Hi Everyone,
I’m issuing a correction to my September 9 video, Are They Preparing Us for Alien Disclosure?(opens in new tab) Dr. Jennice Vilhauer contacted me after I suggested that she and her co-authors would treat legitimate anger over government secrecy as a behavioral-health problem. They did not recommend that, and I am removing that statement from the video. I also overstated their omission of institutional misconduct: the longer report does discuss betrayal, concealment, and official dismissal of the UFO subject.
I still have serious concerns about the proposed government monitoring network, although I support preparing clinical help for people who might need it. But I blurred my fears about how that system could operate with what these authors actually advocated. That was unfair. I apologize to Dr. Vilhauer and her co-authors, and I appreciate her respectful response. We can have a strong disagreement without misrepresenting each other.
You can read their papers:
Policy brief, “A National Preparedness Framework for the Human Consequences of Disclosure”(opens in new tab)
Full research paper, “The Psychological Impact of UAP/NHI Disclosure”(opens in new tab)
I let my emotions get in the way of looking more carefully at what they were actually trying to say. I still disagree with the basic concept, but I wasn’t careful enough.
Richard
Your willingness to rapidly own and correct mistakes only adds to your credibility.
Thanks to you and everyone else who commented on that. I honestly can’t recall if I tried to imply that Dr. Vilhauer and her colleagues were that callous about pathologizing anger at the USG over years of secrecy. I don’t *think* I was trying to do that, as I knew they did emphasize they weren’t trying to do that. But I do think I let my anger/annoyance get in the way a bit. And honestly, I could imagine myself in their shoes. I really doubt these people are trying to screw the American or global citizens over. I do think they mean well. No one wants to be in the crosshairs of someone who’s angry, especially if they have been taken out of context. Which is what I think I did there. Dr. Vilhauer was only polite in her correspondence with me. I felt immediately that I could make the correction.
Now that’s an sincere apology.
Brought with dignity.
Glad to see and hear a real human.
As always, I find you refreshingly honest and polite. I wish I could have heard or read your conversation with her. Perhaps you could invite her to have an interview discussion of the panopticon surveillance and other controversial aspects of her proposals. You apologized for an error. You need not apologize for objecting to Orwellian measures.
I used to be more polite. I can still be polite when the situation calls for it. My Mom raised me to be polite.
My only reaction is do not worry about your argument. Your apology is more than appreciated. There is so much going on with false nonsense being put out for the public to absorb, I just wonder how researchers of your caliber maintain their composure without giving up and placing your talents in a different direction.
It gets to a point that sooner or later the brain snaps suddenly making criticism that comes out of nowhere. Yet, the person who is balanced and legitimate will put the brakes on and step back and say. “What have I done,” make corrections and do what few people do, apologize and move on. Good for you! This why I follow your work so closely. You have demonstrated your magnificence remarkably.
I look forward to your next publication, volume 3, USO.
And yet I’m aware of what American psy have done in dark sites and the American psychological association was quite involved. So I have no idea who these people are that are being apologized to. That’s all thanks Richard. After all they’re involved with the department of war and everything. 🙂
I applaud your willingness to admit you were not completely correct in your assessment. In this day and age, you have demonstrated remarkable humility by your actions.