Why Do Governments Consider Them "No Threat"?

by James Jaeger

Since the HISTORY CHANNELS, et al, seem to be running endless shows on UFOs and Ancient Aliens, I though I would comment on two books that have recently come out.

I read "UFOs - Myths, Conspiracies and Realities" by John Alexander first and then "UFOs - Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On Record" by Leslie Kean second. I'm glad I happened to read then in this order as Leslie's book preceded Alexander's book and seems to predict almost exactly how government officials have been and will react to the UFO phenomena, in particular the U.S. Government.

Given that Alexander was a Green Beret, a colonel in the Army, a project manager at Los Alamos, involved with NATO, the National Research Council, the CFR, council to the CIA, Special Ops and on the Army Science Board, it's an understatement that he's connected with the U.S. Government, if not THE government (whatever that is). He was also friends with people high up in the science community, like Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, and many others. So I have no problem respecting this guy as a spokesman for the U.S. Government and its science-complex. My comments here will only address the U.S. Government, because I understand some of the other governments, in particular France, have different attitudes toward the UFO phenomenon (but they can be counted on to act exactly the same as all states).

And here's what the U.S. Government's attitude is, as reflected in Alexander's conclusion on page 273 of his book: "Based on credible witnesses and backed by physical evidence, I conclude that the UFO observations are manifestations of issues that are anfractuous and beyond current comprehension .... In the end it is clear that the universe is far more complex than we ever imagined. We are not close to solving the enigmas posed by UFOs, rather we are still on the front end of defining the fundamental issues and boundaries."

This dismissive conclusion could have been used almost verbatim to describe and dismiss, serious, positive action in connection with climate change: to wit, "Based on credible scientific evidence, I conclude that climate change observations are manifestations of issues that are anfractuous and beyond current comprehension . . . . In the end it is clear that the long-term climate patterns of the Earth are far more complex than we ever imagined. We are not close to solving the enigmas posed by global warming, rather we are still on the front end of defining the fundamental issues and boundaries."

So, in essence we have the Government and established science -- as represented by John Alexander -- taking the exact position that two authors in Leslie Kean's anthology predicted. I refer to the authors of Chapter 27 -- Dr. Alexander Wendt and Dr. Raymond Duvall -- who wrote "Militant Agnosticism and the UFO Taboo." The bottom line of these guys is similar to John Alexander's in that there IS enough credible, hard, evidence to demand that the UFO phenomenon be funded and studied by the scientific community.

My observation is: there is as much, possibly more hard evidence to prompt studies of the UFO phenomena than there was to study the Higgs boson, yet billions went into a study of the Higgs. The reason is simple: the Higgs study is NOT taboo, whereas the UFO study IS taboo. So why is the UFO study taboo, as authors Wendt and Duvall ask?

Here's the reason, something government apologist-rep John Alexander -- and every one he spoke to -- seems to have conveniently failed to mention, at least in print. On page 279 of the Kean book, Wendt and Duvall state: "Our thesis is that the origins of this taboo are political. As political scientists, we are concerned with a possible connection between the need to dismiss the UFO and the way in which modern peoples organize and govern their societies. The inability to see clearly and talk rationally about UFOs seems to be a symptom of authoritative anxiety, a socially subconscious fear of what the reality of the UFO might mean for modern government…. Acceptance of the possibility that the UFO is truly identified and that … a very powerful 'other' might actually exist … with vastly superior technology … calls into question the state's ability to protect. . ."

And this makes sense because the armed forces always declare that the 'UFO is no threat.' Alexander states on page 271, "It is fully understood that the Department of Defense does not view UFOs as a threat, and therefore not in its bailiwick."

So the state, by arbitrarily, if not irresponsibly, declaring UFOs "no threat" is able to dismiss them. Rather than take the scientific evidence at least as seriously as the Higgs, the state recklessly assumes that UFOs are "no threat" and thus dismisses them. If this doesn't bring out the true colors of the nature of the state, what does? The state is an entity that steals untold trillions from the world's citizens through taxation, lies and then cowers in the face of potentially human kind's most lethal adversary all in the name of self-preservation. As Wendt and Duvall put it: "Taking UFOs seriously . . . raises the possibility of something analogous to the materialization of God, as in the Christians' "Second Coming." . . . . To whom would people give their loyalty in such a situation, and could states in their present form survive were such a question politically salient? Our contention is that the political survival of the modern state depends on that question NOT being politically salient."

Because I saw no mention of this salient consideration in John Alexander's book, such informally representing members of the government, the scientific community and the mainstream media -- the publics three main sources of "reality" -- I have to conclude that his book a misrepresentation of the realities of the UFO phenomenon on all levels. Alexander is an apologist for the state and its mission to do little more than provide the illusion of security. It is "omitted data" that pulls an investigation along and it is a whopping omitted datum that, in Alexander's book, the real motives for the state's negligence, on what is the most important scientific inquiry of our time, are obfuscated. When governments care more about their own survival than they do the survival of their subjects, they have forfeited their mandate to govern.

Thus, my conclusion from reading these two books is: if the U.S. Government does not do what Alexander glibly suggests on page 271 -- "Make a public statement that affirms that no information is being withheld, while releasing all witnesses from perceived restrictions" -- one can conclude with substantial certainty that the government is probably doing exactly the opposite of what Alexander represents. They have probably not dismissed UFOs at all, but are using their "black budgets" in some new "Manhattan Project"-styled endeavor to study the UFO phenomena as much as possible. Given the tangible radar, photographic, satellite and expert eye-witness evidence that SOMETHING is out there and it's real -- how could it be otherwise? The very nature of government is force. The UFO, able to accelerate from 0 to 4,000 mph in a second, represents as much or more force than the atomic bomb - the very subject and "fruit" of the Manhattan Project. Whether UFOs are extraterrestrial or not, any rational person must agree that the only intellectually honest response is "Agnotism." And this is why making it "taboo" is the wrong response as it suggests, or even reveals, the government and scientific communities' fraud.

That said, these books on UFOs are indeed the best ones I have read on the subject, a subject I have been agnostic over for quite some time. This is also an infuriating subject when one considers all the popcorn crap the mainstream media has been endlessly teasing us with in the past years. The idea that they may be pushing for world government and so using the UFO as a rallying call, makes some sense, and this was discussed the Alexander book, if I recall correctly.(1)

So read these books and let me know your views.

(1) This article was originally posted at the MIND-X. For full discussion, see

10 September 2013

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute