I didn't see it! Cases with puzzling witness deficits

[Burnt State]

But wasn't that all complete mythology from the broken boy's arm to the slag? I think Maury Island is regarded as a pure hoax for the most part. Arnold's involvement and the X-files weirdness surrounding him is a good indicator of how UFO's were used early on for ulterior motives unknown to little people like civilians.

 

[marduk]

Weren't some dogs gooified on the Sherman ranch by balls of light, too?

 

[Burnt State]

Here is one such more so well known case where UFO/Doggone occurred. Sheriff reveals 1966 UFO encounter and death of dog - Richmond , Virginia, United States - August 9, 1966 - UFO Evidence I attribute this to a dog's extended perceptual abilities. You know, like their ability to hear far and away outside and beyond the human spectrum of audible detection. Millions of cases are documented wherein animals "sense" what human beings do not. Some of the best being those that support doggy precognition (don't ask, use your own head to create your own speculations, that's all any of us have with respect for these matters) with respect to their owners returning home.

Bigfoot and dogs in relatively close spaces also tend to be reported in fatal fashion minus any physical contact. Can you think of a different reason, apart from their heightened senses, that they might kick the proverbial doggy dish?

That case seems a little thin, Jeff, for a death by UFO conviction. Seems like the dog owner is the one making the large assumption. Given that the dog was alive right up till the next day after the UFO visited it seems that a hit and run is much more likely.

I also feel that Bigfoot and UFO's are hard to defend as a reality and suggests moving the phenomenon into a direction more about myth than fact. The parts that I liked about Roe's defining strategy for NARCAP included the disassociation from UFO's and the big hairy one being connected. I'm all there for bizarre attendant phenomenon and the UFO experience but such stories do seem to be more about internal events and internal definitions of reality vs. any external fact.

The claim for dog death by UFO is similar to claims of alien abduction or Floyd following you around IMHO.

 

[Burnt State]

Weren't some dogs gooified on the Sherman ranch by balls of light, too?

That is in fact the claim, an outstanding one at that, but yes, from dogs to greaseballs. Parts of that particular story continue to baffle. Previous owners report no big stuff happening, but all their doors have bolt locks on the inside of them including a closet. Did that paranoia affect the Shermans' experiences and caused them to link together disparate events that made the ranch apear it was at the centre of a paranormal vortex?

Reports from O'Brien, the whole Bigelow, NIDS' thing etc. all proclaim an altered reality and suggest something absolutely extraordinary was taking place there. It's a head scratcher alright, but I'd be more appreciating if the goo was DNA'd as official doggy remains.

 

[Jeff Davis]

That case seems a little thin, Jeff, for a death by UFO conviction. Seems like the dog owner is the one making the large assumption. Given that the dog was alive right up till the next day after the UFO visited it seems that a hit and run is much more likely.

I also feel that Bigfoot and UFO's are hard to defend as a reality and suggests moving the phenomenon into a direction more about myth than fact. The parts that I liked about Roe's defining strategy for NARCAP included the disassociation from UFO's and the big hairy one being connected. I'm all there for bizarre attendant phenomenon and the UFO experience but such stories do seem to be more about internal events and internal definitions of reality vs. any external fact.

The claim for dog death by UFO is similar to claims of alien abduction or Floyd following you around IMHO.

Stan Gordon's documentation of the cases within the Pennsylvania flap are some of the most thoroughly documented and researched cases is the history of the study of UFOs. Please explain beyond your "feelings" why Bigfoot and UFOs move anything, with respect to what is in all cases nothing more than observed phenomena, in any direction whatsoever? Is that not admitting a psychological pretense concerning one observation as opposed to another? Seems a bit knee jerk reactive to me with respect to a speculatively interpretive rationale based on phenomenal observations.

With UFOs we have collaborative radar evidence and human observation. With Bigfoot we have anthropologically substantiated footprint casts that corroborate human observation. How is one different from the other? Both lend equal parts of substantiation through expert analysis.

