There's a 56% Chance You've Been Abducted By Aliens

Maybe you've really been abducted by aliens... but probably not. Let's face it. You're just a little weirder than most people.

What Are the Chances that You've Been Abducted by Aliens?

JREF “INFORMED BIGFOOT SKEPTICS” AND CRYPTOMUNDO

Oh Lordy. The chronic skeptics over at JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) forum have a thread over there: Cryptomundo censors JREF members participation.”

I haven’t been following the thread, this is the first I’ve heard of it. I’ll have to go over and take a look of course, and I can’t wait to see this! It promises to be a good one. Here’s the link on Cryptomundo:
Why There Has To Be a Sasquatch”

I will say, that the comment by JREF poster “kitakaze” that JREF posters who’ve been “censored” are ”informed Bigfoot skeptics” is a great line.

No forum or blog has any obligation to anyone else to allow people in they don’t want to allow in. May or not be fair, or nice, or reasonable, so what? Their forum/group/blog, their right. Simple. Get over it.

I’ll also say that I don’t agree with Coleman or Woolheater on their views regarding “paranormal Bigfoot,” but they’ve always allowed discussion of the topic on their blog, which is a lot more than a lot of Bigfoot research based forums permit.

Apparitions of Saint Mary in Egypt

I've long been interested in Marian apparitions from a Fortean/paranormal/UFO point of view. This case however isn't so much supernatural (in my opinion) as it is government produced. A staged psy ops holographic affair. Mary Ellen Llyod, of UFO Area, thinks so as well, kind of: read her article Holy Apparitions or Holographic Alien Technology? It's possible it's alien, but in this case, I think it's human.

Funky UFO Book Score!

I've complained in the past that second hand or used UFO books are hard to find, at least they are hard to come by in my area. And when you do find them, it's a real treasure hunt for sure, exploring the Goodwills, St. Vincent de Paul's, etc. because they put those books in odd places. I've found UFO books in the religious section, the science section, the science fiction section. There isn't any UFO section.

The other day I noticed the local St. Vinnie's tidied up their book section and actually put in an "unexplained" section, where I found all kinds of UFO books. A few aren't UFO books; one is a kid's story about the Loch Ness creature, etc. I grabbed a bunch:

The UFO Controversy in America, David Michael Jacobs

Loch, Paul Zindel (children's)

The UFO Report, Timothy Good

Intercept UFO, Renato Vesco

Beyond Belief, Brad Steiger

Encounters with the UFOs, Coral and Jim Lorenzen

Alien Update, Timothy Good

Unidentifed Flying Objects,Jim Collins (children's)

The Galapagos Affari, John Treherne

The Voice of Venus: The Pulse of Creation Series, Ernest L. Norman

UFOs Explained, Philip J. Klass (of course he does nothing of the kind)

Not of this World,Peter Kolosimo

The UFO Phenomenon, Johannes von Buttlar

New Take on the "Owlman"

Another interesting feature today about the Mawnan Owlman. Tulpa? Manifested surrealism? Always a classic Fortean/Crypto story that never gets tiring. At least, not for flying saucer/crypto junkies like myself.

From 1963: The Gray Aliens!

A neato bit of trivia from the "fringe culture" edge over on Bill Chalker's blog The Oz Files; from 1963, paperback book of "The Gray Aliens."

Aerosol Attack

I know, some think I should be wearing the tin foil hat. But do the research. And look up. This is from L.A. -- it's all over. We see this stuff up in Eugene, Oregon all the time.

Contrails? Not even a little bit.

Memory Games

image: still from Hitchcock film Spellbound, 1945


A lot’s been written on the nature of memory and UFO/paranormal experiences. All sides of the anomalous realm have tackled the hows and whys of our memories; skeptics of all stripes, UFO researchers, psychologists, debunkers, etc.

Theories as to our memories abound; explanations for missing time, screen memories, events that are as real as me sitting here in my armchair with my laptop but shouldn't ‘t be for their fantastic elements; all are either “explained” or debunked. And then there are the UFO researchers who take a nuts and bolts view: they happened exactly as described, for the aliens really did land, or communicate, or abduct, and that’s the end of that.

