Why Are They Hiding The Truth About UFOs – The Paranormal Podcast 817

Richard Dolan joins us to talk about the 80 year UFO cover up and why the powers that be won’t give up the truth easily.

You can find Richard’s website, including information about the upcoming event “The Consciousness Connection” at https://richarddolanmembers.com/

You can find his books at Amazon: https://amzn.to/3u5Pv6q

Thanks Richard!

FREE CAMPFIRE E-BOOK
Get your FREE Campfire E-book here: https://jimharold.com/free-newsletter/ when you signup to my email newsletter list.

YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Be sure to subscribe to Jim’s YouTube channel for paranormal videos and more: https://youtube.com/jimharold

MERCH
Go to https://www.etsy.com/shop/jimharoldsmausoleum/ to get your Jim Harold Merch!

TRANSCRIPT

Jim:

UFO disclosure, is it coming in 2024? What does the government know? We’ve got these questions and more for Richard Dolan on this edition of the Paranormal Podcast.

Announcer:

This is the Paranormal Podcast with Jim Harold.

Jim:

Welcome to the Paranormal Podcast. I am Jim Harold, and as we head into 2024 UAP, UFO disclosure is top of mind and we have a great guest to talk about that subject. One of the world’s leading researchers and writers on UFOs, in fact, and he has several best selling books on amazon.com and a thriving online community. I’m talking about Richard Dolan. He’s written books like UFOs for the 21st Century Mind, the Alien Agendas, UFOs in the National Security state, and his knowledge of UFO history is second to none. He’s spoken at many, many conferences around the world. He’s won multiple lifetime achievement awards at Major UAP conferences. His YouTube channel, and we’ll show it here, is over at Intelligent Disclosure. That’s Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure. You see him down there in the little circle, and you can also check out his website, which is excellent. It is richarddolanmembers.com, and you can find all of his various books on Amazon, the Richard Dolan Press books. Richard Dolan, welcome to the program today. Good to speak with you.

Richard Dolan:

Yeah, hi, Jim. It’s really great to be here with you. Really looking forward to it.

Jim:

Yes, so a lot’s happened. I think the last time we talked was literally 10 years ago, so a few things have happened since.

Richard Dolan:

I was thinking about that.

Jim:

Yeah, yeah. I think we were at Paradigm Symposium back in 2014, something like that. It is been a few years,

Richard Dolan:

Up in Minnesota?

Jim:

Minnesota, Minnesota, yes. But regardless, the last few years have been particularly filled and last year, I don’t know, to me, disclosure, it feels like if you compare it to a football game and for years there was the dynasty of the forces I feel that are trying to block disclosure, but you had a feel that maybe the momentum was starting to turn and people got really excited and then now I feel like Big Mo has gone back in favor of those who would prefer to keep the lid on all of this. Where do you see things today, Richard Dolan? Where are we in this big game of disclosure?

Richard Dolan:

We are in a different place than we were 10 years ago when you and I chatted for your program. Obviously a lot has happened. I think the fundamental change has been that the disclosure movement is reflecting a much broader change in our civilization, frankly, and this is a result of digital communication. I’ve been wondering about this for many years, and I will say that I had been predicting, and I’ve said this many times, that there will be a moment, a watershed moment, in the future where our global conversation brings us to a tipping point, as it were, that is likely to force this issue open in a way that it hadn’t been before, and I believe we’ve already arrived at that point. In other words, you think about how predominant the subject of UFOs has always been on the internet. A lot of people may not realize this, but the first major subject on the old internet back in the 1980s and nineties when it was just starting, the first subject really to break open the internet back then was UFOs.

There were UFO bulletin board groups, other than computer programming, which is I guess you could say that was the first, but then the first substantive subject was UFOs. People have always been interested in this. Through the nineties when we developed the graphic user interface and all that, UFOs were always right out in front of internet traffic, and it has been that way in many ways from the 21st century. There’s a lot now that’s out there as well, but UFOs are always popular. And so I just felt that at a certain point with our ability to share information worldwide, that there would come a day when the pressure from society as it were, we’re able to break through and start a new conversation in the mainstream. And I think that is what has happened. Now, that doesn’t mean that the old standing long standing secrecy group is just going to walk away from the table and say, okay, we’re going to tell you everything that you want to know clearly.