How can any observation of phenomena be interpreted as being psychologically internal in motive, when geographically summed masses of isolated individuals observe the same precise relative phenomena? Makes no sense. That is unless you realize that the interactive nature of human consciousness is what is being exploited, intentionally, or not.

 

[Sentry]

But wasn't that all complete mythology from the broken boy's arm to the slag? I think Maury Island is regarded as a pure hoax for the most part.

A real boy, and an imaginary dog, neither of which were injured by the non-existant flying donuts.
But Maury Island is a valid example of a case, that if it were real, other people should have been able to see it, at least on approach or exit from the alleged sighting location.

 

[Burnt State]

A real boy, and an imaginary dog, neither of which were injured by the non-existant flying donuts.
But Maury Island is a valid example of a case, that if it were real, other people should have been able to see it, at least on approach or exit from the alleged sighting location.

Sentry, I would be very interested to know your own thoughts regarding the thread's core conundrum regarding the lack of agreement and support in what was witnessed. I get the sense that you feel cases such as the Portage, Ohio case, which offer multiple witnesses who corroborate many elements of the sighting, are in the category of a real external event with an actual unknown object. An easy thing to investigate.

But individual cases where there is only a small set of witnesses, or one, to an event that was not confirmed by others but shoud have been, offer up a much more confusing set of possibilities. On one hand such cases like Falcon Lake, Cash Landrum and Pascagoula all have highly compelling narratives, some physical evidence even, yet no third party witnesses. This is puzzling, and while I really don't feel that these type of cases are internal events, there is a suggestion of the event being performed for a limited audience only. These seem to be the ones that attract you.

In other cases there are also groups of witnesses who are not in agreement with what, or if anything, was seen. These cases are even more bizarre. Curt, what do you feel is going on in these conflicting,and lack of confirming, witnesses?

Many cases with single witnesses of absolutely extraordinary and mind blowing events i.e. bigfoot being controlled by the aliens' remote control, may be sometimes in remote areas and can not afford anything but a witness' good word. Should we be simply discarding these cases altogether when there is no other evidence to support claims?

 

[Sentry]

I'm in no way prepared to form an opinion, but there are false cases in the mix that add confusion. I've been following the Rendlesham case's new book release, and recently things have heated up about the different witness experiences, even those of Burroughs and Penniston, who you'd think would be closely aligned. The differences are puzzling, because if it were a hoax, discord and internal controversy would be about the last thing you'd expect they'd want. The way it is now, it's about as contentious as a rock band divorce.

 

[Burnt State]

Stan Gordon's documentation of the cases within the Pennsylvania flap are some of the most thoroughly documented and researched cases is the history of the study of UFOs. Please explain beyond your "feelings" why Bigfoot and UFOs move anything, with respect to what is in all cases nothing more than observed phenomena, in any direction whatsoever? Is that not admitting a psychological pretense concerning one observation as opposed to another? Seems a bit knee jerk reactive to me with respect to a speculatively interpretive rationale based on phenomenal observations.

With UFOs we have collaborative radar evidence and human observation. With Bigfoot we have paleontologically substantiated footprint casts that corroborate human observation. How is one different from the other? Both lend equal parts of substantiation through expert analysis.

How can any observation of phenomena be interpreted as being psychologically internal in motive, when geographically summed masses of isolated individuals observe the same precise relative phenomena? Makes no sense. That is unless you realize that the interactive nature of human consciousness is what is being exploited, intentionally, or not.

I think bigfoot could be real. I also think there is something, or maybe three or four or more things at work, when it comes to UFO's. But together in tandem? Just what exactly is the strong, substantive evidence that brings UFO's and Bigfoot together on the scene? I've only read about witness reports and no corroborating evidence at all.

Yes, I do feel there is a possibility for consciousness to be exploited, but whether or not an unknown agent is directly responsible for such events is still to be revealed.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I think bigfoot could be real. I also think there is something, or maybe three or four or more things at work, when it comes to UFO's. But together in tandem? Just what exactly is the strong, substantive evidence that brings UFO's and Bigfoot together on the scene? I've only read about witness reports and no corroborating evidence at all.

Yes, I do feel there is a possibility for consciousness to be exploited, but whether or not an unknown agent is directly responsible for such events is still to be revealed.

The question is, why the preclusion that supposes hundreds of independent observations are all false?

I'm thinking that what is being branded myth, is in all reality, a false notion of guilt by association when none has ever been determined in the least.

There have been Bigfoot tracks found at the sight of those claiming to have witnessed UFOs in the same vicinity simultaneously.

I don't know of any cases where radar evidence exists within the context of Bigfoot/UFO sightings. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. Ask all the pilots that have seen UFOs directly in front of them, or maneuvering directly around their aircraft, and yet ground controlled radar imaging yielded nothing "in sight" to confirm their sightings. It's all meaningless with respect to paranormal phenomena. UFOs obey every characteristic of a paranormal observation based centricity with respect to that which yields 99.9% of all personally related experiential evidence. Namely human observation.

Why do observations of Bigfoot include many cases, where just like UFOs, they dematerialize into thin air at relatively close range?

See: Anyone can answer questions with questions Burnt. Please back up and answer some of those I asked in my last post, if you could.

 

[Burnt State]

Jeff, I am not dismissing either phenomenon but stories of dematerialzation and bigfoot as ultraterrestrial stretches credulity as much as said Bigfoot being remote controlled. Mixing faeries and Gnomes together is like a Disney movie and that's what happens when disparate paranormal phenomenon are blended together without any real substantiation beyond witness testimony. We haven't even proven the existence or identity of either but we're going to mix them? If there was veracity to those claims, and you know that even Bigfoot prints are subject to a lot of suspicion on their own, then i coud entertain the notion. Hoaxing of these prints is not a complicated matter - even producing dermal ridges is possible for the avid practitioner.

And as previously stated, I'm not dismissing the many reports, but agree there have been many reports and that's indicative of a great number of possibilities, and remote controlled Bigfoot are last on my list. I think what's much more interesting is how witnessing of strange and intense events produces other attendant phenomenon in the minds of those witnesses - Dale Spaur being a good example of this. Was he the only one that saw Floyd subsequently - that's my understanding of the situation?

Getting us back to the thread, a lot of people are affected substantially and have their perceptions altered significantly for reasons unknown, entering the Oz effect, and as you previously commented on, a distortion of usual reality including shifts in sound, light, and a lack of other people even. Does this not sound like an entirely internal experience, with no real other confirmation? I contrast such cases with radar return, physical evidence and multiple witness events.

But those common sightings that are taking place across wide geographies are not in fact precise replications but filled with as much variance as there are individual imaginations. People claim they see all kinds of things all over the world that include dinosaurs, vampires, gnomes, floating eyeballs, enormous flying hotel UFO's and mermaids. What does this mean - that they all exist? Or does it mean, as the abduction phenomenon suggests, that people believe they are having very unusual experiences. The distinct lack of physical evidence for many of these sightings claimed by lone individuals do not add up to much, but does suggest that there are in fact issues of hoaxing, misperception, and, for reasons tied to our cultural history, outright delusion. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Jeff Davis]

1) Jeff, I am not dismissing either phenomenon but stories of dematerialzation and bigfoot as ultraterrestrial stretches credulity as much as said Bigfoot being remote controlled. Mixing faeries and Gnomes together is like a Disney movie and that's what happens when disparate paranormal phenomenon are blended together without any real substantiation beyond witness testimony.

2) We haven't even proven the existence or identity of either but we're going to mix them? If there was veracity to those claims, and you know that even Bigfoot prints are subject to a lot of suspicion on their own, then i coud entertain the notion. Hoaxing of these prints is not a complicated matter - even producing dermal ridges is possible for the avid practitioner.

And as previously stated, I'm not dismissing the many reports, but agree there have been many reports and that's indicative of a great number of possibilities, 3) and remote controlled Bigfoot are last on my list. I think what's much more interesting is how witnessing of strange and intense events produces other attendant phenomenon in the minds of those witnesses - Dale Spaur being a good example of this. Was he the only one that saw Floyd subsequently - that's my understanding of the situation?

