Dolan’s First Insider Leak from the US Government’s Secret Classified UFO/UAP Report to Congress

At 48:20 on the video below, Richard Dolan reveals information from a source he fully trusts who lists eight “highly classified projects” discussed in “the classified portion of the UAP report given to a select number of congressmen and senators.”

Most of the video is Mr. Dolan’s views on the unclassified portion of the report. His opinions on UFOs are routinely intelligent and well informed, if you ask me.

I thought I’d get this out to you on the heals of my earlier post today. Sorry if this is an overload. We live in interesting times for those of us brave enough to explore the “impossible” facts circulating mainly outside of the mainstream media nowadays.

Anti-gravity love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

19 thoughts on “Dolan’s First Insider Leak from the US Government’s Secret Classified UFO/UAP Report to Congress

  1. This and our previous conversations have made me curious about something. You seem to have started your working life as an elite, become disillusioned with them and decided that the little guy is far more virtuous and trustworthy. Or at least that is the reasoning I infer from the UFO, Fed, Ron Paul stuff.

    Fifteen years ago I was on the edge of homelessness, surrounded by the littlest of little guys, up to my neck in their folk wisdom and distrust. I have carefully worked my way up until, now, I get to consult with lawmakers. My impression of this journey has been one of getting away from timid folks afraid to fail or take responsibility and getting into contact with people who are generally very careful with their decisions because they understand that a) they will never have perfect information b) simple folk wisdom doesn’t cut it when you have responsibilities and c) that their decisions will hurt or help thousands.

    I wonder why our journeys have been so different.

    • In my limited experience, the few wealthy people I’ve personally gotten to know seem exceptionally good-hearted with much on the ball, including an admirable sense of duty, fairness and personal responsibility. Among the numerous poor and lower middleclass people I’ve grown up with and gotten to know, survival instincts seem to have fairly often crowded out some of the benevolence and trustworthiness that I suspect was once there for them. So my personal observations are not entirely unlike yours, it seems. On the other hand, when I try to make sense of what has been going on throughout history and continues today, I see a pattern of extremely wealthy and powerful people and organizations seeking top-down control through military force and public deception. I think democracy temporarily interrupted that long historical trend for a short while until after WWII when project Paperclip brought NAZI scientists over to the US and put them in positions of power and influence. It seems to me that the growing force of materialism, powered by Darwin’s honest error, changed our most powerful elites from principled religions folk to true believers in an amoral universe. I could be wrong. I often am wrong. Perhaps most people are like me in this respect, capable of being completely wrong about critically important things.

      • There are definitely ultra elites who have sought top down power, though generally not the successful ones in my observation. Cyrus the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan etc were generally pretty happy to stay out of your business provided you served in their armies and paid your taxes. The exceptions I see to that, your Elagabolas and Ivan the Terrible types, are usually hereditary elites who haven’t earned their positions.

        And this is a big difference I’ve seen since moving to Korea. Over hear, we aren’t far from huge disasters. The people who have power have, almost all of them, earned it. I don’t remember thinking the same thing about the elites in the Western US, where I grew up.

        As for Nazis and totalitarians, that’s a rabbit hole that’s very deep and also the subject of my PhD thesis. If you want, we can definitely plumb those depths.

        • History seems to be rewritten by the victors of war. In democratic states people can have differing opinions on what happened, even if everyone has forgotten the facts and both sides of the discussion are mistaken. In totalitarian states, disagreeing with the rulers isn’t allowed, as best I can tell. I think I’d rather have John F. Kennedy at the top of a democracy than Genghis Khan as my absolute ruler, even if they both men required military service and tax payment. But I’ve made bad choices before. Perhaps this would be another example. There’s no way to know for sure because it’s a subjective judgement call based on soft data coming from an invisible history that appears to have been written and freely rewritten for political purposes.
          Earning power is an interesting concept. I think I’d rather my leaders earned trust by demonstrating trustworthiness before being elected to power. But perhaps that’s exactly what you mean by “earning” power.
          Yes, I would be delighted to hear about the Nazis from someone who has done a PhD thesis on them. I would be especially interested in learning more of what they believed about “scientific” materialism, Darwinism, morality, and racism. Thanks for sharing your broadly informed perspectives.

          • Oh I’d rather live under Kennedy than Genghis, too. My point is that Genghis/Caesar/Cyrus were a lot less controlling of their subjects than the authoritarianism you suggest.

            Genghis’ greatest general, Subetai, earned that position by telling some very uncomfortable truths to the Khan’s face. Genghis admired the man’s courage and honesty. Likewise, Caesar allowed more freedom of speech than the Repubic had, in most cases. Cyrus’ whole thing was a light touch.

