like 80,000 views, and it’s just incredible in terms of its breadth and covering a lot of these topics. But there’s some I wanted to drill in further and I thought this would be a time to do it.
And I think it also pairs up well with, as I was saying, the recent series you’ve done with Chris Bledsoe. Here’s a guy we both know. Respect, great camera, and he’s been on my show a couple of times. I know you’re friends with them. Let me play this clip from grant. Talk about
Grant Cameron: [00:52:14] his wife suddenly wants to talk about, I’d like to talk about entanglement, particle entanglement, and I’m thinking, why would you ask us, your
husband is a PhD in physics.
He’s right. He run the parasitology, the, um, the, the, what they called a phenomenology desk. At the CIA. What does care desk, and what people have to realize is that when the CIO calls it phenomenology, that is a hint as to what’s going on. It is not UFOs, it’s remote doing ghosts or psychology, uh, telepathy.
It’s the whole ball of wax cause it’s all consciousness. That’s the ground of being, it’s consciousness. And they know that. And that’s why when the Canadian government documents said in 1950. That mental phenomenon may be involved to top secret gang government documents, say mental phenomenon may be involved in flying saucers.
That’s when they started the MK ultra stop. That’s when they start all that cause they were trying to figure out how does consciousness work cause they had a live alien in 1947 that’s how the Americans knew to tell the Canadians in 1950 the mental phenomena was involved. Nobody was talking to aliens.
In 1950 there were a damn skin. Williamson would not come forward until a couple of days after the detonation by hydrogen bomb. Betty and Barney Hill would not become public. So mid sixties nobody said they were talking to aliens in public at least. And so therefore, how did they know that mental phenomenon was involved?
Because they had a live alien and they knew that the alien is telepathic and it gets in your head, and they went, wow, man, if we could discover how this work,
Alex Tsakiris: [00:53:38] and. Now, I know you’re a new Yorker and you talk fast, but no one talks as fast
Richard Dolan: [00:53:45] in a class by himself, and he’s at in Winnipeg, Manitoba. How’s he do that?
Alex Tsakiris: [00:53:51] Where did he get that from? We don’t, we don’t quite get that
Richard Dolan: [00:53:55] Graham’s grandkids. Well, I just want to give crank credit because as far as I know, he is the first person really to key in on the significance of that phrase, mental phenomena in the Wilbert Smith memo that he wrote to the Canadian. Uh, department of transport way back in 1950.
You know, we looked at other people have looked at other parts of that memo for years, uh, that the subjects more important than the H bomb and so forth. But grant grant keyed in, uh, below that, where. This aspect of mental phenomena was, was very considered, very important by the U S government. And Andy
Alex Tsakiris: [00:54:29] uses that to catapult us into a whole bunch of stuff that jumps us right into the middle of this goody T batty T, you know, Richard, my.
Yeah. My approach to this whole thing, the whole skeptical approach has been from consciousness. That’s what I was interested in answering for myself. You know, who are we? Why are we here? Well, let’s look at what people are saying about consciousness. Let’s look at. Your death experience. Let’s look at out of body experience after death communication.
Parasitology you know, you look at the first 200 interviews I did. That’s what it was. Dean Raden, Rupert Sheldrick, parapsychology people, dr Julia Ghoshal. So it was interesting when I met grant and sinked in I, I think I was influential to grant and saying, okay, do you understand the, how consciousness, how we are, how we are being.
Part of the conspiracy is this idea that science continues to tell us we’re biological robots in a meaningless universe. While at the same time acting like we were just saying in the kind of secret legal ill illegality way they’re doing Stargate, they’re doing men who stare at goats. There are way beyond, consciousness is an illusion, is an EPA phenomenon.
The brain and then grant, like you said. Puts in the missing puzzle piece and goes, yeah, that’s because in the 1950s they knew it. And then that makes us rethink the whole MK ultra thing and what our orientation is to evil because there’s clearly evil in MK ultra where we’re trying to wipe people’s minds clean and reprogram them and all this other stuff.
So. Jump bus into what has been your, I guess, process of getting into these deeper questions. And because it also gets into spirituality very, very quickly and as, as I already hinted at, and you jumped in both feet with Chris Bledsoe. So there, I’ve, I’ve laid like 50,000
Richard Dolan: [00:56:29] things, so I’m, I, um, and by the way, I don’t know what time limit you have, but I, I’m really enjoying this, so I’ll go as long as you want to go.
I’m having a great time here. I will start by telling a story that I have told once in a while, but not that often. And for me, it was a defining moment in my life. I was, I think 20 or 21 years old at the time. Um. And, you know, I’ve always thought about these types of issues of freewill and determinism and spirituality.
And I think a lot of people have. I’m one who’s always thought about it. And I went through a very strong period where I was a, I guess I was an atheist, like I was 19, 20 years old. Um, and I had my reasons all laid out as to why. Did not believe in any kind of transcendental reality. I thought that was all based on wish fulfillment.
Um, I just started reading Freud. I remembered, and a lot of other philosophers and existentialists, you know how it is. And I thought, well, that’s all just, uh, you know, we believe in an afterlife because we’re afraid of death and, and we don’t want to come to terms. So, and then I had a dog and I was feeding my dog.
Uh, I can see this in my mind even now. So I’ve got a can of dog food out and I’m opening up the cat and he knows exactly what I’m doing. He’s watching me, he’s excited and cause he knows that I’m about to feed him. And, and I’m observing him as he’s eating and I’m thinking at least a very intelligent creature.
Like he knows me. He knew that there was, that can represent a dog food. Uh, and plus I knew, like, he was aware of many things that I wasn’t aware of, like smells, sounds, but I thought, here’s something he doesn’t know. He doesn’t know how the food got into that camp. Like, he’ll never, he’ll never grasp it because dog brain, like it just doesn’t work like that.
Uh, he doesn’t know what the stars are. If he looks up at them, he doesn’t know what the moon is. He didn’t know that he’s been taken out of his natural environment and all these other things. And I the old, gee, Richard, you’re so damn smart. So your dog’s at this level. You’re at this level. What’s here?
What’s there, what’s there, what’s there? And it suddenly occurred to me. That my insistence on this complete like no transcendental reality or thought how. Ridiculously arrogant for me to say that. And then of course, as you go through life and you realize you go back and you look at people in the past and everyone’s always believed that they had it all figured out.
Like everyone go back to ancient Asia 5,000 years ago, talk to an Egyptian peasant living on the Nile. And he’d tell you, yeah, when that sun thing goes down, that’s the God RA. And he goes below the disk of the earth. It’s shaped like a coin and he’s going to be battling the demons of the underworld. You better hope he wins.
Cause if he doesn’t, the world will end like. That’s what they believed. We could look back and think, well, that’s really quite wrong, but we now believe we’ve got it all figured out. Like clearly we don’t. And more fundamentally, our brains themselves are the limitation. Like our brains are amazing. They can allow us to, um, engage in all kinds of incredible ideas and realities, but they have their limits.
And in fact, we understand some that the limits are. We organize reality spatially and temporally do space and time actually exist the way that our minds tell us. Well, even guys like Emmanuel Kant 200 plus years ago said, Nope, not really. And Einstein and others to kind of confirm that. So we know that our brains organize reality.
So with that said, I look at anomalies in our world today. As you, I think, you know, I published a couple of books by Mike McClellan, the owl guy, and Mike. Mike’s amazing, his work. Uh, to me, Mike is the true heir to people like Jack belay and John keel. In terms of looking at, uh. This synchronistic world that we live in with this meta intelligence that really, it does seem at times to be guiding us like where each characters in a video game.
It’s like someone out there saying, yeah, I’ve got, I have Alex Tsipras for a couple of years. I’ll have Dolan. Let’s have them do an interview in early 2020 okay, cool. Let’s put that on the calendar. Like I S I whimsically wonder if things like this, because there are very bizarre, very bizarre. Uh, anomalies and synchronicities that happen in this world.
And I don’t pretend that I know what it is, but here’s what I, why I’m getting into this. Because consciousness clearly is important in some fundamental way to the nature of our reality. There is no question in my mind anymore. We’ve done enough genuine scientific experimentation that can support that.
