Pentagon admits that ghosts exist.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Neurostudent, May 24, 2022.

  1. Neurostudent Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    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.''
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,925
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,652
    Fixed it for you.
     
    wegs, exchemist and DaveC426913 like this.
  8. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,400
    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.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,925
    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.
     
  10. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,400
    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)
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,925
    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 likes this.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,652
    Think of it as "supernatural until shown to be natural."
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  13. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,343
    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: May 25, 2022
    wegs likes this.
  14. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,343
    DUPE
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2022
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,400
    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!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,652
    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.
     
    wegs likes this.
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,400
    That’s right, billvon. The thing is honor, love and despair exist objectively. But we experience them differently.
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,479
    Negative, only subjectively

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,400
    Agree, same thing to me. If I have a differing opinion, that’s my subjective reality. Semantics.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,652
    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.
     
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,479
    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)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,479
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,925
    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.
     
    wegs likes this.

Share This Page