It’s very difficult to mine any information from this interview. Regan was good at expressing her own bafflement and confusion with her experiences, but not at describing them with enough detail that we could either sincerely share her bafflement or perhaps provide some clarity. She says she’s trying to understand them better, and I believe her, but I also sense an unwillingness to open her experiences up fully to outside commentary. One thing that was obvious is that she’s concluded far more about her experiences than she expresses outright, and perhaps she fears that opening up her experiences to outside comment will challenge those conclusions and throw her back into a worse confusion, or confirm the worst of them which she is not ready to hear, but that looks to me to be rooted in a lack of self-confidence and a disbelief that anyone could really offer her anything truly beneficial.
I apologize to Regan for being so critical, and perhaps I’ve got it all wrong, I share my thoughts freely and whether she considers them or throws them into the bin I’ll take no offense.Read the original source: http://www.unknowncountry.com/experience/regan-lee-orange-orb#ixzz5YOwqd2y0
Oh my! But the delightful weirdness! Today at work, a staff member told me that a person who is related to another staff person was with a Bigfoot researcher — the two of them were hunting in the Cottage Grove area here in Oregon (Cottage Grove: a hot spot of both UFO and Sasquatch activity) and saw a Bigfoot. This person wanted to talk to me, knowing of my interest, but being at work, wasn’t possible to get away and talk Bigfoot. Later today, I was asking the person if they knew so and so (well known Bigfoot researcher inserted here) and they said “He’s my cousin.” Get OUT! I asked them if they knew so and so, and so and so — various Oregon Bigfoot researchers. “Oh, yes…” !
So tomorrow I will talk with the witness, and ask for permission to use names. As in, who is this researcher the witness was with? Details about the sighting, and anything else that might be shared.
My latest rant on Facebook, related to… oh I don’t know. Just the usual I suppose. The arguments, the in-fighting, the eating our own, the UFO Police.
UFOlogy needs to stop being so needy. And at the same time, stop being so authoritarian. There will be no UFO Police. Stop being so damn obsequious; trying to get the approval of Science, and to a lesser degree, academia. Just be honest. Just listen. Stop being competitive and accept that we are individuals, with individual talents and experiences, backgrounds and knowledge, to contribute. And stop being afraid to call out those creeps who get away with stuff because he (or she) is “one of us.” David Jacobs being at the top of the list. You don’t personally think there are reptilians? Fine. Don’t. But move on. But be honest if an account shows up in your data. Don’t mock or reject based on your own bias. This is what UFOlogy needs, not the surreal loop of non-productive whining about science, and the “crazies.” You do realize that to the outside world, also known as the “real” world, we’re All crazy, here in the fringe? So you can forget that. Just do the work, be honest, listen, and get over yourself.
Isaac Koi on FB has been asking a lot of questions; posing them, inviting responses, which of course have been coming in by the hundreds. Yes, I responded as well. Not sure why. . .
All right, so what is all this about? Among the many questions asked by Koi: the same old discussion, with everyone — including those skepti-bunkies (oh, why?!) — chiming in. What should UFOlogy be doing to be taken seriously? What should UFOlogy do to improve itself? This is the post:
(1) Can ufology be improved?
(2) If so, how? (Isaac Koi)
It’s a fantasy. Can never be because UFOlogy is a loop of maddening contradictions. Who’s going to judge what’s true, real, legit, valid? Whose story? Why? Individual witnesses, like myself — I can’t prove what happened to me. So then what? Stay quiet? My more bizarre events happened, as well as the more mundane. Which ones count? Who decides? Why? Who gets to choose who decides? For every system, group, collection of parameters, there are others who will ignore, dismiss, argue against. We’ve never going to get anywhere. That ‘s okay. But that’s the part many have trouble with: for them, it’s not “okay.” We need THIS! We need THAT! In order to succeed. No we don’t. What we need is to listen, really listen. What we need is honesty. Honest story telling, honest listening, honest research. That last bit: includes calling out in a big way the creeps who get away with crap — like David Jacobs. Get a non-judgemental data base going, get honest, get serious. Stop mocking and rolling your eyes and wanting to be accepted and cuddled by Big Science. Use what you need to use from all areas, but stop whining about “being accepted.” Just do the work. Just do the honest, goddamn work. (Regan Lee, Facebook)
art by Frank Feschino.
Alfred Lehmberg has written an informative, thorough piece on the Flatwoods Monster event. A hoax, it seems. Oh dear reader, so not!!!! And Alfred does an excellent job of explaining why not.
Writes Tim Binnall, for Coast to Coast:
Denver International Airport is once again embracing its longstanding place in conspiracy lore by way of several signs throughout the facility which celebrate the site’s infamous reputation. Since opening in 1995, the airport has been the subject of all manner of sinister suggestions from conspiracy theorists who suspect that the site is more than a mere hub for travelers. The speculation has, for the most part, centered around the underground parts of the facility which, some argue, are designed for use by clandestine groups such as the New World Order or even aliens of the reptilian variety. [Tim Binnall: Coast to Coast]
Seems the Denver airport is in our faces with their overt participation in the shadow world. Or is that a conspiracy? Is it a conspiracy within a conspiracy? Meta conspiracy? World agenda hiding in plain sight? Knowledge that those of us who joke about the joke (or, is it?) are contributing to it all; feeding the reptilian overlords. Or all just a misunderstanding regarding the airport’s really terrible and clueless (or, is it?) choices of art work?
(cross posted on my Orange Orb Tarot blog)
Had an interesting dream the other night, involving a family of another country and culture (true; I really know these people but not listing those details here) but, in this dream, involving music, dance and drumming, among other things, the following:
I’m in the room with this family, and lots of other people as well. Up on a little platform, is a long table with a dark haired (long dark hair) woman (around 40? maybe 50) who is reading from a deck. I assume it’s a tarot deck, but can’t get close enough to see. The backs of the cards are beautiful; greens and blues, mermaids.
I can’t hear the woman too well; can’t tell if it’s a traditional tarot deck or an oracle deck. I notice the woman doesn’t have any clients; she just starts reading out loud to no one. Is she giving the whole room a reading? Reading to someone invisible? I still can’t see the deck up close. I want to, because it’s so beautiful, from the backs. I’m all about mermaids! But I’m confused as to the nature of the reading. Also, I realize I don’t much like her. I don’t like her style; she seems almost rude, and very loud. Not my approach.
Yet after awhile, I realize what she’s saying is more important than the way she’s saying it. And, with a sudden awareness, I just know that she’s more than human, if she’s really human at all. She’s an archangel! She’s a mermaid archangel.
When I understand this, I feel better. I’m awed, actually. And I realize her reading to the room is for anyone out here who cares to listen. It makes sense now. It’s not important that I don’t dig her style; it’s not about that.
I want this deck!
Well, of course the answer is NO.
Cross posted at my Frame 352: The Stranger Side of Sasquatch blog.
New article (To Kill or to Capture Bigfoot: The Great Cryptozoological Debate) on the old debate that rages on. Sad that it rages on, sad that some people think one has to kill themselves a Bigfoot just to prove to science it exists. Not enough for one’s own experience to be the proof; Big Science has to know as well in order for those with the bloodlust to feel vindicated.
“You would need a heavy-duty rifle,” according Jim Lansdale, co-founder of the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization (GCBRO). “I would suggest a 30-aught-six or better; .458 or something like that. Maybe a seven-mag’. But it’s all shot placement and you’d have to shoot him in the head. You can’t body-shoot him. They’re too big.” [Jim Lansdale; Gizmodo]
Disgusting Lansdale has spent a lot of brain energy figuring out just what weapon will do the job.
Skeptic and debunker Benjamin Radford gives his reason why those, like myself, are against killing a Sasquatch:
“To them it’s not just like killing an armadillo or an elk—it is a symbol of purity.” [Benjamin Radford; Gizmodo]
I’d like Mr. Radford to know that I wouldn’t kill an armadillo (who does that?) or an elk. While some do — hunters who kill elk in order to provide food for their family — I choose not to do so. It’s not because I believe Sasquatch is “pure”, I have no idea. It simply is not right to do so. In this I am very adamant.
I have not seen a Sasquatch, though I have had a couple of odd experiences related to Sasquatch. I know a lot of individuals who have seen Bigfoot. I believe it exists. To me it doesn’t matter if it’s “pure” or almost human, or human like, or even human, or, ‘simply’ an animal. No reason to kill it. None.
Not one good reason.
Having said that, I will make a qualifier here. While I doubt Bigfoot are psycho-beings killing humans willy-nilly, as Lansdale believes, (because, after all, those of us who are NO KILL are “bleeding hearts”, which tells you a lot about Lansdale’s mindset and political values) if an animal — human or non — is coming at me to eat me for lunch, then yes, I’d defend myself.
But I’m not going out to look for a being with the single minded purpose of killing one.