And, and secondly. We have an enormous hole in our and general understanding of reality itself. Like there’s things we don’t get. And so in that whole are things like UFOs in that whole are things like, um, you know, synchronicities and spirituality and, uh, maybe even like, you know, uh, definitely like psychic phenomena, PSI phenomenon, um, absolutely fit in there.
So we don’t get it yet. And I’m hopeful that we might one day have a better understanding of it. Um, I don’t consider it paranormal. I consider it, I consider those things normal, but we don’t have a full understanding of it. So back to grant and his whole focus on everything is consciousness.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:01:55] Well, you know
Richard Dolan: [01:01:55] what, maybe even before we met,
Alex Tsakiris: [01:01:57] I was going to say, why don’t we throw, was doing a little out of order.
Let’s throw Chris Bledsoe on the pie. Fantastic. Again, folks, you got to listen to these series of interviews, but before we do, do you want to just intro. Chris a little bit and tell people you know who he is. A little bit of the backstory, a little bit of the story of this four part interview series you did,
Richard Dolan: [01:02:26] and then got to play the clip.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:02:27] That really gets to the point of angel because I want to hone in on this good EET batty T and get to the really big stuff. I mean, is this God? But first, who is Chris Bledsoe and what did you do in this interview series?
Richard Dolan: [01:02:41] Chris, we may do a fifth part, by the way, I’m, I’m hopeful that we’ll do that. But, uh, Chris lives in North Carolina.
He’s, um, a guy who built, built homes for living as a nice big family, lots of kids. And had, he’s, he had an, he had a near death experience as a child, uh, which I think was significant, but essentially as an adult, yeah. Starting in 2000. Seven had a, uh, a remarkable UFO encounter with his son and three other men, uh, while they were fishing.
And in the aftermath of that had, has had a series of other very, very incredible encounters. I mean, the thing about his case that makes it so difficult is, um, the stories seem really fantastic too, particularly a modern temperament. Like. Encounters with what appears to be like an angelic being, multiple times and a balls of light.
And, uh, and he is convinced, by the way, that these are very benevolent beings and he’s had them repeatedly. But what, what makes his story hard to, to dismiss for me is a, the man himself. Uh, which I realize is not a very good source of proof. Like I really like him and I trust him. But on top of that, he’s had a lot of corroboration from other individuals who have been.
Around him when things have gotten crazy. That includes grand Cameron, that includes chase klutzy. That includes John Alexander, and I’m sure there are other people as well. they’re very close
Alex Tsakiris: [01:04:23] and they’re very close. As as is revealed in your interview series. He is the real deal in terms of,
Richard Dolan: [01:04:30] yeah.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:04:30] You know, you were talking about, uh, a tip and ping being a case that the United States government was very, very interested in.
They were on it. Moo Fon was on. It did a real head trip and have to wonder about some kind of covert activity all again. All this is spelled out in the interview because I can even see your kind of trepidation and talking about the angel stuff, but that makes it even more significant that Dolan was able, was willing to go there.
So without further ado, let me play the angel clip and then let’s talk about goody T batty.
Richard Dolan: [01:05:04] T.
Chris Bledsoe: [01:05:05] And the church don’t want to believe it. They think demonic. The move on the APOE world rejected it because of these individuals that were, uh, controlling the thing. And here I’m stuck and I’ve got these entities telling me, you gotta tell your story. You gotta tell your story. Tell what you know. And I told him upon, I believe there were angels.
I’ll just put it right out there and to do day. I’m pretty sure that’s what we’re experiencing. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Okay. There it is.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:05:42] There. It is indeed. And again, I just reemphasize this. I’ve done say to say the same thing over and over again. Listen to Richard’s four parts. This is a UFO case of the first daughter, you know, has multiple eye witnesses.
Reported consistent with all the other, not all the other, but with many other UFO cases. This isn’t a one off kind of thing. And then he drops the angel bomb on us, which we’ve heard in various ways that, Hey, we’re really talking about God here in some way or something close to or associated with what we.
Honor most of spirituality. What do you think?
Richard Dolan: [01:06:20] It’s, it’s amazing having talked with him and, uh, I’ll just point out those four interviews. I felt that I really, um, I told Chris, I said, I want to, I want to get the story out logically and thoroughly, and you have to allow me to ask you. Uh, questions that are going to challenge you, but I want to give you ultimately the opportunity to tell your story.
And we developed a very, I think, a very gentle rapport back and forth. And so I was very pleased about that in terms of his, um, okay. His account of things. He challenges me to be perfectly honest, like my instinct is to, I don’t like these types of cases. My instinct is I want, I want a material, physical nuts and bolts case to deal with.
I’m not going to lie like what I got into 25 years ago is this idea that there’s a physical phenomenon that’s out there that there are. Very likely beings of some sort that are running it out. They don’t seem to be us. They’re probably physical. Maybe they’ve got magical type technology that makes them seem spiritual.
Like this is how I would think it through. And as time has gone by that has been challenged. And Chris without doubt, it’s challenged it very, very strongly for me. So, um. You know, I’m at the point now in my life. I’m almost 60, which has shocked me. I’m 57 and a boy. A lot of water’s gone under the bridge in the years that I’ve done this.
And I would say I’m at a point in my life where, um, I actually do believe in a dimension of reality beyond this physical. Realm that we live in. And, um, I’ll, I’ll tell, I’ll share a story that I have actually I’ve told on my website, on the members site, but I’ve not said this publicly and I am happy to say it here.
My father died just over a year ago. He was a month before he turned 80 in December of 20. Um, 18. Right? Uh, he and I were quite close. His name was also Richard and w. I mean, I had very kind of tight relationship with him his whole life. He was a retired New York city cop, um, worked at the world trade center and had a September 11th to off that day.
Among other things. The man he shared his job with was killed that day, but my dad and I were always close and he died on December 2nd of 2018. Um. Living about 150 miles away from me. I, I’ve spoken with him on the phone earlier that day. And, uh, I didn’t expect he was in the hospital. He was not feeling well, but no one thought he was going to die.
Mmm. And then in that evening, at around eight 20 in the evening, I was sitting on the couch. Next to Tracy, we were both working on our laptops and I adjust, had two little ceiling lights installed like a few months earlier in my living room, and they were on a dimmer setting, a dim setting. And Tracy noticed at first she looked up and she said, look at those lights.
They’re going crazy. They’re going bright Dem, bright, dim, bright, dim, bright, dim, and may I, you know, I got it all worked out. My God, stupid lights, what’s going on with a Zack and I get up and I’m staring at the lights and I’m watching them freak like these lights is freaking out. I’m thinking. I got, I got that wiring myself.
I gotta know exactly what it was. I had a licensed contractor would install them. I watched them go in, they were rock solid, and I turn the light on and off a few times in jam to switch up and down the dimmer setting, and that stopped it. 15 minutes later, my sister called me to tell me that our dad had died 15 minutes earlier, and I think about that and I’m like.
All right, so is that just a coincidence? So some of your really skeptical guests who’d been on here in the past would say just a coincidence, but how many times do you have to have a coincidence like that to think something happened here? Now what really got me thinking was, how the hell would my father have done that?
Do you have flown instantly? 150 miles over the New York state? Throughway gotten into the wiring of my home and shattered. Hey Reggie, take a look at this. Like, is that what he was doing? Or. How did he arrive? And no, like if you want to go down this road to go to those lights, which had just been installed and which were on a dim setting and to play with them, like how does that whole thing work?
Like I don’t know how that works, but, but there’s something in our physics and yes, I’m going to just say, I choose to believe that somehow though my father’s death in that light phenomenon are related. I don’t know how it’s related. I dunno who did that or what that was, but that tells me, or it hints to me, that’s just one more example of our world giving us these hands that there’s something much bigger going on here.
And, and I’m with grant in the sense that, and I’m with Chris Bledsoe in the sense that I don’t think that it’s all negative, but I’m not with. I dunno, I dunno where grant stands on this actually, but I wouldn’t be with him if he were to say it’s all positive. Like I don’t believe that. I mean, Steven Greer would say it’s all positive too, and I strongly disagree with that.
