Retired U.S. Army Col. John Alexander continues his conversation about the scientific examination of subjects that elude explanation. Skinwalker Ranch and research funding are topics discussed with investigative reporter George Knapp. Previously unaired. Recorded on Oct. 20, 2017, at Alexander’s home in Las Vegas. Second of 5 Parts.
George Knapp: Well I was going to ask you … you take this stuff seriously. I mean, you weed out … you separate wheat from the chaff, things that are illegitimate, you point it out and you’re not shy about it. But there is a basis for the investigation of these phenomena. And there are people within the military and government who also take it seriously. What is the difference between people like yourself, and those who either pay it no attention or dismiss it out of hand without investigation?
John Alexander: Well, I think belief system. A lot of it has to do … in the West, we have a materialistic belief system that says, you know, certain rules on energy and the laws of science. If we move things to smaller and smaller parts we’ll finally have the God Particle, which was thought to be the Higgs Boson. Till we found pentaquarks, which were even smaller. See, I deal a lot with Shamans around the world. And the difference here in my view is that, you know, we deal with the real world and the potential spirit world as if they’re kind of separate and distinct, if they even exist. You know, scientists probably won’t even believe that the spirit world exists. But the shamans I deal with move seamlessly back and forth. And practically talking to them, sometimes it’s difficult, because you got to say, “Now wait a minute. You know, is this something we can touch, feel, smell, taste? Or is this purely, you know, etheric?”
Knapp: I mean, some of this can be studied through the scientific method. Some of it seems to transcend or resist being able to be categorized that way.
Alexander: Well, you know the ranch very well, Skinwalker Ranch, and the problem we had there. This is where I developed the precognitive sentient phenomena. Something else is in control. And if it wants you to find out, it may allow that. But if it doesn’t, this thing just keeps morphing and changing into, you know, new shapes and forms. Things we’re doing now were on camera. We had cameras there, and things that happened just off camera, or sometimes in front of the camera, but you wouldn’t see them.
Knapp: Precognitive, as you said, because it always seemed to stay one step ahead.
Knapp: It could anticipate what you were going to do.
Alexander: Yeah, before you even know that you’re going to do it.
Knapp: Now, you had no personal experience there at that ranch. But you believe, in general, that it’s a very weird place that the others who report those experiences …
Alexander: No doubt. I mean, these were our guys. I mean, remember, we’re talking PhD level scientists. Highly credible, highly trained, as well. We happen to believe Terry. Yeah, that grew kind of over time. But you see the physical evidence for the phenomena existing.
Knapp: The NIDS model that was used to study the ranch and other topics like that, is that is that the way to go to approach these kinds of subject matter?
Alexander: It’s about the best we can do at this point. Part of the problem again is when you get in R&D int the psy phenomena, the money is miniscule. I estimated maybe $5 or $10 million for the entire world. And when you compare that to the billions that go into medical research and even diseases that are, you know, rare disease and things like that, it just pales. And so you’ve got a problem with high strangeness, incredible complexity, and almost no serious research. The piece … Part of my agenda is to make or assist in making it viable for serious scientists to research these things without risking their reputation, livelihood or career. And the problem is you can be attacked and some very, very senior if you take guys like Bob Jahn, who was the Dean of school of Engineering at Princeton, and yet castigated for having the Princeton engineering anomalies laboratory.
Knapp: John Mack.
Alexander: John Mack is a classic. Here is a medical doctor, a Pulitzer Prize winner who’s a tenured professor and still ended up before a tribunal. It’s not supposed to happen in the tenured system. The only time in Harvard’s history that they’ve ever done it, in fact. And it was all because of his work on abduction research.