Sunday 26 January 2020

Disclosure or Psyop: Richard Dolan on skeptiko

"Richard Dolan, UFO Disclosure, Toothpaste Out of the Tube? |438|." Premiered on skeptiko Youtube channel on January 21, 2020. Duration: 2:10:09.

Richard Dolan on UFO disclosure, good versus bad ET, and the consciousness question. For more visit: https://skeptiko.com/richard-dolan-uf...


Introduction

This is a great conversation between host Alex Tsakiris and Richard Dolan. Since some of the most interesting and thoughtful topics in the interview are not always on the UFO subject, I highly recommend everyone to listen to the conversation in its entirety. You can find a transcript of the conversation on the following link: https://skeptiko.com/richard-dolan-ufo-disclosure-toothpaste-out-of-the-tube-438/.

Even though Tsakiris and Dolan cover many different issues with the UFO phenomena, the conversation`s main focus is the nature and purpose of what started in October of 2017 with To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences´ (TTSA) press conference. Was it the beginning of a benign disclosure of the truth of the UFO phenomena, or was it a rollout of a psyop? Or is something else going on? And what are the arguments for or against those different points of view?

So in the following,  I will reflect upon the main topic of disclosure or psyop. Hopefully, I can add something new to Dolan´s and Tsakiris´conversation on the main topic. My comments and reflections come in part 2  and part 3.

1. Disclosure or psyop?


Let us start with some background to their discussion about "disclosure or psyop?", which host Tsakiris brings up for the first time in the interview (they keep returning to the topic through the whole interview) at 10:45 minute mark.

Tsakiris starts off the conversation about disclosure by playing a short segment from Dolan's presentation "The New Face of Disclosure" in Copenhagen in July 2019. If you have not watched and listened to that presentation - I highly recommend that you do - you can find it here.

What Tsakiris more specifically asks Dolan before playing the clip from the Copenhagen presentation is what he thinks about disclosure today, and 10 years after, he wrote the book After Disclosure with co-author Bryce Zabel. The clip from Dolan's Copenhagen presentation ends with Dolan saying:
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?”

I will return to that quote further down in parts 2 and 3. Before the real discussion between Tsakiris and Dolan begins, the former plays another clip from a discussion between Tsakiris and journalist Leslie Kean, in which the two disagree whether the articles in the New York Times (NYT) in December 2017 were a "controlled released", a "political psyop" (Tsakiris´ standpoint), or not (Kean's standpoint).  Richard Dolan agrees with Leslie Kean that we are not dealing with some kind of "psyop."

The conversation between Tsakiris and Dolan continues with a somewhat lengthy discussion about TTSA, but what I want to point out so far in the discussion is the two different standpoints: Tsakiris thinks we see a "political psyop", and Dolan disagrees with that.

But what is Dolan's standpoint on the question of disclosure or psyop? At the moment, he thinks, or believes, it is neither. That is another important point to observe so far in the interview and the entire interview.

My take on Dolan's standpoint is that he is careful, patient and thinks it is still too early to draw any conclusions with high certainty. I respect him for that. I also respect him for actually listening to and keeping his mind open to opinions and perspectives that he does not agree with. Keep that in my mind when you watch and listen to the conversation between Tsakiris and Dolan. Tsakiris also expresses his respect for Dolan's approach, and I think Tsakiris himself is doing a good job at being open-minded and listening to Dolan's opinions. My point is, the attitude that both Tsakiris and Dolan have in the conversation should act as a template of how to debate with someone with an opposing view than your own.

In the video above, and/or by reading the transcript on skeptiko´s website, you can follow Dolan's and Tsakiris´ arguments for their respective standpoints in more detail. For now, I want to stop for a moment and reflect upon what Tsakiris and Dolan discuss around the 22:42 minute mark. 

At that timestamp, Tsakiris expresses his belief that this "political psyop"-nature of what started in October (TTSA's press conference) and December (NYT UFO-articles) of 2017 goes back to the Hillary Clinton and John Podesta camp. Hillary did not win the election, but they rolled out their "controlled release" of the truth of the UFO phenomena anyway and did it through TTSA. Therefore, Tsakiris thinks TTSA is a part of a "political psyop".

A long story short, Dolan disagrees with the notion that Hillary Clinton would have been the president of the US to once and for all disclose the UFO phenomena. I agree with Dolan, and I think the reason can be found in the first quote above by Richard Dolan:
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?”


2. Is it reasonable to expect an official disclosure?


How does any government, but the U.S. government (USG) in particular, announce to their citizens, and the world, that we (the government) have known for years that not only are UFOs real, but their "occupants" are not from Earth, and they have visited us for a long time?

And as any person familiar with the UFO phenomena/subject knows, such an acknowledgement is just scratching the surface, so to speak.

That is, if you say "A", then you eventually have to say "B", "C", and so on. The question is, of course, what is behind "B", "C", etc., and how far down the alphabet does the secrecy go?  Crash retrievals? Reversed engineered technology and energy sources? Bodies of extraterrestrials? Abductions? Paranormal and parapsychological phenomena?

Now, go beyond the meaning of those topics (abduction, reverse engineered technology, etc.), assume any of them has happened/is true, and then think about the psychological implications for the average citizen becoming aware of, for example, abductions, by an official acknowledgement.

I think "the ontological shock" (as John Mack talked about it) alone is a powerful reason for official disclosure of the UFO phenomena is unlikely to occur.  I have written about this in several of my previous posts, for example, here. It is a post from September 2018, but my views on disclosure or not, reasons for the secrecy (or "official silence"), etc., are fairly the same today.

