Pentagon admits that ghosts exist.

Neurostudent

Neurostudent

Registered Member
https://7news.com.au/news/ufo/alien...ng-hundreds-of-reported-ufo-effects-c-6348715

Quoting 7News AU (news article)

''The report also showed how authorities rate different encounters with UFOs.

There are “anomalous behaviours”, which can be rated as AN1, AN3 or AN5.

AN1 includes encounters that have no lasting physical effects, including sighting of lights.

AN3 includes encounters where people come within 150 metres of an “associated entity”, such as a ghost, elves or other “mythical/legendeary entities”.

AN5 are classified as reports of injury and death.''
 
Neurostudent said:
https://7news.com.au/news/ufo/alien...ng-hundreds-of-reported-ufo-effects-c-6348715

Quoting 7News AU (news article)

''The report also showed how authorities rate different encounters with UFOs.

There are “anomalous behaviours”, which can be rated as AN1, AN3 or AN5.

AN1 includes encounters that have no lasting physical effects, including sighting of lights.

AN3 includes encounters where people come within 150 metres of an “associated entity”, such as a ghost, elves or other “mythical/legendeary entities”.

AN5 are classified as reports of injury and death.''
Click to expand...

So what? This AN classification was used to group the reports the AATIP listed, that's all. It doesn't mean any of them have been substantiated.

In fact, from the look of it, a higher number indicates a greater degree of certainty that it is bullshit. :D
 
They're not admitting anything except that they are investigating accounts of people who claim they had an encounter with a ghost, elf or other legendary entity.


But hey, your yellow journalism headline did its job, right? Got a response.
 
I don’t like the use of the word “other” here to describe ghosts, as in the same category as “mythical creatures.”

There’s no hope for actual research if we don’t at least take the topic of paranormal activity somewhat seriously.
 
wegs said:
I don’t like the use of the word “other” here to describe ghosts, as in the same category as “mythical creatures.”

There’s no hope for actual research if we don’t at least take the topic of paranormal activity somewhat seriously.
Click to expand...

1. It doesn't much matter what the inference from the label might be - if they're investigating it, they're investigating it.

2. The seriousness with which a thing is taken is directly proportional to the amount of evidence available. That seems logical.
 
DaveC426913 said:
1. It doesn't much matter what the inference from the label might be - if they're investigating it, they're investigating it.

2. The seriousness with which a thing is taken is directly proportional to the amount of evidence available. That seems logical.
Click to expand...
While this makes sense, I feel a little sad about it. I liken it to the legal adage “innocent until proven guilty,” but in this case, mythical until proven otherwise. (from a scientific point of view)
 
wegs said:
While this makes sense, I feel a little sad about it. I liken it to the legal adage “innocent until proven guilty,” but in this case, mythical until proven otherwise. (from a scientific point of view)
Click to expand...
Take heart that the Pentagon is not the authority on the subject. They're just one org that has their view. And this isnt really their strong suit anyway, not like UFOs.
 
wegs said:
While this makes sense, I feel a little sad about it. I liken it to the legal adage “innocent until proven guilty,” but in this case, mythical until proven otherwise. (from a scientific point of view)
Click to expand...
Think of it as "supernatural until shown to be natural."
 
Neurostudent said:
https://7news.com.au/news/ufo/alien...ng-hundreds-of-reported-ufo-effects-c-6348715
Click to expand...

But in reality, interest in the Pentagon’s handling of reported unidentified flying objects has more to do with ensuring any potential national security implications are being taken seriously - whether they are of this world or not. “It doesn’t matter if it’s weather balloons, little green men, or something else entirely — we can’t ask our pilots to put their lives at risk unnecessarily,” Rachel Cohen, spokeswoman for Democratic Virginia Senator Mark Warner, told CNN in 2019 after senators received a classified briefing from Navy officials on unidentified aircraft.​

Yes, even if most have mundane explanations and are not baleful, it simply boils down to the fact that in the 21st-century, the defense apparatus would face accusations of indolence and irresponsibility if it continued the error made in the last century. Although at some level they arguably did not stop taking the potential threat seriously, whatever work they did maintain was reduced to inferior standards.

