MYSTERY WIRE — A retired Army intelligence officer and longtime UFO investigator is warning the public to lower its expectations about what might be included in an upcoming Pentagon report to Congress.

John Alexander thinks solving the UFO mystery will require a permanent global investigation.

Back when he was still working for Army intelligence, Col. Alexander put together his own UFO study group, trying to find hidden silos of information within the Pentagon. He didn’t find it.

After active duty, he worked at Los Alamos National Lab and sat on multiple national defense advisory boards while also consulting with Robert Bigelow’s private UFO think tank called the National Institute for Discovery Science, also known as NIDS.

Alexander knows the keepers of any UFO secrets are reluctant to hand them over, even though Congress ordered a comprehensive report due the last week in June. “I suspect that it will be as little as possible,” Alexander said in a recent interview. “Despite the fact that DoD has a requirement to report … I understand there’s quite a bit of resignation, between various agencies, foot dragging, don’t want to participate or release information. Now, I personally think the information on it, I do think it’s far bigger than the US, bigger than the Department of Defense, it takes a global response. And the only way you’re going to do that is to get as much information as possible, into the, you know, we have the best and brightest.”

Alexander thinks there is some spillover between current UFO conspiracy theories and America’s problematic response to the COVID pandemic. “We do know, from psychological studies that certain segments of the population tend to be more prone to accepting such theories,” Alexander said. “And that they, from a national perspective, see some of this now being used as a distraction from our own internal, strategic, political concerns.”

In Alexander’s 2017 book “Reality Denied” he explores how much of science, government and media have ignored the UFO issue for a long time and allowed conspiracy theories and bad information to spread. To combat the spread of bad information Alexander suggests “the only way you’re going to do that is to get as much information as possible.”

“It’s a global phenomena. And it is not new,” according to Alexander. “There are certain aspects that seem to morph, again, with technology on our consciousness. But as you know, the reports go back literally millennia.”

Alexander worked directly with the Army’s remote viewing program to train “psychic soldiers.” Remote viewing is a protocol developed for the CIA and tested by the U.S. Army. It was the basis for the George Clooney movie, “The Men Who Stare At Goats.”

---

Below you can watch both parts of George Knapp’s interview with John Alexander and read the transcript.

George Knapp  
John Alexander, I know a lot about your career, your military career, Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army, intelligence work, your career in Vietnam, combat on the ground, and about your work with non lethal weapons at Los Alamos. But can you sort of fill us in on the various defense related Policy groups that you advise and consult with?

John Alexander 
Oh, wow. In the past, there’s been, of course, I was with the Army Science Board for a while. Might mention my last job was director of advanced system concepts for the Army. And we had a laboratory commander at the time. So we had all of the tech base kinds of things, certainly with the various intelligence agencies with, I was a senior fellow with the Joint Special Operations University, have been before the DSB, the National Research Council, various NATO studies. So as you know, my second career was Los Alamos National Laboratory.

George Knapp 
Right. So you are still in the loop with different groups, different defense policy, folks?

John Alexander 
Well, I was. I’m, you know, retired. We’re dinosaurs now. So, but I do try to keep up to speed.

George Knapp   
I wanted to ask you about the pandemic. So we’re at a point now where people are taking off the masks, about half of our country has received at least one vaccination, but a lot of them are simply not going to go through with it. Can you give me a sense of how this might be viewed by our adversaries around the world, weaponization of future pandemics? I mean is that how somebody could be looking at this.

