Retired U.S. Army Col. John Alexander sees societal differences in the way authority deals with “sensitive” topics related to the paranormal. He tells investigative reporter George Knapp that other governments have no problem conversing about things that American officials refuse to acknowledge. Previously unaired. Recorded on Oct. 20, 2017, at Alexander’s home in Las Vegas. Third of 5 Parts.
George Knapp: It seems like, you know, if you take it seriously, you must be a kook. And yet millions, tens of millions of people, maybe billions of people around the world, know that there there is some truth to it because they’ve experienced it themselves. Seems like it would hurt the reputation of science in general to not take a fair look at it when regular people know this stuff really is going on.
John Alexander: Well, that is one of the major complaints that you have. If you look at … and they have actually done studies … and you’ll find that more than 70% of the population believe in some form of psy phenomena. If you look at people in the physical or psychological sciences, soft sciences, if you will, is probably around 50%. Physical science is lower. When you get down to the National Academy of Science, it’s under 4%. So you see this huge differential between what the people believe and what your key scientists believe.
Knapp: People believe, but it’s not a religion. I mean, it’s based on their experiences, things they see.
Alexander: Yes, it’s personal experience. One of the things you mentioned that I think is important, though, you said around the world. Now the problem as I see it is that there is a difference. And in the Western world under our educational system based on a materialistic belief system, that’s one set of rules, if you will. I do work in Brazil, for instance, at very, very high levels, I mean, senior generals, ministers, government ministers and people of that nature. They have no problem, even though they’ve been educated in Western society, with these sorts of things and have personal experience with (unintelligible) John of God is kind of a classic example there. And again, you’ll find the intelligentsia are willing to integrate those concepts.
Knapp: And you find that in the U.S. government and U.S. military. That people who have had these experiences and you know ’em.
Alexander: There are some, again, but the difference is that it’s, again, individual experience. I give the classic example in my UFO book of one guy who was a head of one of those three letter agencies, who said, “No, we don’t research that.” But B., “Here’s the experiences I had.” So he had no problem understanding that the reality of the events.
Knapp: You know, and have heard, and maybe you have first-hand experience with it, that there is resistance to this phenomena, and the investigation, the acceptance of it being real on some level, within those three letter agencies, the Pentagon, from people who have their own belief systems. I mean, not just that they believe it’s not true, but they believe in something else. Or they think that this is satanic.
Alexander: Well, you do. And we have run into that. I had one where the Chief of Staff of the Army, and one of the reasons the program was moved, because he had a personal belief system, as though, “You may be able to do that, but it’s work of the devil. We will not do that.” And I was told by more than one colonel, you know, the same thing. A very fundamentalist belief system that says, work of the devil, Thou shalt not engage.
Knapp: Now that’s troubling to some degree that you have people at CIA or Pentagon, “Don’t look into that. It’s the work of the devil.”
Knapp: That’s far more exotic than any of this stuff. Or at least on the same level.
Alexander: I have heard there are people who send satellites to certain places looking for biblical references.
Knapp: The travel that you’ve done around the world, and we’re going to talk more about it in a moment, do you pick out — you’ve gone everywhere, basically everywhere, very exotic places — is it always for a reason sort of along these lines?
Alexander: Well, it varies tremendously. As you know, my wife is a devotee of ayahuasca. And we started with shamans and have met shaman. Well, ayahuasca is a brew that’s used in South America primarily … Peru and Ecuador and Brazil. DMT, or the Dimethyltryptamine, is the supposedly psychoactive substance. But I’m absolutely convinced that psychopharmacology does not answer the kinds of experiences that I’ve seen. I’ve seen people take small amounts of have transformational experiences, take huge amounts, and have zip as far as the response.
Knapp: You think it is more than just a chemical reaction, where you’re fantasizing something because you’re on drugs.
Alexander: Right. But they call it “the medicine.” And as they look at it, you learn over time to be able to work with the medicine. My wife has a planet that she goes to that’s someplace else and interacts with sentient beings who recognize her and …
Alexander: Yep, and does this repeatedly, after she had initially made contact.
Knapp: What’s the value of studying that? And conversing with shaman? And really, you know, pursuing stories, incidents, experiences that probably can’t be quantified or proven beyond a reasonable doubt by our standards?
Alexander: Well, I think it’s a relationship, but I would transition that to a near-death experiences, for instance. And the point here is that, you know, continuation of consciousness beyond death ought to be of interest to 100% of the population. I mean, it’s something … so if you want relevance, it would be that. It’s, you know, what does this mean? And it has theological implications.