Why the Public MIGHT NOT BELIEVE UFO Disclosure if it Happens | Richard Dolan Show

Transcript

All right. Hi everyone. Uh, this will be a short video today, I believe. Uh, you know, for a little while, uh, we we're being told that there was going to be a UAP congressional hearing on September 9th, and then somehow we we were hearing or I was hearing that that was not going to happen. It was going to be November.

And then I'm hearing, no, no, it's going to be September 9th after all. So, uh, if that happens, I assume it will, I will be live streaming my own reaction to that. If you're interested, you can come check it out as it happens. Come to my channel. Uh what I'll be talking about here is a little bit more reflective.

It's not really dealing with whatever specific revelations or information that comes out on the 9th. I don't know what that is anyway. But uh this is something that's been on my mind a little bit. I've been thinking more and more about this about the whole uh idea of disclosure and why even if it happens, the public may not believe it. It's it's a weird thing.

There was a time not so long ago when the simple act of telling the truth meant something or at least so it seemed to me uh when a revelation if it was dramatic enough could break open the dam of secrecy and compel the public to listen. I I will admit this was kind of what I was thinking 30 years ago when I first began researching the UFO mystery myself. And I I really part of me a big part of me believed if someone could, you know, write the the perfect book or produce the perfect documentary or present the perfect form of information to the public that this could just crack open the wall of secrecy and, you know, the avalanche would begin. I don't know if I really fully believe that even in the 1990s, but there was a part of me that was kind of hoping that would be the case. Uh well, I I think if that were ever the case, that time has passed.

I think even today the truth can often feel counterfeit. It seems to me we live in an era that is really it's not defined by the content of information. I think it's more defined by the trust that you or that people in general bring to the act of receiving that information or the lack of trust I should say. What do you trust that information or not trust that information? And this is really kind of a cultural transformation that we have experienced and I think it has profound implications u for any process that we might call UFO disclosure. You think about this.

For just about 80 years now, the subject of flying saucers to UFOs now to UAP has been encased in secrecy, in denial, in ridicule, and definitely manipulation. Uh we've had a deeply embedded policy of control. Just call it what it is, a UFO coverup, which has shaped public understanding. and also scientific inquiry since the late 1940s. But for all of the machinery of disinformation and suppression, there's a deeper problem, it seems to me, which is that it's not really is the government going to finally tell the truth about UFOs.

I really I wonder what happens if they ever do, will anyone believe them? Because we have entered you hear about a post-truth era. We're we're kind of in that, but we're in a post trust era as well. We're not just polarized in in our politics. I mean, we are, but we're kind of fractured in our epistemology, and that is in our theory of knowledge. People I I don't really think people agree on how to know whether something is true.

Scientific institutions have definitely suffered major damage to their credibility over the past several years. I don't need to get into all those details. Government is distrusted just as a matter of instinct and reflex by most of us. The media ditto who really trusts the major establishment media and even you know major figures in the past whether in science or journalism or the military. Uh we often look at them now as just part of the script or some part of some kind of agenda.

well past spin. This is narrative warfare and we're we're embedded inside of it, all of us. So that's kind of what makes UFO disclosure in the 2020s different than in the decades past. The very conditions that make it possible. um the decentralization of information uh that we have on the web.

Uh whistleblower protections to the extent that they exist, leaked documents, alternative media, all of these are important. They're also part of the conditions that make belief more unstable. U alongside the fact that we are in an age of greatly centralized I'd mentioned decentralized information but a lot of the information coming to us is actually very centralized uh that just appears to be decentralized but you've got you know just like in legacy media you have big tech now owning more and more of the channels by which you get your information especially if you just use this on a smartphone through one of your apps all of the apps are are essentially more and more controlled through uh major corporate players. So it it all of this makes uh our belief um just it's not stable. So when when the truth is living side by side with deliberate lies or I don't know AI forgeries, I haven't really seen that much in the UFO field yet, but I think we should wait for it.

It's going to happen. Uh all kinds of government scops which never seem to stop. uh how can anyone be sure of anything anymore? You know, it's important to remember like the cover up of the UFO phenomenon never relied uh solely on silence on the government not saying anything. It relied on story control, narrative control, containment. It relied on shaping public perception through all the key gatekeepers and media assets and the scientific authorities and the politicians who are coached and scripted.

You know, we you can go back to the 1953 Robertson panel where the CIA organized a allegedly scientific uh study that was now we know we've got documents, we have all the work that's been done on this. Uh the conclusions were in the gate, you know, in embedded before the committee even met. And the point of the Robertson panel was not to study UFOs in any serious scientific way. It was to manage it and to debunk it to the public. And this was explicitly in the conclusions.

It was a given that uh the US government would be able to work with major media assets to take the wind out of the sales of the flying saucer mystery. That's not a conspiracy theory. That is a historical fact. Um and that and many other aspects of this are supported by declassified documents and memos and uh and much more. So ask yourself, what happens in a world where everyone knows the game is rigged, which is kind of where we might be today.

Well, one thing is they're probably going to stop believing and they're probably going to stop playing along at the game. They're going to assume that every narrative, every disclosure is just another move in the chess game, just another strategic deception or slight of hand or whatever you want to call it. And this is kind of where we are now. So, even if the government were to hold a press conference, you know, tomorrow and show recovered exotic materials or play high-res video or bring out, you know, uh, scientists and military officials, uh, I'm pretty sure there's a large number of people that would assume it's fake, that it's a distraction, that it's a SCOP, uh, aimed at consolidating control, and definitely not at revealing the truth. I have I've said many times even in the best of situations if there's going to be a disclosure that seems complete you can bet that it's never going to be complete it's probably going to be loaded with spin and almost always insured to uh uh you know play by the CIA rule of those in charge.

Absolutely. So they're going to spin it in the best possible way. But it I think it's even more than this. like we're in a a crisis of consensus reality, right? Uh you look historically, so largecale revelations in the past have always, it seems to me, required the existence of a common reality, a cultural consensus about like what is real uh and who is authorized to say so. We don't have that consensus really or maybe we have a little bit of that consensus but I think a lot of it is gone from where it had been a generation or more ago.

The internet was supposed to democratize information. Um but it's it's a little bit of that like it has it has decentralized information. Of course there's the centralization that is also returned to the internet to make it feel like TV of the 1980s in some ways. But what we really are seeing is a fracturing of information where you know the algorithms they know what you want to hear. So they will continually lead you to more and more of the same.

So that now everyone lives in their own little informationational enclaves but very distinct ecosystems of meaning. Red pill or blue pill conspiracy or official or fringe or mainstream whatever. uh we're in a situation where people don't just disagree on what is happening. We we're disagreeing on what counts as knowledge. So it it's a very strange situation whereas like I mean you think about disclosure.

So that won't happen in a vacuum. Disclosure will happen in a world where millions of people no longer believe in uh the journalists. They no longer trust Congress. They suspect that even whistleblowers may be controlled opposition. And I don't consider that paranoia.

I think that's a legitimate product of repeated institutional betrayals. The loss of trust is not an accident. It that was earned. Uh that also doesn't mean that all whistleblowers are part of controlled opposition. But I I'm just I'm saying that I think it is understandable why uh people might feel this way.

Uh where this is disclosure in an uh age of of now AI along with the deep stage. So like you think about the rise of generative AI. So synthetic voices or forge videos, fake transcripts. I'm not I don't know that I have seen this yet. uh in a significant way in the UFO field.

But if I probably just missed it. It's probably happened already. But if if it hasn't happened in a big way, uh I'm pretty sure we can count on it happening. You know, perfectly crafted lies that seem true. Um, I I do believe like we're going to get to a point where there won't be a smoking gun video that that can't be doubted, you know, that that is a perfect um, you know, absolutely accepted by everyone or any document that may turn up that can't be dismissed as a forgery.

That's just where we're at. The new default is skepticism. And not just skepticism of official stories or even skepticism of conspiracies, but con skept skepticism about everything like even our own senses, even our own memories and our instincts. Um, so where does that leave disclosure, you know? Well, I still believe in the pursuit of truth. I still believe that something extraordinary is happening and that this phenomenon, whatever its origin, I do believe it's from not here, that it deserves serious attention and genuine inquiry.

But I don't think that I believe any longer that disclosure will happen in the way that maybe I once expected or maybe that some of you might expect. uh I don't think it's going to come cleanly and I don't think it will be embraced uniformly and I don't think it will unite us. I do think it will be messy and fragmented and and fought at contested at every level. Uh whether from the nature of the evidence to the motives of the messengers themselves in a way you know I could rue that but in a way it's almost fitting because the phenomenon itself has always defied consensus. it has always resisted uh a clean narrative and really required us to think differently.

And there's there's a weird irony in all of this. Like we've we've waited decades for the moment when the official world would finally admit that UFOs are real and that something unknown is operating in our skies and our oceans and beyond. But we may have waited for so long that the very fabric of our belief has unraveled so that when disclosure comes, if it comes, if uh it won't be received as salvation, uh it won't it won't even it won't feel like a reckoning. It it might just feel like another hoax. And in that sense, the collapse of trust isn't it's not just a political problem.

This is like an existential issue of truth. Um, I sometimes wonder now, uh, not whether the disclosures are real, but like are we going to be able to know it when we see it? So, that's a bit of a downer, but I I do believe that there are that that's not the end of the story because I I do believe truth still exists. This why that's why we argue about truth. That's why they argue we still about the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 or UFOs or COVID. We argue about these things because we know, we all instinctively know there's a truth in there and that truth is worth knowing.

No one fights over ideas that they believe are hollow. We only fight over the things that we believe are that there's truth to. So that's a good that's a good thing. The fact that we're we're fractured. We can't agree.

Um I suspect we can all still agree that there's a truth in here somewhere. So all of our cultural chaos, all of our tribalism and our polarization and and even like our cynicism, they're not at least they're not signs that the truth has vanished. I think they're just signs that truth still matters. We just don't agree on how to recognize that truth. I've often said um in research, especially UFO research, you need bones for the body.

You need bones to hang the flesh on. that is history needs evidence, records, primary sources, um credible testimony, chronology. Uh without those bones, as it were, you don't have a body. So our job it it it's it's to understand first of all that the information war is real and that institutions lie uh and that the media manipulates. It absolutely manipulates uh and that AI uh distorts.

But that doesn't mean that we just give up and we surrender unfortunately means we we just need to get smarter. Uh we need we have to build new tools and better filters and better instincts too. In a way it means going back to basics and by that I don't mean uh going back into nostalgia but to remember how to think. That's the basics. So, I'm going to offer a few things that I have tried to follow for many years.

Uh, a kind of internal compass for navigating through the fog. I'm not going to call it a a shoreshot method. It's more like a stance that is for me at least worth remembering. A way of being in the presence of uncertainty. Maybe that's the way to call it.

So, the first is to say that source hierarchy is not truth hierarchy. Whoops. Yeah, there we go. Um, so the fact that something comes from CNN, uh, you know, or the Pentagon or the New York Times, uh, I think we all know does not make it true, right? Uh but neither does a blog or a YouTube video like this one or a tweet make it true or to make or make make the establishment view false. Uh I guess what I'm saying is here we want to abandon the fallacy that prestige equals accuracy.

All right. The real the real question is always what's the underlying evidence for anything? Is there a document? Is there a time stamp? Is there a name? Is there a body? Is there a radar log? You know, whatever. In other words, show me the bones. Next one. Track records matter.

Uh, everyone gets things wrong, but over time, uh, people and institutions reveal themselves. Some will distort to protect themselves or their power. Others will dig to uncover the truth or um or or deceptions. So, you have to ask yourself, has this source lied before? Do they correct themselves? Do they profit from lies? Um, are their mistakes actually mistakes? Or do you really have reason to think that they're intentionally deceiving? You know, all of these things, and this applies equally to everyone, journalists, generals, whistleblowers, myself, anyone else in the UFO field. Uh, truth emerges over time.

It's it's a pattern. Uh, it's not perfection. It's it's a pattern that I think it's helpful for us to look for. I mean that is if you're looking for trust. Uh next testimony is evidence but testimony is not proof.

I have spent decades uh studying witness testimony and some of it uh can shake you to the core but even the most honest witnesses can misperceive. Trauma can distort memory. Uh, and people can just sometimes remember things wrong. It happens. So, yes, listen to testimony.

Value the testimony, but don't worship it. Instead, corroborate it. Was there radar? Were there other witnesses? Were there logs of any sorts? Are there medical records? You know, the truth will always gain weight when it is reinforced. It'll always become more powerful when it is supported by corroboration. Next, this is one that really I've always felt strongly about.

Beware of narrative velocity. What the hell does that mean? When a story explodes overnight and everyone suddenly has the same opinion, something's wrong. Truth does not move that fast. Truth needs time to assemble itself. It needs time to be tested.

It needs time to be challenged and broken and then rebuilt and tweaked. A story may come out immediately. There may be some truth to it, but there's a very good chance it's not necessarily the right angle. It's not the right it's not the right version. Uh and and what always happens is we see emotional reactions.

Uh I mean, we're really big on emotion. Everyone's got emotional reactions. Uh we've all been guilty, myself included. It's easy. Uh the UFO subject is one that engages our emotions frequently.

We don't like being lied to. We do know there's something important going on and we feel we have a right to know that what is that truth? So we are going to get emotional but uh it's a bad idea I've always felt to let our emotions get the best of us particularly when it comes to immediate uh in the- moment reactions. And unfortunately that's just the nature of our society these days. Uh, everyone's got a channel, everyone's out there, everyone wants attention. I understand.

Uh, but but instant reactions are usually not designed for um accurate reflection. It's it's rare. Um, nothing wrong with reacting quickly is, but I I just think I tend to think that immediate judgments are probably probably a bad idea. Uh, when something happens like immediately it it just explodes over the over the airways, over the news, you should ask like why this story right now? Why now? Who's benefiting from this? A real a true story, even if it's totally true, can still be weaponized. But in that case, uh it may not be the content that's the weapon.

It might be the timing that is the weapon. Like there's a lot of things going on here. We have a very subtle uh and very nuanced reality that we live within that is not always amendable to to complete black and white interpretations all the time. So what I just say is slow down. When a new story breaks, just slow down and let it settle out and you'll probably not regret that you did that.

Uh, next I would just say separate the mystery from hype. There are UFO cases that are still mysterious after 50 years, after 70 years, after more. And then there are others that fall apart, you know, right away. So, we want to be discerning. A lot of people use the word discernment, and sometimes uh I don't always know that that word means the same thing to them that it means to me.

But for me, um, it can mean different things. But one is that accept the mystery without needing to inflate it. Right? Uh in in the field of UFO research, I think this is very important because there are real unknowns, but not every single light in the sky or dot on a video uh is necessarily the phenomenon. I think we all know that, but it's just nice to remember that. So don't feed the machine uh just to keep the whole thing running, right? I would say respect the mystery but don't exploit the mystery if that means anything.

Um now we're in an era of AI and it's become kind of ubiquitous but don't let AI train you to stop thinking. Uh large langu large language models are able to generate mountains of plausible sounding content. Sometimes really they can do a good job with it. But we do not want to confuse uh fluency with actual insight. AI is not a source.

AI is really our mirror. It's a mirror of us. It's a it's a tool. So use it as such, but just don't let it tell you your convictions or write your convictions for you. You still have to think.

That still comes down to you. that's still your job. Uh I guess the last one I would say is let the evidence shape the theory, not the reverse. So, you know, start with what's known. You build slowly.

You create your theories carefully. I I have studied the UFO cover up for most of my adult life. I believe it is real. I believe there is something nonhuman involved. But I did not start there.

I started with documents and I allowed myself to dive into the this reality. I allowed myself to look at at both sides of this debate and I came down on a certain position here. That's true. But, you know, I tried to build slowly. Theories are important.

You have to have theories if you really want to make sense of anything. uh if you have enough facts, you're you're going instinctively to put to put them together into a coherent model that makes sense to you. That's what we do and we kind of need to do that. It's necessary. But theories a theory is a scaffolding.

If theory is not a fortress, if if the facts knock your walls down, let them. So, no one is going to give us a clean disclosure. No one is going to hand us the truth in a single broadcast or a single hearing or a single speech or whatever. But that might be a gift to us because maybe we're just going to be called to think again. Uh to remember how to ask good questions and to reconnect with our own capacity to reason.

Uh I really believe the future that we're moving into is going to require a lot of clarity from us because we are moving into a world where we are buffeted by all kinds of messages and all kinds of facts and information and it is hard. It is a challenge to get through a lot of it. Who's telling the truth? Who's lying? What information is real? What isn't? It's tough but I believe we are we are up to that challenge. Uh when I started out in the UFO field in the early to mid 90s, I thought a little bit about the philosopher Renee Deart. He was around 400 years ago.

And you know, you've heard of Rick Deart. Uh he he had he he start he tried to find certainty by stripping away every single assumption and he found his core truth in one line. Kojito erggo sum. I think therefore I am. In other words, he was saying what do I really know is true? Well, I'm thinking I must therefore exist.

That was his foundation. Like, okay, I'll start with that. So, you don't have to follow Dart all the way down on that line. But the impulse is what is important. In other words, when the world becomes unmed to you, when when you don't really know like what do I believe? Uh I would say start small.

Start with what you can know. You start with what is undeniable. So when I think of the UFO or UAP reality, uh there is a few things I would say. There is a phenomenon. It has physical effects.

It violates or let's say appears strongly to violate known physics as we understand it. It has a definite historical footprint that is undeniable. It is also undeniable that our militaries, the United States military and militaries of other nations, many other nations have encountered these objects and have been as baffled by them as the general public. And that these objects have outperformed our very best uh technology that we had at the time or even really today. that to me I say absolutely uh it is intelligently controlled or at least it strongly appears to be intelligently controlled and I therefore conclude and I will say this as an assumption it is not us whatever it is whatever that whatever the other thing is I I don't see it as us or at least the core of it so from those bones as you as it were the rest of the body may grow but you've got to protect those bones those facts.

Uh because really the the the future of truth as we wish to engage in that truth um depends on like if we still remember what what a truth looks like. We have to know what that looks like. And if we don't if we're not able to identify truths plural in our world, we're we may be hardressed to identify truth about UFOs or UAP or aliens or whatever we we think they may be. So we need to get ourselves together uh more than ever in a world where reality is fractured. I do think that we can do it.

Uh, and I do think that we're I think we're up to the task, but time will tell. Well, I think that's all I've got for you. So, I will be back on the uh the day of the hearing, which is Tuesday the 9th. I'll do a live stream reaction to that. Um, I think I don't think there's anything that's stopping me from doing that.

So, uh I'll catch you then. In the meantime, let's keep fighting the good fight. Catch you all again soon. Bye for now.