I think, um. That’s just foolish. So I think that’s
Alex Tsakiris: [01:11:50] almost, to me, the third dimension of it, because I want to recap what you talked about, which I find so intriguing. The first dimension isn’t the proper word, forgive me. But the first question that pops to mind is, what is the interface with our physical reality?
Yeah. Cause we’re interested in that. We have this kind of curious engineering mind. How did he make the lights shift?
Richard Dolan: [01:12:12] Right, exactly.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:12:14] The second, yeah. I think question that pops up is what is the technology of the consciousness interface? And I think that’s particularly interesting because when we look at ITI and we start looking at the cases, there’s clearly, as grant pointed out in that clip we played from the 1950s we understood there’s mental telepathy as the means of communication.
And we go, well, shit, we don’t know how to do that. But apparently they do, and they have it like a, an app on their iPhone. So there’s a technology component to consciousness
that we just totally don’t
get. And it also relates to this time-space thing that we don’t get. But then the third dimension of it, which you just just touched on it and I think is so fascinating, and I really want to get to it because it gets to the heart of the video that you did with Tracy, and that’s the good.
Versus evil. The moral imperative. It’s so challenging because we’ve all gone through, you know, you said you went through an atheistic phase. Any thinking person doesn’t go through an atheistic phase, cause most of us are fed with this kind of narrow Christian dogma. You’ll get on the arc kind of stuff.
But when we. Blast past that. We’re still faced with, is there good and bad and how does that work? You’ve talked about grant, let me play what grant has to say about that and then I want to get your take and then I’ll have for my take on it.
Grant Cameron: [01:13:41] There’s good and bad. There is a moral difference. You know, take the most extreme example, the guy who’s, uh, taking little kids and cutting them up and selling their body parts and sexually molesting them.
That in my mind is, is bad. It’s evil. And then there were, there’s a bunch of shades in between. And then there some really wholly good people that, I don’t know how they do it, but they keep all their shit together and they really do it that way. How’s your universe? Is there good and bad? Cause some people in the consciousness camp say, well, there’s really no good and bad at all.
Just kind of, you know, well if you go to the noon stuff, no, if you get into reincarnation, it’s all experienced. If you,
the mistake you make is you, you, you did it in that sentence. You say, okay, this, these guys had cut up little people or whatever.
Okay. And then there’s these good people who
basically have it all together.
And I would go to, don’t have to quote the Bible,
Grant Cameron: [01:14:31] with the whole thing with the prostitute, Jesus said, lead. He who’s perfect cast the first stone. All you have, you do not have good people and bad people. You do not have good aliens and bad aides. You have
good deeds. And there is,
according to Ray Hernandez.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:14:47] Oh, shoot, I didn’t mean to cut that off, but I did. So let’s just, let’s just leave it right there. I do have to give a shout out to my friends at grime, Mira , who hosted this conversation between grant and I. But you get the gist of it. Yeah. What do you think?
Richard Dolan: [01:15:03] Oh man. You ever read the grand inquisitor by Dostoevsky?
Alex Tsakiris: [01:15:08] Oh no, that I’m aware of it. I can’t say that I’ve, all these classics, I just have an awareness.
Richard Dolan: [01:15:12] It’s an amazing, so if two brothers are debating, one is a pious. Priest to be. And one is an atheist intellectual. And, uh, the atheist wrote this story, the grand inquisitor. And basically he was talking about his, uh, his, his belief where he says, look, I don’t believe in a God.
I don’t believe that there’s any, any salvation enough that could justify, Mmm. You know, the kinds of crimes that. Torturing children or killing children or abusing people in such a horrible way. Like there’s no, when you take someone who’s innocent and you do such a horrible thing, uh, and you’re telling me God forgives all, uh, Ivan, the brother says, I don’t want that.
God, I rebel against that gun. Um. And you know, grant grants. I have never resolved this myself. I mean, honestly, I, I can tell you that I’ve struggled with it. Like, I believe in my heart that there’s good and evil. I do. And I know evil when I see it. And I know good when I see it. But I get Grant’s point here, like, you know, our world is a deltal.
Dot. It’s a little dot. And when you step back, you can see there’s this grand movement happening and, and when we do terrible things, why do we do terrible things? Is it because we, because you could say, maybe we lack. We lack the knowledge of the greater, the greater good. I don’t know where I stand on that.
Um, I may be struggling with that till the day I die. I mean, I can see both sides of it. I think in my daily life, absolutely one of the people who see as good and evil. So on a practical level, there’s good, and on a practical level, there’s evil and I didn’t know, probably going after evil people.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:17:01] Is it possible that E T.
Is representative of that dichotomy in individual cases because, you know, are there bad he T’s who were,
Richard Dolan: [01:17:14] I think
when people, uh, when people deny this, I think like, what did you just like fall off the turnip truck? Like how, how naive do you have to be? It’s like, imagine if we went back in history 2000 years.
Two or 3000 years are like ancient. Ancient Greece, you know, 2,500 years ago, and in our nice clothing with our little iPhones and our technology and our shiny teeth and our nice, you know, whatever we’ve got. And we talked to the Greek people there and they’d be like, wow, they’ve got their shit together.
You must’ve figured all of your problems out. Like you probably don’t even have any war. And we just look at each other and like, don’t say a word. Um, the fact is advanced. Technology and capabilities, clearly we have learned does not mean that we are any better or different ethically than those people.
We, we have changed in a lot of ways. It’s true. Like the overt kind of brutality that’s gone away. We’re, we’re transforming ourselves, uh, physiologically and evolutionarily because of civilization. That’s something I’d love to talk about because I think it’s affected our psychic abilities, um, to the worst.
But. But, but basically we’re still human beings. We’re still aggressive. We’re supposed to be aggressive. By the way, that’s a, that’s a canard that like, Oh, we’re all supposed to be peace loving and all that nonsense. That’s, that’s stupid in my opinion. Like you have to have aggression. If you want to survive in a world, like you have to be able to.
Fight, you have to be able to defend it, if nothing else, against wild animals, you know, you’ve got, you have to be able to do that. That requires, uh, certain qualities, particularly traditionally in men. That is testosterone, that is aggression. That’s like, that’s what you do to survive and to, uh, what we’re seeing, this is, I’m getting off track here, but we’re seeing our civilization really siphoning those qualities out of men and they’re siphoning other qualities out of women as well.
Um, but the fact is. That’s a good and bad. If we were to go back to that ancient period, those people might be fooled into thinking that we’ve got it all figured out and we don’t have it all figured out. And so if we move ahead and we look at these other species that are out there that have abilities that we lack, the real danger.
The foolish danger is that people will think, Oh, well, yeah, they would have, they have to be good because otherwise I would’ve destroyed us by now. Which is what you hear Steven Greer saying, and he’s been saying forever. You know, we would know if they were aggressive, they would’ve shown that to, which I would certainly beg to differ.
I don’t think that’s a logical point whatsoever. There’s lots of ways, uh, there’s lots of reasons that any life form should it least. If not, be mistrustful than at least be cautious when dealing with a new life form. Because the fact is, uh, I’m not a utopian, I’m a realist. And what a realist says is that, okay, all life forms and all species have their own goals.
And it’s not always win-win. By the way. That’s another bullshit ideology that we’ve taken on in the last couple of hundred years in our society that, Oh, it’s everyone can win all the time. I would say win-win happens. Sometimes it can happen and sometimes it doesn’t happen. It all depends on the circumstances.
So. I don’t know if these ETS are evil or, uh, some of them, or if they’re just following their own imperative for their own species and doing what they do, which might, might damage our interests. Like that’s totally possible.
Well, let me jump over and play devils.
Or it might help us, you know, and, and I guess last play the clip, but I would just say I’m not confident that.
We have a whole lot of information on the motivations of these beings. Talked in depth to David Jacobs. I’ve talked in depth to the love and light crowd as well, and like everyone’s got their own take on this, and I’m not convinced that anyone really has nailed it fully so that I, so that I sit back and think, Oh yes, this is the person who’s got it correct.
