J.C. Johnson January 26, 2014

[BlackDogGrimm]

I am also amazed that while JC was visiting the farm where big foot visits on a very regular basis, sits in trees and makes "mating calls" not one bit of hard evidence has been produced. If I were investigating such a "real and ongoing occurrence" as suggested by JC, I'd have cameras and sound equipment set up all over the place and would not leave until I have got the proof.
Guys don't allow yourselves to be drawn into these fairy tale camp fire stories.
Ask the hard questions as you normally do. I would have asked "why didn't you spend more time at the farm house until you got your evidence?"
You and I both know if this was a true story with hard evidence, it would make world headlines.
Love your work.

Didn't JC mention something about the family (with the nuisance male on their ranch) not wanting to release the photos?

Also -- it occurs to me that any family enduring an experience like the one described would have many reasons for not wanting their lives disturbed further. Look at it from their perspective, and it's easier to understand the so-called "lack" of evidence.

Here's what I noticed: while Gene & Chris would normally press someone for information & evidence -- even when the guest is a personal friend -- with JC it seemed to flow unusually easily from one thing to the next. I was also surprised that they didn't grill him more, so I listened even more closely. JC strikes me as an astute, no-nonsense operator who chooses to insert bombast and a well-timed joke to avoid a need to go too deeply into hard facts. Either Gene and Chris know that and chose to respect it, or they chose to follow the flow of the campfire- like dialogue -- or both.

I don't believe a character like JC uses bombast to fill in for a lack of so-called evidence. He does it to avoid the need to go too deeply into details that may be sensitive or exposing to those he's working with. It would seem that he gets called in to assist average people facing high strangeness, which requires a totally different approach -- IF your intention is to uncover truth on behalf of others in order to help them.

As the investigator in that particular position, you have a difficult choice to make. You're dealing with genuinely vulnerable people who have very few places to go for help and no agenda beyond protecting their family and interests. It's a big deal. Either you choose to respect the privacy and engender the trust of those you help, or you risk losing all future possibilities to continue working on cases like that. If you violate and exploit the same people who come to you for help when they're at their most vulnerable, you won't see many more cases like that as an investigator. It's got to be a tricky tight-rope to walk to stay credible enough within your own community to afford the privilege to work on potentially groundbreaking cases while still maintaining a certain amount of street cred with colleagues and peers.

There isn't a code of ethics that's regulated or enforced for crypto investigators. Yet they're dealing with vulnerable people who have real problems. Anyone in that situation has a choice about how they handle it if they want to be able to keep doing what they do, and they still want to be able to get up in the morning with their integrity in tact. There has to be a willingness to engage with the subject matter from a perspective and interest that may not be particularly self-serving in the long run -- just to have the privilege of the possibility of glimpsing something extraordinary first hand.

Perhaps one day JC and his more noteworthy cases will one day get old enough that it's possible to provide more detail, evidence, or to publish something truly groundbreaking.

Who knows. That's just how it all struck me when I listened to the podcast.

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

I seem to recall when Ardy Sixkiller Clarke was on the Paracast. She was asked to provide proof to her stories of Native American paranormal/ufo events. When she couldn't she was dismissed as basically a storyteller and little else. JC Johnson wasn't even asked to provide some video/photographic proof to his stories. In all that time spent in the wilderness, he should have something to show for his efforts. I don't remember him offering such proof.

This is a good point. You're right. Once again, I have to opt for the humanistic approach in all this, which I'm starting to realize is a viewpoint that is missing from many of these discussions, and may be necessary in order for us to understand them more fully so we can know what it is we're trying to wrap our heads around.

Ardy Sixkiller Clarke is a highly respected individual in the Native american community for very good reason. Her research and perspective is one that was hard-earned through cultivating the trust of the individuals with the stories of interest to us. It wasn't a book that was really meant for the hard-boiled UFO community, which could be understandably hard to swallow for someone like you, Chris, who have given so much of your life as a serious, dedicated paranormal investigator.

I'm going to posit that the difference in approach between JC Johnson and Ardy Sixkiller Clark is due to acquaintance/relationship, overall respect of their individual approach and perspective, and resulting credibility. I could come up with many other possible theories about what created the differences, but this is the most likely. And while it's fairly innocent, it's worth considering because I have to say I felt that Clarke was poorly treated. I totally respect that the questions have to be asked -- but unless a guest has proven themselves to be a total huckster (ie: the Twins) in short order, they are also deserving of our respect as human beings. If we're disrespectful because we're blinded by our community's agenda, it's a disservice to us all.

In Ardy's case, she's older, a female investigator (who, frankly, don't appear much on the Paracast) whose interest is more sociological and anthropological than it is UFOlogical, and she got flustered and understandably annoyed when things perpetually came back to pushing her about evidence. She was transparent about her motivations, she's a highly respected PhD. She's also a guest. OK -- so she couldn't quite live up to the moving-goalpost, rigorous attempts to elicit rational, factual, and evidentiary information that substantiated the claims made in the stories she'd collected. OK. So that kind of bites. But once established, find out what she DOES have to offer by stepping out of the narrow world-view that we sometimes hold, and keep the dialogue rolling.

If nothing else, be respectful and try to draw her out. She must have something to offer that is of interest or use. As kids, we'd've been admonished for being repeatedly rude to a guest simply because they didn't bring the toys we wanted them to; we didn't even ask them to bring specific toys, but when they don't read our mind it's their fault. We need to be better than that if we want to move forward and get anywhere. In our community, we can tend to be completely disrespectful on multiple levels because people didn't give the information we wanted or live up to our expectations.

 

[manxman]

Seriously? C'mon, you guys. Posting stuff like this isn't respectful to women who want to post here.

sheesh.


im glad i only said i wished i was her horse now, i was gonna say her tampon.

 

[Han]

I am not the internet police manxman but there is no need to be a *

*something that rhymes with the word we use to describe a ship, aeroplane, or truck designed to transport liquids (usually oil).

 

[manxman]

ok, so that one backfired han, manx humour doesnt travel well at times, amused me thinking that if something as pithy as a pic was too much for him, id cook his mind.

if she didnt want the pic taken, she wouldnt of posed for it.

your insult was much better, no-one likes to be thought of as a banker.

 

[Han]

This is a good point. You're right. Once again, I have to opt for the humanistic approach in all this, which I'm starting to realize is a viewpoint that is missing from many of these discussions, and may be necessary in order for us to understand them more fully so we can know what it is we're trying to wrap our heads around.

Ardy Sixkiller Clarke is a highly respected individual in the Native american community for very good reason. Her research and perspective is one that was hard-earned through cultivating the trust of the individuals with the stories of interest to us. It wasn't a book that was really meant for the hard-boiled UFO community, which could be understandably hard to swallow for someone like you, Chris, who have given so much of your life as a serious, dedicated paranormal investigator.

I'm going to posit that the difference in approach between JC Johnson and Ardy Sixkiller Clark is due to acquaintance/relationship, overall respect of their individual approach and perspective, and resulting credibility. I could come up with many other possible theories about what created the differences, but this is the most likely. And while it's fairly innocent, it's worth considering because I have to say I felt that Clarke was poorly treated. I totally respect that the questions have to be asked -- but unless a guest has proven themselves to be a total huckster (ie: the Twins) in short order, they are also deserving of our respect as human beings. If we're disrespectful because we're blinded by our community's agenda, it's a disservice to us all.

In Ardy's case, she's older, a female investigator (who, frankly, don't appear much on the Paracast) whose interest is more sociological and anthropological than it is UFOlogical, and she got flustered and understandably annoyed when things perpetually came back to pushing her about evidence. She was transparent about her motivations, she's a highly respected PhD. She's also a guest. OK -- so she couldn't quite live up to the moving-goalpost, rigorous attempts to elicit rational, factual, and evidentiary information that substantiated the claims made in the stories she'd collected. OK. So that kind of bites. But once established, find out what she DOES have to offer by stepping out of the narrow world-view that we sometimes hold, and keep the dialogue rolling.

If nothing else, be respectful and try to draw her out. She must have something to offer that is of interest or use. As kids, we'd've been admonished for being repeatedly rude to a guest simply because they didn't bring the toys we wanted them to; we didn't even ask them to bring specific toys, but when they don't read our mind it's their fault. We need to be better than that if we want to move forward and get anywhere. In our community, we can tend to be completely disrespectful on multiple levels because people didn't give the information we wanted or live up to our expectations.

I don't think it is fair to compare the J.C Johnson and Ardy Sixkiller Clarke interviews, I felt she was open, honest and well meaning when she was on the paracast and came across well, in fact I thought it was refreshing to hear someone say things like "I can only tell you what I was told"(or words to that effect.)

Conversely when MR Johnson was asked about the collection of potential evidence, he thought it wise to revert to childish humour to dodge a valid enquiry. If I recall correctly he said something like it is only possible to collect DNA from a scat sample if the Bigfoot has haemorrhoids, which whilst amusing it is very far from accurate. He also went on to talk about Bigfoot(s)/Bigfeet living in "family groups" and exhibiting behaviours like "grooming" which to my mind felt like an attempt to qualify his position that Bigfoot is a "primate".

The more I think about this the more umbrage I take, he is basically saying that he knows the approximate location of a large group of Bigfoot yet is unable to provide even the most basic of information, let alone evidence.

I cannot be alone in liking my Cool-aid a bit more honestly and skilfully delivered than the "Bigfoot is a primate variety."

 

[Han]

ok, so that one backfired han, manx humour doesnt travel well at times, amused me thinking that if something as pithy as a pic was too much for him, id cook his mind.

if she didnt want the pic taken, she wouldnt of posed for it.

you insult was much better, no-one likes to be thought of as a banker.

Lets move on and talk about the J.C. Johnson episode or Bigfoot

 

[manxman]

ok m8.
moving on.

i think bf would be a gentle lover.


no mas.

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

I don't think it is fair to compare the J.C Johnson and Ardy Sixkiller Clarke interviews, I felt she was open, honest and well meaning when she was on the paracast and came across well, in fact I thought it was refreshing to hear someone say things like "I can only tell you what I was told"(or words to that effect.)

Conversely when MR Johnson was asked about the collection of potential evidence, he thought it wise to revert to childish humour to dodge a valid enquiry. If I recall correctly he said something like it is only possible to collect DNA from a scat sample if the Bigfoot has haemorrhoids, which whilst amusing it is very far from accurate. He also went on to talk about Bigfoot(s)/Bigfeet living in "family groups" and exhibiting behaviours like "grooming" which to my mind felt like an attempt to qualify his position that Bigfoot is a "primate".

The more I think about this the more umbrage I take, he is basically saying that he knows the approximate location of a large group of Bigfoot yet is unable to provide even the most basic of information, let alone evidence.

I cannot be alone in liking my Cool-aid a bit more honestly and skilfully delivered than the "Bigfoot is a primate variety."

I totally get why you're miffed, Han. I feel it. And, for the record, I also appreciated and found Ardy Sixkiller Clarke refreshing, honest, and reasonable. She wasn't full of crap, and there are many reasons that JC Johnson would indeed come across that way.

Did you see my theory in the post above about what I think might be going on there? What do you think?

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

Lets move on and talk about the J.C. Johnson episode or Bigfoot

Thank you.

 

[manxman]

does anyone here believe bigfoot exist's, as in a real physical animal, thats really managed to avoid man all these years, in many different locations, im not mocking, i just want to know what makes you think he is out there.

 

[bobodean]

does anyone here believe bigfoot exist's, as in a real physical animal, thats really managed to avoid man all these years, in many different locations, im not mocking, i just want to know what makes you think he is out there.

Id like to believe, but when the accounts have so many holes in them...that makes it tough.
Show me a body and I will be on board

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

I have no idea if Bigfoot exists or not. It would seem it's possible, and the various theories presented all have reasons why they're plausible and entirely ridiculous. Often the plausibility is heavily influenced by who is presenting and how it's presented. Context has a lot to do with it, which tells us everything and nothing at all.

Here's what I think in general: we don't know much of anything. Anything that is "paranormal" in nature is still unknown to us. It just is.


Given that this is the case, why reject anything yet?


It's possible to hold many different viewpoints at once, and if you don't get too attached to any one idea or theory, the world's your oyster. The more open minded -- truly open minded -- we become, the more likely we are to begin to understand something.


Be skeptical -- absolutely. But skepticism at the expense of possibility is not a scientific, rational approach. It leads us into the same trap the "true believers" have fallen into. As human beings, we have a serious arrogance problem. If we cannot wrap our minds around it, we dismiss it, attribute it to something supernatural, or create other ideas and beliefs around it.


The truth is that we just don't understand it. We have to be able to live with not knowing in order to see anything clearly and without bias. That's how a genuinely scientific approach works. Even scientists don't have all the answers about things we've accepted as fact in the past. But we wouldn't be able to know that unless someone was willing to hold a flexible viewpoint in favor of simply finding truth.

 

[Jimi H.]

Like Lance says, my problem with Johnson's stories is not the story-telling itself, but the childish stabs at science and scientists which he employs to mask that he's simply a story-teller. For instance, the way he tries to ridicule those scientists in the field who don't take stories about living T-rex as anything but good stories. As if...
If he hadn't gone down the 'damned scientists'-road, I could have just enjoyed the story-telling for what it is.

Another thing that is beginning to bug me is this thing about how special and supernaturally magical place the four corners area is, frankly, it's starting to sound like an add from a tourist bureau selling bigfoot tours.

Yea, anyone who has been in the area knows it's magical, because the sculptured land is almost surreal, and feels ancient, it's the perfect counterpoint to our rational industrial life. So, I'll say the magic lies in the land itself, to the person who experiences it, it doesn't need stories about bigfoot or T-rex dinosaurs to be 'special', though they won't hurt around the camp-fire.
Don't give me that line about how only someone 'attuned' to the mystery, or who is 'open' will experience the real magic. Please don't suggest that people are not open to the wonder of the land because they don't walk around with their head full of native lore to the point where they can't seperate reality and imagination, perhaps imagination spurred by the burning sun, warm beer, or native potions.
In that regard, it is not so odd to me that many fantastical stories come from areas where many (also non-native) people seek mystical experiences through peyote-ceremonies or from the dizzying heat, the desert itself.

Finally, his story about a Skinwalker cult was chilling, it seemed the only credible story among the many others. Should be a fair warning to people desperate for mystical ceremonies and experiences.

 

[trainedobserver]

The pursuit of the paranormal is a fascination with folklore, plain and simple. Folklore and science seldom mix and when they do, they don't mix well. Paranormal and UFO buffs would probably be better served if we acknowledged the fact that tales of the paranormal are essentially folklore and should be treated as such.

 

[dyingsun]

Why do you say that? Do you not think it is worth one dead BF(it appears that they are everywhere) to settle this once and for all.... to show the scientific community that this is a real animal and needs to be studied? Really?

Have you got any proof it wouldn't be ?

 

[Jimi H.]

The pursuit of the paranormal is a fascination with folklore, plain and simple. ...

Yea, that's the conclusion I've come to also. Though all the devil/spirit-stories seem to come from believers in spiritism/Christian faiths, you could also call that a kind of folk-lore.

I've never quite understood the mixing of paranormal/UFO topics because the paranormal stories all have this mystical/faith based quality, but when it comes to the UFOs, there are actually genuine incidents (as far as I can tell) with physical, material craft. For instance, they get caught on radar, like in the Belgian UFO-wave. Of course, I didn't say they were 'alien craft', that's a matter of interpreting the circumstances of each event.

I feel that paranormal researchers sometimes take UFOs 'hostage', because to me, dealing with UFOs is about dealing with something tangible. Once you start connecting bigfoot etc to credible UFO events, you are really doing the UFO study a disservice, because, as you say, science and folk-lore doesn't mix well.

Perhaps I have been blinded by some good UFO stories, but I don't see the same fundamental connection between UFO research and folk-lore/beliefs. Otoh., I admit that the results of nuts-and-bolts UFO research hasn't gotton us very far in showing that something non-human is at play, so I understand if people begin to throw apples and orange into one bag, to look for a grand explanation for all these topics. I just don't think there is one grand explanation that will cover both material flying craft and weird paranormal experiences.

 

[pduchesne]

I have no idea if Bigfoot exists or not. It would seem it's possible, and the various theories presented all have reasons why they're plausible and entirely ridiculous. Often the plausibility is heavily influenced by who is presenting and how it's presented. Context has a lot to do with it, which tells us everything and nothing at all.

Here's what I think in general: we don't know much of anything. Anything that is "paranormal" in nature is still unknown to us. It just is.


Given that this is the case, why reject anything yet?


It's possible to hold many different viewpoints at once, and if you don't get too attached to any one idea or theory, the world's your oyster. The more open minded -- truly open minded -- we become, the more likely we are to begin to understand something.


Be skeptical -- absolutely. But skepticism at the expense of possibility is not a scientific, rational approach. It leads us into the same trap the "true believers" have fallen into. As human beings, we have a serious arrogance problem. If we cannot wrap our minds around it, we dismiss it, attribute it to something supernatural, or create other ideas and beliefs around it.


The truth is that we just don't understand it. We have to be able to live with not knowing in order to see anything clearly and without bias. That's how a genuinely scientific approach works. Even scientists don't have all the answers about things we've accepted as fact in the past. But we wouldn't be able to know that unless someone was willing to hold a flexible viewpoint in favor of simply finding truth.

This is the most rational statement I've seen in a while. I'd dare say that most, if not all, of mankind's greatest discoveries have been made by people with this attitude. That and really high I.Qs. If you don't think this way, then why would you waste your time listening to a radio show about "paranormal" topics?

 

[Jimi H.]

This is the most rational statement I've seen in a while. I'd dare say that most, if not all, of mankind's greatest discoveries have been made by people with this attitude. That and really high I.Qs. If you don't think this way, then why would you waste your time listening to a radio show about "paranormal" topics?

Hey man, I just saw a pink T-rex with angel-wings cross the parking lot outside the window of my mom's basement.

And if you don't believe that my story is at least possible, then you must be an irrational and close minded person.

Fair assessment?

 

[Han]

Hey man, I just saw a pink T-rex with angel-wings cross the parking lot outside the window of my mom's basement.

I know you are telling the truth because I was in a Flying Saucer observing, but sadly the space brothers did not let me take any EVIDENCE with me when they dropped me home .



From my standpoint there are many more similarities between the arguments for the existence of a "physical" Bigfoot and UFO's/"Flying Saucers"(from outer space) than is commonly acknowledged.

Rather than me listing all of the obvious similarities, I would be interested to know how they differ?

I find it strange that some people will entertain the possibility of "space brothers" but pour scorn on Bigfoot or similar "mystery" animals.

During my brief, shallow, amateur and "Armchair" research I have noticed one commonality that runs through ALL paranormal (and UFO for those who think they are separate) cases and that is: the human mind.

I believe that in time Science will be able to resolve any question, and the "paranormal" is no exception. However at present we have a limited understanding of the human "mind"* but to me at least an all encompassing explanation seems the most likely.

The issue I would most like to see resolved is:


In order to have a paranormal experience: is an "external" stimulus or stimuli required or are they the result of "internal" stimulus or stimuli? or is it a combination of both internal an external stimuli?


I want to make it clear that my opinion is that "folklore" is completely undervalued and is actually an essential part of being "human". I would argue that without stories and "belief" Humankind would not have been able to gain dominance of the "natural" world.


I think the issue I feel most strongly about is that: I care little about how much "truth" their is in an event or story that makes someone change their interaction with the world in a positive way. What I am trying to say is that I don't care if the source of a message to treat each other more humanely comes from Meier, Jesus or ET if as a result people behave better. I do take great exception when the "message" is a harmful one, like for example Morgellons "disease" or "don't worry about the destruction of the planet, because one day our space brothers/Jesus/etc will come and rescue us".

* In relation to other aspects of the Human Body.