[Majorion]

Originally Posted by trainedobserver

I'd have to question how familiar you actually are with those people's work, Richard Dolan in particular. Have you read his two books? If there were only two books on the UFO phenomena you ever read, they would be the ones to read. The guy does actual research.

I am very familiar with the research done by Dolan, Friedman, and Vallee. I admit that I never got to vol.2 of security state, but a friend loaned me vol.1 and I got the jist of it before he snatched it off me again. Vallee, I read one of his books long ago, Messengers of Deception. And Friedman has done some good research on Majestic and a lot of other cross correlating documents, at least before he came out with Flying Saucers and Science which was not really his best work, simply put he is the strongest proponent of the Betty and Barney Hill case and 'the father of Roswell', no shortage of targets he's had either, he jumped on Bob Lazar and the late Col. Corso and who knows else, check his website, its all on the front page.

You would undoubtedly suspect that I am a agent from my background.

I don't know what you're background is and I do not presume to know who you are in real life, but your posts often reflect dissent, which IMO is a very suspicious trait. But no, do I think you're a disinfo agent trainedobserver? no absolutely not.

I certainly am not nor do I think those men are. They seldom make claims that they cannot back up with copious notes, references, and actual hands on research.

This is to maintain the illusion of credibility in a field already filled with deluded minds where the competition can be about honesty and authority. Most people who side with Friedman and those types are often appealing to authority.

I think Jacob's just reports what is coming to him. His conclusions are logical based on the data he is getting.

His conclusions are far from logical, I'm surprised you're not writing a whole essay critique of the guy.

Dolan is a voice of reason.

A voice of reason among the many charlatans.

I love to hate Dan Burisch like I love to hate a good movie villain. He is simultaneously comical and dastardly. For years now he has proposed the most ridiculous and amateurishly presented stories as his real experience. The story has evolved and changed so many times and each new chapter is more goofy than the previous one

Was only pointing out, that despite his extremely questionable and often ridiculous character, his explanation about ufos representing time travellers could ultimately be just as plausible as any of the other theories, again, despite his character. This is a very important point I want to stress.

Just what would Vallee and Friedman be saying that is 'disinformation'?

In this hypothetical context, neither need say anything dishonest or fraudulent to be a disinformation agent, only to be a major figure and with tremendous influence within the ufo circles. If somebody has enough influence within a community, and widely perceived as a 'voice of reason', then you can understand how easy it would be to direct the masses in any given direction or agenda. Again, nobody has to tell even one lie for an agenda to be carried out, and in this case, God knows how many charlatans there are in ufology, this makes the job so incredibly easy.

The fact that so many trust Friedman so wholeheartedly without ever questioning his motives, is enough to conclude something suspicious.

I think Greer was enchanted and enticed by the 'woo-woo' side of things much like Gilliand. He may have been bought, brainwashed, or just deceived I do not know but something happened to that guy. Time will tell.

For the record, I am 'big time' opposed to Greer as an 'individual', but his Disclosure Project was/is/remains bigger and a better accomplishment than any other figure in all of ufology. Everybody else, in comparison, is just selling an opinion or a book or a documentary.

When looking at any of these people you have to ask the basic questions. Who are they? (How many times have they changed their names?)
What is their background? Do they have the qualifications to make the statements they are making? What is their educational background? Are they lying about themselves or their experience?

Its very easy to pick out the obvious charlatans, but when we're talking about Vallee and Friedman, I never hear or see skeptics looking into their backgrounds, never. I would like to see the same measures applied to every figure in ufology, and I would like to see their motives questioned just as rigorously.