We’re fantasy prone. Or we remember what we want to remember. Or we think we remember but we really don't remember. We fill in the lbanks with things that aren’t there. We see patterns where there aren’t any. We want to see things so we do. We’re awake when we’re asleep, we’re asleep when we’re awake. Or we think we are. We suffer from sleep paralysis. We expect to see or experience something strange, so we do. We’ve seen too many movies about flying saucers. Some of us are mentally ill. Or some of us are just outright liars.

All the above combine in various ways to screw up our memory banks, and make us think we’ve seen things that we shouldn’t have, couldn’t have seen because they don’t exist. These are excuses to explain away all the weird things that happen in UFO events: missing time, screen memories, interactions with entities on some mid-plane (neither here in “reality” nor unreal.)

I’ve spoken with many individuals who’ve experienced the above, from a UFO sighting to alien abductions. I’ve personally experienced the following: UFO sightings, missing time, regression/hypnosis, interaction with entities, awareness of invisible entities. (Or what we interpreted as “entities” for all I know, they could have been microwaved beamed at us from a shadow government agency.) And in all of those experiences; my personal ones, and those of others, not once has the idea of these experiences being murky, iffy occurrences been expressed. There was never any doubt they really happened.

I don’t think I’ve seen UFOs, I have. I don’t kind of, sort of, in that vague dream like way, think I could have experienced missing time, I did experience missing time. The invisible entities: that was confirmed on different occasions by others who experienced the same thing. There is no question of false memory or sleep paralysis or other trendy chronic skeptic explanation.

I do have two memories I’m not sure about, and they have nothing to do with UFOs, the paranormal, or anything at all esoteric or occult. The question of course is why? How can it be I have two images/memories that won’t go away, yet I don’t know if they really happened? Were they dreams, or real? And why do I remember them at all?

In one, I am about five years old. I’m with my grandmother. We’re in a large place; the floor is black and white checkered linoleum. There are large pebbled glass windows set high in the walls, which are white ceramic tiles. The sun is streaming through these windows; the place is full of light. There are lots of clocks everywhere. I have no idea if this is a dream, or a memory of something real. It’s a persistent image however.

The other one concerns a concert. I have a memory of seeing Donovan at the Hollywood Bowl. But I’m not sure. I’ve been to a lot of performances there; and never doubted one of them. I’m positive about all of them. Except this one. You’d think I’d be “sure” if I saw Donovan or not. Why wouldn’t I be? Why am I not sure? I have a persistent image of him on the stage, sitting on a carpet, with flowers around his neck. I’m in the audience watching him. I think. I’m not sure. I don’t remember who I was with, how I got there, or what happened next.


Are these memories real? Is the first one a memory of somewhere I really did go with my grandmother? the Donovan memory: is it just one of those quirky aberrations, or some type of UFO or paranormal event after all?

While interesting, they have to stay where they are. In the meantime, the other experiences, as strange as they are, leave behind them plenty of questions as to what, who and why.

But not to their reality.

Mavens and Wags: Terms of Enjeerment

Semantics is not “just semantics” it’s a purposeful method. We use terms and words for specific reasons: to trivialize, to support, to cast aspersions in covert ways, to bring light to ideas. The sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious ways we shade our meaning with words has everything to do with what we’re saying, and why we’re saying it.

I do it. You do it. We all do it. For example, the reason why there are so many terms for the umbrella “skeptic” is that there are dozens of variations of the meta label “skeptic.” A Pelicanist is not always a skeptic, a debunker isn’t always a skeptic. There are chronic skeptics; in the same small ballpark as the pathological skeptics, skeptoids, etc. but they’re not always one and the same. A lot of people who use these terms are aware of these different notes in the music of description, and so, we have fun using them, and know why we use them. But, I’m not here to discuss skeptics. Well, I am, kind of. Those who have all kinds of terms for UFO researchers.

In this context, rarely are the terms “ufo researcher,” UFO investigator,” used with a straightforward intent. Instead, there are terms like “would be UFO investigator,” or “self-styled UFO investigator” which immediately does what it’s intended to do: trivialize the individual researching UFOs. By modifying the term “UFO investigator” or “UFO researcher’ with words that cast doubt, the individual UFO investigator is immediately cast as non-credible, something rather shabby and seedy. Don’t trust him/her, is the message.

Some of those who use these terms have hard ideas about who is, and who isn’t, a valid researcher. They hoard data and keep information to themselves, releasing in secret the holy UFO papers to only those that pass the test. (Assuming they really have what they say they have.) Or, they refuse to make public their years of study and research because it will be “misinterpreted,” and “fought over,” and the “unwashed masses” will get ahold of such sacred data. No doubt. So what? It’s a given in the fields of UFO, crypto, and paranormal studies. As I’ve argued in the past, it’s not only a given, it’s an innate part of what makes Forteana (including UFOs) what it is. It wouldn’t exist otherwise. So let them at it, and the good ones will bring to light the good stuff, and the others will do what they do: provide entertainment, distract, distort and eventually go away. Even if they don’t, it doesn't matter. We can choose to ignore them or spend time arguing about them. Their inevitable presence does not justify the withholding of information.


There’s the term “bona fide” researcher. Exactly what determines a “bona fide” researcher is unclear, other than the obvious: whoever they decide it is. I assume a “bona fide researcher” is someone who’s published books by a “bone fide” publisher, and done extensive clinically inspired investigations into various UFO cases. All the while studiously avoiding any mention of paranormal, supernatural, mystical, or Bigfoot/cryptid phenomena, of course. As soon as you bring up the subject of paranormal Bigfoot, you’re no longer taken seriously. (And that’s from within the small world of UFO/Fortean research. Imagine what it’s like outside this peculiar world of esoteric studies.)

Watching the National Geographic disaster, er, program, on Roswell recently, (The Real Roswell) the narrator mentioned something about a researchers “UFO campaign” as if the researcher was up to no good, out to recruit unsuspecting citizens into a cabal of UFO studies.

There are terms like UFO enthusiasts, as if we’re all rabid NASCAR fans. UFO mavens, which on the surface sounds okay, since “maven” means expert. Maven is also something of a quaint word, invoking an image of something homey and old fashioned; harmless, maybe even sweetly goofy, but not to be taken seriously. Sometimes this is prefaced with “self styled ufo maven,” which of course is patronizing. Like the “self styled UFO researcher” the modifier “self styled” is used to cast doubt on the researcher’s character and credibility.

There’s “UFO devotee” which brings to mind some sort of religious nut, or at least a dopey cult member. It puts the entire UFO phenomena into a religious (therefore, not serious) context, for anyone spending much time at all studying UFOs is a nut. A religious fanatic, a cultist, a kook.

We have “UFO buff,” which is like the “UFO enthusiast.” And vaguely illicit, you can’t help juxtapose buff with nude and naked, no matter how subconsciously the imagery. That’s how it works. So you have sex crazed UFO researchers running around, and that’s no good. This despite the fact UFO lore is rife with tales of sexual unions with strange beings, breeding, kidnapping and capture, nightly bedroom visitations, examinations involving genitals, ova, sperm and other intrusive probings, hybrid babies, and phantom pregnancies.

We have “UFO hobbyists'” which could be put in the same category as “enthusiast,” “maven,” and “wag.” A bit old fashioned, and conjures up images of a harmless, but eccentric individual, tinkering away in their garage or den, spending hours on such silliness as UFOs. Replace UFOs with stamp collecting or cataloging your Star Trek figurine collection and we have an image of a nerdy, slightly antisocial misfit.

There’s “UFO wags” which is a bit like “UFO maven,” bringing to mind some old dotting absent minded eccentric blithering away in his (or her) overstuffed library of ancient UFO books.

Of course there’s ‘UFO believer,” which is worse than the vague ‘UFO devotee,” since it implies that one believes in UFOs.

Sometimes flying saucer is used instead of UFO. I use flying saucer myself a lot but for different reasons. Like Stanton Friedman, who uses the term freely, the use is a political statement; take back the flying saucer! For the smugly skeptical, the term “flying saucer” is used to further trivialize and marginalize. No one uses flying saucer anymore in a serious context, and like “maven,” it’s a bit old fashioned. It paints the UFO, er, flaying saucer researcher as a nut, chasing after little green men in astounding machines from outer space.

Other words are used as well, “woo” is the ever popular favorite to describe everything from a “believer” in UFOs to people who say they’ve seen a Sasquatch. There isn’t much hiding here; woo is self - explanatory; it’s clear the meaning is “you’re an idiot.”

There’s also the “true believer” to denote those who, presumably are fanatical about their experiences -- believing the messengers, or insisting they have the truth. And the even less polite “true ‘bleever.” While there are those individual who’ve had anomalous experiences insist what’s happened to them is “the truth,” and their own interpretation is presented as the truth, there are countless others (like myself) who know two things for sure: 1. Something really damn weird happened, and 2. I have no idea what that damn really weird thing was. The use of the terms “true believer” and “true ‘bleever” as well as “woo,” and “woo woo” etc. don’t address the phenomena; they simply reject the individual and the experience. They’d love for us to shut up and go away. If we can’t, or won’t, accept their explanations, then we’re, at best, “woos” and worse, “true ‘bleevers.” (And “willfully ignorant.” )

The lines blur; you have someone with anomalous experiences, and you have religious fanatics, whether they’re Christian fundies who want creationism taught in schools, or the some other brand of religious fascism. To the “skeptic” however, it’s all the same: crop circles, UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. Use of these cute little phrases like “UFO fanatic” only shove the subject into the abyss, which, of course, is the intent.

On Binnall of America

Yowie Researcher Tony Healy
This is a bit late, but you can still access the interview with Yowie researcher Tony Healy on BOA (Binnall of America.)

In fact, you can access -- for free -- all of Tim Binnall's interviews. Just go to the BOA site and click on the "audio" tab at the top of the home page. There are some amazing conversations there with some very interesting people.

Trickster's Realm: Lola’s Deer: Deers and the Anomalous

My recent column (Trickster's Realm) for the BOA site is a continuation of my friend "Lola" and her deer experience:

I spoke to Lola the other day, and asked her if there was anything new to report on the weird deer front. She said no, but that something strange happened in the house again, though she couldn’t remember just what it was. She just knew it was very strange. That in itself is weird.

As to the deer, she said she didn’t remember the deer leaving. “I didn’t see it go anywhere, run off” she said. “It seemed like it should have run off into the woods, or down the road, or something -- it just wasn’t there.”

She also said she was “really scared” and couldn’t park the truck fast enough. She ran all the from the truck to their deck, and up to their front door. Fumbling with the keys as she tried to hurriedly get into the house. “I was really scared, the kids were really scared,” and none of them could really say why. A deer on the road isn’t at all unusual. So why the intense high tension and surroudning anxiety?

I told Lola about animals appearing in many UFO encounters and anomalous events; as sort of guides, or go between. There are many cases of deer appearing in these “screen memories” in the context of UFO events.

You can read the rest, and a lot more, on the Binnall of America website.

The Book of THoTH - Wisdom of the Ages

Preview for the Book of Thoth winners, which includes moi, dahlings. And the good Lesley at Debris Field and many others!

Dips and Exopolitics

My recent item for my blog on The Daily Grail: Dips and Exopolitics.

Out of Place Ghosts?

I suppose all ghosts are “out of place,” or they wouldn’t be ghosts.

And maybe “out of place” -- the designation OOP -- isn’t quite accurate here.

But this item, and the Jim Marrs story of Roswell hospital ghosts, inspired this thought.

From this item: ghosts in Antarctica. It just seems like an odd image; ghosts in he snow. Snow ghosts. Ice ghosts. “The Thing,” maybe. Something about all that snow and ice and the unseen makes it all the more unwordly and creepy. (I'm not an ice and snow person, maybe that has something to do with my unease.)

Erebus crash blamed for Antarctica 'ghosts'
By JOHN HENZELL - The Press | Tuesday, 17 April 2007

A supernatural experience in Antarctica on Friday the 13th has left a winter worker convinced of the existence of ghosts on the frozen continent.

American Allie Barden was sent to work in a stores building at McMurdo Station, the United States base near New Zealand's Scott Base, and knew it was empty because it was padlocked from outside when she arrived.

"As soon as I entered, something was weird," she said.

"I took a couple of steps in (and) the hair on the top of my head stood on end – footsteps upstairs; undeniably footsteps. A slow cadence of footsteps.

"I froze. It went from the back of the building to the front."

Ross Island is rife with ghostly sightings, often attributed to the 257 victims of the Air New Zealand plane crash on Mount Erebus in 1979, whose bodies were stored at McMurdo before being returned to New Zealand.

That, juxtaposed with all the weird covert experiments going on in Antarctica gives the conspiracy, esoteric minded individual a lot to play with.

I mentioned Jim Marrs; some time ago he was a guest on C2C and had a greatly interesting story to tell of “alien ghosts” in a hospital in Roswell. Really juicy, fascinating stuff for any Fortean junkie. Curiously, I haven’t heard much follow up on this. I did find this story by Marrs:

ALIEN GHOSTS AT ROSWELL?”
Emma Duran said she once met a man who told her that he had worked at the Roswell base and that aliens from the crash site were autopsied there. He told her that he had taken a bit of metal from the crash debris but that government agents had retrieved it from him and warned both he and his family not to talk about it.

Owen, who has both seen and heard strange things in the NMRC, said he had never encountered the alien ghost but nevertheless added, “I’ve heard people say they have seen aliens running around.”

And then there’s the ghost-UFO connection. Where elements of UFO activity seem to mimic hauntings. Or, one appears to facilitate the other.

Nothing enlightening here as to theories or pontifications. Just a somewhat idle observation.

FORTEAN FRUIT CRATE LABELS

For something completely different and hopefully entertaining, a collection of vintage fruit and vegetable crate labels with a spacey and Fortean flavor.

I'll post more later on; I'm getting quite a collection!

Dates range from the 1920s to the 1940s, maybe 1950s. Enjoy!

"Not the Only Women in Bigfoot Research"

I'm not sure what's going on with posting over at Cryptomundo; the post I posted before took awhile before it came through, and my response to Kathy Strain's post hasn't gone through. (as of yet, it still might.)

Anyway, here's a post by a female Bigfoot researcher who posted over on Cryptomundo in response to the thread:
on sexism and racism in research.

# Kathy Strain responds: April 15th, 2007 at 3:49 am

I have several comments.

As a female bigfoot researcher (who is also part native), I have never ever been mistreated by fellow researchers due to my gender. I have been questioned, challenged, fought with, slapped around, etc., but it certainly had nothing to do with being a woman.

I have indeed seen some issues related to ethic background (digger indian being one) but I have chalked that up more to a lack of knowledge than to racism.

In fact, I have seen more bias against my college degrees (and being a professional anthropologist) than anything else (same issue that I have seen about comment on Meldrum and Krantz…damn Ph.D.’s!!!).

And, if we were going to be honest here (just not politically correct) I take offense to Lisa Shiels, Linda Martin, and Regan Lee’s blogs that besides themselves and Autumn Williams, they are the only female bigfoot researchers they know. For crying out loud, what rock have you been living under??? If you don’t know who Bobbie Short, Diane Stocking, me, and a whole host of other women are, then I don’t know what else to say. Your world is as big as you want it to be…as well as your experiences.

I'll try to recreate my response to Kathy as much as I can:

Kathy,
I have never meant to imply in any way I, and Lisa, etc. were the "only" female bigfoot researchers. (And, in fact, I wonder at the label for myself.) I can't speak for others, but for myself, I am learning new things every day. I am new to this field. For some reason, a series of events have propelled me into the area of "paranormal" Bigfoot, and that's where my focus is, as far as Bigfoot research goes. So if I exclude various female researchers, it's one of two reasons (or both): They do not support the "supernatural" Bigfoot aspect, and/or, you're right, I haven't heard of them. Yet.

That doesn't mean I "live under a rock" nor does it mean I don't care. It does mean I'm new to this area, my focus being on UFOs and other Fortean subjects. I'm glad you posted, now I know.

When I do come across researchers -- male and female alike -- who take seriously the aspects of Bigfoot research I'm interested in, I write about them.

We're all learning and coming across new things all the time.

Generally speaking, just for the record, I don't think all men are sexist, or that women are better, or that Lisa Shiel, etc. are the "only" researchers. I hope to god I haven't implied that, for that was never my intent.

However, giving some light towards the female Bigfoot researchers that do study this strange aspect of Bigfoot encounters is something I'm interested in. That in no way negates male researchers who support anomalous Sasquatch tales, or the fact there are female researchers who don't.

I'm not particularly interested in male or female Bigfoot researchers who either support a "kill" policy, or reject the weirder side of Bigfoot. So I don't usually list them or discuss them, unless it's in context of something else.

And, I, like most of us I assume, have day jobs and families that take away from spending the time we'd love to on these things. We can't always get to what we want to right when we want it.

Thank you, Regan Lee

So now, off to research Kathy Strain.