Like I just, I haven’t gotten to that point yet.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:21:30] I think David , David Jacobs is really interesting. Had him on the show a couple times, had a kind of threaded debate with him and Mary Rodwell, who you would kind of call more of the love and
Richard Dolan: [01:21:38] love
Alex Tsakiris: [01:21:40] and, and, uh, but I, I love respect Mary Rodwell because I respect her methodology.
Her protocol seemed solid. She seems very aware of that, you know, of, of how to do good clinical practice in terms of, um. Hypnosis, but Lee
Richard Dolan: [01:21:54] was fooled by the firefighter, turned himself blue on Skype. Just got to say that was a whole lesson,
Alex Tsakiris: [01:22:01] but you just run, you just kind of run the numbers. What I was going to really say for me at the end of that is, you know, I thought Barry was making a really good case and David is making really good case too.
And then I asked me and I said, David is insist on one thing, that it is a program, and she pauses and goes, well, yeah, it is a program. I was like, well, what? What do you mean? It’s a program? There’s an agenda. There’s an initiative. They are trying to accomplish something. I don’t see how that fits with your overall narrative, but let me digress further because I’m friend with, with Ray Hernandez, the beyond UFO, uh, people, they wrote that book and Edgar
A super nice guy. And the one thing that, that, uh, Ray has at this point is he has data and you can not like his data or you can argue with the methods of his that he used for collecting that data.
Richard Dolan: [01:22:57] My son’s yes. So I would just say yes and yes for me. Not sure.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:23:01] I’m not sure. I think you’d have to really drill into that.
You know, he has now partnered with Dr. Jeffrey Long, who was radiation oncologist from Louisiana, who has compiled the largest. Database of near death experience and having spoken with, uh, Jeff was New York times bestselling off there and very accomplished scientific researcher. A lot of people, uh, uh, kind of have negative things, disparaging things to say about those surveys, but they don’t do it in a very scientific way if their criticism is not scientific.
Because I always remind people that, you know, if you want to top out pain research. It’s experiential. If you want to talk about depression, research, grief research, so we have a pretty understood methodology for. Collecting, organizing experience. So you look at the way that Ray did it, I don’t find a lot of holes in his methodology.
Is his dataset as complete as it needs to be? Are people being left out of the conversation that would add a different flavor to it? I think that is possibly true, and I’ve been very direct and telling Ray that and say, don’t wind up on the wrong side of this by pushing your agenda too
Richard Dolan: [01:24:13] far. . And there is a definite agenda that’s being pushed on that by that book, which I’m uncomfortable with.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:24:20] I don’t, I don’t think,
Richard Dolan: [01:24:21] I think you’d have to
Alex Tsakiris: [01:24:22] back that up. I think you’d have to back that up. The port that the idea that there’s an agenda because what they would say is that the agenda and Brent camera’s right there with him. Right? I mean, he is part
Richard Dolan: [01:24:34] of the project.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:24:36] He would say that the agenda, if you will.
Fell out of the data. Now I know that to be true of the near death experience research and geez, like I say, please, I have too many interviews with trusted academic peer reviewed scholars, has been over 200 peer reviewed papers under death experience, and I get the same bullshit from skeptics. All the time.
They just don’t know the data. They don’t know the methodology. They don’t know the researchers. And then they say, Oh, that’s a Drenda agenda driven. And I’m like, who has the agenda?
Richard Dolan: [01:25:04] Not these guys know. We’re like, I want to jump in. So I actually agree with that last statement you’re making. I think skeptics are way, way, uh, they, they’re funny because they don’t realize how ignorant they are.
Um, my, my only critique, I think beyond UFS has. A lot of does have merit to it. So I don’t want to just dismiss the whole thing, but what I don’t like about it is, this is my understanding. Maybe you can correct me and I have not spoken with Ray, so I’ll just say that, but, uh, that it was, it’s all self-reported experiences.
And. Without, without any real investigation. So you and I both, I have spoken with countless people who have volunteered their experiences to me and they’ve told me their story and I’ll just tell you, like on a personal level, a lot of those people seem very credible to me, and a lot of them do not seem credible to me.
A lot of them do not seem credible to me. And a lot of them frankly, seem mentally unstable and mentally ill. and this is something no one ever talks about. But it’s definitely a reality. And the other thing is a lot of it is very ideologically driven. And I, I guess I’ll just say like new age ideology, so I’m a huge, from what I could gather, a significant portion of the respondents to that survey.
And I don’t know this for a fact, but they seem to be from basically Southern California, maybe Sedona, a very like new age cultural centers. Now I know that’s not entirely true, and, and I don’t know what the numbers are, but it strikes me as very high percentage. So you’ve got a very strong ideological component already going into that where.
All of those people, probably almost every last one of them will say, yeah, our space brothers, our galactic Federation are here to help us. Um, I have a nice collection,
Alex Tsakiris: [01:26:53] the little bit that I’ve, that I’ve looked into his research and spoken with Ray a couple of times, and again, I’m pretty, pretty well versed in how this research works.
And one thing I have to do is kind of dispel the notion that if you do the survey right, that shouldn’t come into play. So we can then look at the methodology that they use and say, Hey, their methodology failed in this respect. Like you’re saying, the sample size was not big enough. The sample size was skewed or biased in this way or that way.
But there’s ways to get around that. There’s ways to control that cause they do it all the time. Like I’m saying, if you’re doing a research on pain, you’re asking people the same questions. We rely on that. We have a method of doing it now in the people he’s had on board who helped him. Dr Leo sprinkle, dr Rudy shields, Harvard, a physicist.
I mean, he has a panel of very smart people
Richard Dolan: [01:27:39] that are good people.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:27:41] And, and again, like I’ve gone over this a million times, like in Paris, psychology research on, I remember Rupert Sheldrick, a biologist from Cambridge, and you know, he, he’s done all this research and then the skeptics, and then you talk to Rupert and he’s a pretty calm guy.
But then when you really get him wound up, he says, you don’t think I thought about that the first five minutes after I thought of this thing, I thought, how am I gonna control for sample size? How am I going to control for, you know, being skewed this way or that way. So people who know how to do this. Do it correctly.
So the question would be, someone needs to dig into that and say, here are the faults I see in the methodology, and I just throw one other thing. It’s like people say you can’t do online surveys. Well, there’s been all sorts of published work that suggests that online surveys are no less reliable than in-person surveys
Richard Dolan: [01:28:27] depending on the subject.
And by the way, I guess we should just tell people, I’m sure many listeners are aware, but this study essentially concludes that the vast majority of of, uh. What we might call alien or ETA encounters are very positive, very benign. I think it’s like 80% or more are very positive, uh, right. Something like that.
By the, by the respondents and something like 5,000 individuals, I think, uh, gave there, uh, data on this. So it’s a, it’s a fairly large survey. And, and I, I don’t think that you can’t do online surveys. I don’t think that that’s necessarily the case. But for something like. ETA experiences. I would be a little careful, you know, when I talked with David Jacobs, for example, about this.
So as you might imagine, David just would roll his eyes at that and think, Oh my God, they’ve got it all wrong. But his reasoning is as such a, he would say, because when you’re dealing with these beings, they deal in deception. And he said, when I, when I put someone through hypnotic regression, I’ve got to go several times with them.
I’ve got to go deep until. I can expect to actually reach something past all the mental shielding that’s there. Now. You can take what he says and say, well, you’re just, that’s just your way of, of, uh, peeling away whatever resistance to get to your preconceived notion of what, what that is. Um, who knows what is true here?
I don’t, I don’t really know, but I have, I don’t know how much. Doc I put in that, that that free study beyond UFOs, I’m just not sure, and it does strike me as a bit straight and I have to, I have to say like the way that they
Alex Tsakiris: [01:30:09] didn’t come across. Ray can come across as strident and I think, and I’ve said that in person, I’ll say it on the year, I don’t think that helps.
Him or helps what he’s trying to do. He
Richard Dolan: [01:30:21] have been like evangelistic for his
Alex Tsakiris: [01:30:23] PCP about that. He should be about the data and that’s how near death experience science has advanced because it’s always about the data and you take criticisms with the data to heart and you make the data stronger and stronger.
