Richard Dolan. richarddolanmembers.com. June 10, 2025.
Dolan interprets media coverage through political motives while acknowledging possible review-board capture and uncertain petition privacy. Readers offer accountability, faction and clickbait alternatives. Motive claims remain inference, with no firsthand commissioning record.
Hind records an unnamed radio caller’s claim of Air Force transport for Klarer, while a book review describes an intelligence offer to Moore that did not deliver promised secrets. The issue preserves failed witness follow-ups, criticism of implant reports, drone alternatives and conflicting historical dates. The reported contacts retain missing originals and uncertain access.
Hind publishes witness corrections to the previous contact story, removing its classified-envelope description and changing a phone message to a pager message. Wintle’s review relays Dodd’s alleged embassy invitation, anonymous military accounts and a warning encounter; promised media never arrived and hoped-for contact failed. The editors reject the disputed Kalahari account. Natural alternatives, contrary testimony and missing originals remain explicit.
The issue describes a police pilot’s reported Air Force questionnaire visit, conflicting radar accounts and Venus, autokinesis or drone alternatives. Witness follow-ups and Corso commentary retain their relay chains, missing originals and contrary interpretations. The magazine reports these claims; it does not establish a secret programme, alien technology or medical causation.
■ Complete supplied issue text; six native layouts
Cynthia Hind, Maria Sullivan, Prier Wintle. files.afu.se. July 1988.
Hind recounts police testimony and contrary laboratory claims at Rosmead, says she has access to unnamed governmental psychologists, and publishes a former consul’s personal sighting account. Proposed cooperation and reported official roles do not establish programme access. Retrospective sleep-related reports, prompted recollections, ordinary alternatives and negative searches remain explicit. The accompanying book review and evolutionary essay are distinct from verified clinical or technical findings.