How Believers in the Paranormal Birthed the Pentagon's New Hunt for UFOs

[EYESORE 9001]

In Oregon, a man said his health deteriorated after a glowing blue orb passed through his body. A family in California reported strange lights and a gray figure with spindly legs in their orchard. A werewolf-like creature allegedly prowled around homes in suburban Virginia.

All three incidents were probed as part of a secret Pentagon program investigating UFOs. The program, contracted by the Defense Intelligence Agency, plumbed the connection between the flying objects and the paranormal for two years, according to the men who ran it.

It was the beginning of a years-long effort by UFO advocates that eventually led to Congress passing legislation in December 2021 ordering the Pentagon to spend the next four years investigating unidentified flying objects.

The Pentagon's new office for what has been rebranded as unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP, has deep roots in the paranormal. Underneath the Washington defense talk about threats from China and Russia, there is a conviction among advocates that the strange objects glimpsed by troops and military equipment are part of a mysterious phenomenon that stretches back decades or, perhaps, throughout human history.

More…

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/03/07/how-believers-paranormal-birthed-pentagons-new-hunt-ufos.html?ESRC=eb_220308.nl

Having read The Men Who Stare at Goats, I find this stuff fascinating.

[USALiberal]

1. Aliens are not visiting earth. Waste of money! Nt

[Clash City Rocker]

3. Hey, Space Force has to fight somebody

Is Space Force still a thing? I haven’t heard anything about them since we got a sane person back in the White House.

[EYESORE 9001]

4. It's still a thing

It didn’t begin and end with Cheeto Benito.

[MartyTheGreek]

5. Human DNA is only 250K years old! We are the Aliens! Get over it!

Col. Corso, "when the troops went inside the craft, they found glass wires and when they put their hands around it, it glowed. When they looked out of the glass dome at night, looking out, it was daylight." "The Day After Roswell"

If anyone has doubts, start with the Disclosure Project, weed out the bullshit and listen to what some of these base commanders and pilots have to say. This intelligence and technology has the ability to inspect missiles and destroy them at will in-flight! Shut down missile silos!

Regarding Space Force? Some of us UFO believers think that Trump was trying to setup his own intel to leak out to you know who! In my read, AF laughed inside.

Ben Rich, Lockheed Skunks Works, said we can take ET home! He also said, there's an error in the equations! I believe some of what we see may be ours, but UFOs have been reported to be observing Battlefields for centuries. Look at the Foo Fighters during WW II, US thought it was the Germans' tech and Germans thought it was our tech referencing the Orbs trailing the bombers on both sides. Even Japanese pilots reported seeing Orbs.

[Johnny2X2X]

6. Sigh

I would think that the advent of the smart phone would put this nonsense to rest. You've got millions of people flying around in the sky daily, each with a video camera in their pockets. If there were ships flying around up there from another planet, new video would be coming out all the time. Smart phones killed Big Foot, ghosts, and the Lockness Monster already.

People like to believe in nonsense, it makes the world more interesting to them I guess. Too many people become obsessed with monsters or aliens when they could be obsessed with saving our planet. Climate Change is the big monster everyone should be obsessed with.

[CrackityJones75]

9. Go outside

Go outside and take a pic on your phone of a plane flying high in the sky. Then come back and post a pic of it.

[Oneironaut]

10. Do you mean those things in the sky that spray chemtrails?

[USALiberal]

11. What in the hell does this mean? You don't think it's possible???

[CrackityJones75]

22. What I mean is

What I mean is Go outside and take a picture of a plan high up in the sky and then see what the pic looks like. Usually you can’t even see the plane at all.

[USALiberal]

29. How many passengers on jets get UFO photos???

[Orrex]

30. UFO true believers want it both ways

They post their blurry pics and video as proof of extraterrestrial craft (or supernatural phenomena) but when critics point out the low quality of the images, the believer says “take a picture of a airplane.”

I’m not faulting them for poor image quality; I’m faulting those who offer (or who accept) those blurry images as serious evidence.

[CrackityJones75]

50. Agreed. Here's my point.

Cell phone pictures do not generally do well capturing images in the sky at large distances.

I do think that people that are generally credible should be believed at what they say they saw at least from the perspective that they saw something they cannot otherwise explain. A ufo is an unidentified flying object. Why do people find this so polarizing or controversial and get so personal with it?

[Orrex]

55. Because society at large equates "UFO" with "alien spacecraft"

I have literally never encountered anyone who objected to people reported sighting of objects or phenomena that they can’t identify.

But as soon as definitive statements are made, the entire burden of proof falls upon the claimant.

Some of the friction arises, I suspect, when the claimant refuses to provide that evidence, making statements like “you didn’t see it” or “prove me wrong.” Those statements are appeals to emotionalism and demonstrate that the claimant wants their story accepted on faith.

In my experience, that’s when the claimant starts calling me “close minded “ or accusing me of “drinking the official kool-aid,” and I confess that that’s when I start getting snarky with people.

[CrackityJones75]

57. I mean you could just let people believe what they believe?

Unless you have an official designation to investigate the “claimants” of course.

*shrug*

[Orrex]

60. See, your question implies that I'm part of "THE COVERUP"

Meaning that you've surrendered to emotionalism.

The claimants (or, if that word troubles you, pick another; it's hardly central) are free to believe whatever the hell they like, but as soon as they declare their belief in an open forum, then they are explicitly inviting rebuttal. They don't get a pass simply because their belief is sincere, especially if they're espousing belief in something for which their is no tangible corroboration, and eyewitness testimony is not credible confirmation of extraterrestrial or supernatural phenomena. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you disagree, then I'd be interested to hear how you reject any claim whatsoever, supernatural or mundane; if you require no real evidence, then how can you distinguish truth from falsehood in any matter at all?


Further, when the claimants attack their critics as "closed-minded," or imply that their objection is motivated by some "official designation," do you scold the claimant for failing to let their critics believe what they wish? Or do you only leap to the aid of those who believe in the fantastical and the unverified?

[CrackityJones75]

67. No it doesn't

That’s what you are inferring.

In fact I am saying there isn’t a problem at all. Your response is that I am making you pet of the problem. What problem? Someone saw something. They think it might have been X. What is the problem? Why do you have to refute what they say they saw and believe?

[Orrex]

68. Then why did you ask if I have some "official designation?"

If not to imply that I am “pet(sic) of the problem?”

Again, the claimant is welcome to believe whatever unsupported conclusions they like, but as soon they declare those beliefs in an open forum, then those beliefs are rightly subject to critique, rebuttal, and debunking. That’s “the problem“ that you seem to imagine not to exist.

And if, perish the thought, they leverage those claimed beliefs to reap a profit, enact policy, or harm others, then at the very least they and their beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

[CrackityJones75]

69. Do you?

Why else would you take it upon yourself to identify a problem? I don’t understand your position that people stating what they saw and and trying to explain something that they can't as a problem that you need to address.

[Orrex]

71. Because I find bullshit distasteful

In large part because it is widely used as a tool to fleece and manipulate the credulous. Even innocent misidentification feeds into the larger problem because it fosters magical thinking, and it conditions people to accept baseless claims by seemingly passionate believers.

Why is that not a problem for you?

[CrackityJones75]

80. It isn't. I was just wondering.

[USALiberal]

13. +1000, no proof at all! Nt

[CrackityJones75]

23. Also is it possible to care about than one thing at once?

I have tw kids. Do I have to love only one?

[Javaman]

49. ...

[USALiberal]

12. Make believe is fun! Nt

[USALiberal]

15. What is your best evidence of proof???

[HipChick]

25. Agree....Denial is too easy

Back engineering of technology is evident...

Are countries sharing information of encounters?..

[StClone]

34. Recently, highly trained fighter pilots...

...who is in the air for thousands of hours, thoroughly psychologically and background tested, TAKE images of the unidentified phenomenon in the sky, they can be trusted in their inability to say what they are seeing.

Let's start at a time documented in time and place, from which to build a basis for how the phenomena's modern era started. Best due diligence is to expose the facts requires you listen to this extraordinary FREE audiobook by the Airforce's point man who spent decades investigating the reports airforce pilots, and others reported.

Take the challenge to get informed leading up to today:

The Report on UFO [Audiobook part 1] by Edward J. Ruppelt

PART 1:

PART 2:

[USALiberal]

35. This is 60 years old. Nt

[StClone]

39. Lord did even read WHY you start at the beginning to learn things???

I am fine now knowing you are one with a mind who is not open to what is going on.

[lagomorph777]

17. We can't let random unidentified things fly around in protected airspace.

Whether they are human or otherwise, it's inexcusable to let this shit go uninvestigated.

[USALiberal]

18. Send me your best example of these UFOS!

[Beaverhausen]

31. here are a few

Phoenix Lights
https://ktar.com/story/1490163/more-than-20-years-later-mystery-of-phoenix-lights-still-fascinates-people/

USS Nimitz Tic Tac
https://www.history.com/videos/uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-declassified-video

Rendalsham Forest
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-54649675


By the way, calling something a UFO doesn't mean it's alien or from another planet.