And I think you’ll see that in the future. It is a first step, and I do have to say, you know the other thing, if you drill into the data, which is always what I do with with Ray, when I talked to him, I said, Ray. Yeah. But you got ma, you got 15 or a, I forget what it is. I think by my account it was above 20% you got my lab.
What the F is a mine is my lab doing in there. This is if this is God you’re going to be in, in your near death and your near-death experience, life review, when ITI has to go through their life review, what are they going to say about that? My lab experience. What do they say about the reptilians raping?
You know, some, uh, some woman, what are they gonna say about that? What does the look like in their life review? I think that, that, that data is out there, and I agree with you too, the respect that I, that data doesn’t come through enough in Ray’s work. It is. Worrisome to me that data has to be in there because we, we do understand that to be part of this experience,
Richard Dolan: [01:31:34] I think.
Yes, I agree. I’m glad you mentioned that. I think that, um, the whole good versus bad T thing, a lot of it is guided by our, you’d almost say our, our political orientation liberal or conservative. I mean, it’s almost that simple. I think people who are by their natural personality would consider themselves very liberal.
Are much more likely, in my experience, in looking at this for 20 years, uh, to look at these beings as part of, you know, the galactic community and as good, and these are the people who are, I find more likely, Mmm. To interpret their telepathic downloads as a positive experience and so on. Um, and I think those who are more inclined to interpret this phenomenon in a, as an adversarial and negative way tend to be a little bit more conservative in their overall orientation.
That’s my own observation. I know there’s exceptions and the other, the other thing to distinguish is physical versus nonphysical contact. So when people tell me that they get a download or they have a non-physical encounter. I don’t, I don’t always dismiss it, but you’ve got to really bring me some reason to believe.
Whereas opposed to people who talk about physical encounters, I’m much more interested in those. And when you look at the physical encounters. Uh, that, you know, so I’m not sure what you would buy us.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:32:58] I’m not sure about your bias there, Richard. I mean, you’re to go back to flickering lights. I mean, I’ve heard this
Richard Dolan: [01:33:03] thing over and
Alex Tsakiris: [01:33:04] over again.
That is a non physical interface.
Richard Dolan: [01:33:07] I know you got me, you got me there. I’m going to admit that. Um, but it, it, and it is a bias. My bias is toward physical material encounters. I’m not going to deny that. So maybe that’s something I’ll have to keep working on. Um. I’m admitting that here, but, um, but, um, I’ll also say that a lot of people who have come to me with encounter stories, I guess all I would say is they’re not, they’re not always credible people.
And it’s not something that people ever like. We don’t like to discuss this in this field. We don’t like to talk about the fact that there’s a lot of seriously damaged. Individuals, I hate to say this, but there are a lot of damaged people who are drawn to this field sometimes because they’ve had experiences.
But sometimes, sometimes though, because they’re damaged and like, it’s hard to distinguish like what? Um, what is what, and, and I dunno if I relevant, be able to figure it out, but, okay. So. I have, I have a sympathy and I have, I have compassion for all of those people because you can tell they’re in pain.
But beyond that, I have to try to get to like what is true. And I don’t, I don’t know how to get to the truth of some of those stories. You know, went back in the days on, I knew bud Hopkins, I was at his place once, and he showed me all of his collection of photographs of scoop marks and Mark body marks and all of that.
He had a huge collection of that. Um. Bud was all about getting physical evidence and, um, to whatever extent possible, even even though we did hypnotic regression, uh, that was his, his predilection. And that’s, that remains mine because it, it’s, it’s something that I, I guess I can say I know how to do, like I know how to deal with the physical world.
Having said all of that. I’ve been struggling for the last decade or more and trying to incorporate a true understanding of consciousness into my understanding of you followG and of the, of the world itself. So I’m open to it. I don’t throw it out, but I, I try to, I try to treat it carefully. I don’t, I’m not someone who’s ever just going to embrace it because it seems like a good idea.
We have to find out a way to be, I don’t know how to be evidence based with some of this consciousness type of evidence. Um, maybe what res on onto is a good idea. Like you get, you do survey and you get as many people as you can get, but are, are all you’re doing is just getting social, you know, social prejudices and social ideologies instead.
Like, is that all you’re getting. And I, I suspect that a lot of it is what is getting is that he’s getting just people offering and ideological take on maybe an interesting dream experience they had, like something that might not be considered very strong evidence is being considered evidence in some of these accounts.
Do you think that’s, that’s an unreasonable objection or will do something to that.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:36:14] You know, I, I guess I, I’d go back, rewind it a little bit back to what you said is. We need somebody. We need both sides. We need somebody who’s out there willing to collect the evidence the best we can. Because you know the thing about the God thing, the angel thing with Chris Bledsoe or the God thing that, that grant Cameron mentions, which is really, I think, a punt when I say, and I agree with you, you know what I’m saying?
Well, there’s no good or evil and you know, uh, look at Michael Newton in between lives and it all works out and we’re here for a purpose. It’s like . I need something more than that, buddy. You’re, you’re going to have to explain the rape and torture of little
Richard Dolan: [01:36:52] kids
Alex Tsakiris: [01:36:53] system that you’re going to have to explain it
Richard Dolan: [01:36:54] to me.
How let’s of that kid’s parents.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:36:58] Yeah. Tell that to tell that to yourself. If you are a parent, tell that to yourself. If you’re a victim, if you have been purpose, this has been portrayed on you. Don’t we need to hear and respect your story? We don’t need to take it in then you know. Turn it into something that we imagined it to be inside of our
Richard Dolan: [01:37:16] thing.
And I just, I, I to say like, I think a lot of those people, I don’t, I don’t know about grant in particular. Um, and he is my friend, but I think aL a large number of those people who have that opinion, I really wonder how, how much of the world they’ve experienced, I truly wonder, like, have they really experienced truly.
Evil people. There’s a lot of folks in this world who’ve lived very insulated lives and they live in their own kind of bubble. So, um, I’m not inclined, you know? Yes, I understand. And the greater philosophical you step, take 10 steps back, you could see the big picture. There’s no good, there’s no evil. Okay.
You can make that argument. But in our world, I think there’s definitely good, and there’s definitely evil.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:38:04] But it does get complicated. I mean, that’s why it’s so interesting and I think it’s more than just fun. It’s, it’s important to kind of switch back to the Chris Bledsoe’s story, right? And say, here’s someone who’s run the gauntlet, done all the right stuff in terms of trying to understand his experience and seems to genuinely have come to the conclusion that is.
Unfortunately for you very much in line with what Ray is saying, cause that is kind of, that’s tress Bledsoe story. Chris Bledsoe story is repeated over and over again in Ray’s research, which is I was traumatized by this. I thought it was the worst thing in the world. And over time I came, I came to understand it as part of my path, part of my spiritual awakening and part of my spiritual journey.
And that. Opens us up like T to you, and to me, it opens us up to all sorts of abuse. We’ve heard that over and over again from every guy who’s spinning some culture, new age, religion, or even old world religion as a means to get us in manipulative scene controllers. But at the same time, I think we have to remain open to the possibility that there may be some fundamental truth to that.
And that’s why I’ve been so interested in the near death experience, because it does. No. Just to recap, people listen to show for it this like a thousand times, but the brain is out of the equation. The near death experience. Experience. Science has brought us to the point where we can say that we have resuscitation studies, we have studies of people who are under extreme anesthesia and cardiac risk.
We know that the brain is out of the equation there and now these people are having these kind of. Encounters and experiences that have this overlap with the E T experience, but also have this transcendent Chris Bledsoe angel God kind of thing going on too. So we’re kind of stuck with having to deal with both.
And I love
Richard Dolan: [01:40:07] right
Alex Tsakiris: [01:40:07] that you’re driving a stake in the ground on one hand and saying, I do have to hold. The Dolan line of evidence. And at the other hand, you’re still doing these fricking interviews and you’re going to do part five with Chris Bledsoe. That’s awesome.
Richard Dolan: [01:40:20] It’s totally true. And you know, it’s funny, um, is when I said a little while ago, like, there’s good and there’s evil.