During the Cold War era, it was feared that UFO sightings would overwhelm emergency reporting channels, providing the USSR with a surprise advantage.

So the CIA embarked on an effort to suppress rising public interest in UFOs.

The agency advocated an "educational" movement to debunk and discredit sightings. It had the unintended(?) consequence of stigmatizing UFO reporting, not only with respect to civilians, but detrimentally breeding that taboo, and negligent attitude, in military personnel themselves.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...n-conspiracy-theories-are-relics-of-cold-war/

[...] According to James McDonald, one of the world’s leading atmospheric physicists, the Air Force began applying “meteorologically, chemically and optically absurd” explanations to UFO sightings. ... Perhaps worse, as astronomer and long-time consultant to the Air Force’s UFO project J. Allen Hynek bluntly stated: The CIA panel “made the subject of UFOs scientifically unrespectable.”

Vice Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA, summarized the situation: “Through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe [UFOs] are nonsense.” “Behind the scenes,” however, “high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned.”

[...] James McDonald, the renowned atmospheric physicist, was particularly infuriated by the government’s shoddy work on UFOs, stating “I have never seen such superficiality and incompetence in an area of such potentially enormous scientific importance.”

Indeed, much of the Air Force’s effort to catalogue and analyze UFO reports was crippled by a woeful lack of interest and resources. Perhaps worse, it was managed by an ever-rotating cast of low-level officers determined not to “rock the boat.” The shift from investigating to discrediting UFO sightings only made matters worse.​

- - -
 
Last edited:
DUPE
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
Think of it as "supernatural until shown to be natural."
Click to expand...
Well, maybe it’s a matter of subjective vs objective reality. The reason we like the natural so much is there are things within that reality that can be proven objectively false, whereas with spiritual or supernatural matters, who can determine what is wrong, if it’s subjective?

What is a ghost? To some, it can be seen and heard, so that indicates some kind of natural reality. But to others, it is all nonsense because the spirit world isn’t objectively real.

The Pentagon isn’t making the waters any less muddy! :rolleye:
 
wegs said:
Well, maybe it’s a matter of subjective vs objective reality.
Click to expand...
Or you could describe it that way. There are any number of things that are subjectively real to people (love, honor, despair) that you can't objectively quantify. Doesn't make them not-real to that person, but does make them not objectively true.
 
billvon said:
Or you could describe it that way. There are any number of things that are subjectively real to people (love, honor, despair) that you can't objectively quantify. Doesn't make them not-real to that person, but does make them not objectively true.
Click to expand...
That’s right, billvon. The thing is honor, love and despair exist objectively. But we experience them differently.
 
wegs said:
That’s right, billvon. The thing is honor, love and despair exist objectively.
Click to expand...
I don't think they do. One person's idea of honor might be killing a man who dishonored him years ago. Another person might think that killing that person over a stupid argument shows a lack of honor. Who is objectively right? There is no one objective right answer there.
 
wegs said:
Agree, same thing to me. If I have a differing opinion, that’s my subjective reality. Semantics.
Click to expand...
Not really semantics


I think we need a fixed definition, we all agree on, of what is required for something to be considered to be existing

It needs to be measurably
It needs to be detectable

Love etc is not measurably or detectably via any instrumentation (which is of course totally without feeling)

:)
 
wegs said:
subjective reality.
Click to expand...

Oxymoron

Cannot have both at the same moment

Cannot have, at the same moment, a full glass of water of which you have just finished drinking all of it

Need to pick

Reality is the same for everyone. You don't get to have your own reality

Subjectivity sure, pick anything and feel totally subjective about it

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Not really semantics


I think we need a fixed definition, we all agree on, of what is required for something to be considered to be existing

It needs to be measurably
It needs to be detectable

Love etc is not measurably or detectably via any instrumentation (which is of course totally without feeling)

:)
Click to expand...
I don't see why these are valid criteria.

Love certainly exists. Nobody can deny that.
Objectively, everyone knows love exists.
But we all experience it differently, and it can't be measured.

There's already a term for this. It's a qualia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top