And what we have seen. You think about when this conversation started changing in 2017, basically, and let’s look at the two articles out of the New York Times in December of that year, six years ago now. So many of us, we read those pieces and we thought, oh my goodness gracious, the New York Times is taking UFOs seriously; kind of yes, kind of no. What you see when you look back at the New York Times coverage of this is that all of the really decent articles that they did were written by Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, and then the first true contributor was Helene Cooper as well. But basically Leslie and Ralph, the New York Times did other pieces on UFOs and none of them were of anywhere near the same quality that you got with those two. So I don’t think that there’s been an editorial change at the New York Times. I just think that they made the decision to publish those articles when they did because they knew something big was coming out. This is when TTSA was new, Lue Elizondo was new. The videos that Lou and Chris Mellon got declassified were coming out. So I think the New York Times leadership just recognized we’re going to get out in front of this. I don’t think it marked an editorial change. And you see that with other newspapers as well.

Jim:

I will make this point though, some of the revelations that came out last year, Blumenthal and Leslie wrote articles for that as well, but they didn’t come out in the New York Times. They were run by The Debrief, which I give The Debrief credit, but that should have been in the New York Times. That should have been in the Washington Post. 

Richard Dolan:

The act that it wasn’t tells us a lot.

Jim:

Well, I’ll give you another example. The congressional hearings over the summer with Tim Burchett and Moskowitz and so forth. I watch those on News Nation and I’m like, oh my gosh, you have Moskowitz who is a Democrat saying it’s time for disclosure. You have Burchett who’s a Republican, saying there’s been a multi-decade coverup. Saying this on a panel. I’m like, I’ve got to see what the other stations are saying. So I turned to Fox News and they’re telling me how bad Joe Biden is. Then I turned to CNN and MSNBC, and they’re telling me how bad Donald Trump is. And it’s like, wait a minute. Just in the last 10 minutes, I’ve seen two congresspeople from opposing parties, one saying, it’s time for disclosure. And the other saying, there’s been a multi-decade coverup up and you are not covering it live. It’s like almost an alternate reality like la la, la. If I don’t listen, this doesn’t exist. Am I picking up on something there, Richard? Am I picking up on something?

Richard Dolan:

You absolutely are. You are hitting it. That’s the nail on the head. The mainstream establishment media has never been on board with the disclosure message. People can talk about this all they want. They can say, oh, there’s an op to give a fake disclosure, and the media is involved. No, the media has been holding back on this subject from the beginning. The only extent to which they have done anything is to the extent to which they’ve been forced to by external events. And when they can ignore it, they do. And that has not changed. So to answer your first question, which is where are we? We are in a new place. There has been enough pressure from society in general to force this issue out in a way that it hadn’t been before, but we are still seeing unremitting hostility to this subject from what we can call the establishment. That’s the media, but that’s also the Pentagon, and we could talk about them as well. 

The Pentagon has never, throughout these last six plus years now been forthcoming. They’ve never been discussing this in good faith. The only information they have given is when they’ve been forced to. For example, it took well over a year for them even to acknowledge that Luis Elizondo was actually who he said he was; in 2019, the Navy, which is of course part of the Pentagon, did acknowledge that they were updating their UAP reporting procedures. They had a few things to say that were positive and that added to the credibility of the subject. But again, I would argue this is because they really just were forced into a position against their wishes, essentially being outmaneuvered by people like Chris Mellon and Lue Elizondo, I think is really what happened. And they had to play catch up.

They had to play defense, and they’ve done, but they have never been a force for disclosure. And so where are we now? We are in a very interesting place. In the past. those of us in the UFO UAP community, I think pretty much recognize that The Secrecy group, if I think it’s a good phrase for them, it’s an old one. Donald Keyhoe used to use it back in the fifties, that the Secrecy group is still in effect. They are still, they’re not going to give anything up now post 2017 and now post in 2024, here we are. It’s a little bit more uncertain where things can go. What we’re now seeing is an actual battle within, let’s call it the deep state, within the establishment. You have the secrecy group and you have what I tend to call an insurgency. There are individuals with some leverage. Some of them are members of Congress, some of them are just members of the media, limited basis there, and some other people who have got some influence and they’re fighting this. Where this will end up., it’s a very interesting battle, and I tend to think that there will not be a major disclosure or statement this year. I think that it’s not likely to happen, but I’m not a hundred percent sure about that either. And I think that there are possibilities that could surprise me, that could surprise the world.

Jim:

And you really pointed out something there that I do think is a major difference. It seems to me, and I am sure over the years, there’ve been here and there, there’ve been dissenters, but politicians, I mean, I think when we think of UFOs in the US government, we think of the US government as a monolith. It’s one thing, and I think maybe less so now than ever, Marco Rubio, Tim Burchett, Kirsten Gillibrand, Moskowitz, a number of people, Schumer, saying that there needs to be more disclosure. The American people need to have more shared with them about this. On the other hand, when you take something like the proposed Schumer legislation, I just think about the JFK disclosure legislation and all that information we were supposed to get about the JFK assassination. But to this day, certain things are withheld and redacted for national security purposes for something that happened 60 years ago. And our main adversary during that time, the Soviet Union, does not even exist as an entity anymore, but national security, let’s hide those JFK records. Even if a Schumer resolution were to pass or something like it. There’s new legislation that’s been somewhat defanged, but there’s always someone that can say, well, we’re not going to tell you this because of national security. It seems like there’s always an out. There’s always a way to block the information. Again, am I picking up on something or am I being paranoid?

Richard Dolan:

No, no. I think you’re saying it exactly accurately. When we think about the government, it’s true. Most Americans, let’s just keep it to the United States for the moment. We’ll think of the three branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. But what they’re not really thinking of is how government actually works anymore. We’re forgetting about think tanks, for one. You look at the influence of think tanks, they actually dominate American policy in almost any way that you can imagine. They pay off members of Congress, they pay off the executive, or they’re paid off by, excuse me, the corporate sponsors behind them, which really dominate policy members of Congress. By and large. It’s really unclear how powerful they actually are. And I think many will openly acknowledge this, that their power is really quite limited. There’s what we call the deep state, and that includes the think tanks and the unelected powerful interest center always behind the scenes.

And that’s really what dominates most of American policy, whether it’s domestic or international or national security as well. So when we are seeing this insurgency or this breaking of ranks among some members of Congress, they too, they’re actually outsiders in many ways. And I think they are seeing that they have been out of the loop. And as members of Congress, I think some of them are probably a bit offended by the fact that they’re looking at this UFO subject and they’re thinking, good Lord, we have been led to believe for all these years that this is nonsense. There’s nothing to it. And actually it seems like there is something to this. Why have we been left out of the loop? I think there’s some of that attitude. So the real question is, you’re right in saying the government is not a monolith. And what we also need to do as a society is understand who actually is the power structure of the government. Is it really Congress or is it something else? I tend to think it’s beyond Congress and that Congress has some effect on things, but it’s not the most powerful. So I think these members of Congress recognize this also, and that’s what we’re seeing. It’s a kind of battle. It’s a power struggle in a sense. And disclosure is just one aspect in which this power struggle is being expressed. I think how I would look at it,

Jim:

I’ll be very interested to see if some of these congresspeople are primaried or have suddenly strong opposition with deep pockets.

Richard Dolan:

Yeah, well, probably we’ve been hearing a lot about the two leading Republicans, Mike Turner and Mike Rogers, one who’s right out of Wright Patterson, one’s down in Huntsville. No surprise there. They have been opposing, they were predominantly, from what we understand, responsible for gutting the Schumer amendment. That is the UAP disclosure Act. And of course, because who do they represent? United States Air Force headquarters and the massive missile aerospace center down in Huntsville. These groups are not interested in UAP transparency. Why would they be? We constantly play this game of pretend in our society. So we pretend that people are acting in good faith and in everyone’s best interest, and we say, well, if they have nothing to hide, why are they being obstructionists? Well, the point is they do have something to hide. They have a lot to hide. This is a serious matter. We’re talking about 80 years essentially now of a UFO/UAP coverup that involves a lot of dirty fingers.

Now at this point, 75 plus years of anti-gravity research are engaged here, are involved. You have decades and decades and generations of other research into material science and propulsion and energy. And I mean, I can’t even imagine all the other areas. So there’s a tremendous amount of covert science, valuable science that’s involved here that we must assume they are not interested in exposing, just because there is a disclosure of the reality of UFOs doesn’t have to mean that their technological advances and secrets will be exposed, but it doesn’t help from their point of view. This can’t be a good development. And so I can easily see their motivation being, no, no, we need to hold the line on this. There’s the Chinese, there’s the Russians with the Iranians, the North Koreans. We can’t let them know what we know. And so they’re going to, because a lot of this technology, we must assume has been weaponized or at least is in the process of trying to figure out how to weaponize these things. So there’ll be resistance.

Jim:

So I guess my question is, now I’m going to put on my skeptic hat for a minute. Pretend I’m a hardcore skeptic, which I’m not. But let’s pretend, along your line of us pretending, okay, well, we have this anti-gravity technology and we have all these magical secrets of the aliens. Why don’t we use them in warfare? Why didn’t the United States use them in Afghanistan and Iraq and all these magical weapons? Where are they? Why aren’t we seeing instant results if we have all this tech?

Richard Dolan:

Skeptics do say this a lot, and honestly, I think that it’s a lack of understanding on their part of how and why US policy actually works the way it does. It’s a very grave, grave lack of understanding here. The assumption is that the United States fights wars in order to win them. And I do not believe that’s fully the case. I mean, look, the United States, the last war the United States technically won, you could say was 30 years ago the Persian Gulf War. So that was a long time ago, and that was an overwhelming Blitzkrieg type of military victory. The other wars are incredibly expensive. So there are winners. The winners are defense contractors. They’re the ones who win. But Afghanistan went for 20 years if we had actually utilized UFO tech and ended the Taliban within six months, well, and there’s that 6 billion plus dollars that doesn’t go to the defense contractors.

I mean, we really must think in these terms. That sounds cynical, but it’s actually just realistic. Same with Afghanistan. The point of these wars isn’t to win them. And also I think it’s important to emphasize the United States has a proven history of holding back some of its most advanced technology because they deem it to be too important for exposure. I mean, sometimes I’ve used, and it’s an old example from the 1980s, but that was the bombing of the nation of Libya. Some people forget this. It was 1986. I remember it quite well. The US tried to assassinate Muamarr Gaddafi back then. They did not use the stealth fighter, which was operational because using it would’ve given up, it would’ve exposed it to potential recognition by the rest of the world. Stealth being a revolutionary new technology at the time, radar and visibility us did not want to use it.

It could have helped them accomplish their mission. Instead, they used F111, which did not, in a sense, you could say, did not get the job done in that regard. So in other words, the stealth technology at that time was considered too important. Now, let’s look at UFO related tech, far greater power, far greater revolutionary implications. What would such tech be used for, if not geopolitical struggle and warfare? Well, I would say they would be used to deal with the most classified subject that we know of, which is the ET/UFO situation itself. I have hypothesized for a long time that these revolutionary tech breakthroughs, to the extent that they are used, would be used somehow in connection with that reality. Not with fighting wars in the deserts of Iraq or Afghanistan or in the future, even against the Russians, if that’s what they end up doing. No, there’s too much money for defense contractors and all the other, we spend almost a trillion dollars a year on defense. It’s a lot of money. So that’s a nice gravy train. And the UFO tech, yeah, that could be lucrative for some companies, but maybe the way we’ve got it now is just fine for their purposes. That’s what I think.

Jim:

Well, before people say, ha, this sounds like conspiracy theory. Well, that well-known conspiracy theorist, Dwight David Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned of the military industrial complex. So that’s the term du jour to throw out to discredit somebody. You’re a conspiracy theorist.

Richard Dolan:

People do not. That’s right. And unfortunately, I’m just going to say this, and this will make me sound like more of a conspiracy theorist, but the very phrase, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorist, as far as I can tell, or anyone else really got its life from a CIA memo in 1967. This is the reality. In other words, that was just three and a half years after the assassination of President Kennedy. And there were skeptics even then of the official conclusion, which was that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by himself. And the CIA was worried about this, that there were skeptics. You have to ask, why would the CIA be worried about this, incidentally? Why is it their concern? But it was, and they created a memo about this, and they said, look, to disable these conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theories, we need to work with people in the media.

We need to work with the celebrities. We need to work with academicians to disable it. But they encouraged the use of the phrase conspiracy theory as explicitly in this memo. And what I would really say to people is whenever they dismiss something as a conspiracy theory, they literally are doing the work of the CIA, which recommended this very tactic. And I’ll just add one more thing, which is that people need to understand that conspiracies are a normal mode of behavior in the realm of power, politics. Everything is conspiratorial. Of course it is. Again, we’d like to play these games to pretend and think, oh, everything’s above board. Nothing is above board. That’s the point. Our world operates exactly the opposite of what people are being told every day. Conspiracies are the rule, not the exception.

Jim:

Well, he makes us think Richard Dolan will be back right after this on the Paranormal Podcast.

Announcer:

If you love the Paranormal Podcast, be sure to check out Jim Harold’s Campfire where ordinary people share their extraordinary stories of ghosts, UFOs, cryptids, and terrifying encounters. Find it for free wherever you listen to this podcast. Tune into Jim Harold’s Campfire today. Now we return to the Paranormal Podcast.

Jim:

We’re back on the Paranormal Podcast with Richard Dolan, and he knows as much or more about the UFO subject than anybody on the planet, and we’re so glad to have him with us today. Richard, if you talk about 2023, you can’t mention it in relation to UAP and UFO without talking about David Grusch. Now, bringing back that skeptical hat. People will say, and I think there are skeptics who are of goodwill, who really don’t believe in this stuff. Now, they may be misguided in my view, but there’s people who just don’t believe in it. Then there’s people who have other motivations and so forth. I think they fall in different categories, but regardless, people say, Grusch, here’s a guy, albeit with a military background and so forth, but he says he knows somebody who told him they saw something. It’s hearsay. It wouldn’t be admissible in court. Why is that any different than anybody else saying, somebody told me about something that their cousin Bill saw. I mean, why should I take this seriously? So from your view, should we take David Grusch seriously and why?

Richard Dolan:

Yeah, we absolutely need to take David Grusch and his statements very seriously. Yes. The whole complaint about hearsay, let’s look into that. So what Grusch has stated, I think very clearly to the members of Congress and to the media. He has very sensitive security clearances, and he is bound by law under threat of severe penalty against him personally. If he is to break those security clearances in saying things that he is not allowed to say publicly, he can say up to a certain line. If people go back to the hearing of July 26th of this last year, 2023, directly behind Grusch was the director of National Intelligence, who I only learned in the aftermath, actually sat down with David Grusch before that hearing and went over with him, here’s what you are allowed to say. That is what you are not allowed to say, and so forth.

It was very, very clearly delineated for him, and that’s how, that is how our world works. So for a skeptic to complain about that, they can only really complain about it if they are not familiar with what the penalties are for revealing classified information are. Once they become aware of this, I think it becomes much more understandable. I think much more significant is the fact that you have this intelligence officer with substantial security clearances on record in front of a live congressional session telling members of Congress that we have alien technology and alien bodies, biologics, and moreover, that he would be happy to discuss this with them in a SKIF, that is a sensitive compartment and information facility that would legally allow him to say some of these things. So he’s put it all out there, but this friend from a friend’s stuff, look, this is not unusual. Look at his position. He was a member of the UAP task force back in 2019 and 2020, tasked with the job of interviewing whistleblowers from within the Pentagon structure to talk to him about UAP. That was his job. And so that’s what he did. He interviewed people. This is what any journalist does. This is what historians do.

There’s nothing unusual about this or nothing dodgy about it. So yes, he did not see an alien body, but when you talk to someone who has high clearances as Grusch did, who’s telling him that? What is he supposed to do with that information? Just pretend it’s not true, especially when you’re getting it from so many sources when you see a clear pattern, this is what all research really does. I have in my life, I have two UFO sightings that I can say. I think those are possible UFOs, but there are thousands of reports that I have read from other witnesses, and there’s thousands of documents, pardon me, that I’ve read from the United States government that were declassified. Does that not count? Should I just pretend, oh, well that’s not really because I didn’t directly experience it. That’s silly. That’s foolish. So I think what Grusch had to say is important.

Moreover, I would just add that what he had to say is completely consistent with 50 years of crash retrieval research that researchers know about. I’m a big fan of the late researcher, Leonard Stringfield, who died in 1994. Stringfield collected many hundreds of direct accounts of UFO crash retrievals. Some of them were direct, some of them were from the spouse, secondhand and so forth. But they too gave a pattern, an important pattern, and these are the things we need to look at. The problem with the UFO subject, I think skeptics really must understand this, is that it is difficult. It’s not easy. It seems to derive from an intelligence that’s operating beyond our level. So that makes it difficult for us, right on the face of it. Secondly, we do deal with government obfuscation, intentional obfuscation and lack of access to data. So getting into all of the details of this phenomenon is not easy, and those of us who are serious about researching this have to recognize we’ve got to get our information as best we can.

So that means, yes, from confirmed classified sources, absolutely. That means yes, from confirmed data points, electronic data and other forms of data that can be recorded, all of that. But also, if we were to ignore the massive amount of eyewitness testimony that is out there, we’re foolish because there’s a tremendous amount of information there. It doesn’t mean that every piece of data is absolutely true or accurate. There can be misinterpretations and there can be hoaxes. They do exist, but we have to be brave here. We’ve got to be able to do the work and go into that data to understand it, to analyze it, and to look for patterns, which is something that’s important in my work. And I think that’s what UFO research needs. You’ve got to be able to get into the weeds and look at the messy data that is out there.

That’s just how it is. The data doesn’t come to you on a silver platter and say, here it is. It’s all confirmed, it’s all, it doesn’t work like that. So we have to be willing to live with a little bit of messiness. And I think back to Grusch, everything that he has said struck me as credible. And by the way, the last thing is I have not yet had the opportunity to meet David Grusch. I hope to. I think it can happen, but I know a lot of individuals who have spoken in great detail with him. Every single individual who’s spoken with Grusch has said the exact same thing to me, which is that he is absolutely to be trusted. He’s honest. He’s the real deal.

Jim:

It’s interesting because around the time of the Grusch discussion, there had been the talk of the multiple craft, multiple NHIs, non-human intelligence, and the number a dozen came up, and I can’t remember if it was Grusch or where that came from, but that number started floating around. And it was really funny because I was preparing my 18th anniversary special where I was going to take clips from different shows and compile them into a mega show, which I did. And one of those interviews was with Paul Hellyer, who was the former national Defense minister of Canada, and I had totally forgotten about this. But then he specifically mentioned in this interview, obviously he’s passed now, this was from maybe 10 years ago, I don’t know, several years ago at least. He said, yeah, the thought is that there’s about a dozen craft, and I thought he was coming from the grave and confirming that number, a dozen craft, and I thought that was really interesting. 

Richard Dolan:

I think that’s a minimum number.

Jim:

Yeah. Personally, I think that if you have people like Rubio and these people coming out and saying, Hey, there’s something here. There’s definitely something here. Now, I mentioned about I feel that there are people who are skeptics who are good people, they just, it’s almost like a, don’t confuse me with the facts kind of situation. What are your thoughts? Do you think that there are sincere skeptics out there, or do you think that by and large, there’s a certain amount of that feeling? Don’t confuse me with the facts.

Richard Dolan:

A little bit of both. I think there are many more sincere, good faith skeptics that are out there that simply, I mean, what I have found when I’ve had conversations with such individuals is they’re often very intelligent, very knowledgeable about their particular field, but I generally find they’re not particularly knowledgeable about the history of the UFO subject. That’s normally what I find. It’s very rare that I find a strongly skeptical person who’s actually done a lot of homework on the UFO subject. Even some of the famous skeptics, I’m not going to mention names, but I had a conversation with one of the most prominent skeptics at an event less than a decade ago, and I chatted with him, and I found he’d written several books on this, and he was utterly ignorant about the UF–. I’ll mention, well, no, I’m not going to get into it. I don’t want to get into fights. 

But his knowledge was very low, and I thought, well, that explains a lot. You study what you study. You don’t want to study the actual meat and potatoes of the UFO field, but I think most people are genuinely sincere. But here’s the thing. Look, I ran into this myself when I first started studying UFOs 30 years ago, 30 years ago, in the early nineties, I was, and it was a different place in my life. I was working on a PhD. I was trying to get my career going. I wasn’t in the UFO field at all, I was  wanting to teach history at a university. That was what I thought I wanted, and I bump into the UFO subject. It gets a hold of me, but I was very uncomfortable with it for quite some time. And the reason was no budding intellectual or seasoned intellectual ever wants to admit to themself that they were really seriously gravely wrong on an issue of such importance as UFOs would be.

I mean, it’s the worst thing because you don’t want to think, oh my God, did I just, was I that stupid? That’s really the thought that comes, and there’s a strong resistance to that. Once you’re on a career path, you’re in your intellectual milieu. You don’t really want to change that. You’ve already made your public statements on this and that, and so admitting that you’ve missed a boat on something of great significance. I remember thinking this in my early thirties. I was very serious about my studies, and I thought, have I missed the boat on If this was real, then what’s the true story of the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy? There had to be, or Truman, there had to be something very big that I was missing. And it’s true. We don’t want to admit that. So I think there’s a lot of psychological resistance on that basis, and once you create a public persona for yourself, I think it becomes difficult.

It’s not easy. So I think that’s a big part of it. But anyway, there are some skeptics who are out there who, they make their living at this and they’re committed. They’re committed to a public position. And once you do that, it becomes difficult to change it. And by the way, I have to look at myself in the exact same, the exact same critical eye. Look, I’ve made public positions about the reality of UFOs and what would it do for me to suddenly come out and say, oh, I don’t believe it anymore. There is genuine pressure on all public figures to maintain the public position they have. And so for me, it’s very important always to be aware of this and to resist it as much as I can to be conscious and aware of my positions. And I will say that I’ve changed many of my opinions about the UFO subject over the years, but I have always come down to fundamental belief in the reality of it, because I do believe, I continue to believe that the evidence for this is so overwhelming. It is impossible for me to deny, which we haven’t gotten into here. I’ve done it a million times. You look at the declassified documents, you look at the history of the military encounters that US has had with these, and yes, I think it paints a very, very detailed picture. So anyway, I didn’t want to get too off track there, but long-winded answer to your question.

Jim:

No, it’s thorough. Thorough is more like it. Now, you mentioned something there that I was going to bring up. I was watching some videos. I’ll bring it up again over at your YouTube channel. Everybody should check it out. Richard Dolan, Intelligent Disclosure, and you had talked about some of the military run-ins with this technology with the aliens or whatever they are in terms of machinery being disabled. I think about, and I’ve gotten to interview him a couple of times, Robert Salas with the Maelstrom Missile Base, their Air Force base where the multiple ICBMs were brought offline, which also corresponded with a UFO sighting. I mean, how widespread is this? How many Encounters has the US military had with something that actually was able to interfere with or in some cases disable their equipment?

Richard Dolan:

I think it happens more than we realize. I don’t know if it’s an everyday thing or an every month thing for that matter, but it’s happened a number of times that, you know, I’m doing research now. I’m in the home stretch of the longest book I’ve ever written, which is on the history of USOs. That is water-based UFO phenomenons, unidentified submersible objects. It’s longer that my previous longest book. And in that I’ve found a number of US Navy cases. Now these are, look, I’ll just have to say this straight out. These are testimony from former US Navy personnel. These are not FOIA documents, and I will fully acknowledge that for the most part, they are not FOIA anything. They are Navy guys writing years after the fact to some blog site or to MUFON or the National UFO Reporting Center, whatever, and they will say, yep, 20 years ago I was aboard this vessel.

We were here in this location and this thing happened, and there’s a lot of that, and I had to make a decision. Do I include these or not in my study? And I do. I include them. They generally are to the extent that they can be confirmed, information about the ship and so forth. We’re able to do some of that. The point is, there have been a number of instances in which objects, sometimes coming out of the water, sometimes descending from on high and hovering right over the ocean next to an aircraft carrier at times will disable a communications weapon systems ability for fighter jets to launch. All of these have been documented or noted, I should say, in the testimony at one point or another for upwards of a half hour at a time. You imagine being aboard an aircraft carrier with 5,000 personnel and there are no messages coming in or coming out for 30 minutes.

That’s a hugely important development. And that has happened, I think more than once in the research that I have been able to do on this. And then you’ve got destroyers and battle cruisers and the like. And they also have had instances in which various types of operations have been disrupted by these objects, and not simply United States, by the way. I have a few cases of the Soviet Navy, particularly near the Kuril Island Islands and the sea of Okhotsk way up in the Soviet, the Russian now far east, where some of these incidents also have disabled their naval ships. So it’s not simply a US thing. So I think that’s a significant thing that we need to keep in mind. It’s not just with nuclear weapons and nuclear missiles. It’s also ships at sea that have been interfered with. Now, I don’t know if that’s an intentional thing or if that’s inadvertent by these craft, but it has happened.

And if you are the United States Navy and you have to manage your fleet, there is no way, no conceivable way that you’re not aware of this and that this is not important to you. And so then when we hear statements coming from the Pentagon and Pentagon spokespersons, I remember two years ago I heard the statement by Ronald Moultrie. He did a presentation with Scott Bray at that time, and he’s telling members of Congress, well, we are confident in our ability to identify and if necessary mitigate all of these UAP potential threats. I listened to that and I thought, that’s absolutely not true. You do not have the ability to mitigate these, and we have a long, long history of this happening, and so they’re not being truthful. But of course, can you blame them?

Jim:

Now, one last question and then I want to talk about an event you have coming up. So do you believe that elements of the US government not only understand that there is a phenomenon, there is an interaction, there is something to it, but they actually understand what it is and what’s going on?

Richard Dolan:

Yes. I think there is a select element that is connected to the United States government that has information about this. We think of the members of Congress where we opened up this conversation. I don’t think that they… they may have some knowledge of this at this point, but I don’t think that they have a lot of operational control over it, and I doubt that they have a lot of detail about some of the activities going on within the special access programs and the like. So I think they’re out of the loop. But I do think that there are individuals that yes, have operational authority over this program, the program that is to deal with the challenge of these other intelligences that are here. Yes. Now where are they? Earlier in this conversation, I mentioned the influence of think tanks, something that hardly ever really gets discussed, but they are very important in formulating policy. And I have been working on the assumption for a long time that you have something similar to that dealing with UFO/UAP policy and information management. We have all kinds of rumors about different groups. Lately in the last few years, people have been talking about Zodiac. I’ve been talking about that as a potential organization that’s involved in this and the influence of other private individuals. The SAIC known as NSA West and other private entities that have connections to the government are very probably involved in this. I think they do know a lot about this subject.

Jim:

Well, we’ve only scratched the subject or scratched the surface of this subject. Richard, do you have a big online event coming? Tell us what it is and how people can get connected to it?

Richard Dolan:

Yeah, thanks. I’m excited about it. I’m not running this one. This is really, my wife Tracey is headlining it, although I do participate in it. I’m the MC and we have a wonderful group of people participating. So it’s an online weekend. We think of it as like a weekend retreat. It is a conference and we’ve got speakers and all of that, but it’s an event in which we’ve done a few of these now where individuals are able to be extremely involved in it through chat and through conversing with each other and with us throughout the weekend. So it’s based on really Tracey’s work, which is consciousness and remote viewing. She’s a very accomplished remote viewer, and it’s called the Consciousness Connection. We have people like Russell Targ participating. We have Dale Graff, who’s also a legend in this. Both of them are in their late eighties.

They have so much knowledge on this subject to share. We have a number of other excellent researchers, both in the scientific milieu as well as people who are more experiential, dealing with what is the human mind actually capable of? What are we able really to do? I’ve been fascinated with remote viewings long before I knew my wife. It’s one of the most amazing things, and I’m utterly convinced that it’s real. Why? How does it work? How are we able to do this and what does it say about space and time and causality? By the way, when you could do something like precognition, which sounds really freaky, crazy, but I am personally convinced that stuff is real. So that’s called the Consciousness Connection. You want to learn about it. Go to my website, richarddolanmembers.com. There’s a banner right at the top. Just click it and it’ll tell you all about it. We’ve tried to make it very affordable. I think it’s fun, and I think it will be engaging. And actually a fascinating dive. Tracey and I have conversations on this all the time. I wish I could share these with the public. Sometimes we’re able to share some of it, but we get into some great, great discussions on this, and my hope is that we’ll be able to share some level of that with the general public when we do this. So that’s January 27th and 28th that weekend.

Jim:

Excellent. So get right on that because time is wasting Richard Dolan members.com. Is that right? Richarddolanmembers.com. That’s the place.

Richard Dolan:

Exactly. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, that’s it.

Jim:

Well, Richard, thank you so much. Let’s try not to make it another 10 years, but agreed again, we could have talked for hours, but I want to be respectful of your time. I thank you for taking time and sharing your knowledge with us today.

:Richard Dolan

Well, Jim, I just want to thank you for having me on, and I’ve really enjoyed being your guest on this program. I love the questions you ask and how you go into the subject, and I’d be happy to come back in the future.

Jim:

Fantastic. Well, we’ll take you up on that. Thanks again, Richard.

Richard Dolan:

You bet. Thank you.

Jim:

Well, I hope you enjoyed that episode as much as I did. Richard really makes you think, doesn’t he? And we thank you for spending some time with us, and please share the show in your favorite podcast app with a friend who loves these topics. Could be UFOs, could be ghosts, cryptid creatures, whatever it might be. We cover it all on the Paranormal Podcast. Also, if you’re listening and wondering, why is he saying look at this or look at that or see on the screen, we’re also doing this as a video on YouTube every week. Now, that’s a new thing we just rolled out in the last couple of weeks. So if you want to see the video version of this in future editions of the Paranormal Podcast, make sure that you are subscribed to my YouTube channel at youtube.com/jimharold. And we thank you so much. Stay safe, share the show, and stay spooky. Bye-Bye.

Are you disappointed the show is over? Well, I’ve got good news. Do you want access to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of interviews with paranormal authors and experts on all types of topics? Not available on my free feeds? Well go to Jimharoldplus.com and click on the banner with my face and get all the details. There’s a couple of great versions of The Plus Club, the Apple Podcast version, the Libsyn version. All the details are over there. Go over there to JimHaroldplus.com. Click on that banner. And not only will you get over 800 episodes of the Paranormal Podcast no longer on the free feeds, you’ll get access to interview shows exclusive to the Plus Club shows like Ancient Mysteries on the Air, the Cryptid Report, Ghost Insight, The Other Side, UFO Encounters. I bet you may not even have known these shows exist, but they’re all in my Paranormal Plus Club that you can access via the Spooky Studio app or my Spooky Studio channel on Apple Podcasts. So get all the information over at JimHaroldplus.com and click on the banner and I’ll see you in the club.


For more information on our podcast data policy CLICK HERE