I aye. Aye. I realized like, I better be careful with that cause like that’s, that can be a very, I mean, I’m realizing I’ve, I’ve contradicted myself probably about countless times in this interview already. And. And by stating that there’s absolute good and an evil. Well, actually I didn’t say that, and I said, there’s relative good and evil, but I still have to be very careful about that because when you think about international relations, for example, which is a very big interest of mine, um, you want to be really careful when you start equating the interest of one nation with good and another nation with evil.
Like that’s a really bad, bad mistake to make. Um. So I don’t like to make that mistake. So I just, I think on a personal level, there are evil things that are done in, on, uh, there are good things that are done. And I, I would maintain that, but, um, we do have to be careful. Like, I don’t like this. Well, I don’t like zealots and I don’t, I don’t like fanatics of almost any sort.
They scare me. And by the way, I think we’re living in an era where people are really becoming zealots in all different ways.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:41:38] I think it’s by design. I think there, that’s, you know, not to get political, cause I don’t play that. But I think that’s the role of a Donald Trump. That’s why I think Donald Trump, you know, and uh, and several people have come out and said this, this is an original.
But I think both those candidates were suitable to a certain group that. Cares about that stuff
Richard Dolan: [01:42:00] at a higher level than Hillary.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:42:03] I think both Trump and Hillary were acceptable to a certain ruling class that is the techno, a new world order banking, finance, intelligence, stuff that I don’t fully understand, but seems to always be in play, whether it’s nine 11 or whatever it is, but I think that one advantage of Trump for that certain.
Uh, the class above the classes is that it created incredible , divisiveness, so that people don’t think about the fact that the Patriot act was rubber stamped at the same time they were doing the charade about. Impeachment or the rest of this divisiveness is a good tool. If you were playing the game.
If you’re trying to, and I’m getting into this political rant, which I just never do, but,
Richard Dolan: [01:42:51] no, I, I think, uh, you’ve had some good points. I have a different take on Trump than you do, but I do believe absolutely. Um, that the divisiveness is something that’s, that’s. Definitely played up. And this is something, by the way, that the United States intelligence community is the master of doing around the world, but through a cold color revolutions.
And what we’re now seeing is that that model is almost being, is being brought back here to the United States, um, way of emphasizing cultural or linguistic, um, or ideological differences to divide people. So that’s definitely happening. Um, yeah, I look at Trump a little differently. Then, um, some of my very like left leaning friends look at him.
Mmm. But I, I mean, he’s not Jesus and he’s not Hitler 2.0. Like, I know I don’t either of those extremes. He’s, um. He’s a self-serving politician who probably didn’t even expect to run for president. Like I think, I think he did it from, from, I’ve heard this from two sources. Uh, he did it basically to increase his brand.
It’s personal brand. Uh, but I actually don’t believe that he was the. A tool of, um, of the elites, I think that would have for the Republican party. I, I would’ve thought Jeb Bush would have been much more amenable. I mean, the, the kind of, uh, the straight up neo-con globalist type of model, which grew America’s had for, uh, for many, many generations, Democrat and Republican both fulfilled that.
And Trump kind of didn’t as a candidate. He was actually. Um, you know, as a candidate, he was truly outsider.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:44:34] Well, I’m going to push this just a tiny bit further and then we’re going to wrap it up because you’ve been super generous with your time. But the political analyst in, one thing I’ve always kind of thrown out there is that I think we can go down the wrong path if we understand these maneuvers as being proactive versus reactive in a lot of cases. This is my take and I want to get your opinion of it. It’s not like someone is running a grand chess board. It’s more like they’re letting the game, kind of play out a little bit and they’re going, “Oh, what’s our next move from here?” They’re like jumping into somebody else’s game that plays out. And the same thing, like you mentioned at the very beginning of the show about disclosure, they don’t know if Tom DeLonge, if it’s going to hit, but once it does, “Oh, what do we do with this?” “Oh, you know what? We can do this with it. We can do it.” I don’t know, what do you think?
Richard Dolan: [01:45:24] I agree with you, I think that’s right. I think there’s a lot of reactivity. I’m glad you brought this up. I don’t believe think there’s like a 50-year plan on this, I don’t think there’s even a 10-year plan on this, but I do think that there are contingencies that are in place. And for example, in terms of disclosure, what I would argue, I’ve been saying this for a while now, especially the last six months where my take on this has really crystalized a little bit more. I think what we’re seeing are factions within the elite groups. So there is probably a disclosure friendly faction and there’s definitely a disclosure unfriendly faction and I think that TTSA, they’re in the midst of that. They’ve got a couple of people on their side within, you could say the deep state, that are helping and they have enemies, they have got lots of enemies in there as well.
Think of it this way, we know that there’s at least six, not just three videos, but at least six videos and probably more that they know about that they have not been able to get all of those other declassified. They got three declassified a couple of years ago and that’s it, they haven’t got anything ever since. It seems that Elizondo got a lot of that stuff released through somewhat deceptive means. John Greenwald has done research on this and uses that to criticize Elizondo from some of these emails in 2017.
What I would say is, Elizondo was just being a little weasel wording with what these videos were, not describing them as UFOs or UAP, in order to get them cleared. I think the people in the Pentagon who cleared them probably didn’t fully realize what they were clearing, so then they were cleared and the damage was done, they weren’t supposed to be cleared. That I give him credit for frankly, I think that’s kind of a smooth move, but I don’t think that’s going to happen anymore. So I think the gig is up for them and I don’t think they’ve going to get anything else cleared.
So I think they’re fighting their own little game here and it’s not a CIA op. I don’t care how many times some random…
Alex Tsakiris: [01:47:40] Hold on, because you just laid an awesome classic little Dolan factoid there that fits into the puzzle and kind of turns it in a way and I commend you for that. But come on Richard, it is all a laid, you just laid an awesome classic little Dolan factoid there that fits into the puzzle and, and kind of turns it in in a way. And I commend you for that. But, you know, come on Richard. It is all a PSYOP, it’s just all…
Richard Dolan: [01:47:57] Why? Explain please.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:48:00] Because you gave a presentation, it all depends on what you define as PSYOP. We had this, like pre-interview, this is good ground up, we’ll come full circle. We had this pre-interview thing and you were like, “Hey man, Alex don’t push that PSYOP narrative on me, it just doesn’t fit in this case.” Which I love, I love the pushback, I really do.
Richard Dolan: [01:48:18] That’s fine, do it.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:48:24] Here’s my point. Then I listened to your disclosure presentation in Copenhagen and I’m like, “Oh no, Dolan and I are totally on the same page on this.” You know, this is manipulated, this is done for a purpose, this is purposely done to get this reaction. So it all comes down to what you define as a PSYOP and I think you put it in very stark terms at the beginning, when you said, “We’re a post democracy, post constitution.” Well shit, and now that everything is a PSYOP, as a means to control and manipulate something, so it really…
Richard Dolan: [01:48:59] Okay, so I guess yes, to that, but whose PSYOP? So is TTSA doing a PSYOP? Do we just want to call that a PSYOP? If we do, then we’re kind of losing the meaning of the word. They’ve got their own spin, yes.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:49:15] Peter Levenda, PSYOP, PSYOP, PSYOP.
Richard Dolan: [01:49:21] Why? Like, why? I know Peter, I’ve spoken with him for years.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:49:26] I don’t know Peter directly, but to me he’s kind of come out as saying, lifelong players, lifelong spook associated with that and his story just doesn’t wash, the whole thing of like, “I met Tom DeLonge, I didn’t know it was him and we got together and said we have to blow the lid off this. The only place we can go is the CIA.” It just doesn’t ring true, but I digress there because you don’t have to agree with that, no one has to agree with that, it just sounds very, very suspicious.
Richard Dolan: [01:49:57] Well, okay. The only thesis I’ve ever heard from anyone who says that this is a PSYOP, particularly an intelligence community PSYOP is for the reason of amplifying fear by talking about a threat, a threat from these UAP. Elizondo does say that quite a lot, he loves that word, threat. On the TV show Unidentified, he loves the word threat or potential threat, he does it all the time.
So the idea is then that they’re using this threat narrative to frighten the public and then take your pick, increase defense spending for what? To protect against aliens or to do the UFO alien reveal and scare the shit out of people so that they come running to the state. That’s basically the thesis and I’m not persuaded by that at all, not even remotely.
When Elizondo is talking about a threat, I feel like I’m reading my first two volumes of UFOs and the National Security State. It’s got the exact same… What did I do in those books? I focused on military encounters with unknown objects that were, indeed seen as a potential threat. When you have unknown objects hanging out over sensitive nuclear installations that are not supposed to be there, where aircraft go to intercept and they zip off and do their thing, will hell, what is that supposed to be? Like any reasonable person responsible for air defense would have to consider that at least a potential threat.
The reason I focused on those in my books is for several reasons. One, because they have a paper trail, which is important. Two, they prove the US government is lying about its lack of interest in UFOs, but three, the fact that you’ve got these military encounters, it’s like almost a way of shaking the public and getting their attention. It’s like, “You’re not even looking at UFOs, you don’t give a shit about UFOs, you’re not talking about it, but take a look. Your military is being baffled by these again and again.”
So, I don’t think it’s an illegitimate approach, I do think you can overplay it, absolutely. But my take on why they bring up the threat, they are desperate. TTSA is at a point of desperation right now and people don’t even see this. They can’t get Congress to do inquiries. They had a congressional briefing. Well that’s good, but they haven’t gone any further, as far as anyone can tell. They get a little bit of press follow-up, some. The Trump White House isn’t doing squat, as far as we know. You can see these guys are doing everything they can do to say, “Hey, pay attention. We’ve got a threat here,” which, okay, maybe. It’s a tactic, that’s a spin.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:52:46] It’s a political battle.
Richard Dolan: [01:52:49] Absolutely. Is it PSYOP? I think if someone’s going to argue what TTSA is doing is a PSYOP, they have got to come up with a better argument than one I’ve heard so far.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:53:08] When you’re turning up the volume on the threat, when you’re turning up the volume on the global issue, which is the other card they’re playing, we can call it different terms, but number one, it’s political, like you just said. Anyone who doesn’t see it as a political thing, it is political and there’s this guy who sits in the White House right now and I can’t get over when I hear these conversations and no one ever… You’re talking about Trump and I’m not saying I’m pro Trump or against Trump, but you can’t have this conversation and not talk like there isn’t another side to this, there isn’t another group and often that’s kind of the conversation, we’re just going to carry on like, just one size.
So number one, that’s it. So the globalization thing and the threat thing, to me, when you’re turning up the volume of those, you’re playing PSYOP.
Richard Dolan: [01:53:55] Well, I mean, it depends on how you want to define what a PSYOP is. To me a PSYOP is explicitly something that I would associate with the intelligence community, manipulating public opinion through the media, for a particular end or goal. Like, that’s classically, you know, Operation Mockingbird who had all of its decades of operation and media control, which we all know is reality, THOSE ARE PSYOPs. PSYOPS can be done against domestic populations, they can be done against foreign populations. It’s a form of hybrid warfare, which the US loves to say that the Russians are masters at but the US itself is the master of hybrid warfare.
So, if I look at TTSA’s operation as a PSYOP, someone’s going to have to provide some reasonable evidence, more than the fact of saying, “Well, some of these people are ex CIA.” Sorry, that’s a weak argument, that’s a weak argument.
We’re at a point in our world, it’s disturbing to me, it’s almost like postmodernism has invaded ufology to this extent, where we are now arguing over someone’s bona fides and what we think they mean rather than listening to the damn words that are coming out of their mouth. I don’t find a lot of people listening to very smart articles by Chris Mellon for example, that he’s had on The Hill and he’s had on other places, on their website in fact, TTSA’s site. He’s put some very interesting information on there.
Instead, what people are doing is they think they’re smart enough to analyze behind his words into his true motivations, whatever they think that those are. That’s postmodern in my view. That’s like taking critical analysis to such an extreme that you’re actually not listening to the other person and what they’re actually saying. To me the most important thing is actually listening to what is being said and listening to the information that is being provided. That’s vastly more important than all these people who think, “Oh yeah, I know what they’re trying to do.” It’s like stop that, stop embarrassing yourself and stop embarrassing the rest of us by thinking you know what everyone’s motivation is and just listen. Like, what they have provided for the past two, whatever years, is a shit load of information that no one else has put out there yet. That’s the fact. They and they alone are responsible for nearly all of the US Navy’s admissions. They’ve been pushing that. They are responsible for all those New York Times pieces that, yes, the New York Times is the mouthpiece of the establishment but the fact is, when the New York Times publishes halfway decent articles on UFOs, which they did last May, in 2019 on the USS Roosevelt, that was a decent piece of journalism that Leslie and Helene Cooper and Ralph Blumenthal did. That’s TTSA getting that information out there, they are intimately involved in that.
So, those are significant things that they have done, and I find it disheartening. Like, the days are going to come when they’re gone, they don’t exist and they’ve broken up and we’re going to look back and think, “Wow, we treated them really shitty, while they were out there working and trying to move the ball a little bit down the field.” That’s what I think is going to happen.
Alex Tsakiris: [01:57:32] You know, that’s an awesome take and I’m going to wrap things up here, but I want to draw people’s attention to, again, if you’re interested in that last part of this discussion, the presentation you did Copenhagen because you lay out, in a very rich and systematic way, one after another. And one little thing I was going to pick up on is, you trace document and support the idea that that was the beginning of the disclosure movement. Everyone stops at the New York Times, like I do, I stop at the New York Times, I go, ‘Rah-rah-rah,” but you go, “No wait, that’s the beginning. Look at the next article that Leslie Kean publishes, look at this one, look at this one.” You can’t argue with that because you do a great job of laying it out.
Richard Dolan: [01:58:22] Let me say this, this is me contradicting myself again. I said we’re not in a disclosure era because it’s not a government promoted thing, but I’ll share with you something that Puthoff said to me in an email earlier this year. I’m trying to remember exactly what I asked him. Oh, this is in connection to the Wilson Leak. He used the phrase with me, he said, “Yep, it’s just more toothpaste out of the tube,” and I’ve been using that phrase for this year. It’s a really apropos statement. What’s happening is, with the disclosures of these various things that have been happening, it’s more toothpaste out of the tube. It’s not going back in.
So now we’re at a point where there’s a bit of momentum for the first time in our lifetimes, for the UFO subject actually to get a little bit more and better coverage in our official mainstream, yes, totally corrupt, corporate dominated media, but nonetheless, it’s getting more coverage. That’s very significant. And you’re seeing, there’s media people. Some people have very strong opinions about Fox but there’s Tucker Carlson who’s actually doing superb journalism on UFOs compared with any other person out in the mainstream. This guy, seriously, has said some courageous things about this and he’s done some good work on this.
So, there is definitely momentum happening. The only question is, how far will it go? The problem that I just see here is, I like the analogy of the irresistible force verses the immovable object. So the disclosure movement is possibly becoming an irresistible force, but secrecy is that immovable object and one thing you learn when you study the Eric Davis notes on the Admiral Wilson interview, is just how deep, how privatized and how deep and how secret a lot of the UFO secret and how difficult it will be to get this pulled out into the light of day. I don’t know how that’s going to work out.
DeLonge, last summer, dropped a couple of very interesting Tweets about this and people love to laugh and dismiss this guy, but he said a couple of smart things and one of the things had to do with, he said, “You think ATIP was the whole program?” He said, “Think again. We’re not talking tens of millions, try hundreds of millions of dollars,” and I’m guessing it’s more than that. But the other thing he said is, “If you really want to end this secrecy you need a fundamental legal revolution,” and I think that’s right. Like, the legality of this illegal business has got to change somehow and how to change it, this is a serious issue. The only thing that I can see is when enough people, when the culture changes, like the only way it’s going to happen is if the culture changes sufficiently, so that enough people realize, like, “This is really important, we’ve got to do something.” Then, when a lot more brains than ours are looking at this, talking about this and there’s actual pressure to open this up. Then and only then and maybe only then will we have a chance.
