Wednesday, September 29, 2010

SP-8 Phillips Moderates Lake Monster Illusion Posts

Welcome to The C Influence Blog - TCI - thanks for visiting today. TCI is a new idea in blogging in that the writers on TCI take one seed idea - and each do a post about the idea and the other writers posts on the idea (we are still working on that part - lol). The idea is to have a discussion of ideas that will be a pleasure to read; - and that we do have a TCI.

TCI your ONE stop for the best paranormal bloggers doing what they do best - blogging about paranormal ideas.

The latest seed idea was Lake Monsters by Bruceleeeowe http://thecinfluenceblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/lake-monster-illusion.html. Bruce brought forth several logical reasons why `monsters' might be seen from `people’s anticipations' to the vast unknowns of the sea of Earth. He also sited this interesting case:
`in Rotterdam in 1978. A small panda had escaped from a zoo, whereupon officials had issued a media alert. Soon panda sightings—around one hundred in all—were reported across the Netherlands. However, a single animal could not have been in so many places in so short a time; in fact, no one had seen the panda, because it had been killed by a train when it reached railroad tracks near the zoo.' - Bruce also pointed out some flaws in science trying to find sea cryptids.

Duensing then responded with  http://thecinfluenceblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/aberrant-attraction-of-sea-monsters.html - his usual flair - expanding the topic with his precise generalizations (if that is possible) - for example:
`As far as the oceanic realm, Cryptozoology veers along swerving test course between mythology, witness accounts and cases of mistaken identity. Sound familiar? However, in this case, there are monsters of the deep, that more appear to be victims of decidedly human tastes in form and function, which tie back to the aforementioned instinctual drives that create both genocidal and reactive behaviors in us as well as the accompanying and often imaginary fear that rationalizes all this' then leaping with a flourish such as `This is the tale of the Gnostic who loathes the Whore of the natural systems of Earth. Perfumed Scorpions and Sea Monsters have perhaps in the end, a relative value from afar. In this, according to the Sufi, is the subtle reality of an individual, the “I.” As opposed to the spirit (rūḥ) or to the intellect (‘aql), the nafs appears in a negative aspect, because it is made up of the sum of individual or egocentric tendencies.'

Ouellet was next up with http://thecinfluenceblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/sp-8-ouellet-commenting-on-lake.html his perspective which focuses on `elusiveness' :
The Lake Monsters phenomenon is another example of what unifies the so-called paranormal, namely elusiveness. UFOs, ghosts, Big Foot and psi effects leave, if any, only feeble traces that invariably fail to confirm the witnesses’ account. Furthermore, every time someone takes the means to have a substantive confirmation of the phenomenon, it also invariably fails to show-up, or if it does it is a hoax. This is elusiveness, which is described by the parapsychologist Walter von Loucadou as follow: “the phenomenon will behave ‘as it pleases’ as long as it is not observed attentively”.

Then, Strickler offered up first hand experience about Lake Monsters - and - their benefit to `local businesses' - he provides a great case example:
http://thecinfluenceblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/sp-8-lon-strickler-responding-to-lake.html
in 2008 I was asked by a LakesTV representative to publish the screen captures from the original video on my blog. The video was located on the LakesTV website at the time. I asked if I could use the video and was denied access. The representative informed me that they wanted to 'market the video and it would be copyrighted' - discover which case within the link.

Not to be outdone - Lee then offered a top of the line post - http://thecinfluenceblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/random-responses-to-water-monsters.html - called - Random Responses to Water Monsters, Clowns,Cannibals and Noticing - and the first thing Lee did was directly comment (this is what it is about, commenting on the other ideas too) about what Duensing said:Bruce  begins his post with the question:"What makes a creature monstrous to us?" I found it interesting Bruce used, among the many images he used in his post, a photo of a clown face. To my mind, a disturbing, creepy, unwholesome, garish and violent-vibe emitting image. and as Lee's post goes on - she comments on nearly every post of the Lake Monster seed. What an excellent example of what TCI is trying to be - strong esoteric stuff.

Please make sure to look around our sidebar before you go today - and - thanks for visiting.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

SP-8: Random Responses to Water Monsters, Clowns,Cannibals and Noticing

Clowns and Cannibals
Bruce  begins his post with the question:"What makes a creature monstrous to us?" I found it interesting Bruce used, among the many images he used in his post, a photo of a clown face. To my mind, a disturbing, creepy, unwholesome, garish and violent-vibe emitting image. I don't like clowns -- and I like them the less the older I get. It's almost an esoteric cliché to be afraid of clowns, though in my "Miss Toughy" mode, as my spouse sometimes calls me, I'll say I'm not afraid of the greasy smelly rude thugs dressed in ruffles and clashing colors, but I am very offended by them. I know what they're up to; I'm on to them. Moot point though; I don't trust them or like them, and there's obviously something about this visceral response to clowns that lives in many of us, for, as we know, our culture has expressed this  distaste and unease with creations like Stephen King's IT, and the movie Killer Clowns From Space, etc. In Fortean terms, the clown also lives, with weird stories of clowns in vans kidnapping children and harassing adults, for example. Some people find clowns funny and delightful Why is that? What causes others, like myself, to want to avoid and destroy the nasty things, while others don't?


On land, we humans don't face the creatures of the deep unless we go to them, but we keep ourselves busy with killing on land (and on the sea.)  Bruce wrote: 
"Of course as creative carnivores, we have a cultural affinity for making totemic demons out of the banal mask of frivolity that can unpredictably bite us on the jugular vein." 
Clowns are cute, yet they can turn on us. They have turned on us; and again, culture motifs reflect this. How many TV shows have you seen where the drunken, chain smoking, foul mouthed clown shows up and scares the little kids while making gross sexual passes at mom?

I no longer eat beef, pork, and most other animals, but many of us do. We happily go to fast food places and devour burgers, chicken, and other meats. We name our reststuratns after the dead animals we eat, we turn them into cartoons. We turn them into happy figures that are goofy, crazy, even, kind of dumb, and pleased to sacrifice themselves for our gratification. Are we afraid the cows, chickens, pigs, and lambs will rise up and attack us? Do we feel a collective and uneasy, submerged guilt at our greed, which is reflected in these cartoons and images of the stupid eating itself, the lunatic pig or cow? If the thing we kill for our pleasure is stupid, and even crazy, as well as damn happy to be slaughtered for our satisfaction, it's only fair to treat it so patronizingly.  It keeps at bay the fear that it will turn around and eat us. (Our fears may be becoming real; stories of animals gone mad, carnivore sheep, invading hordes, appear in news items more and more frequently.)

Water "Monsters"
We call the creatures seen in Loch Ness, Ogopogo, Lake Champlain and other watery worlds "monsters." These are as yet unknown -- or unaccepted/undiscovered -- by science, and so don't really exist, as far as offical paradigms go.  Yet for the many witnesses who've seen these creatures, they do exist. Like Bigfoot, who many have seen (many people I know, who've seen Bigfoot, sometimes more than once) the "monster" exists.  I also know someone who lived in British Colombia and saw Ogopogo once. Of all the people who've personally told me of their encounters with water creatures or Bigfoot, they've never used the word "monster." In thinking about seeing things in the water, or the woods, or in the skies, for that matter, I realize that the unfamiliar can morphed into something even more unfamiliar, as bruceleeeowe points out in his post. But we also want to make sense out of the weird appearing thing before us. I remember the first time I saw a bear in the woods. It was sitting up on its hind legs for a bit, then sat down, watching me. I was scared to death, not because it was a bear -- I was too stupid to know about the woods, bear danger and basic rules of camping at the time -- but because, since I'd never seen a bear in its natural habitat, and, didn't expect to see one, it took me a few moments to realize what it was. While I had heard about Bigfoot in somewhat vague terms, my mind didn't go there at all. I thought, at first, it was a dog. Specifically, a large German Shepherd. Then I realized, at age fifteen, alone in the woods, that that was kind of ridiculous.  So I kept watching it watching me, and then, after running over in my mind what the odd thing that's been watching me so intently could be, I realized: a bear. (And that's when I quickly but carefully got out of there.) 

Seeing weird things in the water; we wonder what they could be. Otters, eels, sturgeon, mistaken for "monsters." But a lot of us, even if not familiar with what's to be expected in nature, realize that the weird thing we're seeing is something mundane. It must be. And sometimes it is, but sometimes it just isn't. And we know it isn't. The excitable, naive, and outright delusional or liars aside, which account for some reported events, the reality is: we're often faced with something outside of that reality, which sounds paradoxical. We then try to make it into something we can understand and explain, or, ignore.

High Tech Hunting
Many "monster" hunters of the watery worlds are like the high tech ghost hunters (and Bigfoot hunters) we're inundated with: tons of equipment, lots of noise, and little to show at the end, which is often presented as "proof" or at least evidence that there is no lake monster, the building isn't haunted, or that Bigfoot is not about. It never seems to occur to these kinds of investigators that the Bigfoot, or the spirits, or the water creatures, have known of their coming long before they've arrived, and, either left the area, or, stuck around, hidden, all the while watching the researchers looking for the researched.

Eric Ouellet’s point about the paranormal being an innate part of UFO/cryptid, etc. phenomena is one that must be made again and again.  Everyone ignores this one, science, UFO researchers, crypto researchers, etc. No wonder we aren’t getting anywhere. The ones who do accept this are still, even now, on the fringes, even if they’re in the fringe. We're sort of on the fringe of the fringe. Sometimes this gets presented as a religious framing; usually Christian. Biblical UFO stuff, for example, which often just ticks people off. You’re either a Christian who’s superstitious and believes UFOs and other paranormal, Fortean phenomena is “the devil,” or you ignore anything that has a religious content. Somewhere there is “betwixt and between” area with all this stuff. For example, Phil Imbragno's and Turkish UFO researcher Farah Yurdozu's research into the Djinn.

Going back to my point about noisy, clanking high tech equipment approach to investigations and the always disappointing results of such investigations: Eric writes, that, along with ignoring the paranormal aspects of lake “monster” sightings, etc. such approaches are futile:
"The ones that really destroy paranormal phenomena are the “real” field investigators (anomalist or skeptic), armed with their cameras and sensors. The deep sonar exploration of the Loch Ness figuratively killed the phenomenon, and may only reappear when, perhaps, no one is paying any attention to it."
Contradiction: Elusive, Yet In Our Face
Weird stuff has been going on for thousands of years, co-existing, or co-operating, alongside us. Despite us, or because of us, or even independent of us. That is such an obvious reality, and yet, the human race still argues, ignores and vilifies such acknowledgment. Or, disguises it in attempts to control -- both “it” and us -- through science or religion. Both systems have doctrines and both have beliefs/agendas that present themselves as the only truth. Belief in a "god" or belief in no god/rationality.

And of UFO, Fortean, paranormal, crypto researchers? Many still reject the woo, the weird: personal accounts that involve dreams, (as Eric pointed out) or other nebulous type phenomena. Basically, it’s still a nuts and bolts system within the fringe world. Bigfoot researchers don’t want to hear about dematerializing Sasquatch or orb wielding creatures by landed UFOs, UFO researchers don’t want to hear about astral projections or other high strangeness, water monster investigators don’t want to know about stories of UFOs, MIBS, and strange dreams by the banks of Loch Ness.

Meanwhile, it all keeps happening. It all remains elusive. We interpret that elusiveness as being nonexistent, no there there. Which allows us to go on our way, as if nothing has happened. Or frustrates researchers, who sometimes give up because, as they often moan in despair concerning UFOs, “After sixty years, we still don’t have  an answer.”

There isn’t a simple, single answer. Maybe we aren’t listening. We decide what it is, and more importantly, what it couldn’t be, before we’ve begun. As long as this approach is the standard, we’ll stay stuck.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

SP 8 - Lon Strickler Responding to 'Lake Monsters'

There are many cryptid mysteries on this planet but none offers more opportunity for legitimate profit than the 'lake monster.' Lakeside businesses and government operated parks can see the dollar signs flash before their eyes when someone...anyone, makes a claim to witnessing an unknown lake monster. In some cases, one of the businesses perpetrates the fervor.

A team of monster hunters set sail on Lake Windermere in a fresh search for ‘Bownessie’, England's newest lake monster. Lakeland hotelier Thomas ‘The Gladiator’ Noblett and celebrity psychic Dean ‘Midas’ Maynard embarked on their second journey into the depths of lake Windermere in search of the monster. The two men led a team of investigators to the lake to look for evidence last year but returned empty handed.

“Since last year, a lot of local people have told me they have felt something in the lake but have been too scared to say anything,” said Mr. Noblett, owner of the Langdale Chase Hotel. “There is obviously something large in there. You just have to look at the depth, width and length of it to know that.” Mr. Noblett was prompted to prove the existence of the creature when he was (conveniently) hit by a three-foot wave while swimming on Lake Windermere last year.

I have been watching this story develop for about 3 years. Frankly, I am of the opinion that this 'cryptid' is a tourist grab for the Langdale Chase Hotel. Why? Well, in 2008 I was asked by a LakesTV representative to publish the screen captures from the original video on my blog. The video was located on the LakesTV website at the time. I asked if I could use the video and was denied access. The representative informed me that they wanted to 'market the video and it would be copyrighted'. I declined to publish the screen captures and decided to wait until something else popped up on this 'creature'. Then in July 2009, the owner of the hotel, Thomas Noblett, conveniently experienced a rogue wave while swimming in the lake.

I rarely pass judgment on a sighting or encounter, but this particular saga doesn't pass the smell test. It could very well be a large eel or fish...but using the 'Nessie' moniker as part of a name is somewhat disingenuous.

This also seems to be the case for several other 'lake monsters' throughout the world...for example, Lake Champlain (Champ) in New England, Rabisha Lake in Northwestern Bulgaria, Raystown Lake (Raystown Ray) in Pennsylvania and, of course, Okanagan Lake (Ogopogo) in British Columbia.

In an attempt not to seem too cynical, I have no qualms about anybody searching for any strange and mysterious creature. But I do have a problem when any crypto-investigators are used by those only interested in profits.

SP 8 – Ouellet commenting on Lake Monsters

The Lake Monsters phenomenon is another example of what unifies the so-called paranormal, namely elusiveness. UFOs, ghosts, Big Foot and psi effects leave, if any, only feeble traces that invariably fail to confirm the witnesses’ account. Furthermore, every time someone takes the means to have a substantive confirmation of the phenomenon, it also invariably fails to show-up, or if it does it is a hoax. This is elusiveness, which is described by the parapsychologist Walter von Loucadou as follow: “the phenomenon will behave ‘as it pleases’ as long as it is not observed attentively”.

The inherent elusiveness of paranormal phenomena, being a clear characteristic, should lead the attentive researcher to see if there might be a common substratum behind all these apparently discrete phenomena. Yet, very few do investigate the paranormal in that spirit. The armchair anomalists, so fond of their pet theory would see no advantage in taking such an approach; their bestiary of monsters and spirits would simply fall apart. The Fortean collector of stories, being usually completely engulfed in the fallacy of inductive thinking, would not see the point. Parapsychologists, who tend to be afraid of stepping out of their laboratory and their quantitative analyses, would not see any advantage either. All these people, by avoiding looking into the only strong pattern found in the paranormal, leave right open the field to those who destroy phenomena.

To take into account the fundamental elusiveness of paranormal phenomena has two specific implications. The first one, which may appear counter-intuitive, is actually not to try confirming directly the phenomenon. The ones that really destroy paranormal phenomena are the “real” field investigators (anomalist or skeptic), armed with their cameras and sensors. The deep sonar exploration of the Loch Ness figuratively killed the phenomenon, and may only reappear when, perhaps, no one is paying any attention to it. The second is the logical consequence of the first implication. Instead of trying to confirm directly the existence of the phenomenon, one has to allow the phenomenon to “express itself” through a variety of means where there are multiple but non-stringent confirmation processes. In the case of Lake Monsters, this might mean to have a look into strange synchronicities involving lake monsters-related themes, or pay attention to what people dream of at night, or other concurrent paranormal or strange phenomena near and around the sea monsters alleged location, etc. This leads to a very different form of paranormal research.

Paying due attention to the central role of elusiveness has also serious epistemological implications because it implies that one has to work with a mixed ontology. The dualist division between the objective and the subjective, already challenged by many philosophers since Kant, is even more challenged in these cases. How we look at a phenomenon will determine its physical properties and how often it is shows-up. Sea monsters, as far as I can see, follow the same pattern. I remember that there were persistent sightings of a lake monster in Lake Pohenegamook in Quebec. Some witness’ accounts were quite astonishing. After the “field investigators” passed, it was reduced to dead tree trunks emerging from the bottom of the lake to the surface. For sure, a number of witnesses’ account fitted this explanation, but not all. Yet, the monster was “slaughtered”, there was no more reported sightings ever since. There was no more room for elusiveness.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

SP7: Erich Responds to Hawking: Left Vs. Right Brain, No Quarter

Hello and thanks for having me on this marvelous blog. In response to the Hawking thing I'd also mention Morgan Freeman's Through the Worm Hole, a science fair type documentary, pretty well edited, on the Science Channel... I think.

Like the proclamations of Hawking,  Through the Wormhole show is both sad and mind-blowing, sad because it's like when I used to try and write songs with my left brain buddy, and I'm all right brained, and we couldn't get together. Science can't understand that SETI and space travel is bullshit and what they should have working for them is mystics, trance specialists, psychics, heads, and Rick Strassman, Carlos Castaneda. There are people on this planet who can travel to the farthest reaches of space and have contacted plant intelligences, and science with its left brain single mindedness can't grasp how this stuff lies so far beyond mathematics and factors and "listening for signals from the stars. " There are other ways we can find out where ET lives, he's so close we can't see him with these eyes leftover from yesterday's physicality, we have to open the crown chakra third eye to see him swimming around us.

Science is important, but so is right brained intuition, and as long as left brain science-- our controlling side  (the way shamanism/right brain used to be) is in charge, they're mutually exclusive, and we'll never be nowhere. I want to see Amazon shamen, esoteric philosophers, and DMT trippers working at top pharmaceutical corporations and taking over wings of NASA!

Instead there's so much work and effort to sketch out the elaborate science behind this stuff, which is like going all the way around the world to find you own backyard. The biggest crime of the Hawking science world is that they refuse to acknowledge alien witness/abduction testimony and all the other 'hard' evidence (such as implants recovered by that guy Lair, as I wrote about on my blog)...  They'll never find it as long as they're not ready to find it. If they do find something, it creates such a flurry, they bury it again. I don't blame them. Acknowledging the truth, publicly, about alien life here on this planet, or at least admitting something is going on beyond our comprehension, would be to 'let it in'. If we pretend it's not there, maybe it will go away. After all, "they" have been here as long or longer than us and no one has proclaimed their existence before now.

