Richard Dolan interviews ex CIA official about UFOs

#1
Here's an interesting interview I stumbled upon:


Sounds like the perfect plot for a spy/sci-fi movie. Don't know what to make of it. The gentleman in the interview is anonymous although he put his face on camera, I am not sure if Dolan was able to check his credentials or what he could find about him.

What do you think?
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#2
Talk about synchronicity, Bucky. Two days ago I wrote this on another thread (unless you read my post ;)):
Right this moment I'm in the Roswell maze. Friedman with Crash at Corona had me convinced a crash occurred with aliens in it (or two crashes rather), then Pflock with Roswell Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe pretty much turned me completely around and brought me to believe it was most likely a Mogul balloon Project, but now reading Friedman's Top Secret/MAJIC, he's got me seriously considering the validity of the Majestic-12 document. :D
I'd add that continuing Friedman's Top Secret book, I'm no longer so sure Pflock had it right either.

Regarding this new "witness": apparently he's been "authenticated" by another researcher:
“This gentleman has received numerous threats from his government not to talk, but he wanted this testimony to be presented and we agreed. He has only been interviewed by two researchers who are here today, Linda Moulton Howe and Richard Dolan,” he said.

After the screening Linda Moulton Howe authenticated the former CIA official’s credentials and his account, telling the hearing she had spent three days with him in which she had recorded eleven 90 minute audio tapes in 1994. She said on her return to her home after the three days she had received a phone call from him saying he and his wife had been threatened with retaliation if they went public and she could not release the tapes.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/39890-cia-official-breaks-silence-on-extraterrestrials/
It's hard to know what to make of it, or how one could go about making anything of it. My 2 cent thoughts:

First, I wonder why he won't give out his name since he's dying and is revealing his identity otherwise.

Second, and more importantly, I get more than a little suspicious that Eisenhower wouldn't be informed of MJ-12's reports, since the original MJ-12 document available, if it's legit (there were later ones that were definitely hoaxes after the original was released), is a document addressed to him (as president-elect, late '52).

Friedman also studied the "Cutler-Twining memo" of 1954 (Twining a member of MJ-12) that supports the notion that Ike met with MJ-12 one day that summer.

Also, why would just this "lowly" single CIA official, and whoever his boss was, alone together (by the sounds of it), be told by the president and vice-president to send this message back to Area 51 and about their "threat" to invade Area 51 if they don't collaborate, and then report back to them and Hoover? A little difficult to swallow. (Never mind the "threat to invade" itself.)

Based on this, I have trouble buying into the story. But who knows?

---

The MJ-12 document can be read here:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/documents.html

Note how the FBI site gives access to it but has officially labelled it "bogus" ;):
http://vault.fbi.gov/Majestic 12/Majestic 12 Part 1 of 1/view

EDIT:
For anyone interested: read here to inform yourself about Stanton Friedman's investigative work on the MJ-12 document(s):
http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=book_reviews&fdt=2003.01.10 (here through a review of a book challenging the legitimacy of MJ-12)
http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2004.04.15
 
Last edited:
#3
Very good points. I agree Friedman is a "top gun" in his field, it's pretty difficult that he overlooks anything.
As regards the CIA witness I am also very suspicious. The story in general is too unsophisticated and, unless he doesn't have any relatives, I don't see why the secret services couldn't have threatened him and his family again. He might be soon going to push up the daisies but what about his family?
 
Last edited:
#5
As regards the CIA witness I am also very suspicious. The story in general is too unsophisticated and, unless he doesn't have any relatives, I don't see why the secret services couldn't have threatened him and his family again. He might be soon going to push up the daisies but what about his family?
The "sophistication" of hist story is irrelevant. And there are more than a few instances of dying people revealing things that put their families in danger. So your points of questioning don't stand up. In investigating I'd start with would be the motive for him conjuring up such a tale?
 
#6
Interesting to see how many people use "that makes sense to me" as a measure of actuality.
So, what measure do you propose instead?

The "sophistication" of hist story is irrelevant. And there are more than a few instances of dying people revealing things that put their families in danger. So your points of questioning don't stand up. In investigating I'd start with would be the motive for him conjuring up such a tale?
It's almost impossible to read a post of yours that doesn't contain the word "irrelevant". Is it some sort of mannerism? :)

It's actually very relevant, some aspects of the story have cartoonish aspects to it ... the idea that he was threatened earlier and decided to "retreat" but now somehow he's no longer a target, while instead the bad guys could easily target his family which is even worse.

He puts his face but wants to remain anonymous. Strange, could be legitimate privacy concerns... The other questionable points are well articulated by Ian Gordon in his first post.

In investigating I'd start with would be the motive for him conjuring up such a tale?
Ever heard about disinformation? How do you know the guy is really sick? Maybe he's just fine and he's selling Dolan a lemon.

Given the difficulty in validating the sources and discriminating info from dis-info in the UFO field it's always best to keep an open mind but checking the credentials and motives of those who we let inside ;)

Personally I respect Dolan for his hard work in the field and historical ufo investigations, and have enjoyed reading his books so far.
 
#7
So, what measure do you propose instead?


It's almost impossible to read a post of yours that doesn't contain the word "irrelevant". Is it some sort of mannerism? :)

It's actually very relevant, some aspects of the story have cartoonish aspects to it ... the idea that he was threatened earlier and decided to "retreat" but now somehow he's no longer a target, while instead the bad guys could easily target his family which is even worse.
First, if we're going to the silly hyperbole thing - "It's almost impossible to read a post of yours that doesn't contain the word "irrelevant"" - let's just not.

It's not relevant because what you see as "cartoonish" is more about your assessment than any indicator of actuality. People do things regularly that to others seem nonsensical, strange and/or silly.

I'm not claiming that he is telling the truth. Just pointing out that I don't see the parameters used to gauge that as being effective ones.
 
#8
It's not relevant because what you see as "cartoonish" is more about your assessment than any indicator of actuality.
Of course it is my assessment. People participate in forums discussions by expressing their own assessments :)

I'm not claiming that he is telling the truth. Just pointing out that I don't see the parameters used to gauge that as being effective ones
Sure, and that's your assessment. Thanks for providing it.
 
#9
Of course it is my assessment. People participate in forums discussions by expressing their own assessments :)


Sure, and that's your assessment. Thanks for providing it.
I used an imprecise term. By assessment I mean " bringing preconceived parameters to bear" IOW you are not effectively assessing the specific situation. As for my "assessment" - it's a fact but I wanted to put it politely. :) "Far-fetched" is not a measure of actuality.
 
#10
I will have to ask it again:
Saiko said:
Interesting to see how many people use "that makes sense to me" as a measure of actuality.
Saiko said:
Just pointing out that I don't see the parameters used to gauge that as being effective ones
What do you suggest to measure the actuality of the case?
What are the proper parameters to gauge this testimony?
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#11
If you're talking to me Saiko, I drew out specific reasons, based on data, why I think the story is less believable to me. I didn't just say "that doesn't make sense to me".
In investigating I'd start with would be the motive for him conjuring up such a tale?
That would actually be quite a bad way to start. Top, serious UFO researchers, like Friedman or Pflock, have discovered after years and years that witnesses thought previously to be trustable with no apparent motive for "conjuring up a tale" were. And at some point they stop twisting their heads trying to find the motive, you can't. I bet if you'd ask an actual expert like Friedman - he'd say he needs more precise dates and names to start going through archives, making Freedom of Information Act requests, and so on, to try to see if the guy's story can be checked out in any way. E.g. can the people referred to be traced to actual persons, were they where they were said to be that specific day, etc. etc. In the little we hear in the video, there are little to no specifics.

