Reality Checking—Alternate Perceptions Magazine, April 2026
Delving into the High Strange: Struggling with Things that are sometimes stranger than we can fully process
by: Brent Raynes
It often happens. Say a ufologist interviews a UFO claimant and in the course of the exchange the claimant happens to mention, in addition to the alleged UFO encounter, “I also saw a Bigfoot running across my lawn.” Or, say it was, “My home erupted with poltergeist activity,” or shadow people or other ghostly or paranormal occurrences?
Often the average “ufologist” will ignore the cryptid and “paranormal” disclosures and will stick strictly with the UFO testimony, just as the cryptologist or psychic researchers will often ignore the UFO or other details that may emerge in their investigations that are outside of their particular field of specialization.
But what if these assorted and different reported anomalies were all regarded as pure bunk by the majority of psychologists and psychiatrists? Should the ufologist, cryptozoologist, or the parapsychologist justifiably ignore their statements? Are such dismissive conclusions and approaches to the possibility of credible people reporting certain incredible and anomalous experiences substantial enough? Are many of us uncomfortable with the possibility that there might indeed be some true underlying reality to such claims that we may go out of our way to ignore or dismiss them? What objective justification do we have for dismissal of such claims that we haven’t even personally looked into? Is our understanding of what’s behind such claims truly comprehensive and sufficiently established and proven that we can dismiss any of it without conducting more than a half-baked belief ridden and biased appraisal of such?
That is certainly not the standard of how we are to approve or disprove things we don’t fully understand or “believe.” Not until we’ve given it full and comprehensive scientific and thoughtful scrutiny and done so following the objective guidelines that are considered the cornerstone of such methodology and scrutiny.
Journalist John Keel some half a century ago claimed ufology was an infant belief-ridden pseudoscience and the current situation in this field (and those others of the anomaly brand) have yet in many branches of it to reflect truly promising improvement. Many continue to only pursue and embrace evidence that fits their particular beliefs and subjective conclusions and criteria.
We must strive to leave no stone unturned.
And remember too, as journalist John Keel wrote in The Mothman Prophecies (1975), “Belief is the enemy.” It makes for a useful mantra of sorts. All of us have our general beliefs and basic understandings about things, which gets a lot of us by in our lives, from our jobs, family care and support, health care, religious beliefs, politics – our efforts to distinguish right from wrong, and hopefully do what’s right in our lives for ourselves and those around us. We should want to be fair, honest, and present on a solid footing always.
However, there are times when we may confront things that we are unsure of, that may be disconcerting – that may go against the grain with us and our sense of right. In our research and investigations into reported UFO phenomena and other anomalous seeming things, the serious, sincere, stable and fair-minded researcher and investigator of such matters must strive to walk the middle line between extremes of belief and skepticism. As I write this, I have read several recent news stories of how our Vice-President J.D. Vance believes demons are behind UFO phenomena, and we’ve read how reportedly some in the Pentagon are clinging to the demonic belief, and I can’t help but be concerned that with the growing effort to ban certain books from libraries that UFOs, parapsychology, and cryptids might end up on the chopping block as well. Whatever happens, the disclosure effort is something I worry isn’t going to have a good outcome. Politics, religious beliefs, and science trying to work together on a problem of any complexity and controversy tend to ofttimes short circuit themselves. We must be allowed to follow objective and proper guidelines in any critical and scientific review of evidence.
Can I get an Amen?
