Fortean Bigfoot

The discussion continues over on Cryptomundo about weird, UFO, telepathic, anomalous and Fortean Bigfoot.

One of my points, as well as a truly sincere question, involves this information, or data. These stories exist; they're real. The stories, not the question of the experience itself. So, as I asked, do we accept the BF sighting, but not the UFO sighting? Do we include the BF report, but pretend we never heard anything about the witness also communicating with the creature?

I also made the point that including this anomalous data in the research is not the same as accepting it as real,understanding it, or approving it.

Here's what I commented over on Cryptomundo:

Thanks for the facilitation of this intriguing topic Craig.

Lots of interesting comments, as to be expected!

As I said, I realize that cryptozoology and the search for Bigfoot in a quest for its scientific validity has a hard enough time being taken seriously. I am completely sympathetic to that, and any "nonsense" about telepathic communcations, UFOs, or any other Fortean/high strangeness events associated with Bigfoot is to be rejected. BUT...

Having read several dozens of stories about these types of encounters, and knowing, personally, a few people that have had them, what do you do about them?

Are these people lying? I doubt very much the ones I've spoken with personally are. Always possible of course, as with anything. But I doubt it.

One of the issues here, for me, is: when do you decide, as a researcher, to reject something? A legitimate question.

If you're interviewing a BF witness, and they reveal they saw a UFO at the same time, or that they were in some sort of telepathic communication with BF, or some other "weird" event, what do you do?

Leave it out or ignore it? Accept the BF sighting, but not the other stuff? Reject the whole thing, including the BF sighting, because of the other stuff?

While I understand the fact of science needing physical, solid evidence that can be measured, etc. if these other things are present, they're a part of the experience. It isn't the witnesses or researcher's "fault" that they are a part of the experience.

So now what?

These are valid quesitons. As Nick Redfern pointed out in his recent articles on this topic, these stories are, and you can't just reject them because you feel like it. (on his blog UFO Mystic and in this issue of UFO Magazine.)

Keeping the stories as part of the data isn't the same as believing in them, or accepting them. But it's a start towards including all the evidence you find, as part of the research into the phenomena.

Update on: Biscardi’s Bigfoot Carnival

There's an item by Bigfoot researcherCraig Woolheater on the Cyrptomundo blog on all this Biscardi carnival like Bigfootmania.

Christ. Tom Biscardi has gone all out, joined up with cheesy, sleazy, too sadly all American Americana (its worst side) and gone the carnival route. Teaming up with “reality” TV,(which is a disgusting cultural phenomena all on its own) there will now be this new offering to the American public on Bigfoot: Capturing Bigfoot. The title says it all of course. For a few hundred dollars, it seems any Bozo can join Tom Biscardi on his “hunt” and it will all be televised for our “pleasure.”

No one in Fortean, cryptid, or cryptozoological studies can possibly think this i s a good thing. I don’t know, maybe some do.

Bigfoot researcher Craig Woolheater doesn’t think it’s a good idea. Good for him:

Craig Woolheater, chairman of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy, which has annual conferences in Jefferson, does not condone Biscardi's methods, which he says "are produced for the sake of media coverage or for commercial purposes."

"This expedition is not a scientific expedition in my opinion; from what I understand it is being filmed for a reality-TV show entitled Capturing Bigfoot," Woolheater wrote in an e-mail. "As such, the TBRC is in no way, shape or form, affiliated with the very controversial Tom Biscardi."

And if Tom Biscardi and his “team” of yahoos somehow capture Sasquatch?

We've got two compounds at undisclosed locations where we'll conduct studies for 90 days, then release it back where we found it, I promise," Biscardi said.”

Good great goddess. Assuming the poor thing doesn’t die first (Bigfoot, not Biscardi) or a Bigfoot family comes to rescue the creature and wreak havoc along the way, or some Cabal of Dr. Evils comes along and offers Biscardi a million dollars, or worse yet, Disney Studios offers him five million dollars -- oh god, I can see it all now. Visions of Ted Nugent yukking it up with Tom Biscardi over beers. (Maybe they’ll have canned Bigfoot hunts along with the “hunt majestic buffalo” people whose ads adorn Nugent's website.)

I’m pretty well convinced Bigfoot exists. But that’s me. I don’t give a damn if one is ever captured or not, in fact, I hope to hell it never is. Let the thing be. Those who have seen it, know it’s real. That’s perfectly acceptable to me.

Squeaking 'Alien' Creature: Guitarfish Fish

On the very excellent blog BioFort, Scott Maruna's blog, is an item on the "alien" Russian fish. Er, alien. No, really, it's a fish. A guitarfish.

Weird looking creatures. I know I'd seen them somewhere, as I mentioned in the article on UFO Digest. I thought it might have been a skate; others think sturgeon. Sturgeon or pike always seem to be the explanation for weird things in the water; for Ogo Pogo, Champ, Nessie. That, or giant rotting salmon corpses, as in the case of Nessie. Yes, there really was a mega-skeptic that offered that theory to explain Nessie of Loch Ness.

INVISIBLE ALIENS AND GIANT OWLS

My recent item for my
Trickster’s Realm column over onBOA. It’s different, spacey, but that was the tone of the day. Something about Harvey (the movie) a ghost of a dead priest, and invisible aliens. Oh, and global disasters. It’s called The Invisible Aliens so there you go.

As far as owls go, giant or otherwise, owls are everywhere it seems. I’ve been working on a piece about the very silly owl theories of Joe Nickell for the past month or so for UFO magazine; then I see a thread on the same topic over on UFO Mystic, Greg Bishop’s and Nick Redfern’s blog. Owl synchronicity!

Owls are also in crypto news; the
Cryptomundo blog has an interesting thread going on over there right now about “owls, the CIA, and mystery millionaires.”

COLLECTOR OF DATA

Sometimes I am a collector of data, and only a collector, and am likely to be gross and miserly, piling up notes, pleased with merely numerically adding to my stores. Other times I have joys, when unexpectedly coming upon an outrageous story that may not be altogether a lie, or upon a macabre little thing that may make some reviewer of my more or less good works mad. But always there is present a feeling of unexplained relations of events that I note, and it is this far-away, haunting, or often taunt ing, awareness, or suspicion, that keeps me piling on. ~ (Charles Fort, Wild Talents)

I’ve always been fond of this quote. It resonates with why, and what, I’m doing around here. (Or, what I think I’m doing.) I think a lot of UFO writers, bloggers, etc. can relate to this quote.

It’s a nice bit of synchronicity, finding this quote. Trying to tune out Mr. Bush’s speech on MSNBC, yet perversely unable to turn it off; I was idly doing a search for UFO and Fortean quotes. (on my new laptop! yeah for me,) and came across the above quote.

Aside from ignoring/not ignoring Mr. Bush (notice the blue tie he was wearing? It’s all just to lull us more and more into the apathetic acceptance of continued slaughter. . . ) I was wondering what to do with an article I’ve been working on. It’s not an article yet, it’s just a nudging idea right now.

Years ago, I started to collect items about animals. I don’t know why; I just know I found the strange behavior of animals, from the family pet to animals in the urban wild and elsewhere, fascinating. This included odd and unexpected actions of known, mundane animals to OOP (Out of Place) animals. I had no idea what to do with these news clippings and articles, but I kept a huge file. In college, studying folklore, I thought I could do something with this, but never came up with anything substantial. (There was one thing actually, which was going to be my thesis/final project, but “dueling professors’ got to me, and that was that. Two years of grad school and nothing to show for it. Except I really dig folklore. Now it’s working its way to a book.)

I put those aside awhile ago, not sure if I still have those. But like most of us Fortean sloggers, I can’t help myself, and notice these kinds of items all the time.

The past few days, it seems to be calling me again. Maybe this time I’ll do something with it, once I get inspired.

MORE CTH MUSINGS

Mac Tonnies, on his blog Posthuman Blues, has a
new entry on the CTH.

Here’s his succinct summary:

The CTH is a synthesis. In keeping with the "nuts and bolts" tradition, it incorporates what we know about our planet and its biology and arrives at a prospective anthropology of the "other." It eschews interstellar travel in favor of beings that may not be nearly as alien as we've been conditioned to expect -- by the media and (as I argue) by the UFO intelligence itself.

I agree with much of what Tonnies says with his CTH, and appreciate the clarification. For while it shares a lot of similarities with Keel, Vallee, Harpur and others, it isn’t the same idea. For one thing, as Tonnies states, the CTH is based on a biological/anthropological construct, and one where the “alien” may not be all that alien after all. In other words, sharing more with us than we -- or “they” --(you know, them) allow. The Ultraterrestrial theory for example, and its cousins, contain more fantastical elements that I don’t think Tonnies includes, from what I understand so far.

I like the CTH, even though I still hold to the opinion that the Keels, Harpur's, Vallee's of the world have a lot going for their theories as well. And I also hold to the ETH. That’s not the point however -- that I happen to like the CTH and am defending (as if he needs it) Tonnies’ theory -- the point is that the CTH, no matter what you end up thinking about it, is fresh. It offers new thinking about the UFO phenomena, and we can all use that.

Tonnies concluded with this:

Ironically enough, the CTH manages to alienate champions of the ETH and those who support a more esoteric, "interdimensional" explanation. It offers no clearcut reconciliation. It does, however, wield explanatory potential lacking in both camps.

I respectfully disagree that the other camps do not have the “explanatory potential” while the CTH does. All are speculation at this point, including the CTH.

As I
wrote in yesterday’s blog entry,this fierce clinging to the dichotomy stops UFO studies from moving forward. And I happen to think all three are quite possible; the ETH, the CTH, and the more fantastical Ultraterrestrial theory. But that’s me.

Another issue is the response of many a UFO researcher, writer, witness, etc. to the CTH. Many have behaved badly, others have balked, some have said, like myself: “Hey, right on!” Or at least, “Wow, thank you for the intriguing idea on what could be.” Observing the reactions of those in the UFO field to this idea is certainly as interesting -- and revealing -- as the UFO phenomena itself. The UFO subject is a fringe topic with more than its share of denialbility, nay sayers, debunkers, disinfo and distraction artists. One of UFOlology's main problems is getting others to listen, to consider, to open their minds. It seems ironic then that there are those within UFOlogy who react to something new and intriguing with such stubbornness.

THE DANCE WITHIN THE BUBBLE

My UFO Philosophy Bubble Thing, Part I

Theories, ideas, musings, hypotheses, thoughts, anecdotal evidence, we’re all just trying to figure it out. Some are brave and fresh and daring; Nick Redfern’s book on Roswell Body Snatchers in the Desert, (with a review by Stanton Friedman) or the current discussion over Mac Tonnies theory on ‘cryptoterrestrials.’ Others are almost quaint; for example, the idea benevolent Space Brothers who are here to help us vibrate to a higher level, or, something.

Hundreds of theories. There’s no lack of theories on what UFOs are, and there’s a good handful of theories about UFOlogy itself.

So I’m going to jump right in and present little theory; the Bubble Theory. The bubble doesn't mean anything, it was just a quick and convenient way to graphically organize some thoughts. But in thinking about it, I found that the bubble is a good image. It ‘s reminiscent of the bubble in The Wizard of Oz: the one that was small at first, only to grow bigger . . . and bigger . . .until it “landed’ and the Good Witch appeared from within. The bubble is a sphere; many a UFO has been described as being sphere shaped. Planets are sphere shaped. The circle itself is a spiritual and holy symbol. the bubble fits, it’s simple yet elegant.

My little Bubble of UFO Philosophy contains two key points that I think many do not consider when it comes to UFO theories. One, there is an inherent Trickster energy in the paranormal and Fortean realm; and this includes UFOlogy. Two, the Infrastructure -- science, academia, politics/government, society,the media and to a lesser extent, religious institutions -- cannot, will not, treat UFOlogy with “respect” or seriousness. It can’t. Expectations of science taking the subject of UFOs seriously, of embracing the topic with good intent is ridiculous, Expecting any of the ‘departments’ within the Infrastructure to do so is futile. That’s why full disclosure will never happen, etc.

“The Trickster” is not a person, or some sort of comic book character. Rather, it’s an energy, it’s a force. It’s manifestation. “Trickster” simply is an easy to hold, easy to use symbol to express this idea.

The same with ‘Infrastructure.” It’s not an actual building (as one skeptic , in all seriousness, asked me eons ago on a forum) it’s an idea, another manifestation of systems at work. Individual journalists, scientists, academics, religious leaders, politicians, may very well be sincere in their attempts to discover the truth within the UFO phenomeana. But as a whole, and as a force that can be addressed within our culture (and the modern world in general) we can accurately say that this Infrastructure has been diligent in doing what it does; keeping the mundane world mundane, and keeping the anomalous world out. That’s what it does.

I think another thing that is often “wrong’ with UFOlogy is the expectation, or belief, that there is to be one explanation, one kind of witness, one kind of government response, one kind of research approach, etc.

Sometimes it seems that researchers shouldn’t change their minds in regards to theories, or are given the room to safely say they don’t know yet what to think of a thing; they’re still considering.

Surrounding these two key points are the things I think are vital to unraveling the UFO enigma. they’re not in any particular hierarchy, because we need all those things at the same time in order to gain a better insight into the phenomeana. It’s a juggling act all right but it’s necessary. Or, consider it more of a dance. (Hey! The Bubble Dance!) Not just the steps, but the dancers themselves. Some move up to the front, some move to the side or back, some are doing better than others, some, even if not as good as the rest of the troupe, are at least doing some innovative steps.

Also within the Bubble are the folk, the witnesses, the researchers, the skeptics. All of these things make up UFOlogy, and UFOLogy is a part of the UFO puzzle. It’s a symbiotic system. It's not just the 'study of UFOs,' it's also those who study UFOs.


I’ll post Part II at a later date, where I’ll define the terms within the bubble.

DO YOU SEE THEM? WELL, DO YOU?

It's obvious; these owls are hiding from skeptic Joe Nickell. (With thanks to the very fine Daily Grail.)