Many researchers of Fortean phenomena assume that an abundance (or even an over-abundance) of data is a good thing. After all, the more information we have in-hand, the higher the likelihood is that we'll solve the puzzle (whether it's Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, or whatever), right?
Wrong.
Within Forteana, the rules are "always" different to those that govern the "normal" world.
For example, in my article for "UFO Mag", I specifically point out that one particular UFO hot-spot in central England has also played host to encounters with werewolves, a glowing-eyed Bigfoot-like creature, ghosts, and a diabolical entity that sounds like a combination of Mothman, the Jersey-Devil, and a gargoyle. And on top of that, there is evidence of pagan activity in the area, too.
And that's the crux of it all for those of a rigid mindset: an over-abundance of extremely varied high-strangeness does become too weird - for both "nuts and bolts" ufologists and "flesh and blood" cryptozoologists. Why? Because it's not acceptable - or, at the very least, it doesn't sit well - within their rigid, belief-based frameworks.
Of course, if you're not governed by that aforementioned rigid belief system, then the problem of having too much high-strangeness goes away. The only problem, in fact, is that we're still left scratching our heads as we try to come up with a better theory - or theories.
I certainly don't claim to have all the answers; but when a Bigfoot, a werewolf, a gargoyle and Ufological Grays are "all" seen at one particular location - and across a period of time that runs to "decades", no less - then I suggest revisions of the more conventional views on both Cryptozoology and Ufology are in dire need.
0 comments:
Post a Comment