So, yes, I think Dolan goes to a core reason for the secrecy, cover-up, silence, or whatever term you want to use, of the truth of the UFO phenomena: The reactions of the citizens, what actions against the government that could ensue a disclosure, and uncertainty in society at large. 

At the same time, I think it is unfair to put all the blame, anger and disappointment on the USG. Because how much insight does the USG have in the UFO issue? How many people in the Pentagon, the Department of Defense (DoD), in the Congress and so on, are "read in" on the UFO phenomena, or even aware of the depth and complexity of the secrecy?

Nevertheless, many governmental officials have too much to lose in a disclosure scenario; financially, legally, public humiliation, loss of power, position and control, and who knows what.

However, as Dolan has pointed out on many occasions, the "military-industrial complex" and the intelligence community are not monolithic entities. Like in any other formal or informal group of people, there will be a dynamic between different personalities, values, and preferences. There will be more or less hidden alliances or factions within the bigger group.

In my mind, group dynamics can be one of the biggest chances of disclosure. "Everything changes. Noting stays the same."

We usually talk about the "human factor" when some kind of error has occurred (for example, plane crashes). My vote is that the human factor in the case of disclosure will be seen and talked about positively. Either that people inside the government and military structure make disclosure happen, or that an enlightened public and mainstream media will force a realization of disclosure. Or, more likely, a combination of both.


3. Why I think it's irrelevant to talk about a psyop or a genuine disclosure


What about Tsakiris' standpoint of a "psyop", which he is far from alone to have? In a way, I have already answered why I do not think of what we are seeing and experiencing since the end of 2017 as a psyop. But I will repeat my reasons in a more concise, and hopefully, in a more clear way:
 
1) To explain and understand what started in October and December 2017, I think we have to focus on the information about UFOs/UAPs which have come out in the public domain. What have the consequences been of that information made public: More secrecy or not? More or fewer leads for researchers to dig deeper? More or fewer chances for researchers/journalists/citizens to discover and uncover wrongs? More or fewer possibilities for lawmakers and senators to know where to look, what to do and say for better insight into the secrecy and change the bureaucracy?

2) If you agree with me that, except on the first question above, the answer to the rest of the questions is "more", then I think you can also agree with me that the issue of a genuine disclosure/confirmation or "psyop" becomes a bit more irrelevant. Why? Because we already have enough information (I include current witness testimonies) to use as a tool to push for official disclosure. We do not really need anyone else to feed us more information or make disclosure happen.

3) Therefore, to focus on "psyop" or "disclosure" is to miss the goal. It is irrelevant what we think or believe is happening because the relevant information is there for anyone to do something constructive.

Of course, I do not mind if more information will facilitate ending the secrecy coming out in the public domain soon or that more brave witnesses will step forward. That would be great and much appreciated.

But my point is, let us focus on the information already out there (not only recent info, but there is also a lot to discover and uncover in the research done through the era of modern UFO history), and make the most of it.

I will end this post with what I think is one of the most important points that Richard Dolan makes in the conversation. Dolan's point comes in relation to that Tsakiris some seconds before has argued that TTSA is using the globalization and the threat card in its narrative. Therefore, according to Tsakiris, TTSA is part of a psyop.

Dolan's point starts around the 1:54:40 minute mark. I have taken out a part of a much lengthier reply by Dolan. Still, I think the part below says something important, not only about the ufo community but about the current mindset of much of the (Western) world's population:
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. (Transcript by skeptiko.com.)

I agree with Dolan's statement above. Like Sigmund Freud once said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Yes, the most important thing is to listen to the information provided. You cannot start your interpretation and understanding of what someone is saying by first ascribing him or her with motives and intentions. Usually, it takes time to get to know someone (their upbringing, background, values, life experiences, and so on). Before you actually know a person in some depth, it is precarious to attribute that person with good or bad motives.  

Now, the crux of the matter is that people can be equally good at listening and hear the same words but still make different interpretations of what a person meant to convey by those words. It is very complex when you think about what is happening in a sender (the one who talks) and a receiver (the listener) situation. We perceive not only and interpret the meaning with our ears, but with our whole body (eyes, "gut feeling", and other sensory experiences). 

It gets even more difficult to interpret or guess a person's intentions when reading a text or in any situation where you cannot have a conversation and get to know a person (nothing can replace a face-to-face conversation in real life). Furthermore, what you hear and how you interpret another person's communication (and their personality, intentions, etc.), strongly depends on your own personality, which, in turn, is shaped by nature and nurture.

My point is that what and how you think about other people, their intentions, and personalities reflect who you are and what you believe about human nature. 

Sometimes information is just information. To evaluate what kind of information you are receiving and dealing with, you foremost have to be self-aware and carefully analyse the information and your own reactions to the information. A critical analysis is as much about having a critical mindset to the information as having a critical mindset to your own way of thinking about the information.

Why did you react to and think about the information in the way you did? Which of your reactions (your own prejudices, biases, etc.) did you possibly generalize to the sender of the information? And what do your generalizations and/or projections to the sender of the information say about your assumptions, biases, prejudices, and so on? So, are you assessing the sender or the information from the sender?

Answer those questions, and you are one step closer to determine if the cigar is just a cigar or if it represents something else. Sometimes it is both. It is a tricky thing and takes some effort to do critical analysis in the right way. But if you start at the right end, your chances of getting your analysis as accurate as possible increase. So start with the information, not with the sender of the information. 



Take care!
/Janne



















No comments: