March 15, 2015 — Linda Godfrey

[Gene Steinberg]

Linda Godfrey is a great storyteller, and she talked on this episode about loads of strange creatures that we should know more about.

Comments welcome.

 

[Standanista]

Excellent guest.

 

[LatentCauses]

What a fantastic guest - measured, eloquent, and comfortable with the dissonances in cryptozoology. A pleasure to listen to her.

These creatures must surely have one foot in our world, and the other in the imaginal...almost inconceivable that they might hide from us in this crowded and phone camera populated world.

If you can't shoot them or run them down in the car, disappearing into thin air in the process - but they stink (in the case of sasquatch) and otherwise have very physical attributes, surely we are dealing with a new category of matter?

 

[Wade]

Despite the disclaimer in the question bank

"...As with our previous session with Linda, this is going to be more about case histories than about theorizing..."

It seems to me you actually spent more time theorizing than discussing actual cases studies which is a good thing. The accounts are sometimes fascinating but i always like hearing the thoughts and opinions on the various angles (and possibly motives and agenda) the phenomena may exhibit.

It occured to me after I posted my question about the Beast of Gevaudan that with the caveat I haven't read a lot about the Dogman or Wolf hybrids ( or whatever they are ) it seems to me that unlike the Gevaudan Beast...for the record i sometimes wondered if it wasn't a mutant of some kind...which actually took a toll on the local populace , aside from a snarl or sneer of contempt there seems to be little in the way of aggressiveness when it comes to these feral(?) beings. In that it seems to mirror the phenomenon as a whole. If you want to consider the possibility of canine creatures , batsquatches, mothman and ufos all part of the same thing aside from the alien abduction aspect and what seems like accidently harm from radiation...which i wonder if it's just a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time...there is usually little physical harm done unless you're in South America or you're that poor bastard that got his legs eaten off by that lowland gorilla in the Gable film.

 

[wwkirk]

Linda was a great guest. Her tone was very reasonable

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Paracast+ subscription? $5/month. Batsquatch? Priceless.

 

[wwkirk]

Very meager discussion.

 

[Burnt State]

Very meager discussion.

Agreed. Maybe everyone has switched to posting on the Paracast+ site already?

The highlight in this episode for me was the sequence with Basement Billy. This was a classic example of the co-creation theory of paranormal experience. One witness sees a blob, a lightened sphere with some things sticking out of it, but the apartment owner sees the ghost of William in full dress. Do ghosts wear clothing for our sake, i wonder or is it because even the dead have public nudity issues?

I would be interested to know if Linda saw the blob first or if she saw that after the landlord saw William? Either way, the landlord sees what she expects to see, Basement Billy, a ghostly figure in clothes, but Linda has no expectations and no prior knowledge of what to see. Which witness influences the other? Would Godfrey have seen anything at all if she was on her own?

Either way, it demonstrates that the witness is where it's at, and we need more focus on who the witness is and what they bring to paranormal events. There may indeed have been a stimulus floating in midair, but there's a mystery perhaps easier to solve which is why they saw two different things.

 

[Crazy Old Lady]

I think that is a terrific point. I have this gut feeling that what we get out of any encounter, paranormal or otherwise, has a lot to do with what we bring to it in terms of our own psychological or even psychical baggage; in addition to our expectations. Why is it that two people can look at the same phenomena and have completely different interpretations of it, as in the Basement Billy case, or where one observer sees nothing and the other has a profound experience?
I know I've heard anecdotal accounts of two or three people seeing UFOs while a companion sees nothing. I think it's a function of the way the sentient brain functions. (I say sentient here because animals seem to be able to perceive far more than we can in many instances.) I have to admit that I've never had a visual encounter what anything that can be described as "high strange." (I don't count the exceedingly odd animal that was most likely either a mangy coyote or fox that looked like pictures of the Chucacabra that I found when I did a web search.)
I'd love to know what the crypto perceives? Which empirical experience is "real" to them?

 

[Polterwurst]

Yeah, it's unfortunate that sometimes discussions don't get off the ground. Speaking only for myself, I've never been too interested in "monster stories" and I was expecting the show to be nothing more than that, so I listened only a few days ago. It turned out to be very entertaining and interesting. Very good questions and highly intelligent replies. The lady has quite a wit on her and she definitely knows her stuff.

Of course, my ears pricked up when she talked about her possible ghost encounter (involving, of course, a light phenomenon that seemed to react to her ) and I'd really like to hear her answers to the questions Burnt State asked in his post above.

My best guess for an answer to the question of ghosts with clothing is that something is projecting an image of the deceased person into the consciousness of the witness. Maybe the image is derived from memory of the actual persons or of a painting or photograph.

I'm actually quite baffled by the sheer amount of these cryptid sightings. And, to be honest, sceptical. As far as I know, there's nothing comparable here in Germany. But if there are credible witnesses, as with UFOs, I'd say that what they experienced was probably paranormal (as in something projecting an image) rather than actual unknown species that have somehow managed to stay under the radar.

 

[Crazy Old Lady]

I find cryptids interesting as I've always been interested in the natural sciences. However, it's the paranormal aspect of zoology that sort of stumps me. I don't have too much trouble believing that animals (however strange) can be under the radar. It seems that new species (or rare ones that people thought were extinct) are popping up all the time. A few days ago, I saw that the "Ili Pika", a relative of the hare, was "rediscovered" in China, where it was thought to be extinct. (Web search it; it looks like a cross between a teddy bear and the Easter bunny.) And wasn't there a big discovery in the Himalayas where some hair that was supposed to be a Yeti, turned out to be an unknown and ancient relative of the polar bear? So animals, even large ones, can be new or misidentified. A large woodpecker, called the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, is currently under debate here in the Eastern US, as it was thought to be extinct 40 years ago, and now people have sworn to have seen and heard it.
It's the connection between UFOs, the Sasquatch (or Batsquatch), and these man-dogs/wolves that I find perplexing. I try to keep an open mind, especially about the multiverse aspects of physics, (I tend to favor a "closed" system for the high strange, rather than ET) but these things are totally outside my experience. Yet they are perceived by sane, reliable people. And I found Linda Godfrey's presentation and knowledge very engaging. I really enjoyed that show, and like you, I listen to the pod casts.

 

[Burnt State]

I'd love to know what the crypto perceives? Which empirical experience is "real" to them?

The best cases of paranormal lore have to be the ones where humans get noticed, or appear to be seen and responded to. Those provide an empirical sense that something is actually there. In this way the power of the UFO abduction (which I confess, I have a very difficult time in believing in it though I'm very moved by certain stories) is very intense. This is much more than just interaction, but actual control over the human, expressing an independent intelligence.

My best guess for an answer to the question of ghosts with clothing is that something is projecting an image of the deceased person into the consciousness of the witness. Maybe the image is derived from memory of the actual persons or of a painting or photograph.

Buddhism tells me, "the world is projection," and so I can't help but ask why we always imbue the paranormal stimulus with so many extra abilities? While I'm quite open to the reality of the stimulus in Paranormal circumstances I also favour a closed system hypothesis. In such a system it seems to me that we are the ones doing the projecting. We dress the ghost in clothes, and might even be 'creatively' seeing the portholes in the spaceships.

I really like ghost stories about haunted places - you know, those locations where the civil war gets refought by apparitions. These places have their own power, perhaps even a power over the witness. Do we see what we expect to see I keep asking myself.

I would have been highly impressed if Godfrey saw Billy in full dress without knowing beforehand anything about Billy. That's the true power of the UFO encounter, as rarely do we ever go somewhere expecting to see a UFO. Instead they just happen upon us and that's where those really high strange cases deserve the most investigative energy, to better ascertain what that ghost in the machine is all about. Because if the ghost is there, and the ghost is not naked, and if we're not really chasing our future (b/c we all will die some day) then I want to know its source and what it's up to.

 

[Polterwurst]

Buddhism tells me, "the world is projection," and so I can't help but ask why we always imbue the paranormal stimulus with so many extra abilities? While I'm quite open to the reality of the stimulus in Paranormal circumstances I also favour a closed system hypothesis. In such a system it seems to me that we are the ones doing the projecting. We dress the ghost in clothes, and might even be 'creatively' seeing the portholes in the spaceships.

The something in my post might well be the witness' subconscious itself, or maybe what some spiritists call the "higher self". I wouldn't exclude that anywhere. But I'd still say that there is also very likely an outside stimulus. Something was there in the cellar with Mrs Godfrey and the landlady at least causing the image indirectly, maybe not projecting it itself. Or Mrs G saw an actual physical representation at the time (remember the light phenomena photographed in the Entity case, I don't think these were projections) and the latter saw a projection from her own subconscious? Hm. Although by that time Mrs Godfrey should have had an image of Billy in her subconscious too... *sigh* nothing but speculations, once again.

 

[Burnt State]

I remember this photo well but for some reason do not recall the second one posted below. This photo, as the does the entire case, completely confuses me. The focus of the activity, and the fact that the case itself is loaded with a lot of trauma, led Taft to conclude that she was not just the focus of the activity but quite possibly the origin of the poltergeist as well. The case is painful to read through especially with the sexual overtones that come along with it. It is a very disturbing case and points directly to how emotion and personal destabilization can contribute greatly to paranormal hell. When you look at the photos do you have the sense that everyone is also looking at these lights? In Taft's notes about these photos he says that they did not see these arcs at all but saw a luminous green light flitting about - so what was captured photographically is not what was seen at all.

From Taft's notes:

In this second photo, is an extraordinary image of luminous arc over Doris Bither's head. We did not visually observe this arc. In all likelihood, the reason an arc was captured here is probably because we weren't shooting fast enough in terms of our shutter speed and therefore the resulting image was essentially a time-lapse shot, similar to what occurs if you take a time exposure of stars at night without a moving platform...you get streaks.

But what's really extraordinary about this particular shot is that if you look behind the arc you'll notice that the walls meet at a 90-degree angle, which means that if this arc was a projected light source as if by hoax, it would have been bent in accordance with the wall upon which the image would have fallen.
The Paradoxical Entity Case Photographs

If I had to think skeptically about this i would acknowledge that what he's saying is true - these are not projections but appear to be midair streaks. The only way this could be accomplished would have to be in the darkroom where you could create such smears of light while developing the negatives. I've never seen the negs of these images. Does anyone know if they are published anywhere or not?

But there is an specific problem with Taft's explanation: if in fact these are longer exposures that are capturing light balls that are moving through space then why are we not seeing people's faces move, watching the lights flit from one part of the room to the other? Really, at least everyone (or most who are seeing the lights) should have their faces and bodies in motion as they watch the balls of light move from one area of the room to another. I would also expect to see shock and confusion on their faces but some don't even appear to be acknowledging these ghostly lights with appropriate shock and awe - so what's up with that?

 

[Crazy Old Lady]

I recall reading about this case in Dr. Taft's book, too. I'm not sure that I agree that the people who were doing the investigation are not aware of, or watching the lights. The standing woman on the left, and the two men on the right seem to be watching something intently, and as the room is small, and crowded, there doesn't seem to be much opportunity to move about. If I recall this case correctly, Dr. Taft said that the balls of light appeared more opaque and three dimensional than simply moving light sources. It could be that the investigators had seem these phenomena before and were thus not particularly shocked.
What was actually causing the phenomena is another story. The circumstances surrounding the case were indeed disturbing, as I recall, and it may be telling that while Doris Bither's sons were not, I think, present when Dr. Taft was there, she was. That something external to the people involved in the investigation was present seems certain. However, do emotionally fraught and disturbed individuals draw such things to them? It's not outside the realm of possibility, in my opinion. Just wondering aloud, as it were.

 

[Polterwurst]

But there is an specific problem with Taft's explanation: if in fact these are longer exposures that are capturing light balls that are moving through space then why are we not seeing people's faces move, watching the lights flit from one part of the room to the other?

For the reasons you stated, these are obviouly not longer exposures. But as far as I know, Dr Taft doesn't say that at all. I guess when he says these are "essentially time-lapse photos" he means that the lights must have been zipping around so fast that they only appear as streaks despite of the relatively normal exposure times, similar to what happens with long exposures on astronomical photos (where the exposure time is much longer). Which would explain why people are not looking in the direction of the arcs: they probably only saw undetermined flashes of light, too fast to follow.

There were photos of light blobs hanging in mid air and at ground level, too, but I can't seem to find those. They don't look like much, though, and can easily be explained away, maybe that's why he took them down.

 

[Burnt State]

For the reasons you stated, these are obviouly not longer exposures. But as far as I know, Dr Taft doesn't say that at all. I guess when he says these are "essentially time-lapse photos" he means that the lights must have been zipping around so fast that they only appear as streaks despite of the relatively normal exposure times, similar to what happens with long exposures on astronomical photos (where the exposure time is much longer). Which would explain why people are not looking in the direction of the arcs: they probably only saw undetermined flashes of light, too fast to follow.

There were photos of light blobs hanging in mid air and at ground level, too, but I can't seem to find those. They don't look like much, though, and can easily be explained away, maybe that's why he took them down.

There is one light blob photo on that link I posted with the photos where Taft does explain things in detail regarding the lights. I agree that it would have to be the speed of the light that would create this though the fascination for me is that, as he describes, what's on the film has nothing to do with what they saw - in fact not even close. How does that work? What were those lights? What are the streaks - as that's a very large set of streaks. Probably one of the most interesting, and well detailed paranormal cases IMHO.

 

[Burnt State]

I recall reading about this case in Dr. Taft's book, too. I'm not sure that I agree that the people who were doing the investigation are not aware of, or watching the lights. The standing woman on the left, and the two men on the right seem to be watching something intently, and as the room is small, and crowded, there doesn't seem to be much opportunity to move about. If I recall this case correctly, Dr. Taft said that the balls of light appeared more opaque and three dimensional than simply moving light sources. It could be that the investigators had seem these phenomena before and were thus not particularly shocked.
What was actually causing the phenomena is another story. The circumstances surrounding the case were indeed disturbing, as I recall, and it may be telling that while Doris Bither's sons were not, I think, present when Dr. Taft was there, she was. That something external to the people involved in the investigation was present seems certain. However, do emotionally fraught and disturbed individuals draw such things to them? It's not outside the realm of possibility, in my opinion. Just wondering aloud, as it were.

Taft has always stated that she was the source of the disturbance and that she herself was disturbed. Personally, I'm a firm believer that when we are living through sustained, high trauma we compensate and decompensate in all sorts of ways, even in ways that we don't understand or don't know about. Our brain will happily split itself in two and say and do things that the other half is not aware of. The sexual assault aspects of this story and the role of the sons in all this mess has always remained a question in my mind.

The image of Doris up above says it all to me. She was the spectacle on display, the centre of the action as it were and there's already something highly exploitative about that situation. I don't see therapy here at work. I see a troubled person who may in fact have manifested some moments of what I would describe as discontinuous reality. I have not read the book but heard Taft and read his online notes many times - it would not surprise me to know that other people were also "seeing things" given the tone and violent context of the situation.

There is however these bits of physical evidence to explain what to make of the lights and bruises and bite marks?

There is also Doris' full and complete story which we do not have. Perhaps she does not have it either? But what we do have is her reported bio: that is one of being an abused child, and later suffered abuse from men. Her own home was a place of constant fighting between sons and her as well. The skeptical part of me that reads her son's interview about the situation says that the abuse taking place in the home at the time, that was attributed to spirits, has more to do with the cycles of abuse in Doris' life story (her childhood, her lived experiences and what was passed down to her family) than anything paranormal. Someone has to be making these marks - I would say it was someone human.

People who have lived through such traumas must make up other narratives about their reality in order to compensate for the reality they can't own up to. Whether Doris is processing past abuse or even current abuse in the entity situation, the main entity I see at work here is family abuse and sexual abuse. Those are complex spaces and only more twisted realities unfold from such sources when healing is not taking place. Yes, the lights in the photos confuse me, but I think i'm more confused about how it is that real therapy isn't the first order of business in such situations instead of the investigation turned spectacle. Call me cynical but that's how it looks to me.

 

[Crazy Old Lady]

Burnt State said "I think i'm more confused about how it is that real therapy isn't the first order of business"

I couldn't agree more. While this is a famous case of paranormal incidences, it seems that the psychiatric pathology cries out to be addressed. To be honest, I didn't recall the bites and Ms. Bither's history of physical and sexual abuse, as it's been quite awhile since I read Dr. Taft's book. I did recall that there was an unsavory sexual dynamic in the paranormal attacks. Does it seem that in many (though I admit not all) of the more spectacular paranormal displays, there is a very disturbed or distressed familial situation? This seems especially evident in poltergeist activity - that, and the presence of an adolescent. Talk about the mind effecting the macro-world - or attracting something that does. Those flying lights and streaks are hard to explain in any other way, unless they too are a manifestation from the mind, made visible.
That other case that was on the Paracast recently, "The Most Haunted House in the World" comes to mind, where it was a young girl who was the center of poltergeist activity. Wow, has this discussion ever strayed from Linda Godfrey.