Its simply calling it unidentified, meaning the object doesn't behave the way anything we know of behaves.

[USALiberal]

36. How about something that's not all decades old??

[Beaverhausen]

43. Why?

Real unidentified objects are few and far between, but they are out there.

But most reported sightings are drones, helium balloons, or miscellaneous satellites.

[edhopper]

8. It is important to remember

that an organization as large as the DOD has believers as well. And just because it comes from "military personnel", doesn't make it cold facts.
The Military has been wrong many times in the past. Sometimes it's deliberate lies, sometimes it's institutional bias, and sometimes they just don't know what they are talking about.

"But a Navy pilot saw it" don't mean shit to me. They can be a mistaked as anyone else.

[USALiberal]

16. +1000!

[The Revolution]

20. Yep

Yep. People put so much stock in this "Nimitz encounter", but at the end of the day what you have is extraordinary claims by a couple witnesses, with no evidence. The video that does exist just shows some object (maybe?) not really doing anything interesting and was taken by a different pilot.

A pilot can be mistaken, or a liar.

[StClone]

38. Pilots flying billion dollar planes, trained, tested, experienced, are called to protect our country

are told they are mistaken, liars, or mentally impaired, and possibly therefore unfit?

I have faith that they KNOW what they are saying about what they are observing. What *credentials do detractors have and are they as impeccable as the pilots'? What are the debunker's goals? Proving UFO requires a proof, and the US (via military, security agencies) had a program to dispel the fear of things that were unknown and over which they had no control by discrediting the observes by debunking, regardless of the proof (photos, actual materials collected, and military equipment reactions to UFO encounters).

*Philip J. Klass was a highly respected Electrical Engineer Professor, Harvard, Nasa...who was a "researcher" of UFO reports was likely a paid government debunker to quell the fear of the UFO phenomenon by nixing reports.

[edhopper]

40. Pilots flying billion dollar planes

have bomb the wrong people and shot down the wrong planes. They make mistakes.

Having personally known Klass, that last sentence is more horse shit than a stable.

[StClone]

42. Those mistakes do not negate UFOs

Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2022, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Hundreds of instances of "mistakes" by pilots compared to tens of thousands of pretty solid reports of UFOS is saying top guns don't know what they are doing. I trust a pilot to tell me they don't know what they are seeing more than most people telling me otherwise.

On Edit: Klass got his degrees same place as James McDonald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._McDonald as did I! Can't say he was a friend of mine though.

[edhopper]

44. There are not tens of thousands od "solid" UFO reports

In fact, there are no "solid" UFO reports.

[StClone]

48. There are.

It does not prove what they are, where they come from, why they are here, or what they want though. It proves there is definitely a phenomenon that is beyond our control and technological comprehension. If you don't want to believe that is where we stand that is fine with me.

[Orrex]

61. You have a rather charitable definition of "solid," in that case

If you set the bar at "we can't say with certainty what that observed phenomenon is," then sure. There are tons of "solid" UFO reports.

But I think it's clear, particularly in this discussion re: "believers in the paranormal," that we are dismissing as "not solid" the many thousands of "unidentified phenomena" that believers in the paranormal are so quick to identify as proof of the supernatural or the extraterrestrial.


When I took the garbage out at dusk tonight, something flew overhead. It appeared to be a bird, but since I can't identify the genus and species, I guess we can call it a UFO.

[StClone]

63. How do I know you exist.

[Orrex]

64. Tell you what: skip to the end of that chapter in Philosophy 101 and tell me what you find.

While you're at it, prove to yourself that you exist, and show us how you did it. Then tell us exactly what it means to exist. If you want to dive down that rabbit hole of equivocation, then let's go all-in.

The claim that I exist is not extraordinary, notwithstanding my amazing charisma or traffic-stopping good looks. Therefore little evidence is needed to prove that claim. Unimaginative Christianists have been playing that card for years, in fact, when they cite some late work that mentions the Jeez by name, and they cry "See? Proof! Jesus existed!" It doesn't mean that their Messiah is real, but some fella with a similar name probably crawled around the eastern Mediterranean at around 1AD. Why not?

On the other hand, if I were to claim that I just now teleported invisibly into your presence and took a good look at what you were doing, on what basis could you possibly presume to deny my claim? Would you demand evidence?

How do you distinguish between fantastical claims that you accept without real evidence versus fantastical claims for which you demand corroboration? How far are you willing to move those goalposts in support of your preconceptions?

[StClone]

65. You exist

This was not a philosophical ruse.

You exist because you leave traces (as do UFOs), you can be photographed (as can UFOs), you are seen (as are UFOs), and you cause physical effects (as do UFOs). There are many well-documented cases by the most serious of authorities you can find which establish the above. You can disavow existence for lack of being fully convinced by the level of evidence. But there is a slow turning by Scientists to see that there is something we are aware of which can not be explained in the UFOs experience.

I was ambivalent as to the reality of UFOs until recently, then I got into reading some highly credentialed investigators in the UFO subject notably Jacques Vallée. Check his writings out. Also, after the substantial Navy pilot's sightings were released I took a renewed interest in the subject. And lastly, I have seen several odd things which I felt were explained satisfactorily. Except one: A very large stationary line of four large oval lights flashing silently close by in the night on two occasions. It could have been a military refueling exercise-but with no jet noise?

Another author is Harvey Rutledge. In 1973 there were many UFO reports around Piedmont, MO. A local Ph.D. Physicist Harley Rutledge from Southeast Missouri State put together a team, a plan, and equipment, to study the objects for years in a Scientific way (as possible with the elusive subject). His book is a little known research book into the subject Project Identification:: Harley Rutledge: Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/rutledge-project-identification/page/85/mode/1up

So if we eliminate the kooks, the hoaxes, the misidentification. What are we left with? Nothing? Have you read the military's account of UFOs shutting down nuclear missile systems. No? How about Jacques Vallée acquiring nearly a half dozen materials derived from alleged UFOs which have been thoroughly tested by the most advanced techniques and found to have inexplicable properties as to purity and construction?

How about the "nuts" at Stanford University calling for further investigation into the UFO topic because of the evidence presented: https://news.stanford.edu/pr/98/980629ufostudy.html

Two last things:

1. Search for Ruppelt's free audiobook on YouTube "The Report on UFOs" and give it a listen.
2. Vallée posits whatever UFOs are they are likely non-extraterrestrial and are working to influence our belief system.

[Orrex]

70. I'm not going to engage in a skeet shoot with you

Erroneous and fraudulent claims of UFOs abound in the millions, so if I shoot down every “but what about” that you toss in the air, we’ll be at this for eternity.

I will summarize in a way that you will no doubt find unsatisfactory: let those who have verifiable evidence put it forth for open and public review. I’ve read for decades of”mysterious” implants that people have found, all of which have turned out to be mundane metal scraps and the like.

And your claims about those “thoroughly tested” materials closely echo the claims of snake oil peddlers: “No one can figure out how it’s done,“ meriting only a hearty “Meh.” I’d like to hear about the advanced techniques, because that’s reminiscent of how “real psychics” have fooled scientists many times over.

So if we eliminate the kooks, the hoaxes, the misidentification. What are we left with? Nothing?

In short, we haven’t eliminated the kooks, the hoaxes, or the misidentification.

[StClone]

72. Fine, you have come to immovable position that little or no evidence exists.

I have come to the conclusion there is something there that I can not explain.

By the way, Vallee is an international treasure: Read his f'n Wiki page.

[Orrex]

74. Your statement is false

And your threshold of “convincing evidence” is distressingly low.

[StClone]

75. Island of bliss

[Orrex]

76. Yes, you true believers have lived there for centuries

[StClone]

77. Can you prove that?

[Orrex]

78. Yes

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you accept assertion as proof, so my statement meets or exceeds your standard of evidence.

[StClone]

79. So you assert...

[USALiberal]

46. Lol, nice try on Klass!!

[StClone]

51. Klass had a needed place in finding flaws in UFO reports.

However, Klass could not disprove, explain, or deliver on making UFOs irrelevant as cases came up. One thing I do note in Klass's long career is he appeared to avoid having interactions with any equally credited ufo Scientist such as Jacques Vallée https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e

I did not say for certain he was a CIA asset (the FBI had a file on him!), but there were many suspicions.
Many of the suspicions held by UFO folks about Klass and his role as chief debunker were confirmed by the FOIA files though I don’t think they ever found a smoking gun to prove he was acting as a paid agent of AFOSI or CIA.

Seeing your awareness of Klass and your reaction is revealing. I am a Scientist and I required proof to say what is an acceptable theory, along with facts, evidence, studies, peer-reviewed, published works. BUT before that, you need an observed occurrence requiring investigation. UFOS offers at least that.