My big hope, with Bryce I wrote After Disclosure a decade ago, was, I thought something big could happen. We’re in an unstable civilization where there’s WikiLeaks and there are all of these other leaks and everyone’s got a camcorder or their phone has got video. I envisioned there could be big event that would happen, that would cause an avalanche and that avalanche hasn’t happened. What we are seeing though is drip, drip, drip, drip, and it’s becoming significant and I’m waiting for that avalanche. I think that’s still likely, when we get to a certain critical mass and I don’t know what that critical mass is. I don’t know what that will be.
Alex Tsakiris: [02:02:48] That is such an awesomely nuanced response. It is, like I’ve said throughout this interview, that is classic Richard Dolan. I don’t know if you’ve totally picked me up and turned me around, but yeah, kind of maybe turned me around a little bit.
Richard Dolan: [02:03:03] Well, you’ve turned me around on a few things as well on consciousness. It’s like a really fun little intellectual wrestling match that we just had here.
Alex Tsakiris: [02:03:13] No, there’s no wrestling with you man, you’re the boss, jui-jitsu, dojo master. And I mentioned this maybe in the pre-interview, on a Richard Dolan number, it’s like one of the best values out there for anyone who’s interested in this stuff, because you product so much great content and so much of it you give away for free, but there’s also stuff that’s behind a wall, as it should be. Can you tell people a little bit about what you do and stuff that’s coming up for you that maybe people should look out for?
Richard Dolan: [02:03:50] Absolutely, thank you Alex, and thank you for saying what you did about my site. Tracey and I run that and it’s a lot of work but I’ve decided, look, if I want to devote my life to this type of thing that I do, I have to figure out a way to make it work. So I can’t trust YouTube because the hammer is definitely coming down on YouTube in every way. So what I’ve decided is, I sell some books, I write books and sell those, but I’ve created this website, Richard Dolan Members, where it’s true, I put a tremendous amount of content out there for people who want to go to the site and people can complain, like, “Well, you’re trying to make money,” and I’m like, “Yes, I am trying to make money, we’re not 12 years old.” The people that say, “Oh my god, so and so is trying to make money out of this field,” like, are you a child? What do you think people do to live? It just never ceases to amaze me.
Alex Tsakiris: [02:04:47] Also, you know, I like the way people put it and it’s really true, it’s the value for value exchange. in. It’s really true. It’s the value for value exchange.
Richard Dolan: [02:04:53] Yeah exactly.
Alex Tsakiris: [02:04:54] If people view it as valuable, and what else are you spending your money on? And in a lot of ways we’re all becoming used to it more, right? So we pay for Netflix and then we go, “I already pay for Netflix, do I really have to pay for ESPN+?” Well yes, you have to pay ESPN+ and that’s just the way it is. So I agree, I think it’s a childish complaint and when you look at the numbers, getting rich?
Richard Dolan: [02:05:19] No, no, I’m trying to live.
Alex Tsakiris: [02:05:20] [Unclear 02:05:20] is getting rich, but Richard Dolan’s not making millions of dollars off of this, hopefully we’re supporting him to continue to do… Who else is going to do this research?
Richard Dolan: [02:05:30] There we go, thank you. Yeah, it allows me to live and I’m happy and it works. So this is a model and a system that is working for me for now.
But in terms of what I’m working on, in addition to doing the content for my site, which I’m very committed to doing, I guess I went in a couple of different directions over the last few years that I think I’ve sorted out finally. So I thought I was going to do a whole false flag book, that was my big, big thing for a while and that can still happen frankly. I have a tremendous amount of research on the history of false flags that I can and probably will turn into a book. But I decided, maybe a year ago, that I was going back fulltime into UFOs and that means a third volume of UFOs and the National Security State, which is a dreaded project that’s been hanging over my head for a while, but I feel like I can do it now.
The only other thing that might get in the way of it is if I do a quick little 150 page book on the last two or three years of ufology, Ufology Turned Upside Down, which to me is a fascinating story, but I may incorporate that into volume three of National Security State.
But that’s what I’m working on. I have just reorganized my main office, which was in an absolute state of disaster for the last year and a half and I can work there, and I can actually get some writing done. So that’s my goal for 202, is to focus as much on my writing as I can. The problem is, frankly, it’s a problem and it’s not a problem, people invite me to speak at various places and do various things and I enjoy those, but those take time out of my work and it’s hard. I’ve been turning a lot of events down because I have to stay home, and I’ve got to be able to focus on my writing and my work. So I’m doing some travel but hopefully not as much as I’ve done in the past.
Alex Tsakiris: [02:07:38] Well, we’re counting on you to get in that office, crank it out, like only you can do it. Richard, it’s been an absolute delight, a pleasure, so much. Thank you so much for joining me and spending so much time with us and we’ll stay in touch.
Richard Dolan: [02:07:53] I would do this again, just to let you know, I’ve enjoyed this very much. It’s a great conversation, so thank you for having me on Alex.
Alex Tsakiris: [02:08:00] Thanks again to Richard Dolan for joining me on Skeptiko, what a great guest, what an open and welcoming guy for someone who has done all he has done inside of this field. It’s just amazing to talk to him.
So, one question I’d have to tee up from this interview is toothpaste. Is toothpaste good or is toothpaste not good? If you remember from this interview, Richard’s point, I think if I got it right was, squeezing that UFO disclosure toothpaste out of the tube is probably a good thing and maybe we shouldn’t come down so hard on those who are trying to do it. Or maybe we should consider all the aspects of what they’re doing before we criticize them, as I sometimes do.
So if you’d like to tee up that question with me and other folks who listen to this show, please join us over on the Skeptiko Forum, which you can find all our shows there and you can talk to everybody about them. You can also go to the Skeptiko website of course, and download any of these shows for free. No ads or firewalls and you’re free to share them around and redistribute them. The idea is really just to get this information out to people who need it. So if you know someone who needs to hear this information, please share the show with them.
I have some great episodes of Skeptiko coming up, I think. This one was terrific. Again, it’s so cool to talk to a guy like Richard Dolan who can, kind of go up to the big picture but can also dive into the details, great stuff. And I have some really terrific ones coming up too, I think. So please do stay with me for all of that. Until next time, take care and bye for now.
More From Skeptiko
- Gary Lachman is an author with a lot to say about culture, the occult and the dissolution of the rational. Subscribe: Click here for Gary Lachman’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-518-gary-lachman [00:00:00] Speaker 1: Well, you …
- Joseph Atwill has changed the way we think about conspira-history. Subscribe: Click here for Joseph Atwill’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-517-joe-atwill [00:00:00] Speaker 1: I’ve seen VF a million dollars up. [00:00:03] Speaker 2: open up …
- Dr. Myke Merrill is a trainer, consultant and pastor who thinks there are no bad emotions? Subscribe: Click here for Myke Merrill’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-516-myke-merrill [00:00:00] Adam 22: Lil Nas X has pissed off …
- Dr. Sara Gorman and Dr. Jack Gorman offer strong opinions about science as they know it. Subscribe: Click here for Sara and Jack Gorman’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-515-Sara-Jack-Gorman Sky News Australia, Promo: [00:00:00] There’s no …
- Nick Cook, has a new book on Ingo Swann and lots to say about the UAP Preliminary Assessment. Subscribe: Click here for Nick Cook’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-514-nick-cook Speaker: [00:00:02] Call to serve. It has …
- Mark Ireland, helps grieving parents understand after death communication. Subscribe: Click here for Mark Ireland’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-513-mark-ireland Speaker 1: [00:00:00] Neurological symptoms are getting worse. I mean, I said one of you, angel slash …
- Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy, on the pitfalls of writing about ancient Roman history. Subscribe: Click here for the Adrian Goldsworthy’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-512-adrian-goldsworthy Adrian Goldsworthy: [00:00:00] If you write about you know, I’ve written about Caesar, …
- Bruce de Torres has used to acting skills as a lens for reexamining our history. Click here for the Bruce de Torres’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-511-bruce-de-torres Audio Clip: [00:00:00] Where the hell are you? Are you in …
- Dr. David Skrbina isn’t afraid to go where other academics dare not go… like the Unabomber, panpsychism and Jesus. Click here for the Dr. David Skrbina’s website Click here for forum Discussion skeptiko-510-david-skrbina So I was getting ready to …