Getting us back to the thread, a lot of people are affected substantially and have their perceptions altered significantly for reasons unknown, entering the Oz effect, and as you previously commented on, a distortion of usual reality including shifts in sound, light, and a lack of other people even. Does this not sound like an entirely internal experience, with no real other confirmation? I contrast such cases with radar return, physical evidence and multiple witness events.

But those common sightings that are taking place across wide geographies are not in fact precise replications but filled with as much variance as there are individual imaginations. People claim they see all kinds of things all over the world that include dinosaurs, vampires, gnomes, floating eyeballs, enormous flying hotel UFO's and mermaids. What does this mean - that they all exist? Or does it mean, as the abduction phenomenon suggests, that people believe they are having very unusual experiences. The distinct lack of physical evidence for many of these sightings claimed by lone individuals do not add up to much, but does suggest that there are in fact issues of hoaxing, misperception, and, for reasons tied to our cultural history, outright delusion. But that's just my opinion.

1) Please don't attempt to read between the lines of your version of my imagined mind. That's incredibly vain and in no way serves to reason a sincere argument. Burnt State, can you PLEASE, answer just ONE question, that I have asked you directly here? So far you have basically sidestepped each one like a politician would do at campaign time. Just ANSWER my questions and attempt to reason your assumptions minus irrational blanket dismissals.

2) So if multiple corroborated witness testimony doesn't serve your hypothesis, you just disregard it, is this what you are stating? You'll have to do far better than that if you ever hope to present a well reasoned argument here. It seems like what you are stating here echoes that because the paranormal takes on proportions that don't "fit", within the confines of what each of us personally determines as being a little too "out there" in terms of what we deem reasonable, as much merely serves to muddy the investigative waters of legitimate informational uptake. Is this correct? And further, is this how science works as it progressively reflects on the natural world? I believe you KNOW the answer to that question.

In my own estimation, that would seem a self confined and in fact destructive path to an unbridled truth concerning what absolutely none of us knows, of even begins to understand, at this point in linear time. Addition through subtraction IMO.

3) Who brought the notion of remote controlled bigfoots into this discussion? (man, as a kid I would have LOVED to get one of those for Christmas!)

Seems like someone's Mad Magazine version of the paranormal if ever there was one. You may make the claim that you are not dismissing anything, however that does not mean that you are not, does it?

Like O'Brien is constantly echoing, the truth is all that matters, and frankly, those that dismiss a portion of the investigative reporting from extremely integrity bound human beings like Stan Gordon, only serve to vainly dismantle a truth that they find a little too strange for comfort's sake.

As much as the control freaks would like it to be the case, you simply cannot logically contend that the paranormal is centric to any form of consensus. If that were the case, it wouldn't be paranormal, would it?

 

[marduk]

I'm in no way prepared to form an opinion, but there are false cases in the mix that add confusion. I've been following the Rendlesham case's new book release, and recently things have heated up about the different witness experiences, even those of Burroughs and Penniston, who you'd think would be closely aligned. The differences are puzzling, because if it were a hoax, discord and internal controversy would be about the last thing you'd expect they'd want. The way it is now, it's about as contentious as a rock band divorce.

Rendelsham is rapidly going down the Roswell path, as is Shag Harbour, Malmstrom, and the rest.

They're cold cases, with mixed messages, and no way anything will ever get proven from them ever. And even if you find an interesting data point, there's no way to know if it's real or not.

Soon, like with most older cases, it will become a [UFO personality A] vs [UFO personality B] and swapping stories virtually via books and blog posts.

This is why I would love to see a focus on current cases and fire walling the past cases which will never be resolved and now focus more on the people than the event.

 

[marduk]

Why do observations of Bigfoot include many cases, where just like UFOs, they dematerialize into thin air at relatively close range?