[MiHale]

19. There are more eyewitness to and more evidence of UFO's...

Than there is of any god in this world, yet god believers are not as vilified as UFO believers.

The question is WHY? Good people, intelligent people even those that totally believe in science will believe in god stories. If god was all that they portend him/her to be why wouldn’t he create life elsewhere?

Or are we too self-centric to let our minds take in a non-religious theory?

There is no PROOF to either.

[CrackityJones75]

24. Amen!

Error wait.

[edhopper]

45. No aliens have visited Earth

and God is not real.

Does that help?

[MiHale]

58. I'm atheist, god is a myth, I'm in a minority

Tried to make it palatable for the opposition.

[edhopper]

59. OK

[lagomorph777]

73. "Paranormal" would describe belief in God(s) and ghosts and miracles (i.e. religion).

Belief in the existence of life elsewhere is an almost inevitable extrapolation of proven science.

Belief that they visit here is perhaps more of a gray area, given what we know of physics. But it's not physically impossible, and we have evidence that something (whether local or not) unexplained is going on in our skies.

[grumpyduck]

21. I gotta ask...

I hear people demanding proof that UFOs are real. As in, show me something like a spaceship and aliens.

And granted I don't hang out in UFO chat rooms, but, elsewhere, it seems that people ask for proof that they're real, but not so much for proof that they aren't real.

I agree there's no proof either way, but isn't this whole "demanding proof" thing seem one-sided?

[Johnny2X2X]

26. Logical fallacy

No one is obligated to disprove" alien visitors anymore than anyone is obligated to disprove the Santa Claus myth. People are making assertions about aliens, it's incumbent on them to offer proof, none has been offered. After a good 70 years of supposed sightings, we are still waiting for something that might be proof if it holds up under scrutiny. And we're in an age where 5 billion people across the globe carry around video cameras in their pockets, including when they travel by air. Yet nothing, and in fact, sightings have went down since everyone started carrying cameras in their pockets.

[grumpyduck]

32. Yup, logical fallacy.

But if somebody wants to insist that something is not real, I would think it's appropriate to ask them to prove it.
If just for the fun of it. 😀

[edhopper]

41. In this case

absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
I can quantify what I would see as proof.

What would be proof of alien nonexistence too you?

[grumpyduck]

54. Okay, I'll bite.

"absence of evidence IS evidence of absence." Sure, agreed. Up to now.

For many years many people were adamant that there were no other planets out there. Now they've found, what, thousands?

"I can quantify what I would see as proof." Are you saying you would have to see one for yourself as proof?

"What would be proof of alien nonexistence too you?" Taking this question as written, I would require a complete survey of every planet in every galaxy out there.

Do I believe other planets harbor intelligent life? Given the probable number of planets in every galaxy out there, I do. Do I think we've been visited by aliens? I don't know. I'm not aware of any conclusive proof.

AFAIC, UFO = "Something seems to be flying out there, and I don't have a clue what it is."

[Act_of_Reparation]

56. This is irrelevant.

The existence of life on other planets does not confirm the existence of interstellar travelers flying around our planet.

We exist. We do not travel the stars.

[grumpyduck]

62. I didn't say it confirmed it.

Not even close. For all we know, they may be perfectly happy where they are.

And maybe looking for other alien life too.

[Achilleaze]

27. It's hard to unsee what you have seen

Despite the fevered pleading of people to BELIEVE IN THEM and not to trust in what has come before our eyes.



Not too keen on ideologues passionately pushing their Theology of Denial. I just don't trust their extreme EMOTIONALITY.

[EYESORE 9001]

28. It has supercilious overtones

some evident in this thread. Hope it provides the ego boost they crave.

[lagomorph777]

37. Indeed.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

33. I, for one, welcome our alien overlords

[frogmarch]

52. When we see lights in the sky

I think we can rest assured it's not ETs, since it seems certain that they don't need no stinkin' lights. After all, would they need lights to navigate a kajillion lightyears through space, and once here, would they need lights to observe us and our goings-on, and would they want to be seen? I say nope.

[StClone]

53. True! So why lights on an "alien craft."

It is likely they want to be seen. But why? Jacques Vallée, a world-renowned Scientist, has a theory that they are using their influence to create changes in our belief system. Vallée's many fascinating books are worth reading.

[hunter]

66. None of the space aliens I've met need space ships to get around.

My favorite wore a pair of ruby slippers. They'd click the heels three times and vanish with a POP!

I'm fairly certain the slippers were an affection unnecessary to the actual teleportation.