            I’m not saying this to glorify dictators. These virtues were equally present in people like Dwight Eisenhower, Tallyrand and Hannibal Barca. I’m simply pointing out that the baddest of bad ass leaders, dictatorial or democratic or whatever else, generally speaking aren’t interested in spying on your dinner conversations. They tend to be open to criticism and honesty because they tend to have won their power through manifest ability. People with manifest ability, in my experience, are not easily threatened by inconvenient truths or dissenting opinions.

            On the other hand, those with less power tend to be a lot more insecure. Julius Caesar isn’t going to cry if you tell him how his policy is back firing, but Nero almost certainly would. Cyrus isn’t going to get butthurt if you criticize his satrapy, but Darius the Third might. Dwight Eisenhower isn’t going to obsess about a reporter calling him stupid, but Trump would.

            And this is what I mean about power. Real power isn’t usually oppressive because power comes from the consent of the governed. You don’t get those people’s consent by being insecure, weak or malignant.

            The oppressive leaders, the Kim Jong-euns and the Emperor Hirohito types – these guys oppress because they aren’t convinced they deserve to be where they are. Seon-jo of Joseon is probably the worst example I can think of for this. Insecurity and weakness are, in my reading of history, far more dangerous than cruelty or greed. The only thing more dangerous than insecurity and weakness is a clear, inflexible moral vision of the world. Which brings us to the totalitarians.

          • I think the best account of Totalitarianism is Hannah Arendt’s three part “Origins of Totalitarianism.”

            In it, she argues that totalitarianism differs from garden variety despotism in two main ways:
            1. It values the ideology over the pragmatic needs of the state/people/elite/leader.
            2. It views reality as a distraction from the deeper truth of deterministic “science.”

            In other words, where Caesar is willing to change his ideals in order to meet practical goals like enriching himself, securing the empire or conquering Gaul, Hitler is willing to sacrifice his wealth, endanger the empire and lose Gaul in order to further the ideology. And it’s not just Nazis and their scientific racism. Scientific history is the backbone of communist totalitarianism and it works the same way.

            One of the most disturbing things about the totalitarian method is that it requires simplicity of the world in order to fit with the “scientific prophecy” (Arendt’s words) of the ideology. People are complex and often frustrate simple ideologies. As such, totalitarians continually “simplify” people in order to fit the ideology. Stalin does care about your dinner time conversation because he needs you to be simple and predictable so you don’t frustrate the “greater truth” of the ideology.

              • Oh yeah, logical positivism is a bitch.

                Marxism was consciously conceived as a way to make history scientific. Marx and Engels discovered the scientific laws and everything was supposed to work like a physics equation from then on.

                Same thing with scientific racism. Heredity was supposed to make human behavior as predictable as Mendel’s pea plant experiments.

          • This all begs the question of “who wants totalitarianism and why?”

            In my analysis, the answer is a group of people called “superfluous men.” These people have no role. They cannot point to work/family/projects/etc as a justification of their lives. As such, it is very difficult for these people to explain why they should not commit suicide.

            According to Arendt (and Frankl in a weird way), totalitarians fix this problem by making everyone simple. If we are all simple, and our actions don’t matter, the superfluous man is no longer useless, he no longer needs to kill himself.

            And this is why totalitarians always appeal to the poor, the suffering, the marginalized and the downwardly mobile first.

            If you want a really deep dive, check this out.

            It’s a paper I presented in Tokyo at an education conference.

  2. The report by Richard Dolan just shows how little the government is going to release. Anything they do release is just governmental jargon that has little or no meaning. The one thing I did get from the report was that there seems to be no explanation for the sighting of the UFOs. It doesn’t appear to be our military or foreign military. With reports like this, the public is not going to pay much attention, which I feel is their goal. We must stay awake and keep UFO topics alive.

    • I think the Australian reporter in my previous post is probably right that there’s a “war” going on in the DOD over disclosure. One side favors more transparency and the other fears it. This would explain the conflicting governmental claims regarding whether Luis Elizondo was the leader of AATYP program and whether that program focused primarily on UAPs/UFOs. When hiding secret traditional US military technology through misinformation has been part of a person’s normal job routine for years, one would expect that person to hide “off world” technology as well, when he/she is “read into the program.”

  3. Pingback: Dolan’s First Insider Leak from the US Government’s Secret Classified UFO/UAP Report to Congress – Synchronicity 13:20; DNA is Time

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.