SP:11 1897 Airships, and the Little Fellow in the Aurora, Texas Cemetery; Regan Responds

Erich Kuersten made many absolutely right on points about UFO research. He asks, using the Aurora, Texas case as his example, why residents of that town, science, etc. stonewall UFO researchers at a given point:

What is the reason for all the refusal to let science and ufology blunder in to try and prove the truth of the legend? Where does disrespect end and legit quest for understanding begin?

Of course we can broaden Erich’s question to all other UFO cases where this occurs, as well as paranormal and Fortean events like Bigfoot and other cryptid encounters, hauntings, etc. I think one reason this resistance to researchers “blundering in” is due to a fear of looking ridiculous. This fear runs so deep, it becomes far more important than answers or clues to Really Big Questions, like the nature of UFOs and the existence of aliens, or, Bigfoot, and so on. Fear of looking silly, gullible, or naive, of being hoaxed, or somehow taken in. Those fears loom over any truths that may be discovered.

As a side note and a bit off topic, look at the criticisms of researchers like Linda Moulton Howe. Howe, who has done significant work in the field of UFO and related research, like cattle mutilations, has been heavily trounced by others for her gullibility in some cases. Agreed, to a point, but so what? Do moments of hope, even gullibility in some cases, wipe out previous work, the data revealed? We’re human, regardless of philosophical stance on research, and when it comes to the soup that is Fortean-Esoteric-Paranormal-UFO stuff, we can’t afford to continue pretending things are so neat and tidy, clear and obvious. We are not objective beings, and we are often being played by forces we are barely aware of, and certainly don’t understand.



Erich writes:

Meanwhile, the evidence is already in and overwhelming if you're willing to accept it, to make the connections.

The evidence certainly is overwhelming, and we are reminded not to mistake evidence for proof. And yet, when one experiences UFOs, entities, Bigfoot, etc. for themselves, one can say that is proof. At least proof of something pretty huge; as to what that experience (craft, entity alien type being, Sasquatch, ghostly figure) is, can be further explored. Seeing a UFO with aliens inside, doesn’t necessarily “prove” there are non-human beings in spacecraft from other planets visiting earth. They could be fairies, Djinn, or government spooks. But they are, and they are most decidedly real. And sometimes, to quote Freud, a cigar is just a cigar.

Erich asks, of mystery and process:

Or to let somethings be a mystery?

I know Erich is asking this in context of UFOs and aliens, but I’ll extend this to other subjects as well, like Bigfoot. I accept that Bigfoot exists, even though I’ve never seen one. (Yet.) I accept it exists because I personally know many who tell me they have seen one, and I believe them. I also accept that the evidence points to its existence, and I have spent many years studying the stories of witnesses -- many who’ve had UFO and high strangeness events embedded within the Bigfoot encounter -- that I find fascinating. I may not believe everything literally, but I believe that, at the very least, a Sasquatch was seen, and in many cases, something profound occurred that extended the already profound experience of seeing a Bigfoot in the first place. I don’t need a body to prove Bigfoot exists, I don’t care if it’s ever proven it does, I don’t give a damn if science or the world finds this proof, especially if it means capturing or killing one. There is no -- NO -- justification for supporting a “kill” philosophy in regards to Bigfoot.

Likewise UFOs; first of all, they indeed exist. We see objects in the sky all the time. “Do UFOs exist?” is most decidedly the wrong question.

For myself, who’s seen several UFOs, experienced missing time, and all kinds of other high strangeness episodes, since childhood, involving UFOs and entities, I don’t need proof. I don’t need to justify or even explain. I don’t need to do anything. I am, however, compelled to explore, and also share. I'm not sure why,  it’s just part of the process. Take it or leave it, like it or not, believe me or don’t.

Erich asks us:

What do YOU believe? And in the end, do you really need everyone else to believe it first? Are you afraid to pick a truth and make the jump, to just answer your own multiple choice rather than spying on all your neighbor's papers?

