Understanding UFOs by Richard Dolan

[mojo]

A recent lecture from his visit to Australia...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kvq2VyXhpIg

[Star Tsar]

This presentation is also from Mr Dolan's trip downunder!

Posted by Star Tsar (here)
UFO Research (NSW) Incorporated

Richard Dolan | Extra-Terrestrial, Inter-dimensional & Other UFO Theories

Recorded Friday 11 November 2016 | Published 30th January 2017

This will be Richard Dolan's first presentation in Australia on UFOs.

Richard is a world renowned UFO researcher, historian and author. He has been featured on Ancient Aliens, Hangar One, and as a guest, on Coast to Coast (USA).

UFOs are a global reality affecting nations and people everywhere. Richard will present a geopolitical analysis of the UFO phenomenon and the international dimensions of the cover-up. Particularly the role of the United States and its relationships to key allies (such as the EU), as well as to Russia and China. He will discuss the true structure of power behind the scenes (as best as we can currently understand it), and will attempt to look into how the UFO cover-up may develop, or end.

Richard’s book, UFOs for the 21st Century Mind: A Fresh Guide to an Ancient Mystery, (2014), will be on sale at the presentation.

Topics covered are:

Government cover-up
False-flag events
Breakaway Civilisations
Life after UFO disclosure
Extra-terrestrial abductions

Richard Dolan’s website: www.richarddolanpress.com

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wTzFVOVioR4

[betoobig]

Hat off for Mr. Dolan...
much love

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Star Tsar (here)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wTzFVOVioR4

Bumping this, the best presentation on disclosure that I've heard. This is a masterclass on the subject.

The long video contains two presentations that Richard Dolan did on the same day. The disclosure one, entitled The Geopolitics and Future of UFO Secrecy, starts at 1:55:31. I very highly recommend it. (Listen through right to the end of the questions, too.)

I posted two excerpt transcripts here and here, each on the relevant threads — about (1) unbelievable whistleblowers and (2) Bill Tompkins in particular, who he states strongly he cannot support. Do read.

There are way too few good researchers out there at the moment. Richard Dolan is almost (but not quite) standing alone.

[Bayareamom]

Will bump my comments over here:

Question for you, Bill: What timeline as per Tompkins' testimony, do you have issues with? Just curious. Also, I believe at some point on another thread, you mentioned you felt Mark Richards' story 'may' be credible (but as I understood your comment, you weren't quite sure). Have you seen the following regarding Richards?

http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...d/146/306.html

OR

https://sites.google.com/site/skyzabove/

To be sure, I would really like your opinion regarding the timeline issues you state you have issues with as regards Tompkins' interviews. Thanks.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

To be sure, I queried about Bill's issues with Tompkins because to me he can absolutely verify quite a bit of the information he has shared recently, but yet I do have to wonder why Bill would feel Richards MAY be credible, when if one reviews the two links I've provided, the information presented in those links quite honestly does a lot of damage to Richards' testimony. Richards was found with the dead man's possessions ON HIS PERSON, including the deceased man's credit cards (all information pertaining to this included within court transcripts of Richards' trial). Every person has a right to his or her opinion, but I see credibility issues with Richards' testimony. Tompkins, to me, seems completely legitimate.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

One more thing re Dolan if I may: I really do like Dolan's work. He's top notch in so many ways. But here is a statement I found about Dolan by someone who I feel really hit the nail on the head when it comes to Dolan's research. He made the following comment, "Rich is intelligent and he is a good and diligent researcher, but we must understand him in the context of who he is, which means all the limitations of who he is as well. These limitations also reflect in his research, and in everything in his life. If we keep those in mind, his research is a great complement to our learning, but we must also understand that there is so much more to the field of "ufology" and to high strangeness as a whole that Rich could never touch because of the limitations he has imposed on himself as a result of not having a real general drive for truth."

There is SO MUCH more to this phenomenon than what Dolan has ever really stated in a public purview. No where does he mention our spirituality as it pertains to this phenomenon; he doesn't mention, nor has seemingly researched the ET/abduction issue. The Reptilian factor does not get mentioned by him (nor by too many others who are considered top ufology researchers). To ME, unless these issues are brought to the forefront of this phenomenon and dealt with in an honest fashion during various presentations (as much as is possible), then the full context as to what is behind this phenomenon just gets lost in the vapors.

I do admire Dolan's research very much, but again...he touches on just one small piece of the puzzle during his lectures. JMHO, anyway.

[Bayareamom]

That first link I've provided isn't working, but here is another link, detailing various aspects regarding the Mark Richards trial:

http://murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hoov...ssan-david.htm

SNIP:

..."After waiting patiently for the strange monologue to run its course, Keaton confronted Richards with evidence that he had used Baldwin's credit-cards and burglarized his home. Richards admitted both allegations, explaining that the car-dealer owed him money; he had used the credit-cards with Baldwin's approval in reduction of the debt. He could not plead the dead man's consent to the burglary, but apparently hoped that the detective would regard the break-in as a frustrated creditor's last resort. Still, once it was clear to him that he could not deny possession of some of the fruits of the crime, Richards backed away from his earlier "protective" attitude towards his young employees; he told Keaton that Crossie Hoover had confessed to him the murder of Baldwin.

These first statements taken from the suspects might have indicated that the killer or killers of the classic-car dealer had acted from routine theft motives. However, a police inspection of Mark Richards's house added a whole new dimension to the case. On July 22 the Marin Independent Journal reported the results of the search under a towering headline, "BIZARRE PLOT FOR MARIN COUP?" ...

ANOTHER ARTICLE RE RICHARDS TRIAL:

http://www.marinij.com/article/ZZ/20...NEWS/901169962

Court Document:

http://law.justia.com/cases/californ.../187/1074.html

SNIP:
..."The killing occurred within the context of a bizarre conspiracy, led by Mark Richards, for a paramilitary takeover of Marin County and creation of a modern-day Camelot with Richards as King Arthur and his crew of teenaged construction workers as his knights. Richards, a 29-year-old contractor, employed a number of teenagers, including 17-year-old Hoover. In [187 Cal. App. 3d 1078] regular meetings Richards promoted his plan to isolate Marin County by destroying the Golden Gate and Richmond-San Rafael Bridges and to defend the new kingdom through the use of laser guns placed on Angel Island and Mt. Tamalpais. The conspiracy was called Pendragon. fn. 1

Richards developed financial difficulties in mid-1982. He decided to kill his friend Richard Baldwin in order to obtain money. Baldwin was known to carry large amounts of cash.

After failing in an attempt to solicit two of his followers to kill Baldwin, Richards turned to Hoover and another teenaged employee, Andrew C. He told them Baldwin owed him money and was a "Nazi" and a "faggot," and it "would be a service to the public to get rid of such a menace." The two agreed to participate in the killing in exchange for a share of proceeds from the sale of property to be taken from Baldwin's house, as well as lodging in a remodeled portion of Richards's house. Hoover later stated he had expected to receive $5,000, a car, and a place to live.

On july 6, 1982, Richards drove Hoover and Andrew to Baldwin's house to work on a construction job there. In the afternoon, pursuant to a plan devised by Richards, he asked Baldwin to show him and Hoover classic cars located in Baldwin's auto shop. The three left around 2 p.m. in Richards's truck. Andrew stayed behind and searched the house.

At the shop, upon a prearranged signal from Richards, Hoover struck Baldwin on the head with a baseball bat. Hoover then stabbed Baldwin in the head with a screwdriver and in the chest with a chisel.

Richards and Hoover returned to Baldwin's house. With Andrew, they took $3,000 in cash and various other items from the house, including guns and marijuana. Later that day Richards bought a boat, using Baldwin's money to make a down payment. He and the two teenagers retrieved Baldwin's body from the auto shop and used the boat to dump the body in San Francisco Bay..."

Caveat: I know Kerry Cassidy has interviewed Mark Richards extensively. Richards may or may not be telling the truth - I've no idea if he is or not. His wife seems very sweet and genuinely believes her husband's story. But to ME, if one is actually looking for TRUTH...when one finds these documents and reads thru them, it is hard to get past the elements of this case and make that giant leap forward to Mark Richards' innocence. I understand this thread is about Dolan's lecture. BUT Dolan states he has issues w/Tompkins' story. Fair enough. I will spend some time reviewing his lecture and decide for myself. However, I know that Bill has stated he feels Mark Richards' story MAY be true. But I would genuinely ask - based on what? What sort of documentation verifies ANY of Mark Richards' tale? Tompkins has, at the minimum, various documentation(s) regarding his employment, etc. Bob Wood stands by Tompkins' testimony.

I'm not a ufologist. I have had my own high strangeness occurrences throughout my lifetime (and will not go public), but I can tell you that based on what I and my family have been through, I can at the minimum state that Tompkins' testimony rings a bell of truth for ME. I don't need to see his credentials to say this (although I'm glad he's provided such).

I respect Bill's opinions on many issues...truly. But I must say, on just this one issue vs. Tompkins or Richards, it does boggle my mind that Bill would find any of Richards' tale true, while stating he has issues with Tompkins.