Can you name any credible cases where this actually happened? Honest question, that wasn't a snide remark.

I can posit a working theory as to why UFOs and bigfoot are spotted in similar areas which doesn't imply that they're related whatsoever...

Remote areas of limited human habitation. They both seem to like those kinds of spots.

I, for one, think some kind of bigfoot is real. Haven't seen one, but have seen freshly taken casts from credible people, have had family that have seen one, and spent enough time in the interior of BC to know that anything could be out there.

As an example I once saw a dragonfly a greater than 1 foot wingspan flying down the wild horse creek. UFO sightings are also well-known in the area, but I don't think there's a causal relationship between the two, except the lack of human habitation.

 

[PCarr]

Can you name any credible cases where this actually happened? Honest question, that wasn't a snide remark.

I can posit a working theory as to why UFOs and bigfoot are spotted in similar areas which doesn't imply that they're related whatsoever...

Remote areas of limited human habitation. They both seem to like those kinds of spots.

I, for one, think some kind of bigfoot is real. Haven't seen one, but have seen freshly taken casts from credible people, have had family that have seen one, and spent enough time in the interior of BC to know that anything could be out there.

As an example I once saw a dragonfly a greater than 1 foot wingspan flying down the wild horse creek. UFO sightings are also well-known in the area, but I don't think there's a causal relationship between the two, except the lack of human habitation.

I would propose something more mundane - the well known psychological phenomenon of hypervigilance probably has a social analog. When something strange is reported in an area and makes the local newspaper or even TV, folks become far more attuned to look for unusual things.

Remember, what we are nearly always working with is not the phenomena, but reports of phenomena.

 

[storge]

A real boy, and an imaginary dog, neither of which were injured by the non-existant flying donuts.
But Maury Island is a valid example of a case, that if it were real, other people should have been able to see it, at least on approach or exit from the alleged sighting location.

Not neccessarily. It's fairly remote and was even emptier in 1947. Now Maury has been landfilled to join Vashon Island, but it's still rural. What doesn't make sense is that Crisman saw the same doughnuts days later when he went out there. Arnold was seeing flying discs all over the place after his first sighting as well, but didn't want to report them. Whether the dog existed, I have no way of knowing.

Just to restate it so there is no misunderstanding, Maury was sufficiently remote for whatever happened on Maury to stay on Maury. That Crisman said he did see it a day or two after Dahl's report strengthens the argument that there is something very subjective at work, because he didn't see them at the same time but did at the same location. I think the case is very weird and can't say it's all a hoax. I haven't read "KDR's" debunking but I have read earlier ones, which weren't satisfying. At all. It can't really be a copycat hoax/sighting because it happened before Arnold and Roswell. Very weird. Anyway, it's not really germaine to the thrust of this thread, but there was a dead dog, reportedly.

 

[PCarr]

Arnold was seeing flying discs all over the place after his first sighting as well, but didn't want to report them.

Interesting. Can you cite a source?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Can you name any credible cases where this actually happened? Honest question, that wasn't a snide remark.

I can posit a working theory as to why UFOs and bigfoot are spotted in similar areas which doesn't imply that they're related whatsoever...

Remote areas of limited human habitation. They both seem to like those kinds of spots.

I, for one, think some kind of bigfoot is real. Haven't seen one, but have seen freshly taken casts from credible people, have had family that have seen one, and spent enough time in the interior of BC to know that anything could be out there.

As an example I once saw a dragonfly a greater than 1 foot wingspan flying down the wild horse creek. UFO sightings are also well-known in the area, but I don't think there's a causal relationship between the two, except the lack of human habitation.

Hi
I haven't detected the slightest amount of snidely whiplash in your comments whatsoever. Are you familiar with Stan Gordon? He has investigated flaps first hand back in the early to mid 70s that documented multiple individuals having been witness to Bigfoots coming out of landed saucers, being shot at point blank, and then returning into the saucers and departing apparently unscathed.

Here are some great links, but you may need to read up via some of Stan's books which are mostly all available. Stan has an amazingly rich UFO investigative history. http://www.stangordon.info/stangordon.htm
Archived site: SGUAZ Stan Gordon

Current site: Stan Gordon's UFO Anomalies Zone » 24-hour UFO Hotline (phone/fax) 724-838-7768 • sightings@stangordon.info

Another excellent interview: Bigfoot and UFOs: The connection - Interview with Stan Gordon -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net

Absolutely one of my personal favorite Stan Gordon interviews happened right here on the Paracast. Stan Gordon | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

Now, if you are just referring to the de/materializing nature of UFOs and Bigfoot, there are hundreds upon hundreds of those cases and all you need to do is the great googly woogly stomp to find them. I also recommend Leslie Kean's book which is FILLED with absolutely over the top incredible reported UFO behavior, seemingly paranormal in nature, by those who are beyond question and expertise with respect to being highly credible witnesses to this strange behavior.

Personally, I don't think that UFOs are illusory figments of people's imagination whatsoever. However I do believe they utilize technologies that may in fact intentionally, or unintentionally, interface our consciousness experience. IMO, UFOs are neither air friction based flying machines, nor are they spaceships. I think it's far more likely that they propagate themselves as information through what we call reality, or consciousness.

This is the Modus operandi of the reported trickster, or shape shifter, as observed throughout time. The result of a possible sentient translation inherent to us, not them. Others seem to be outright bi-local technologies of which we are only able to observe one aspect at any give space in time due to our own naturally limited linear time based observational capabilities.

It's all just fun guess work of which ZERO substantiation exists. Still in yet, beyond fascinating to me.

 

[storge]

Interesting. Can you cite a source?

Chapter II
The Tacoma Affair

It was on the morning of July 29, 1947 that I took off from a private cow pasture near my home. It was about 5:30 a.m. I never told anyone of my plans as to when I was going to leave Boise or at what date I would arrive in Tacoma, though a number of my friends did know of my proposed trip. That day no one but my wife knew...

...

I recall looking at my instrument clock which read about five minutes of seven. As I looked up from my instrument panel and straight ahead over the La Grande valley, I saw a cluster of about twenty to twenty-five brass-colored objects that looked like ducks. They were coming at me head on and at what seemed a terrific rate of speed. I grabbed my camera and started rolling out film. Even though I thought they were ducks when I first saw them, I wasn't taking any chances.

The sun was at my back and to my right. These objects were coming into the sun. I wasn't sighting through the viewfinder on my camera but was sighting along the side of it. As this group of objects came within 400 yards of me they veered sharply away from me and to their right, gaining altitude as they did so and fluttering and flashing a dull amber color. I was a little bit shocked and excited when I realized they had the same flight characteristics of the large objects that I had observed on June 24. These appeared to be round, rather rough on top, and to have a dark or a light spot on top of each one. I couldn't be absolutely positive of this because it all happened so suddenly. I attempted to make a turn and follow them but they disappeared to the east at a speed far in excess of my airplane. I knew they were not ducks because ducks don't fly that fast.

After a few minutes I gave up the chase and continued to let down at La Grande. I phoned Dave Johnson from there and related my experience but told him not to print it. I knew he had more than a newsworthy interest now in flying disks. I questioned the whole crew of the Empire Airlines ship to see if they had seen this cluster of objects, too. If they had seen them, they would not admit it, but there is a good possibility they did not see them. They were on almost their final approach to the La Grande airfield, their plane being much faster than mine, and this cluster of objects at the time would have been seven to nine hundred feet above them.

I heard later that several farmers in the vicinity of Union had observed ...

from "Coming of the Saucers: A Documentary Report on Sky Objects" by Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, 1952

I remember Arnold's daughter saying he had many more such experiences over his entire life and chose not to share them.

 

[Sentry]

Here's some more information on Kenneth Arnold's other sightings and his conclusion that flying saucers were living beings:
Conversations with Kenneth Arnold - UFO Evidence
This is from a series of interviews done by Bob Pratt. More of his material can be found archived at the MUFON website.