John Alexander
Um, there’s a couple issues there I would like to not go into. They may be obvious, but I do think it is a strategic potential threat. The issue at the moment, of course, is that we handled it abysmally. I like to do the comparison between how South Korea handled the pandemic. They had their first cases on the same day as we did. And I didn’t check, I think their total number of deaths is just over 1000. Yes, they’re smaller, but that would take it to say less than 10,000 fatalities in South Korea versus ours. At, as you know, 590,000 now. So it was handled abysmally. It was politicized, which is very unfortunate. That’s still continuing. You mentioned getting shots you know, I assume you like I am fully vaccinated as soon as we could possibly get that. But this notion of we’re not going to do it, or, you know, the conspiracy theories, and this is one that bleeds into about all of the areas of interests that we have, are just endemic. You know, Bill Gates has put chips in there the microchips to check everybody on the vaccine, or it’s for depopulation of the world or, you know, pick your ridiculous thing. But, unfortunately, substantial numbers of people believe these and then these conspiracies, it used to be, you know, minor fringe groups. Now, major conspiracy groups can run in 10s of millions.

George Knapp 
So it’s sort of the anti-vax thing has been weaponized in effect. 

John Alexander
Well, the anti Vax crowd has been around before COVID too. There was an active group that was trying to get children to be not vaccinated. And although when we were growing up, we had what, maybe half a dozen max shots if you had to get. But you had to get it if you were going to go to school. I mean, that was an absolute requirement. And now of course, what you’re seeing is kids are getting considerably more shots. There is some concern about it, but the rumors about you know, shots and autism have been really put to bed, yet still believed in the various conspiracy circuits.

George Knapp  
So walk me through how this would be viewed among our adversaries. Say there’s a terrorist organization that has some kind of a virus that wants to cultivate and unleash or a nation state that could do this without having any fingerprints on it. They would see us as being vulnerable going forward, we were slow to respond and even now, after so many people have died, a large portion of our population won’t take the cure.

John Alexander
That’s absolutely true. And of course, this can be developed in a couple of different ways. As you know, the controversy at the moment is, was this zoological, naturally formed and transitioned to humans? Or did it arise in a laboratory? Now, there’s a lot of reason to work on these various coronaviruses. COVID-19 is the first or not the first but one of many Corona viruses. So we know these things are going to evolve. So the idea there was to try and get ahead. Now you saw what happened, we did. Because of the new technology, we’re able to develop vaccines relatively quickly, I mean, unheard of and prior speed that was due to the technological advances that have been made. But the idea, actually, is to get ahead of the power curve to know which ones are coming. Now weaponization, there’s a number of things that can be done. And of course, we’ve outlawed theoretically, biological warfare. Having said that, to lesser powers, these are very attractive, it’s a low cost approach to take on an advanced adversary.

George Knapp 
So, I mean, to somebody like that we look vulnerable, based on our response.

John Alexander  
Well, and particularly because the way we did respond, and they have seen that we’re, you know, arguing internally, and many of my responses to, you know, I do plead guilty to being on social media from time to time. But my response to many of them is that what the people have been doing are, you know, exactly what Vladimir Putin wants, you know, he knows he cannot compete with the US on either economic or military basis. And so his intent has been to undermine confidence in both the EU and the United States, basically, all Western society. And we have epitomized that. And as I point out, the big winner is Xi in China.

George Knapp
What do you think about the investigation of the lab leak theory? You know, there are some experts who think that there’s some legitimacy to that. Is it feasible that China was not maybe working to weaponize it, but was working on Coronavirus issues, and it got out of that lab?

John Alexander 
Oh, we definitely know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was working on Coronaviruses, like I said, and we did pay for part of that. We have had a long standing institutional relationship there and provided some of the funding. I think our approach of let’s get out, leave them alone is totally wrong. What you want to do is have more contact, not less. So you can help in detecting these things early. I thought I had seen and maybe a year ago, however, if you looked at the DNA sequencing, what they had failed to find that there was any CRISPR technology involved, ie. where it had been genetically manipulated. It is interesting that we’re now going back and revisiting that, it’s certainly a possibility. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the Chinese, while their internal response was swift and draconian, getting information into the world was not nearly as transparent as it needs to be.

George Knapp  
Yeah, whether they caused it as an accident or on purpose. They didn’t do us any favors.

John Alexander 
I just don’t think it was ever on, I think looking at the virus was on purpose, the leak, absolutely do not because they were hit very hard internally first. It’s just that their response was, you know, they went so far as to literally, you know, welding doors shut, so people couldn’t go to go outside in the Wuhan and other areas as it spread, but they were not very forthcoming from an international perspective, and now the problem, as you know, very recently, we’ve now learned about infections that took place earlier than we had anticipated. And that they were more serious about the hospitalization of some of the workers from the laboratory. That’s certainly of concern, it would be very interesting to get a hold of those medical records, I just don’t see that happening. And, again, because we’ve created a kind of toxic, adversarial relationship, it’s going to be very difficult to cooperate in some areas and be adversarial in others.

George Knapp 
You think that there is a connection between the pandemic conspiracy theories and the UFO stuff that we’re going to talk about as well, that that intersects somewhere? The high level of interest.

John Alexander  
It intersects on two levels. A: is conspiracy theory. And we do know, from psychological studies that certain segments of the population tend to be more prone to accepting such theories. And that they, from a national perspective, I see some of this now being used as a distraction from our own internal, strategic, political concerns.

George Knapp  
How do you mean?

John Alexander  
Well, if you if you watch the debate that are going on in Congress, as we know, we just had the bill to form a bipartisan commission was shot down. Now, if you look at how did the UFO bill get into Congress, let’s understand it was a trailer, a markup if you will, that was stuck on the COVID relief bill. It’s huge. But I’ve got something down here that’s kind of minor and whatnot. So that tells you it’s not a front burner item. But it is one that can be used to distract. Now the people who will watch this most probably are UFO proponents, we understand that. What they don’t seem to understand is they’re a very small segment of the population. There’s a huge segment who say, yeah, that’s kind of interesting, and keep me up to date. On the other side, this is not a voting issue. But it is one that can be used to distract from the voter suppression issues that are really, I think, epidemic in the United States today.

George Knapp  
Well, there are a lot of factors at play, different silos of information that have been sort of mutually supportive in moving the UFO issue into sort of a mainstream, at least for media. Media response has been tremendous. I mean, they’re finally taking a look at this stuff. And the public has responded. 60 Minutes, that will likely be their most viewed story ever before it’s all said and done. And now every major news organization in the world has is working on this to one degree or another. So there is interest among the public and the media interest has given I think, people in Congress certain amount of cover to go ahead and talk about this.

John Alexander 
Oh, it is. But, I always use the ‘compared to what’ strategy. Is this of interest? Absolutely. As you know, we’ve both been involved in this for decades, and have deep personal interests. I do not see this nearly as interesting or as threatening, as I’ve seen the threats to our democracy at the moment. And so from a conservative position, if you’re talking about anything, but what’s going on with voter rights bills and things of that nature. That’s good news. So yes, it is popular. Yes, it’s of interest. But I would argue that it is not a voting interest. Yeah, you’re right. But you know, I’m glad to see 60 Minutes come on. I’ve been concerned about where are the information has been evolving? And I think in the mainstream media, and I think they have high credibility as opposed to some of the other outlets that probably did not. But you have to look at this in toto. I’m, again, I’m glad to see it coming out. I think there is interest. I think you can look back again at how this was put into a minor bill where they knew that, you know, compared to getting funding to the nation to deal with COVID, oh, yeah, just slipped into the thing about this talk about UFOs is relatively minor by comparison.

George Knapp  
The book that you have behind you, Reality Denied, you explore in there how science, government and media have basically ignored the UFO issue for a long time allowed conspiracy theories and bad information to predominate, at least in the public arena. But there has always been some level of interest behind the scenes, at least in the military. Are you encouraged at all by this UAP Task Force report that is due in Congress sometime this month, do you have any sense of what might be in it?

John Alexander
Um, my suspect is that it will be as little as possible. I think we both talked to many of the same people. I know that. And what you’re hearing is behind the scenes, despite the fact that DoD has a requirement to report out that I understand there’s quite a bit of resignation, between various agencies, foot dragging, don’t want to participate or release information. Now, I think, I mean, I personally think the information oughta be out, I do think it’s far bigger than the US or bigger than the Department of Defense, it takes a global response. And the only way you’re going to do that is to get as much information as possible, into the, you know, we have the best and brightest. You know, taking a look at this. And doing it without risking their reputation and career, I think some of that is being benefit. But if you listen, I was just reading a article by a Canadian astronaut this morning, who had been on the ISS and again, saying it’s ridiculous to jump, you know, making these big leaps in logic, because UFOs therefore that. I think there’s still a great deal of reluctance to, you know, be professionally associated with it, if your predominant field is in another area. So I think what you’re gonna see is getting away with a minimum necessary. I do think there’s areas that classification makes sense. And that has to do with the sensor systems themselves, as opposed to the UFOs, whatever. Because if you start reporting out on exactly how good the sensors are operating, you’re revealing your capabilities. But overall information needs to be available, it’s global. One of my concerns has been that almost all of the videos that are released are from US Navy. Now, if this is a Navy centric phenomena, that’s one thing. But we do know that it’s global. So my guess is that navies around the world, and certainly other services. And we do know the civilian sector is reporting on these things constantly. If you’re going to really try to address them, as you know, I’ve call this something as at least as complex as cancer. You’re not gonna get it with a tiny, you know, stovepipe approach.

George Knapp   
A tiny stovepipe of only studying military encounters between whatever these things are and our military, right? It needs a broader response, such as what NIDS tried to do that you were involved with?

John Alexander
Yes, correct. It’s a global phenomena. And it is not new. There are certain aspects that seem to morph, again, with technology on our consciousness. But as you know, the reports go back literally millennia.

George Knapp 
You know, I have tried to temper expectations for the UAP Task Force report, people are comparing it to capital D disclosure. And they’re going to be, I think, severely disappointed by whatever comes out. I would argue that just having the report existing at all is a step forward, Congress admitting that, hey, there’s something to this, maybe we need to look into it a little bit more. That’s a step forward that they hadn’t been willing to make, at least for a long time. But national security cases, sensors and…

John Alexander 
Totally, we totally agree there.

George Knapp  
Yeah. But the chances of us seeing truly sensitive cases, they might be shared with Congress, but the public isn’t going to see this stuff for some of the reasons you outlined, right.

John Alexander  
I think the things that may be classified annex, again, has to do with just how good the sensor systems are. I want to emphasize though, that I’ve been reading all of the skeptical responses about how you know, we look at the video and It does this and that. What they totally ignore is that this is a multi sensor issue. It is not just video and explaining the video is going to explain it. You’ve got radar, we’ve got IR, we have electro optic, we’ve got acoustic, we got magnetic sensors, you know, all of them are picking these things up. So if you’re going to, you know, try and be skeptical you’ve got to answer the multispectral approach, as opposed to just, you know, holding up as you probably saw the lens and said there’s a little triangle on this lens, so that explains the little video flying above the Ohio.

George Knapp  
Meaning that, you know, these videos, some that we have reported on, came from the UAP Task Force briefing document. What they use to inform other military agencies, higher ups, intel agencies, they say this is unidentified, these are unknowns. And they base that not just on the video, but all the sensor data that has not been made public.

John Alexander   
Right. But the skeptics approach from as if it was the video is the evidence. No, the video is a confirmation of a compilation of multi sensory data.

George Knapp 
There are national security implications, as we said, for some of these cases, and you’ve been inside the loop, you know, the kinds of solid cases that have been investigated before. There is evidence that this is a legitimate phenomenon that deserves our attention, right?

John Alexander 
Oh, absolutely. We dance around the sides here. But you well know the nuclear cases, the whole set of Northern tier stations of things that happened at Mount [inaudible] and the cases you brought forward from the former Soviet Union, showing interest in nuclear capabilities. That ought to be of concern, that is a legitimate concern, certainly for military personnel. But again, the phenomenon is far bigger, because that is isolating, say, we want to look at this aspect, just like the Navy, I think is totally, would be irresponsible if they weren’t looking at the kinds of interactions that they’re having. My argument is that it ought to be a much broader approach, as opposed to just focusing on how you define the issue. You may know in my UFO briefings, that I give, presentations, I start with, what do you mean, I got little balls of light, floating around and that. I’ve got huge craft literally miles or more across that are solid and whatnot, and 1000s and 1000s of variations in between. So what is it that is a UFO and what is it that you’re studying? And I think if you define it narrowly, it’s going to be easier, but you’re not going to be, you know, it’s like the proverbial elephant where you’re touching.

George Knapp   
So if you were to design a program that comes after the UAP Task Force report, if Congress is trying to figure out how to move forward, and they ask you, what would a program look like that you would design to study this? What would it look like? What would it include?

John Alexander 
Well, the first thing you would do is you would look at all of the sensor systems that are available at the national level. And some of them with DoD, others beyond and the intelligence community NRO in the West. The rest. I think, if you’re going to truly approach this, it’s gonna have to be international with cooperation across the board. And again, bringing in the best and brightest. As I say, one of my personal objectives is trying to make it accessible for, you know, the best and brightest to be involved in the studies without risking their reputation or livelihood. As we know, well, we’ll mention Lue (Elizondo) specifically, people say you don’t get hurt, look at what’s ongoing, with him at the moment. So there can be retribution. And if you’re in the scientific field, you don’t want to be too far outside because you got to remember, you know, how they get funded is based on requests for proposals and studying specific areas. And part of that is who’s doing what’s their reputation. So if you have either a personal or institutional reputation that’s too far outside the norm that can jeopardize your you know, economic viability.

George Knapp 
A final question. As the inquiry into this mystery continues, assuming it does, you would expect to push back from some sensitive quarters, some of the silos that have truly sensitive information. We’ve heard the same stories over the years about metamaterials, things stashed in attics and hangers and things of that sort. Would you expect to see a great deal of pushback as the public interest in this forces Congress or the military to get closer to revealing what it knows, the really sensitive stuff?

John Alexander 
I think there’s two issues, the most serious pushback, you’re not gonna see, that’s going to happen behind the curtain, if you will, as is where they say ‘hell no, we won’t go,’ you know, I’m not going to provide the data. And you know you’re not going to go to court. Because then you have to reveal certain things gathered, various special courts and all that, but you’re not going to see that. I think the other approach is the one that we’re seeing emerging, Hey, this is crazy, why are you wasting resources? I’ve got to say, though, one of the issues in if you’re going to approach the field, as you know, well, across all the fields and phenomena, the amount of resources available, really, really very, very limited. Now, I do think there’s national security interest in this. But again, given the complexity of the phenomena that you’re looking at, how much resources are you willing to invest in an area where you have a low probability of success? You look at the quadrants, and you know, this is high risk. This is a high risk, low probability. So that is one you got to say as, again, the stewart of national resources. If you look at the national debt right now, and this is where the macro issues come in, you got a huge amount of debt. And you say, well, I’ve been asked about forming a Manhattan type project, Manhattan today would be 23 billion. Okay, you say if I’m gonna spend $23 billion, or that equivalency on any program, is a zero sum game, what is it you are not going to do? Because it means your $23 billion of programs you’re not going to fund. So is it worth it? I mean these are really, really tough decisions.

George Knapp
The really tough question is, is it solvable at all? I mean, are we even capable of figuring this out? If you look at broader issues of consciousness and our place in the cosmos and interdimensional stuff? It may be that the answers are always just a little bit tantalizingly out of our reach.

John Alexander  
Well, as you know, I did a UFO book as well. And my last paragraph kind of goes, whatever this is, is more complex, so we can imagine, and we’re not at the stage of even asking the right question let alone getting any kind of simplistic answers.

George Knapp  
Thanks, John. Appreciate it.