Witness Ridicule

Witness Ridicule: A Summary

by Christine Bruun

Information for this article was taken from an article written by Dr. Ron Westrum, Ph.D., Sociology Department, Eastern Michigan University, and an interview with Dr. Matthew Johnson, (recent witness to a RARE EVENT)

In his article, Dr. Westrum aptly discusses this major issue which faces each witness who encounters or experiences a Bigfoot sighting. In his article he explains that with each report comes the dilemma of whether to report or to say nothing out of fear of ridicule.

He suggests that when a witness gives into the fear of ridicule and chooses not to report the incident, he undermines "the reliability of his own mind or senses."

Dr. Matthew Johnson, a recent witness in a sighting at the Oregon Caves south of Grants Pass, Oregon, who also happens to be a clinical psychologist in private practice, is concerned about Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and feels that it is important to report the incident and to deal with the emotional trauma caused by the experience. In light of Dr. Johnson's concerns, how emotionally damaging could it be to witnesses to risk the ridicule by reporting their experience and then to be ridiculed by the Bigfoot Community who benefits from their report?

Dr. Westrum, in his article, titled Sasquatch and Scientists, discusses how this initial response, by media, the Bigfoot community, and by the public, to a legitimate report, is colored by the many hoaxes that have been perpetrated on unsuspecting researchers, thus putting the legitimate witness at a disadvantage right from the beginning. For, instead of their report being accepted on its own merits, the witness has to hurdle the preconceived prejudices created by the hoaxers.

Researchers, hesitant to put their hard earned reputations on the line, conduct their research, whether it is in the field or within the context of the interview, as if it is a hoax.

He emphasizes the obvious hesitancy on the part of the scientific community to acknowledge Bigfoot's existence and therefore their reluctance throws a pall on the research that is going on by putting it in the same category as ghosts and UFO's. It is this stigma that creates an air of illegitimacy that is difficult for the dedicated Bigfoot researcher to overcome and creates the circus atmosphere surrounding most reports.

He emphasizes that he uses the word, anomaly to "describe events that are impossible" from within the limits that a particular culture sets for itself. He goes on to explain that an anomaly "is an event that is not supposed to happen." Because of this, it brings with it a whole realm of problems for the witness.

Dr. Westrum explains that the witness may have a hard time recognizing that it is an anomaly. He may try to test his own perceptions in many different ways.

He puts a sighting or other Bigfoot-type experience into three distinctive categories. He places them under the heading of a RARE EVENT. Dr. Westrum further explains that a RARE EVENT #1 "may be known to science, #2 an event, which is unknown to science but conforms to current scientific theory, or #3 an event which is unknown to science and which does not conform to current scientific theory."

Dr Westrum is very clear about the criteria for categorizing events. He suggests that these RARE EVENTS are considered to be anomalies "only because the witness does not believe they are scientifically acceptable. " He uses type #1 as a control group because all RARE EVENTS have these phenomena have the same basic structure as the other two.

He gives several examples of a RARE EVENT type #1: "Meteorite, ball lightning, sightings by persons who did not realize that these events are known to science."

Type #2: Sasquatch, sea serpents, and in fact the whole area that Bernard Heuvelmans has referred to as "Cryptozoology."

It is explains that sea serpents are not impossible by biological standards. He provides an example of one such sea serpent that has existed in prehistoric times, the mosasaurs. So, it is within the realm of possibility that one could exist. I am sure that this same biological standard can be used to promote Bigfoot's possible existence. (And I believe that this is the exact place where all investigations should begin--for Bigfoot is within the realm of possibility.

There is a third type of RARE EVENT explained by Dr. Westrum as first suggested by Marcello Truzzi. This is the "parascientific" type of event since Dr. Westrum states that these events, " go beyond current scientific theory". Westrum suggests that "some physicists would consider ball lightning parascientific, for there is no adequate theory to explain its occurrence.

Despite their differences, experiencing any of these RARE EVENTS can "evoke similar reactions" regardless of which type of event the witness is experiencing. The usual result seems to be a feeling that acknowledging this experience will label them as socially unacceptable. Because of this the witness faces a major moral and emotional crisis-- to report or not to report.

Dr. Westrum further explains that the witness will experience a great inner conflict between what he knows and believes and what he experiences. He also suggests that the more extraordinary the event, the harder it is for the witness to vanquish the inner conflict.

According to Dr. Westrum there are many ways the witness will reconcile the conflicts. The witness may deny the experience all together. He/she may try and change their beliefs concerning the event. Or they may, (and this is the typical course of action), they will seek our a trusted friend or family member to confide in. They do this for validation, advice or to ultimately convince themselves and those who they confide in that they really did experience what they thought they experienced.

Westrum also suggests that it is the reaction of this confidant that will ultimately determine whether they report the incident or not.

In Dr. Matthew Johnson's case, he followed closely along this same path. He first consulted with his wife, someone he could trust and who he know would be sympathetic and non judgmental. She was the catalyst that gave him the courage and the needed support to take the next step). After gaining her acceptance and support, he took a cautious step to inform the local forest ranger. The risk was lessoned by the support of his wife.

Only after getting a positive reaction from the forest ranger, who validated his experience and even suggested reading material to further bolster his experience, he was capable of taking an even riskier step, taking it to the public and the researchers.

Had he received negative feedback anywhere during the cautious steps he made, he may well not have had the courage to come forward with his report.

Before the conflicts are truly resolved for the witness, bringing it to the public is crucial. And that is where the researcher comes in. The witness is still in conflict within himself. He is still trying to convince himself that it really happened. So, naturally he is going to have to take it to an expert or to the media in an attempt at receiving validation that will somehow end the inner conflict.

At this point he is very vulnerable. He is putting himself in harms way. He is allowing himself to be ridiculed and scoffed at, and humiliated. Researchers and media hold a lot of power in their hands when dealing with a witness. They have the power to destroy not just the experience, but the fragile belief system and trust that person has within themselves.

Westrum quotes from Captain George Drevar, from whose ship, the 'Pauline", a sea-serpent was sighted in 1875, complained that: "It is easy for such a paper to make any man, good, great, or interesting, look ridiculous. Little wonder is it that my relatives write saying that they would have seen a hundred sea-serpents and never reported it; and a lady also wrote that she pities anyone related to anyone that had seen the sea-serpent" (Not much seems to have changed since 1875!)

I mentioned a moral obligation to report the incident earlier in this summary. Westrum talks about a witnesses civic duty as a motivation to report an incident. It is known that despite the fact that 43% of those reporting UFO sightings do so out of civic duty, (documented as the number one reason for making the report), nearly 87% of the sightings go unreported out of fear of bad treatment by the press and the public in general. ( I think it would be fare to transfer those same figures to the Sasquatch phenomena.)

Dr. Johnson certainly felt it his civic duty to report his encounter with Bigfoot. In fact, he suggested that it was his moral duty to help others who had suffered because of their experience. There again, he falls right in line with Dr. Westrum's theory.

Dr. Westrum further states that the witness "is very unlikely to be rewarded for making the report, except in the achievement of notoriety. Hence, the person who experiences a RARE EVENT is rewarded for keeping quiet and acting as a buffer for the rest of society from reports of RARE EVENTS."

This then provides no closure for the witness who ends up not knowing if his anomaly was an optical illusion, an hallucination, or simple a rare phenomenon. Westrum does express a positive side to the Bigfoot experiences. He suggests that because there have been a good many such sightings over the years, the witness is in good company and does not have to feel alone. This, in itself, provides some closure and some validation for the witness.

Dr. Matthew Johnson is also concerned with the isolation that can come from experiencing a RARE EVENT such as a Bigfoot sighting. He is determined to change this problem and provide a support group of similarly fortunate, (or unfortunate, depending on the witnesses experience), people who have experienced being in the presence of this elusive creature.

Dr. Westrum explains that "finding out that other persons are having the same experience can thus be very important for one's self esteem and for the esteem of ones friends." The reports of others are also likely to make a witness more willing to report. Dr. Westrum calls this willingness to make reports because others are reporting, the "report release phenomenon".

In fact, he states that a flurry past sightings that had not previous been reported will emerge right after a current sighting report, especially if there is a lot of media coverage of the sighting. He suggests that many researchers and media see this "me to" flurry of reports as evidence as evidence of their fraudulence. He agrees that in some cases this is so. However, he cautions that it may simply be a "sense of relief...". He suggests that it is a heavy burden, carrying around this extraordinary experience and not being able to bring it out into the light. A researcher should not prejudge any such "me to" report on this level. They should each stand alone on their own merits.

There is another reward connected with the "me to" reports-- The researcher or reporter as well as the witness, receives a great deal of media attention from the report. This leads many people, searching for notoriety to defraud the public in order to gain their fifteen minutes of fame. While this should always be a concern when investigating any report, it should not be the paramount motivation behind the investigation. The truth is the goal, what ever that truth is.

I asked Dr. Johnson what a researcher should look for in evaluating a witness for fraud. He suggested that it was nearly impossible to discern falsehood from an interview. He suggested that there are many people who are so good at lying that they really believe what they are saying. The lie becomes their reality.

Dr. Westrum states, "For instance, in regard to Sasquatch reports, we find persons making up stories that they have seen "Bigfoot", making false tracks, and occasionally running around in costumes that will fool a casual observer. Doubtless a study of the persons who thus fabricate anomalous events would be interesting from a variety of perspectives. However, since we do not have such a study, we can only examine the consequences of such hoaxing."

Fortunately, Dr. Westrum explains in his article, the perpetrators are usually discovered and the hoaxed brought out before too much damage is done. However, having to make a legitimate report following one that has been proven to be fake, is likely to create a atmosphere of negativism in the researchers and the media, thus, "the fraudulent report is thus likely to constrict the reporting process."

This is just a brief summary of a very large article. I cannot begin to address every issue that Dr. Westrum brings up in this summary. I feel it is one of the most important articles that we, as researchers have at our disposal that addresses the issues we face in investigating reports and sightings. Dr. Westrum provides information we can use in evaluating a report as well as dealing one on one with the witness. He explains what goes into a sighting as well as the making of a report. He addresses the role of the investigator as well as the media. He provides us with insight and information that we must embrace in order to do our job well. I feel this should be must reading for all researchers as well as lay persons and arm chair enthusiasts.

If this summary peaks your desire to know more of what is in Dr. Westrum's article, you can read it in its entirety at: www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot left frame under "Biology & Papers titled Sasquatch and Scientists.

Christine/ Sasquatch Watch

Bigfoot-Welcome-Mat - New to our site and worth the time to check it out! We think this product is so great we have put the Bigfoot Welcome Mats links on our pages!

Search: Enter keywords...

You can find any book, video, or CD, even toys & gifts that you need by typing your key word in the text box and clicking on our Search button.

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to find out more, then

email us at Cactus Ventures Mail Room

[©Cactus Ventures Home] [Science & Animals] [Kids only] [Endangered Species] [Gifts for Adults] [Marriage] [Our Store] [Stencil Central] [Stickers] [Gifts for Kids] [Angels] [Singles Only] [Electric Vehicles]

Sasquatch Watch