More excellent questions posed by Erich. This is why I’m not bothered by the tricksters, hoaxers (well, I am to a small degree, but not by much), and more importantly, the  ones much of UFOlogy hold in disdain, like the contactees. Who knows if the paranormal Bigfoot witnesses are nuts, or the contactees were liars? Their experiences are simply too rich and complex to dismiss as simple deceits. A few out and out liars within the global experiences of the weird doesn’t justify the exclusion of these kinds of stories. And what of the UFO Police; those who demand that certain types of witnesses, researchers, theories and experiences be excluded -- shunned --from their would be tidy world of UFO research? 

It gets back to the ugly side of human nature, that fear of looking silly. Researcher A is serious, damnit, and he or she shall not be tainted by associating with researchers delving into reptilian encounters or channeling aliens or Contactees or psychic Bigfoot. These stories may be full of it, but, within those stories is something we are missing by rejecting them. And that is the deceitful, playful, sometimes dangerous, sometimes merely mischievous, force of the thing itself; the very UFO/Fortean phenomena Researcher A, along with the rest of us, are studying.

And then there’s another unpleasant side to human nature: arrogance. We get so stuck in our egos, our personas, our need to be right (rather, to appear to be right), that we simply won’t let others play.

A recent example of the need for control over theories and research was the thuggish antics of crop circle researchers Michael Glickman and Gary King, who demanded that Colin Andrews be removed from the list of presenters at the Power Places International Crop Circle Conference this past summer.  If the coordinators of the conference did not agree to dis-invite Colin Andrews, Glickman and King said they would not appear. What a sad and distressing combination of arrogance and fear.  Withholding information -- and possibilities -- from other researchers as well as the public is unethical. It clearly speaks to the fear within, as well as the fear of others -- you, me, us, -- to think for ourselves. (Rather than dis-invite Andrews and give in to Glickman and King, the conference directors canceled the conference altogether.)

So, we don’t get to exhume bodies, kill a Bigfoot, get invited into the halls of Big Science to play with their toys, and yet we continue to frantically grasp after proof, after things that will say I’m Right, You’re Clearly Deluded. Forgetting that such proof will never be enough, will never satisfy, will never end such experiences, and will never completely answer anything.

Dead Bigfoot body: how does that explain the high strangeness aspects of BF encounters? What of protections for the creature -- what kind of being is it, and how does it affect culture, religions? UFOs proven to be from, Mars? Are the countless other UFOs from Mars as well? Do we suddenly forget about the man made UFOs that are covertly and illegally operating in our skies, with ill intent? (social engineering, chemical warfare, etc.) This Holy Grail of Proof, once found and offered, will only reveal more questions, and we'll find, it really wasn't proof at all.

We are always in the front room, to use the anthropologist’s example. No matter how much we may think we’re in the know, there are many more rooms to explore. We move into one, or two, if we’re lucky, and told we’re “in.” Some of us believe that. Some of us refuse to believe there are more rooms; or that, those rooms are of no consequence. Those rooms are just the broom closets, not worth investigating. Well how do you know, if you haven't looked?

SP11 - Strickler Responds to Ufology

There has been and will most likely continue to be an argument between ufologists and zealot skeptics in reference to the existence of UFOs. "Do you believe in UFOs?"...the answer should be "I accept that unexplained objects are seen in the sky."

Society demands conclusive answers even if the reasoning is fallacious. Interest in the subject is usually construed as belief in aliens from other planets. This connection needs to be revolutionized, an objective that our future generations should strive to attain.

The "U" in UFO represents "unidentified"...most people and the media incorrectly assume "UFO" also means "aliens". This acronym is a detriment to other perspectives of the phenomenon, ex. abductions, close encounters, etc.

People that have an interest in UFOs need to realize that the aggregate examination of UFOs is simply theory. Overall, everything we perceive is basically theory...some are just more reliable than others.

SP9: Regan’s Comments

Government Disclosure Won't Happen
The Disclosure movement means well, and disclosure proponents don’t bother me; however, I happen to think they’re naive. The government will never come clean, simply because it can’t. It’s a system that is its own entity which, regardless of original intents, ends up defending and protecting only itself. That’s the nature of all bureaucracies. It’s naive to think that the government would come forward in complete openness in regards to anything, let alone UFOs. My opinion doesn't not mean -- and it certainly doesn’t prove -- that UFOs don’t  exist, or that the government doesn't know a hell of a lot more than it’s telling. I don’t trust authority; it’s that simple. The government isn't in the truth business, so I don’t expect the government to be forthcoming. If there’s an agenda that will be satisfied by the government’s disclose concerning UFOs then they will give us “the truth” though no doubt that “truth” will be only some of the truth concerning UFOs.  There’s always a back room, which the rest of us in the front room will never get to see. The government doesn’t want to lose control over us, and it doesn’t want to admit it doesn’t know what to do about UFOs. That, and the need for self-protection, ensures that a completely authentic disclosure will never happen.

We need to focus on ourselves in regards to the UFO phenomena.

Definitions, Interpretations, Minutiae, Disclosures
UFOs exist, and that’s that. We need to get over the self-defeating cycle of engaging in the argument of whether they exist or not, and in pointless rounds of  defining “UFO.” UFOs exist; what they are, is something else. For those of us with direct experience with non-human beings and weird objects in the skies, we beg to differ when it comes to these now pointless time wasting arguments about existence. We don’t know with an absolute that the government has information concerning UFOs, although it’s a solid and rational thing to think that the government has plenty to disclose. It’s a safe and a rational assumption to make; that the government knows far more than it pretends when it comes to UFOs. No harm in asking, and for that reason, I just don’t have much of a disagreement with Disclosure people. I don’t think they’ll get anywhere, and I think it borders on the ridiculous to believe the government -- any government -- will reveal all, but it’s nice they’re trying. Little bits get revealed here and there, and that’s something. It all gets added to the vast, complex puzzle.

Even for us that have experienced such things as aliens and flying saucers and all the rest,  I can’t say they’re from outer space. They very well may be; or they could be inner earth dwelling creatures, or... combinations we haven’t even thought of. They are real, they are here. That is the reality. The rest is interpretation.

As Erich pointed out in his post,  many countries did “disclose”, in a sense. But it’s not true Disclosure until the alien is let out of the space ship on CNN. As to Project Bluebook, that was no attempt at disclosure, but a show to placate. Valuable data, thanks to the continued efforts of diligent researchers, but the intent? Appeasement and distraction.

Significance
It’s not a contest; this idea of disclosure concerning UFOs with other types of disclosure. The horrors of this world are real, and the idea that, because one has either experienced UFOs in some way in their life or has an interest in them is then uninvolved or disinterested and non-compassionate is another distraction. Interest in subject A does not negate interest -- or compassion and activism -- in subjects B, C and D. . .

The UFO phenomena is significant; and, if disclosure ever does take place, that will become even more evident. The fact that both myself and my spouse have experienced missing time in connection with UFOs on at least two occasions is very significant. And if the government was responsible for that, (a MILAB type event, for example) that’s damn well significant, because it means the government was doing things, obviously, it had no business doing. If it was aliens, that’s certainly significant.  Other possibilities, sure, but really, far less likely. No thank you very much, we are not mentally ill, or suffering from shared delusions, and I won’t dignify that argument with any more energy than this.

If one holds the view that such things don’t exist, or only exist in one context, how can it then be decided that that thing is significant or not?

It may be the aliens arrive, everyone nods and says, “Yeah, we kind of thought so,” and it’s business as usual. No major cures, wars continue, the human race isn’t saved from ourselves, the aliens don’t seem much to care. They’re here for sight seeing, or resources. They could not care less about us or the planet. Or, maybe they’re benign and loving and things will be groovy forever. I have no idea. That’s assuming  there’s just one race of alien. For all we know, there are several vying for power and control. Or, not. Point is; we don’t know.

Processing and Individuation
I accept that I’ve had experiences, and I’m trying to process them. But before we can get to some kind of individuation, as Erich refers to, we have to complete the processing, and that is different for everyone, including UFO Police, disclosure activists, and everyone else.

Is is so important we have some kind of individuation in UFOlogy? We don't know what we’re dealing with in the first place; labeling our responses to an unknown is expected -- how else do we make it so we can productively work towards understanding unless we break it down somewhat -- but we need to be aware we haven’t solved anything, simply because we stuck a label on it.

The assumption that it has to be aliens in the flying saucers, because what else could it be, is just that: an assumption. But it’s not a ridiculous assumption, nor is it irrational. It’s wrong headed to state, as a fact, that they’re aliens from outer space, but not so wrong headed to seriously consider that speculation.

It could be the UFO phenomena, including its entities, is a “mythic” journey, or some kind of “psi” event. Its responses to us  --  or what we see as in response to us -- ours to it, etc. --- our pursuit of “the answer” a hero’s journey. Into the underworld. Crossing liminal thresholds. Metaphors for an Other.  It could also be that that’s just a part of it, or that it seems that way to us, merely because of technology. As Budd Hopkins and Carol Rainey pointed out in their book Sight Unseen: Science, UFO Invisibility and Transgenic Beings , much of what the UFOs and aliens do seem “magical” to us because their technology is so beyond ours we aren’t able to perceive as simply manifestations of engineering and science. To us, it’s magic, or paranormal.

Levels of Disclosure
There’s personal disclosure, such as the encounters the individual experiences. Murky, confusing, for myself, no real anything other than the life long experiences. Very Zen like. No answers, no cures, just. .. UFOs and vague entities and weird moments over fifty plus years.  That’s pretty cool actually, and yes, significant, but as to answers: not much. Who they are, what they are, where they’re from, what they want.. nope. I can’t tell you. They just . . . are.

Then there’s the Disclosure humans. Activists who push the governments of the world to come clean. As noted, they’re naive and will never get any government to come clean. Even if an alien is shown inside a UFO on the news, and official government pronouncements are made that “they’re here,” -- how could we know they’re telling the truth? How can we be sure, really positive, that the alien isn’t a cleverly created puppet, or worse, some horrible science experiment involving hybrid animals; who knows what Dr. Evil madness lurks?

Finally, there’s the Oh My God Disclosure: “them.” They don’t need -- we don’t, won’t need -- any government to do anything. The aliens themselves have done it for us. They simply arrive in hundreds of mother ships, land, and, there you have it. They’re here. Like an episode of V, except real, a lot less cheesy, and, hopefully, not creepy human flesh eating reptilians.

Interpretations, The Djinn, Angels and Demons. . .
Some cultures accept these things as everyday realities as “normal” and expected as everything else. The mundane and the sacred are not so separate. Researchers Farah Yurdozu, Phillip Imbrogno, Rosemary Ellen Guiley (The Vengeful Djinn Unveiling the Hidden Agenda of Genies) among others, refer us to Turkish perceptions of these UFOs and beings; they call them Djinn, and accept that these entities cross into our dimension. Some Christians in our culture and elsewhere frame these experiences in a demon/angel dichotomy. While I have problems with that dogma the idea isn’t so far off. What came first, the demon/angel/god motif, or the alien from Mars?

Whatever they are, they are, and there are many paths on this very significant journey to discovery.

SP9 - Ouellet commenting on Disclosure

Demanding the disclosure of what does not exist is, in itself, an interesting anomaly about an anomaly (i.e., the UFO phenomenon). The (il)logic of disclosure has its own internal dynamics woven into the collective psyche of the nuts-and-bolts ufologists. To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, the disclosure movement is the last refuge of the ETH ufologists’ incompetence. Early on in the history of ufology, the door was open to find an exit from seriously pondering about this difficult and elusive anomaly called UFO; the government knows everything, so let’s pressure them to reveal everything. But who would admit in ufology that disclosure is an exit strategy?

Then, disclosure did happen. In spite of what many people may say, the disclosure of the largest UFO database in the 1970s, called Project Bluebook, provided a lot of useful information, and people like Hynek made good use of it. Since, other countries like Belgium, Canada, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom have done the same, providing a wealth of information. Interestingly, all these countries, including the United States, came more or less to the same conclusion: there is a small minority of UFO reports that are not explainable, but these do not represent a threat to national security and no useful technological advances can be found. These multinational conclusions are in line with the “nil” return of 65 years of ETH ufology. As public agencies are not mystery investigation organizations, it is not their business to spend public funds on researching anomalies. But who would admit in ufology that the governments of the world and ETH ufology produced similar evidence that there is nothing tangible to work with?

