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.

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.

SP-6 - Phillips Responds To The Bigfoot Paradox

My oh my - the readers have been having a field day with this topic as have been the writers - bravo folks.

Ok, first Duensing asked for an anagram sentence for the words Bigfoot, Ufo's, Hauntings -- how about - "A Buffoon Ghosting Suit" ------> Could anything be more dead on to our subject matter this week? ------- But, I digress.

Responding in order of posting as briefly as I can on the subject of The Bigfoot Paradox - Seed Post Six.

First, Lon - great re-touching of a great post. Perhaps what I liked most was the `examples of stories' of the DEAD Bigfoot(s) that seem around at some level (I've read on your P&M site about the one killed in the St. Mount Helen's blast) but --- NEVER with the solid proof that one would hope beyond being `stories'. I'm of the kind that I'll need a little bit more. That said, at the end of June at Barf Stew - I explained my view that `even proof' of a Bigfoot - without a body - wouldn't be `enough' - http://barfstew.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-bigfoot-proof-will-not-be-enough.html at least for me.

But, let me assume for a minute that indeed one of these `temporal characters' was shot and killed and `brought back' as a real space with on-going existence. Since, I am of the thought that such a thing would be like bagging a doppelganger - which I view as impossible - would mean that IF it happened - that somewhere, somewhen a `real' bigfoot was `caught' --- it - to me - would give credence to a creature with an on-going population base in some manner.

Lastly, let me say that I'm honored to have a role in your review of this issue in your posting - and to me - the real issue you raise is WHAT IF THE STORIES ARE TRUE? (I'm reminded of the de Loy's Ape picture I saw on one of your sites.)
------------------------------------------
Next, Mr. Duensing's observations - ---- beautifully written Bruce - eloquent as always - I guess the main points I'd like to reflect upon in a different manner would be my `hardness' on thinking we are in some big transformation mindwise at this stage of humanity. Perhaps I'm being bullheaded. Ultimately, I feel that `the event spaces' occupied by `the anomalous' has a bit more independence than you normally position in your writings on a given day.
-------------------------------------------
Eric - you are incredibly concise in your writing and projecting of ideas -- wow - extremely impressive review of the state of the matter (as brought out by Lon and Bruce also). That said, one idea I did want to respond to:
As well, there are Psycho-social hypotheses (PSH), held by debunkers about both UFOs and Bigfoot
This is somewhat what I was trying to articulate above - while the argument is good - it seems to me that it also doesn't fit 100%.
-------------------------------------------
Regan - what can I say - it's posts like yours - well, everyone's really - that will make The C Influence experiment - real. We all bring similar points of view yet with refreshing differences and emphasis on certain attributes. We at
 TCI are indeed Forteans.

I too followed the last days of The Blogsquatcher and was incredibly impressed with the body of evidence and line of thought the blogger displayed about the UFO/Bigfoot connection. And perhaps I should withhold this judgement - but, to me - Lisa Shiel's concept (as I understand it - that a Bigfoot followed her move to a new location and that she confirms such with the sticks in the woods) I am vastly less impressed with. (Hey I can be a jerk.)

And, what a story about Stan Johnson - especially the bookstore event. Great read of that whole experience - thanks for sharing that with TCI readers. Wonderful again.
-------------------------------------------------
Bruceleeeowe --- thanks indeed for your contribution and viewpoints. I knew that you would bring a viewpoint worth considering. And, I certainly find your taking the `other' (bigfoot is a physical entity) viewpoint and supporting it in a science manner refreshing.

Indeed, what other blog has folks saying the psychological viewpoint on one hand; and, has the young advocate that tells us that theory says it is possible for these `anomalous events'. Including space travel and including isolated real Bigfoots. And, while I might not share some of your viewpoints and wish you could come back in and clean up your script a bit (you know, paragraphs and such, as all submitted material will appear as is) - the balance I sought by having you be a writer on TCI is well shown by your effort.

I'd only caution that at your young age - 19 - that it's quite likely that your beckoning of the anomalous via your blog and here at TCI - may `cause' one of these Fortean events your fellow writers have been experiencing and trying to figure out. I will welcome your interpretation when that occurs.

Excellent.
================================
Great, in-depth, writing folks -- I'm very impressed. Thanks for your efforts.

TCI-SP5- Responce to Lon's Post by Bruceleeeowe

Recently Mr. Lon has published a very fascinating post about bigfoots. There are various reports of encounter of Bigfoot or so called Sasquatch. Skeptics simply rebut these encounters without going into an extensive research programme. What explanation we can expect from skeptics more likely, is that these are mere 'mass hallucination' which comes from anecdotal stories. Granted, they are correct, what about dinosaurs? Why hasn't then anyone imagined dinosaurs( velociraptor or troodons) ever before eighteenth century? The answer is so simple since they hadn't seen it ever. Perhaps, this is why there are no anecdotal stories about velociraptor attacking on human colonies. My intention is pretty clear here. If something hasn't been seen,then it can't be invented. It is impossible to conjure up something out of thin air if basic elements are missing. Therefore, mythologies, tales etc, which mainstream science today discredit as mere fanta intentions our stone age ancestors' imagination-can't possibly all be unfounded inventions or mere figments of someone's imagination. Quite on contrary! Something had to there in the first place to act as catalyst, the basic elements that sparked the story. Something happened to our stone agers that compelled them to tie it into a legend. The bigfoot encounters are common not only in USA but also in Himalayan peaks. There are various encounters of bigfoot, reported by those who were sent there as a part of Everest expeditions. I'm not going to write their story as Mr. Lon did. In his post Lon says that he refutes the case of bigfoot being something like that of coelacanth, manipulating the explanation to so called interdimensional being. I ask him to answer the question of why. He argued that with current technology we can sweep our eyes to every corner of woods. I'm politely disagree with him on that. In next paragraph he argues that we have FLRI cameras which can detect anything which is warmer than its environment. Agreed, we have such miracles of science. The infrared cameras are simply based on a principle and that is so called Stephen's radiation law. To detect something from infrared cameras there must have been some radiations coming from relatively warmer bodies. What if these are living in some deep naturally formed tunnels or something like underground IGLOU. Probably no radiation will come out of such tunnels and reading from cameras in simple word would be ' nothing detected'. I ask him how many times have we sent our explorers lassed with such detection equipments. Who is here who has collaborated with google to search for Sasquatch? The answer is 'none'. I've much explained the case in my lake monster post, which is still in draft. Granted, they are extraterrestrials explorers. Now big question is that what kind of propulsion methodology are they using? Okay, if they have implemented the technologies about which we talk only in theories like wormholes, casimir effect, black hole propulsion etc, it would simply acquire high energy densities(more than 10^27 joules/m3) which would be easily detectable and leave macroscopic traces which would be easily identifiable. So if they are real extraterrestrials or interdimensional being, where are the traces? That's why I always refute this theory with extreme politeness. There are many reports from everest expeditors which let's know that bigfoot is creature with intelligence slightly higher than chimpanzee. I'll try to make a full post to end of this weekend or so. Thanks.

Regan Responds to Lon’s SP6: The Bigfoot Paradox -- Bigfoot and Fairies

Wow, a fantastic post by Lon. I’ve been fascinated by UFO themed, paranormal or supernatural narratives concerning Bigfoot for years. These tales of high strangeness encounters inspired me a few years ago to start a blog devoted just to this topic [Frame 352: The Stranger Side of Sasquatch.]

Like the Contactee stories of meetings with beings from Venus or Mars, rides aboard spaceships, metaphysical discourse between human and alien, the tales of Bigfoot meetings containing yet further bizarre elements are incredible to believe; certainly if we take them literally. But, these tales do exist, and as Lon and others ask: what about them?

We have to look at these tales, and we have to acknowledge their existence. As Forteans, that’s easy, it’s what we do. Strictly “flesh and blood” Bigfoot researchers often don’t allow themselves that luxury and in fact, (as recent events have proven on a couple of well known Bigfoot message boards) many Bigfoot forums will kick you off if you start up about UFO or inter-dimensional Bigfoot. Some boards and groups have had it in their TOS that they won’t allow such discussions at all. It's an understatement to say that the flesh and blood vs. paranormal Bigfoot discussion is a controversial one.

There was an excellent Bigfoot blog around: The Blogsquatcher. For reasons of his own, the “Blogsquatcher” decided to stop blogging about Bigfoot and his research in the spring of 2010 and the blog is no longer active. But he was one of the few Bigfoot bloggers who gave serious consideration to the paranormal/UFO/anomalous aspects of Sasquatch encounters. Other paranormal Bigfoot blogs include author and researcher Lisa Shiel (Backyard Bigfoot:The True Story of Stick Signs, UFOs and the Sasquatch) who is not only a researcher, but has had her own UFO sightings and high strangeness encounters concerning Bigfoot. Peter Guittilla has been writing about high strangeness Bigfoot for years, and his book Bigfoot Files is a great collection of stories from witnesses about their weird encounters.

Good thoughts posted here on The C-Influence from others on the nature of high strangeness Bigfoot, and I can’t really add anything; it’s already been said, and very well. I will share a bit of my own experience with the “other side” of Bigfoot however.

I remember when I first came across a “weird Bigfoot” story. It was many years ago and for some reason, the article, (I believe written by Jack Lapseritis, who Lon mentions in his post) ticked me off. It made me angry. Now, why is that? That’s an interesting response to something I knew nothing about, isn’t it? I “believed in” Bigfoot; meaning, I accepted that Bigfoot most likely existed. A flesh and blood Bigfoot, and, a “giant ape,” at that. Now of course, I believe no such thing-- oh, I believe Bigfoot exists all right, but Bigfoot is more, far more, than “just a giant ape.”

But, as a Fortean in the making, I couldn’t bring myself to just throw away the article, so I filed it away. Synchronicty came along, and suddenly, I was coming across all kinds of articles about UFOs and Bigfoot, Bigfoot living under ground, dematerializing Bigfoot, etc. I was definitely intrigued. I was hooked, actually, and remain so today.

Then I came upon two Oregon (where I live) weird Bigfoot tales. One is the “monster” in Conser Lake outside of Albany, Oregon,  and the other, the experiences of Stan Johnson in Sutherlin, Oregon.  (Both subjects of a project I’ve been working on for awhile now.) I won't go into details about either here, but both share many similarities (even while differing in many respects; for example, appearance.) Both stories include landed UFOs, Bigfoot or “hairy biped” associated with that UFO, the Bigfoot communicating with humans that it came from outer space, telepathic communications between the Bigfoot creature and humans, strange sounds heard in close proximity to humans but no creature seen, and a lot more.

I met Stan Johnson once at a local UFO conference; he was one of the presenters. He was elderly ; I’d say in his seventies, yet he was very charismatic. As I listened to him speak, I found myself disagreeing with his personal perception on things which were framed within a religious context, but his energy was profoundly strong and, when he shook my hand and we spoke for a few minutes, I could feel this energy -- a heat, and an electrical feeling - - emanating from him. And here’s an interesting tangent: I had less trouble believing his stories of his paranormal encounters with Bigfoot -- it really wasn’t such a stretch for me to accept the possibility he had these experiences -- as I did accepting his personal, religious interpretation of those experiences.

One day around that time, I was speaking with the then owner of a local New Age bookstore, Stargate, who had known Stan, the object of our discussion. As we were talking about Stan, I became aware of a bright white cone of light -- like an upside down ice cream cone-- that had come down through the ceiling and settled on us, sort of covering us or enclosing us. I was inwardly freaked out; was I going crazy, having a migraine, what? Sound became muffled, light was weird; I could still hear and see but it was as if I was looking through a glass brick. As soon as had stopped talking about Stan, the cone of light lifted back up into the ceiling and “out.” The owner gave me a funny look; I thought, “She must think I’m nuts, I probably look panic stricken as all hell” but she said, “You saw what too; that always happens when we talk about Stan.”

So there that is.

Back to the religious aspect of some of this: Stan Johnson considered himself a Christian, and didn’t see any conflict with his beliefs and his experiences. Yet an Oregon Bigfoot researcher not long ago rejected my following her blog -- and her, mine -- because, as this person told me, they considered themselves a Christian, and therefore, could not accept any discussion or link to any blogs that had to do with “the paranormal.” In an authentic and genuine attempt to understand, I responded that, if one puts themselves out there as a Bigfoot researcher, yet rejects accounts that conflict with personal values, well, is that research? Of course this isn’t limited to religious views; there are Bigfoot researchers who may or may not consider themselves religious but their rejection of this high strangeness Bigfoot isn’t based on religious convictions necessarily, but simply the old flesh and blood vs. high strangeness. This is another area of discussion I guess but I find it interesting a researcher can be so involved in a marginalized, and trivialized, area, and yet, have their own buffers that keep them from going completely down the rabbit hole.

Bigfoot researcher Autumn Williams (whose recent book, Enoch, while not dealing with high strangeness Bigfoot, has received a lot of criticism -- and praise -- for focusing on both the protection of Bigfoot, as well as the witness, and the dynamics between witness and researcher) has suggested, along with other researchers (like the Blogsquatcher) that Bigfoot is almost eerily sensitive to physical effects of things like cameras and infrared. We can speculate that it’s possible the creature we call Sasquatch, Bigfoot, etc. has highly developed senses to the point of being supernatural. (Speaking of Autumn Williams, her mother, Sali Sheppard-Wolford, has written her own book-- Valley of the Skookum -- about her highly unusual Bigfoot experiences which include MIBS, UFOs, telepathic communications and other high strangeness.) Or, of course, Bigfoot simply is “supernatural.” Some, like Lisa Shiel, and Patrick Harpur in his excellent book Daemonic Reality, suggest Bigfoot is a fairy. Specifically, as Shiel suggests here, a water fairy. Shiel writes that Bigfoot’s affinity for water (something apes do not share, which is more evidence to support Bigfoot as a non-ape creature) parallels Celtic, Algonquian, and other cultural fairy entities. Bigfoot is a remnant of the fairy realm. This idea explains UFOs, alien beings, the dematerializing, feelings of disorientation reported by witnesses ... like Jacque Vallee’s Passport to Magonia, where comparisons between the fairy realm and UFOs are made to support the idea much of what we call UFOs (and aliens) are earth bound entities, not ETs, Bigfoot could also be thought of as a fairy creature.

SP6 – Eric Ouellet adding on Lon Strickler - The Bigfoot Paradox

One of the most fascinating issues about Bigfoot related research is, in my opinion, the striking similarity with ufology. Like in ufology, the Bigfoot story has no physical evidence available to defend the most commonly held hypothesis, what I call the “Flesh and Blood Hypothesis” or FBH. The extra-terrestrial hypothesis in ufology (ETH) and the FBH are mirroring each other. In both cases, there are “stories” of hidden physical evidence, Roswell and the like for UFOs, and the ones described in Lon’s post for Bigfoot. In both cases, there are alternative hypotheses like the Paranormal Hypotheses (PNH) in ufology, where the phenomenon is attributed to non-human entities having the power to be in and out of our material world. As well, there are Psycho-social hypotheses (PSH), held by debunkers about both UFOs and Bigfoot. The supporters of the FBH, the most popular and yet less supported by evidence hypothesis, can be quite dogmatic about their views, very much like many ETH folks.

Like in the case of UFO, Bigfoot sightings have been recorded for a long time and pretty much all over the planet. Yet, the same critique has been laid to both UFO and Bigfoot buffs: if it is so common why don’t we have any physical evidence available to objective and transparent confirmation? Most of the sightings in Bigfoot are actually quite faint observations, often of very short duration, in sub-optimal conditions and quite open to misidentification. This description can be applied to the day disks and night lights of the Hynek UFO typology, the bulk of UFO sightings. The interesting material in both UFO and Bigfoot “stuff” is really in the quality close encounter reports. Although there are a number of reasons to take a parapsychological approach to study both UFOs and Bigfoot, parapsychology ignores both phenomena.

Given all these similarities, both in terms of the structural phenomenology of the empirical evidence and in terms of the social phenomenology of the research endeavour, Bigfoot research might benefit from looking into psi effects and establish a parapsychological hypothesis (PPH). As in the case of the ETH, with decades of failure at hand, maybe it is time to try something different. In this sense, I fully agree with Lon on the need to look more seriously into the thought-form approach to the phenomenon. I would also add that there might be a parasociological component, i.e., social conditions for both having “a loose ape” as a socially-shared interpretative framework and for producing large-scale psi effects, might be important pieces of the puzzle. But I must say that the last time I suggested this to a Bigfoot “expert” I met a lot cognitive dissonance. This may well be a long road, where one needs to avoid “apedom” as one should avoid the saucerdom in ufology.

Seed Post 4 - Influences - Regan Lee

I’ll start off with a general comment about my overall perspective on approaches to studying paranormal and UFO events. All my life, I’ve had paranormal and UFO experiences, and I continue to experience these things. My activism, I guess you could call it, -- encouraging others to tell their stories, sharing my own -- came about roughly fifteen years ago, when I returned to college.

I studied folklore, and focused on paranormal and UFO narratives. Folklore was one of the few area where I could get away with indulging my fascination with these topics. As soon as it became known I was interested in hearing from to others with supernatural, Fortean and especially UFO experiences, I had all kinds of people contacting me, eager to share their stories. Many of them told me they hadn’t shared their stories, or only with a few others. Often they hadn’t even told their spouses or significant others, or children -- they kept these experiences to themselves. Knowing they had someone who would listen to them without judgment, keep their confidence if they requested that, and had my own strange experiences gave these witnesses the space to share.

I loved the academic realm of folklore as a discipline, but, had a few major problems with it at the same time. I am not an academic, and , when in college, decided to not follow that path. I’m simply not wired that way; can’t deal with authorities, politics, 9 to 5 job milieu. . . but that aside, I found a huge problem in folklore studies -- as an academic pursuit - that seemed ironically contradictory. On the one hand, collecting stories while remaining nonjudgmental was encouraged. At the same time, it seemed to me folklore couldn’t decide what it wanted to be. Professors wanted conclusions, they wanted a psychological analysis. Well, I’d say, I’m not a psychologist, I’m not a psychology student, I’m not even taking any psychology classes. While I could give a sort of every-woman’s, educated take on, say, UFO narratives using psychology (Jung, etc.) it wouldn’t really be worth much. If not psychology, sociology, if not that, science, they wanted something. Pointing out that folklore, while utilizing those areas in some ways, is not those things, -- well, we just went around.

At the same time, self-reflexivity was encouraged, depending on the professor. I liked that; we are not objective beings. In dealing with stories of UFOs, abductions, aliens encounters, hauntings, high strangeness, Bigfoot sightings and all manner of Fortean, supernatural events, the standard, neat little explanations of psychology science etc. do not apply. Especially if the interviewer/researcher herself has had her own experiences.

Because of my own experiences, which caused me to research, which gave me information that I could share with witnesses (or “informants” as we called them which always struck me as an odd term) I asked myself: what am I? Researcher? Experiencer? Witness? Where do I come in, when do I step out?

It’s a dance, a partnership, a journey: “researcher” and witness. Bigfoot researcher Autumn Williams has brought this issue forward with her recent book Enoch. A great book in my opinion; what Williams has to say about Bigfoot research can be applied to all anomalous research. Respect for the witness, certainly. Listening to the witness. Just . . . listening. Respect for the witness, allowing the witness to determine time lines and how things will go, or at least, recognize the researcher/witness relationship is an equal endeavor, not a power one of Researcher vs. witness. Her book has caused quite a controversy within Bigfoot research, but, maybe that’s a good thing. It’s shaken things up, that’s for sure. Maybe her words will cause researchers to take a look at their expectations of what they want from research, from “finding Bigfoot,” to what they expect and want from witnesses.

(Speaking of the roles of witnesses and researchers, I remember a folklore conference I attended years ago. Big time folklorists were present, revered academics, published authors; it was great. And a fist fight almost broke out! There was one well known folklorist, who insisted the wishes of the indigenous culture he had been researching for years be respected -- their stories not told out of season, for example -- while another equally well known folklorist insisted no such consideration should be held; the stories were too important, the research too important, to withhold the stories from the rest of us. I personally found the disregard and lack of respect for the culture being discussed shocking, and amazed that this academic authority could get away with such behavior. I know;I was naive!)

UFO research, for example, sees this; researchers arguing about who controls data and information, release of findings vs. witness confidentiality, etc.

I had many professors tell me that just compiling stories wasn't enough; what about them? I agree with that to a point, after all, anyone can collect a bunch of stories, however, that "so what" is very valuable; that bunch of stories is data. Aside from the usual folklore stuff: tracing cultural origins, comparisons and contrasts with other groups, group dynamics, etc. well, what about them indeed? They’re there; and with, say, UFO stories, I don’t know the answers any more than anyone else does.

My frustration reached its peak when I was working on my final project (akin to a thesis) in folklore. My paper was on UFO narratives that included animals. From the behavior of the family pet in the face of a UFO landing, to animals and creatures appearing as guides to liminal experiences, I had a nifty collection, naturally organized into categories, of animal tales in a UFO context. But what was my analysis? What was my take on all this? What angle was I operating from? A Jungian one? Freudian? etc.

The following is from an article I wrote for the UFO Folklore site a good ten years ago. It was written when I was just beginning to get involved in this field on-line. The article is titled Defining Folklore; I wrote:

There is a common misconception among many people that the term "folklore" implies "something that is not true." Nothing can be further from the truth. Folklore means the "lore" (stories) of the "folk," whatever that lore might be, true or not.
... For some, the fact that a comparison can be made is "proof" that the current UFO stories are "lies." A folklorist merely points out the interesting pattern, but acknowledges it is not "proof" of anything. .. Conspiracy theories, animal behavior and imagery, abduction tales, the role of popular culture, telepathic communications, and more, are all part of the lore that is examined by folklorists. It may be true, it may not be true. It is not the role or objective of a folklorist to make an absolute statement one way or the other.

For myself, I am concerned with the process of UFO stories. How do they change, how are they the same? What are the "extensions" of UFO tales? (conspiracy tales, ancient astronaut theories, etc.) What can we learn about each other, ourselves, and the world -both seen, and unseen?

In exploring the UFO stories in all the complex and varied lore that exists, much can be learned, on several levels, about the human psyche. That's only part of the exploration. We can also come closer to the "truth," whatever that might be.

The folklore of the people is where we will find it.

The main point of all this: as interesting as all these stories, narratives, cross-cultural expressions and so on were, the assumption was that it wasn’t real. Some other explanation is needed: psychological, religious, social, scientific, cultural. Anything but the idea that witnesses were describing exactly what they saw, what they experienced, and anything but exploring those events for what they were, rather than ignoring the elephant in the room; the elephant being the alien, UFO, ghost, etc. reported by the witness.

Influences
I still love folklore, and please don't misunderstand, I have respect for the field and many folklorists. I retain what I see as a core element of a folkloric approach. Which is: listening. Observing. Finding themes, comparisons, contrasts, connections but. . . listening. And allowing myself to be a part of the journey, as opposed to setting myself apart.

A recent Coast to Coast episode had author Jeff Belanger on as a guest, who discussed legend tripping and paranormal, Fortean stories from a folklore perspective. Belanger doesn’t consider himself a folklorist, not in an academic sense, but he really had a grasp of what folklore lore is, and how it operates within paranormal events:

"A legend is a living entity," he declared, noting that such stories are born, grow, 'marry' or merge with other tales, clone themselves, travel, and even die if the story ceases to be told. To that end, he described 'legend tripping' as "getting out there and putting yourself into the story," thus experiencing, first-hand, the locations where sightings of anomalies like Bigfoot, ghosts, and UFOs have occurred.

And our responses to those sites, our own experiences, if we’re lucky to have them, are a part of that research.
Influences
Jacque Vallee, while not a folklorist, used folklore brilliantly in his book Passport to Magonia, a book that remains a huge influence, as does George P. Hansen's The Trickster and the Paranormal, and Patrick Harpur’s Damonic Reality. Thomas Bullard's work, who is a folklorist, was very influential, was just about the only folklorist at the time who openly delved into UFO narratives as a serious area of study.

All this isn’t to suggest there aren’t academic folklorists out there who are so stodgy. And I’ve been away from the academic world for a very long time. As I said, I am not a folklorist or an academic.

I’ll end with this YouTube clip of researcher David Hufford, another influence and author of The Terror That Comes in the Night: An Experience-Centered Study of Supernatural Assault Traditions, speaking about academia’s perspectives on, and responses to anomalous experiences: