The Magonia Review just posted a short review of After Disclosure, by Richard Dolan and Bryce Zabel (New Page Books, 2012). I haven’t read the book, and the review does little to encourage me. As readers know, I have high regard for Dolan’s historical works on UFOs, but it seems the speculative nature of this book (a “what if?” sort of approach, as opposed to chronicling the history of UFOs in the US), means this effort isn’t going to deserve such accolades.
Magonia Review of After Disclosure
I don’t know that I would take Magonia’s review too seriously either. They balk at the entirely acceptable and appropriate statement in the book concerning the Phoenix lights, that they “defy easy explanation”. Considering the mountain of witness testimony to a giant flying craft that night, including Gov. Symington himself, I would say the event clearly “defied easy explanation”. Then, as supposed proof, they cite ONE guy, an amateur astronomer, who said what he saw were aircraft – as though that settles the issue. Umm, no. And they precede it with the condescendingly disingenous “anyone who has bothered to read the literature on this case knows…”, thus creating a false consensus to bolster their conclusion. Not good…
I’m not saying the book is entirely credible either, as I have not read it. I’m just saying, in a few short paragraphs, Magonia (John Harney) makes me doubt their own credibility, maybe qualifications even, to accurately evaluate this book, yea this subject, because of their non-sequiturs and apparent willing ignorance of facts.
understood; both sides are going to favor certain data and “facts” — which is normal.
> they cite ONE guy, an amateur astronomer, who said what he saw were aircraft as though that settles the issue
You left something out: he saw them with a telescope, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of witnesses who did not.
This is not a vote: facts trump belief in this case.
Correction. I didn’t cite any amateur astronomer or guy — the link did.
And since the review actually makes your point (here is the sentence: “Anyone who has bothered to read the literature on this case knows that the first formation of lights was identified as aircraft by amateur astronomer Mitch Stanley, who observed them through his telescope”) I’m not sure what your objection is.
@MSH
Just to be clear: I quoted “Michael June 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM” and critiqued his baseless slag of the Magonia review.
ah – got it.
b”h
From the intro:
“Although the nature of this book is speculative we have worked hard to keep such speculations informed and supported by solid research. You will notice, however, that some of the sources we refer to are listed as “confidential,” rather than by name. Although we wish this were not so, there are many people who have been touched by this cover-up who do not feel comfortable speaking openly, either because of past oaths of secrecy, fear of personal jeapardy, or ridicule. We want our readers to know that, through our professional training in the fields of history and investigative journalism, we have applied standards of credibility to such comments. Only those individuals who cross a threshold of reliability have been included.”
I read a Kindle version simply to be aware of their views. For most people interested in UFOs, Dolan, at least, is a respectable ufologist. Also there has been speculation among students of prophecy that UFO phenomena may have a direct impact on the outworking of biblcal prophecy. In the book’s front matter the authors say they are not sure what the origin of UFO phenomena is and include angels and demons in their list of possibilities, though they don’t delve into either. There is a brief section on evangelical views and even Michael Heiser is given a sentence or two. To me the book is more an “enjoyable primer” (words of a reviewer on the inside cover) on how UFO phenomena impact various strata of society, and how that impact might be magnified if the government ever did acknowledge the phenomenon is real.
If you are knowledgable about UFOs I don’t think this book is obligatory. If you do not know much about the field, this book may help fill in some gaps as a kind of “UFO 101” text, keeping in mind of course that the authors present the subject from their vantage point. YMMV
Best
Thanks for this – especially the last paragraph; very helpful to readers.
terry the censor said:
“This is not a vote: facts trump belief in this case.”
So one guy with a telescope represents the facts, and the majority of witnesses do not?
Why are you willing to dismiss the majority of witnesses and then think your position is based on facts?
“baseless slag”?
You can’t call it baseless if you are unwilling to answer my specific questions and objections about your review. I have given a base for what I said, taken from what you said. Your ad-hominem comment does not give you the intellectual upper-hand. Try again.
I presume this is directed at Terry the censor.
MSH said:
“I presume this is directed at Terry the censor.”
Yes. I guess I should have put his username at the head.
@Michael (not of the Heiser variety)
> So one guy with a telescope represents the facts, and the majority of witnesses do not?
The fellow with the telescope has superior means to view the object, would you not agree? His observation should be given greater weight than someone standing on the ground viewing with the naked eye, would you not agree?
My objection — which you haven’t addressed yourself — is that you left out the telescope in your argument! Hence the phrase “baseless slag.” You presented the amateur astronomer eyewitness report as a one-versus-many issue when the telescope suggests it is a quality-versus-quantity issue.
Your pseudoskepticism is sad. You have no “specific questions and objections,” you simply misrepresented the facts — and refuse to admit it. And where is my alleged “ad-hominem comment”? Do you know what ad hominem means?
terry the censor said:
“And where is my alleged ad-hominem comment?”
Yes, I realized afterwards it was not ad hominem, since “baseless slag” was addressed “to the review”, as it were, and not “to the body”. Not that I didn’t realize you were addressing the review and not me, I simply mis-identified it. Yes, I know what ad hominem means.
I don’t think we’re talking about exactly the same thing. Many witnesses, again including the Gov himself, reported seeing a craft that was at least as big, or bigger, than an aircraft carrier. I’m assuming you’re not saying superior means is needed to view an object of this size. Yes, some people just saw lights but no craft – that’s true. Then I suppose getting a closer view would be helpful. But that’s not the issue…
What I’m marvelling at is your ridiculous dismissal of the majority of witness testimony as unreliable – presumably because it doesn’t fit your worldview – as well your fixation on the detail of my inadvertent omission of the fact this guy was using a telescope to conclude:
1. My comments pointing out your bias are “baseless slag”.
2. I’m a pseudoskeptic.
3. I’ve misrepresented the facts.
Seriously, that is absurd, man – totally unreasonable. Therefore, it makes sense to stop trying to reason with you. DONE.
@Michael (non-Heiser variety)
Your responses show a bizarre wilfulness to misrepresent others so that you can dismiss their points.
My initial comment pointed out your omission of the telescope, an omission that allowed you to snarkily dismiss the Magonia review and the investigations to which they referred. You prefer a mountain of testimony that supports your view but ignore better quality information that doesn’t. At long last you call this omission “inadvertant,” but ignore the implications. Instead, you double down by claiming I have dismissed other testimony for partisan reasons — because it doesn’t fit my worldview! Again, you wilfully misrepresent, ignoring what I actually wrote: “His observation should be given greater weight than someone standing on the ground viewing with the naked eye, would you not agree?” To you, weighting testimony is a “ridiculous dismissal.”
> Therefore, it makes sense to stop trying to reason with you. DONE.
Seriously, man, you haven’t begun to reason. Your are entirely disingenuous! Your arguments are not designed to illuminate facts, they are made merely to score points in a partisan game.
Get a grip.