Science is scared of flying saucers, which represent technology far beyond their own. Scientists have fought hard to get grants and doctorates and positions and tenure, they've struggled to become masters of their domain--the realm of 'what we do know about the universe'--but they've fooled themselves into thinking it's 'all there is' to know (until they learn more, of course). They don't want to be reminded that not two feet outside their bedroom domain, there be monsters.

Why is the scientist then, so eager to make sure I know it's not the one thing I hope it (against my better judgment) to be? If we consider conventional science's hostility towards the UFO community--the borderline hysteria with which so many academics and sponsored researchers refuse to hear anything about "that nonsense"--we realize they're kind of scared of something. God is the same thing. Why are atheists always so vocal about being atheists. What is it that troubles them, that they even bother to deny the existence of something they can't possibly prove one way or the other?

For example, when people find out I don't drink, used to be in AA, etc, once in awhile someone will come up to me, someone who, I barely even know and say, out of the blue, "Hey man, you know, I don't have a problem with drinking!" and I'm like "I never said or thought you did, I don't even know who you are.... but obviously you do." Otherwise, why are you threatened? Why are you so easily provoked by something someone else is, in this case, not doing? Our goal as therapists healing the right-left brain divide, would be help the scientist discern his hysteric symptom, in this case the fear of even considering the truths of UFO existence--his refusal to visualize the hypothesis of it all being true--the venom and vehemence with which he denies and warns and freaks out over the issue, and help the patient gain courage to  face the root of repressed anxiety it obscures.

 Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan have both flown on ahead to imagine alien hypotheses suspiciously separate from the general body of modern UFO 'fringe' research and documented experience. They're terrified of looking over the shoulder at the truths reported by average witnesses, because it all fits so perfectly together that it's like solving a giant math problem where, when you reach the answer, the numbers congeal into a tentacle that sucks you into the blackboard. God and aliens are all part of the same interconnected wavelength in my opinion, they're adaptable to our perceptions and when we see God or aliens or machine elves, or trolls, or fairies, or angels and demons, we see 'something' that we then put our own delineating transparency over...
 Off Topic! Okay... my point is, science once had to fight for respectability against the hysterics of the right brain-dominated middle ages... now it's reversed, science needs to let in the weird, the mystic and the exalted. Otherwise they'll chrystalize like the stale dogma of a Christian Sunday school bible class.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Seed Post 8 - Lake monster: Illusion?

Mysterious lake monsters, are baffling human mind since our culture adapted to learn about our mother nature. skeptics say there are no lake monsters, these are only mere illusions but are really they? Here I will illustrate the whole case including sighting details. Lake monsters have been reported through all over the world including China and some other Asian and European countries.
Now what skeptics says that they are mere illusion nothing else. What does that mean? Killing of real science? See, what skeptics say?
Skeptic’s case Here is a report of Joe Nickell of Skeptical inquirer. Actually, I feel that if we erred it was on the side of being too open-minded. Ben’s essay, “Eyewitness (Un)Reliability,” appeared as an appendix and simply demonstrated the fact that eyewitnesses are often mistaken. If further evidence is needed, consider a case that transpired in Rotterdam in 1978. A small panda had escaped from a zoo, whereupon officials had issued a media alert. Soon panda sightings—around one hundred in all—were reported across the Netherlands. However, a single animal could not have been in so many places in so short a time; in fact, no one had seen the panda, because it had been killed by a train when it reached railroad tracks near the zoo. How do we explain the many false sightings? The answer is, people’s anticipations led them to misinterpret what they had actually seen—a dog or some wild creature—as the escaped panda. (The publicity generated by the case may even have sparked some hoax calls [Nickell 1995, 43].) If such misperceptions could happen with pandas, surely they could also occur with aquatic cryptids.
Ogopogo 2
[Image Detail: composite drawing of Ogopogo (top) is compared with otters swimming in a line]
Consider, for example, the experience of a senior wildlife technician with New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, Jon Kopp. As he explained to me, it had been dark and he was in a duck blind on a lake in Clinton County. Suddenly, he saw, heading toward him, a huge, snake-like monster swimming with a sinuous, undulating motion. As it came closer, however, Kopp realized that he saw not one creature but half a dozen—a group of otters swimming in a line diving and resurfacing to create the effect of a single, serpentine creature. “After seeing this,” Kopp said, “I can understand how people can see a ‘sea serpent’”.
Of course, otters are not responsible for all lake-monster sightings, any more than weather balloons are the only instigators of UFO reports. In fact, in Lake Monster Mysteries, I mentioned many possible culprits, such as sturgeon, gar, and other large fish; swimming animals like beavers; deer; long-necked birds; bobbing logs; clumps of dislodged lake-bottom debris; and additional possibilities, including wind sticks and boat wakes. Hoaxes are also possible, and there have been faked monsters on pulleys as well as phony photographs, like the celebrated Loch Ness monster photo, which was publicly revealed as a hoax in 1994.
In fact I tend to agree with his argument. As shown in above illustration it might be possible to misinterpret herds of fish and such other creatures specially when there is already a folklore in that area. The big issue is that skeptics deny them since There is a folklore in that area. The most vulnerable argument!
The case of Blurry Photographs:
When witnesses are asked to show the evidence of their sightings of lake monsters, they show their blurry photographs. These reports may be truth although there no solid proof including blurry photographs, but science can’t dismiss all eyewitness as it is quite possible that at the instant equipments were not available to be photographed. I think it is very difficult to take high quality and detailed photograph when such unknown and mysterious creature ,about which we have never listen nor seen, is before us. There are previously such creatures are present between us which were thought to be rumor till they were found, like gorilla which was reported as big meat eating monkey like creature, until it was found alive in 1847. The another example is komodo found alive in 1912 in some islands of indonesia. It was first reported as big ,fierce, meat eating lizard and scientists were discarding its witnesses. The another third is Coelacanth found alive in in 1938. Now it is known as “living fossil”. Then how we can discard all witnesses of such monsters including Loch Ness monster? It is quite possible these creatures may still alive in deep sea and we have no access to them technically. How much we know about deep see? There are critters which have been found about 600 feet below ice , clearly suggesting we have to know more than we know till now. Why to confine yourself just to search for known creatures. Without exploring the real phenomenon, directly depicting such creatures as myth is idiocy.
Searching Tactics
I’ve watched the discovery channel’s show quest for lake monsters in which they have explored the lake Tally. There are various flaws which prohibit the detection of such creatures. Many cryptozoologist like James Kirk search for them with their sonar which is not reliable however. Just see the image attached in the left. The red spot is showing the area covered by sonar. You can see in the image how small it is? There is a lot of volume for the lake monsters to hide themselves. They search for lake monsters just for one month(maximum), expecting that they would see the lake monster. Well, how they could expect that they would definitely encounter the lake monsters? Even local residents find themselves unable to see the creature once a month. Most sightings includes 10 sightings per year or so. Since a researcher can’t see a lake monster in after one month exploration so lake monsters do not exist, won’t be a pretty good argument. There are more than 10 million people who report sightings including literate persons, all are just haunted by illusion and hallucination and some who are not, they are just hoaxing. Just a few say that lake monsters do not exist and you should accept without using your own logic since they are prestigious researchers?


Are they survived Reptiles?
It may be possible that lake monsters are survived sea reptiles. Plesiosaurs were sea reptiles which lived in late Jurassic period and CRETACEOUS PERIOD. They adapted to live deep in the sea and have more survival versatility than crocks and perhaps they were more intelligent than crocks since they were possibly warm blooded(between warm blooded and cold blooded). So, it is not hard to accept that some of them have survived from K-T extinction crisis like Coelacanth and crocodiles. Possibly, Homo Sapiens are sighting them and they are not myth at all.

Monday, September 6, 2010

SP - 7 Phillips Tackles The Hawking Statement About Creation - God Linkage

First, where else on the internet can you find ON ONE WEBSITE - paranormalish bloggers writing on ONE subject ALL AT THE SAME TIME? Only on TCI as far as I know. The experiment continues; and, before my response - let me say that my response will be independent - and that I haven't read my writers previous offerings (except BD's - and that was days ago) yet - to preserve my own independent approach to this seed post `hot story' about Hawking's statement in the past week or so. So, here goes.

Since we are talking about creation - isn't EVERY second created? Are we - Hawking - really talking about `our universe' or the `real beginning' of `something'? Aren't we really to be considering how a phenomenology might come into being as much as anything? Aren't we really talking about the `potential to be' - a prior - period?

Certainly, we can't be talking about the `religious' Gods - that mankind has created - can we? WE, a race of beings living on a planet that didn't even exist, we are told, until roughly 8+ billion years after `the beginning of time'? A GOD that `resembles humans' we have been told to believe? Sounds just a bit like imagination at play IMO.

God, would be MUCH bigger in every manner than mankind could imagine - and almost certainly would look no more like mankind than looking like any other item that would exist - living or `dead' - `spirit' or `material'. Indeed, if one were strictly to `look' for God - and the concept that would represent such - especially the concept that would represent the `beginning of God' - one could only look to the Now of the Past.

The first Now.

A none existent `potential' - actualized. (And I don't mean the Big Bang.) A phenomenology structure began actualization.

While a phenomenology structure can imply `ethics' and even `morals' - as Existentialism claims - those are mankind ascribed to a blank phenomenology devoid of such IMO - but - a phenomenology not devoid of meaning or definition of what the phenomenology structure IS - is what I believe.

IS - a sum of zero - of negating representations - BEING - NOW.

Representations that we can - roughly - put into human words - as several of the early phenomenology thinkers such as Edmund Husserl have done. Thoughts, really, IMO, that could be ANY humans thoughts - back to the time of thinking humans - they are so fundamental. And, they are that way because they represent the concepts of time-space-and consciousness.

Could something as fundamental as Phenomenology Structure Establishing - BE GOD? ----- If first actions, or events matter - yes.

IMO, - (my Phillips Phenomenology) - `spaces' (all things represented as matter) - have one of the two `negating' representations - as part of it most fundamental `meaning' of being a `space'. To me, the ISness of `spaces' is `not-able-to-be'. (counted once). `Things' occur once - which gives them their realness - for that instant. This ISness, occurs, ONLY within the space itself.

Different `things' have their OWN unique `now-space' - that is NOT (timewise) shared with other spaces - except as `it' `runs off' of the `structure'. (We are `represented' by our lights bounce to `other things' that can perceive us. However, be clear about this, our light image of our now - the representation of us - has already occurred and takes `time' to travel to the perception field of another - our light IS the `set' and determined' PAST.

This Now-Past - is what I call the `Not-Able-To-Not-Be' - the set reality we `see' of the external perception structure. This shared reality of `neighboring spaces' - is what we call real. This is where part of our consciousness lies and where we need to direct our attention for survival.

Now, what NEGATES - the above? ----- The `time' concept - the `able- to- not- be' concept. `Something' that isn't `everything' - something - `that could occur again'! And, with that - the initial structure is set. And, knowledge (an event physics) would grow with a structure.

Perception FROM spaces - can make `sense' of the data - giving some advantage (perhaps) to `living spaces'. (One of my favorite thoughts is - if man can be considered nothing more than a collection of electrons, etc - show me which electrons are alive and which ones aren't.)

So, ultimately, - my comment is - there would be structure before creation `of the universe' (I'm assuming he is only referring to the observable portion - a minor amount of the total) - that defined what characteristics that things-spaces would BE.

Now, is that existence before creation thing God? --- my answer is above - and open to your interpretation. (However, I must render that it is possible that the reality we exist within could be an `artificial' creation.)

Saturday, September 4, 2010

SP-7: Regan's Take on Hawking's Comments

Stephen Hawking’s mind seems to have taken some negative turns recently. In his Discovery Channel special this past spring, he speculated that ET would be malevolent:
“If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”


More recently, Hawkings stated in his book The Grand Design, God/god/g-d/ had nothing to do with creation because there is no god. God. Whatever:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
(In a round about way, I can see what Hawking is getting at: it isn’t necessary to create a cartoonish, childish figurehead that we appease in order to shift responsibility away from ourselves to explain things, and I don’t think ETs are necessarily magical wondrous Space Brothers and Sisters who will give us lots of candy. Or, Jesus for that matter.)

Some die hard skeptoid atheists types might play semantic games with the following, (to them any “belief in” anything concerning spiritual matters is, at best, New Age froth, and at worst, religious zealotry)  but I don’t have a religious quibble with Mr. Hawking on this, because I’m not a Christian or religious person. I don’t believe in God as in Daddy Supreme being, don't believe the Bible is the word of a God, either directly or inspired, and so on. I do believe in what’s loosely called “Intelligent Design” which is an uneasy and dangerous label to use, since that term often invokes Christians who want to force public schools into teaching their particular brand of creationism, bring prayer into schools, or trying to get Glen Beck into the White House.

How about consciousness. When I think of “god” I think of living, intelligent, sentient, ... consciousness.

So Stephen Hawking talks about gravity and my question is, what created gravity? Who, what, how, why, ... is behind gravity, the universe, the constant flux, the stuff, this, that, ... ?  Simplistic answers deliver us a single God, and one personified to fit into our puny little human needs for control and fear based authoritarian structures.

Other spiritual systems, many of which I happily align myself with because they bring me comfort, are fun, have beautiful colorful artistic images of deities, help me focus and even, yes, manifest powerful moments in my life on various levels, aren’t as punitive and vengeful as the straight ahead Judeo/Christian/Islam triad of petty monotheistic beings misinterpreted, abused and mangled by humanity to control and kill their fellow human sisters and brothers -- and, give them permission to abuse and kill their fellow non-human sisters and brothers (animals.)

However, that’s all beside the point. Hawking hasn’t answered anything, he’s merely made a pronouncement based on his personal belief. We can argue all day about the existence of God, but first, we need to get clear on a few things; like, an agreed upon definition of what God/god is. My “god” if I call it that, which I don’t, is not  a single deity,---  unless, you want to consider that we're all “gods,” and in that sense a single deity, since we’re all sharing the single consciousness --  and is not vengeful, spiteful, arrogant, bestows grace only if you agree to believe in it (which is usually a him), is not just a “him,”  doesn’t give a damn if we pray to it or not, especially in schools and at football games, doesn't care if you're gay, bi, pan or transsexual, doesn’t ... well, you can see where I’m at.

From a human interest perspective, I’m curious about the ironic juxtaposition of Hawking's profession -- mega-intelligent universe pondering guy -- and his dark view of that very universe. ETs are going to eat us for lunch, the universe is just a gravity machine, coldly and non-mysteriously doing its mechanized thing, without consciousness.

So Hawking doesn’t believe in any kind of a God/god whether it’s a consciousness metaphysical concept, or a more traditional Christian kind of God. He can’t prove there is, he can’t prove there isn’t. Shrug. I’d like Hawking to take the next step and ask:  what created this gravity-machine? Gravity is “god,” man.

SP - 7 - Bruceleeeowe - Poor Hawking You Are Still Wrong!!

Hawking is getting more and more weirder. This time a genius weirdo is explaining the origin of universe alone with his physical laws. In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”



Okay, admitted! Admitted that Hawking is right then he need to explain everything around us as to why it exist at all? Hawking has already made a fuss of controversial statements.


This is the big bang which started from a explosion and symmetry breaking in ultimate supersymmetric singularity. It seems fairly likely that there was a Big Bang. The obvious question that could be asked to challenge or define the boundaries between physics and metaphysics is: what came before the Big Bang? Physicists define the boundaries of physics by trying to describe them theoretically and then testing that description against observation. Our observed expanding Universe is very well described by flat space, with critical density supplied mainly by dark matter and a cosmological constant, that should expand forever. If we follow this model backwards in time to when the Universe was very hot and dense, and dominated by radiation, then we have to understand the particle physics that happens at such high densities of energy. The experimental understanding of particle physics starts to poop out after the energy scale of electroweak unification, and theoretical physicists have to reach for models of particle physics beyond the Standard Model, to Grand Unified Theories, supersymmetry, string theory and quantum cosmology.


Theories can explain the characteristics but not ultimate fundamental origin. Even if we would have discovered the grand unified theory or say theory of everything, a fundamental question would still be unexplained for us perplexing our 1600cc mind for infinite light years in time dimension that is, from where such singularity came? Who created the space time itself? What is that upholding the whole quantum chunk of space time? Indeed, what is withing our scope that we could know how this universe was formed, what are the laws of universe, how to create extra dimensions of our own or even universe.!?


Consider a scenario to comprehend the controversial case with better intellect! What if we have created five dimensional universe of our own followed by programming laws of universe and intentionally creating a ultimate singularity made of compactified 10^78 electrons,protons and neutrons? Assume somehow we have completed this task by hook or crook. Since we already have TOE( Theory of Everything) so it is desired that we would explode it using our technology inasmuch it would be stupidity to wait for billions of years to see a big bang explosion happening(or we may accelerate the rate of change of time by vast amounts). Now consider the evolution of universe in a same way(it would be slightly different since this time we are dealing with a five dimensional universe not classical 4dimensional universe) as it has already happened. It is presumed that there are intelligent beings which have been evolved along the pace of time. Now if these five dimensional intelligent intellectual entities are smart enough to comprehend their five dimensional universe. Now consider they have discovered quantum theory of origin of universe and physical laws of extradimensions and parallel universes.


What if another five dimensional Hawking( this is not four dimensional Hawking) has acclaimed that we don’t need god since we could explain the origin of our five dimensional universe with the help of supergravity? Is he correct? Certainly not!!


Something can be explained without the need of anything doesn’t mean that anything don’t exist. This is where Hawking still stands for totally vague and satired leaning argument. Hey Hawking, stop this unnecessary controversies!!

(This link is also found at - http://weirdsciences.net/2010/09/03/poor-hawking-you-are-still-wrong/ )

Friday, September 3, 2010

SP7 - Response to 'Did God Create the Universe?' - Lon Strickler

Revelation: 'Man created God'. That simple statement answers the question 'did God create the universe?' In other words, no...God did not create the universe. God, Bhagwaan, El, Yahweh, Allah, etc...whatever moniker you wish to name a Supreme Being, it was a creation of mortal man. The conception and mere existence of a supreme deity cannot and will not be proven beyond the faith of it's believers.

Scientific methodology should be used to answer any empirical question in reference to the natural world, which includes the universe. The existence of God should only be within the domain of theology and has no basis in science, which is any systematic knowledge and practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable result. This does not define "God."

British ethologist Richard Dawkins explains "a universe with a God would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference." American astronomer Carl Sagan stated that "the Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove" and that "the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe."

Even though the promoters and teachers of organized religion would deny it, they promulgate the image of God as a larger than life, human-like Titan of the heavens with the white hair, beard and a grand robe who exudes power, wisdom and love. It's the easiest manner to explain what God is to the young and uneducated. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that "people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar."...thus, making God believable.

Anyway, this is not a subject I make a habit of discussing since most every person has their own concept of what a Supreme Being is or, for that matter, what it isn't.

Stumble - The C Influence!

Lee's Top Books

Erich's Top Books

Gunter's Top Books

Phillips's Top Books