If you had been this guy, wouldn't you have noted down in your mind that, say, November 5, 1958, was the day when you actually saw alien ships???

Mind you, the guy could be telling the truth (or the truth as he remembers it). But I'd need more to be convinced. (NOT because I think space ships or aliens is a wacky idea, but because of what I wrote.)
Ever heard about disinformation?
Exactly. I almost made that point myself in the first post. At first, hearing his story, I thought "or maybe his boss was a disinfo agent, or his boss's bosses".

Hopefully we'll find out more when the documentary arrives:
This testimony will be included in an upcoming documentary titled Truth Embargo.
http://consciouslifenews.com/deathb...ormer-cia-official-interviewed-richard-dolan/
The upcoming film has a website:
http://www.truthembargomovie.com/TruthEmbargoMovie.com/TRUTH.html
although at the bottom it says only 2% of the funds needed have been collected!
 
Last edited:
F

Frank Matera

#12
Talk about synchronicity, Bucky. Two days ago I wrote this on another thread (unless you read my post ;)):


I'd add that continuing Friedman's Top Secret book, I'm no longer so sure Pflock had it right either.

Regarding this new "witness": apparently he's been "authenticated" by another researcher:
It's hard to know what to make of it, or how one could go about making anything of it. My 2 cent thoughts:

First, I wonder why he won't give out his name since he's dying and is revealing his identity otherwise.

Second, and more importantly, I get more than a little suspicious that Eisenhower wouldn't be informed of MJ-12's reports, since the original MJ-12 document available, if it's legit (there were later ones that were definitely hoaxes after the original was released), is a document addressed to him (as president-elect, late '52).

Friedman also studied the "Cutler-Twining memo" of 1954 (Twining a member of MJ-12) that supports the notion that Ike met with MJ-12 one day that summer.

Also, why would just this "lowly" single CIA official, and whoever his boss was, alone together (by the sounds of it), be told by the president and vice-president to send this message back to Area 51 and about their "threat" to invade Area 51 if they don't collaborate, and then report back to them and Hoover? A little difficult to swallow. (Never mind the "threat to invade" itself.)

Based on this, I have trouble buying into the story. But who knows?

---

The MJ-12 document can be read here:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/documents.html

Note how the FBI site gives access to it but has officially labelled it "bogus" ;):
http://vault.fbi.gov/Majestic 12/Majestic 12 Part 1 of 1/view

EDIT:
For anyone interested: read here to inform yourself about Stanton Friedman's investigative work on the MJ-12 document(s):
http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=book_reviews&fdt=2003.01.10 (here through a review of a book challenging the legitimacy of MJ-12)
http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2004.04.15

I love Stanton Friedman's work... but I think there are even some things he has come to the conclusion on which I just cannot agree with.

His conclusion about Robert Lazar is one in particular where I think Stanton came to a certain conclusion about Lazar being a fraud... and is stubbornly sticking to it regardless of what new information has since come forward... or things about Lazar that cannot be dismissed as easily as Friedman would like it to be.

As for the new CIA guy in this video... who the hell knows. One thing I have learnt though is just because it sounds fanciful or unlikely doesn't mean it is. If you had told me 12 years ago that the US knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance I would have thought it completely implausable and ridiculous based on what I knew then as "sensible".
 
#13
His conclusion about Robert Lazar is one in particular where I think Stanton came to a certain conclusion about Lazar being a fraud... and is stubbornly sticking to it regardless of what new information has since come forward... or things about Lazar that cannot be dismissed as easily as Friedman would like it to be.
I agree. The easiest way to confuse investigators is to cast some shadows here and there. We're too easily attracted by black/white conclusions.
 
#14
I agree. The easiest way to confuse investigators is to cast some shadows here and there. We're too easily attracted by black/white conclusions.
Casting shadows works, it does on me at least? :( It seems nothing in this world is as black/white as we may like it to be.
 
Top