The disclosure movement is not only about UFOs, but it is allegedly about truth and democracy. Were the various governments not fully truthful over the years about UFO? Certainly. Did those lies really hid anything of substance? No. Would more of those revealed lies about UFO change anything? Very unlikely. By comparing themselves with those who unveil real horror stories (e.g. Watergate, unlawful medical experiments, various forms of corruption, etc.), the disclosure ufologists hope to look good, but their “stuff” is truly insignificant. Outside the people really involved in ufology, very few care about disclosure because, indeed, it is insignificant. But who would admit in ufology that disclosure is about nothing significant?

Individuation is about becoming a full-fledge individual, with his or her conscious and unconscious mind fully aligned to become totality. Individuation is about becoming aware of what one really believes at the unconscious level, so he or she can stop self-BSing at the conscious level. It means accepting oneself. But individuation is a two-way street, as it also means dealing with dysfunctional unconscious beliefs with the help of the therapist. It is about aligning the inner and outer truth, whatever it may be, to live a fulfilling life. The collective unconscious of ufology is light years away from individuation. If anything, it looks more like a collective neurosis.


Can the UFO phenomenon foster collective individuation, if the attitude is right? The small minority of UFO cases that remain unexplainable should be seen as an opportunity, rather than as a challenge, for collective growth. It encourages us to think much beyond the confine of our taken-for-granted assumptions. Its elusiveness is a constant reminder that short-cuts like “what else could it be but aliens in their spaceships” never work in science as in life in general. If the phenomenon is essentially a grand scale psi event, then it becomes our mirror, an opportunity to face our collective unspoken fears. The phenomenon oftentimes becomes woven into the political structures of our societies, reminding us that some are more equal than others; our societies remain profoundly hierarchical and create its lot of unfairness. The phenomenon does not discriminate, over time, reaching a small tiny fraction of every social classes and continent, reminding us of our common humanity. It calls upon us to be compassionate for those who were profoundly shaken by the experience.

Could we then say that the phenomenon is some sort of mythical process, guiding us towards collective individuation? It is the thesis of some. But for those acquainted with the humanities, this teleological thesis does not fare well when we look at our collective history. In the end, collective individuation is a non-sense. Individuation implies that one, by becoming totality, is not dependent on others to be. Communities, when they become truly totality, are arguably comparable to some healthy pre-modern societies. Large societies aspiring to become totality invariably became totalitarian; hardly a step forward. From all ages there were anomalies giving us opportunities to look at ourselves in a different way. Some societies, some generations chose to ignore them, others gave them heterogeneous interpretations (i.e., these must be the work of the gods), rarely were these anomalies interpreted in an autonomous way (i.e., about us, by us). These anomalies provide us with a mirror for the present; that’s it. The notion of us “evolving “ towards something (i.e. the teleological thesis) is only a projection of our collective unspoken fears; such teleological belief is in fact a symptom of a lack of individuation.

SP9: Strickler Responds to Disclosure

For decades, campaigning politicians worldwide have promised that full disclosure was imminent until, of course, they won the election, assumed office and realized that there was no way the general public was going to be told the truth for one simple reason - fear is power.

I'm amused when I think back to a quote made 25 years ago:“...when you stop to think that we’re all God’s children, wherever we may live in the world, I couldn’t help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We’d forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries and we would find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together...” - U.S. President Ronald Reagan on December 4, 1985 referencing a conversation during nuclear weapons negotiations with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. This statement of solidarity may happen one day though, reality may be a bit different than the actual intent of the quote.

Wernher von Braun once revealed to Dr. Carol Rosin, his former spokesperson, that there was substantial proof that conspiratorial plans where in place by world governments and elites that justified using weapons in space and would also involve an intentional hoax of a 'false flag' extraterrestrial invasion. He referred to this as 'the last card' and it would be used to create order out of chaos. In a nutshell, the use of knowledge and technology to create fear and ultimate total control.

For all intents and purposes, actual UFO and extraterrestrial disclosure has been underway since the first human aircraft pilots reported strange lights in the sky. The extraterrestrials already reside in defined areas of this planet and have directly influenced human life since the end of World War II. Those citizens and researchers who read and examine the evidence know this to be true. The people who desire full disclosure from our governments need to be careful what they wish for...they may receive it.

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.

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: