UFO Conjectures

Saturday, January 07, 2023

An explication of The Distortion Theory: IN SEARCH OF THE "ENGINE" OF CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH UFOS by José Antonio Caravaca

Copyright 2023, José Antonio Caravaca

Over the years I have noted, among various amateurs and researchers, that there are two erroneous ways of understanding what the Distortion Theory (TD) is trying to propose. The first of these interpretations has led many enthusiasts to believe that it is an idea that posits a purely psychological origin to explain the UFO phenomenon. This would be tantamount to saying that the ufological episodes would be something like a hallucination or mental disorder that leads witnesses to imagine or project a fictitious UFO encounter under their noses. In short, UFOs do not exist. And that is why many TD detractors continually resort to questions about the materiality of the UFO phenomenon to demolish my arguments.

Obviously this assumption can only arise from a hasty and unmeasured reading of my studies. But that is not all. There is another misinterpretation of TD that is even more reckless than the previous one. Some ufologists have stated that what TD outlines is identical to what is offered in the works of Vallée, Keel, Grosso, Clark, Evans, Jung, Casas-Huguet or Freixedo, and that, therefore, there are no important differences or novelties with what was previously exposed. However, like their predecessors who contemplate TD as a skeptical proposal, these researchers have not even bothered to read my writings calmly, and the odd illiterate has allowed himself to be dragged along by his baser passions to criticize my contributions.

Let's start at the beginning to clarify what we may or may not find in the Distortion Theory. The first thing is that the TD does not arise to propose an origin of the UFO phenomenon, but its purpose was to study in depth the close encounters with flying saucers and their occupants to try to understand their operation in the hope of finding hidden clues. So the main focus and effort of my research has been on dissecting the episodes of closest proximity to UFOs, and trying to locate common patterns. This is, roughly speaking, the field of action of TD. And all this, starting from the basis of that axiom that assured, for several decades, that the content of the ufological experiences had a high component of human socio-cultural factors that would point to the participation, in some way, of the witnesses in the fabrication of the close encounters. That the UFO witness accounts had a patina too close to our civilization to overlook. That the similarity of the extraterrestrials to our science and customs was an imposture, even a theatrics deployed by the ufonauts for superlative or sinister purposes. A papier-mâché scenery.

But this idea, being essentially true, had originated many and varied reasonings that did not end up materializing. At least in something that could be backed up by a study. And it was not a minor issue. Since this aspect had, according to each scholar, a probable interpretation. The same was said that this unviable cultural reflection in a hypothetical alien civilization was the result of the manifestation of the collective unconscious (Jung), as it was attributed to an almighty control system (Vallée) that entangled us in a game of mirrors. There were also those who argued that UFOs were an uncontrolled parapsychological phenomenon (Clark/Viéroudy), a mental projection that solidifies thoughts and beliefs in the sky. The range of possibilities was also open to the existence of a sophisticated camouflage system, whether extraterrestrial, demonic or dimensional (Freixedo/Guérin) or, even other researchers claimed that UFO encounters were the result of a burlesque cosmic theater (Keel/Darnaude), which, like Chinese shadows, interpreted artificial and fallacious roles that we could not unravel. But all these cabals were not perfectly aligned with the casuistry. They just went to the heart of the problem. Everyone admitted that there was something human about the UFO phenomenon, and the way was open for a brainstorming session. This fact was not analyzed in depth in order to be able to draw more accurate or at least more precise conclusions.

That is why I embarked for several decades on the elaboration of TD.  I wanted to see where the analysis of the sociocultural factor would take us. A detail that was not disputed by any scholar. From the most orthodox to the most dissatisfied with the extraterrestrial hypothesis, everyone was aware that our flying saucers and their crazy occupants had an all-too-human odor. It was neither possible, nor sensible, that aliens coming from some remote part of the galaxy would have ray guns, scorpion guns, antennas and aluminum ladders. Or that their conversations incorporate human gestures or barroom banter. Let alone that today our technology of 2023 has almost surpassed many of the features noted in the cases of past decades. But there was no unification of criteria to assess this devastating effect. Even the concept itself was not clear. Since it was also said that it could be an error of perception, a cognitive failure in front of the phenomenon or perhaps some problem with our memory when reliving an experience totally out of the range of the known. And of course the skeptics (Monnerie) replied that this "humanizing" effect was a proof that the whole UFO issue was a complete fallacy, a mixture of deception, sensationalism, ufologists' malpractice and even a cultural contagion that made people imagine their encounters awake.

But TD aspired to go beyond the first layers and try to locate the source and purpose of this so-called "cultural contagion". Because it had to start somewhere. If it took this step, it could decipher the real "engine" that generates this type of highly anomalous events. And only by being clear about this first and decisive step, we could discard or choose, with certain guarantees, supposed origins for the UFO phenomenon.

Because with the simple admission of that cultural factor we are going nowhere. I repeat. Only its correct interpretation can yield effective results. And that is why TD cannot be the same as that defended by some of the notable researchers cited above, since none of them addressed a comprehensive study of this issue. My starting point was on a different ground, perhaps closer to what Monnerie enunciated in his psychosocial hypothesis than to any other conjecture. But it still has its differences, since the Frenchman's ideas completely eliminated the exogenous factor from the equation.

And although the argumentation to vertebrate the TD is in consonance with some of the theoretical works exposed throughout the years, its arrangement and interpretation is substantially different. And we can verify it in the points defended by the TD that have been established according to the scrutiny of the ufological casuistry:

1.- Close encounters with UFOs have nothing to do with extraterrestrial visitors who have come to our planet aboard spaceships using an excellent technology. But neither is it the result of a Control System that, through different anomalous manifestations, intends to control, channel, manipulate or interfere with humanity. Any possibility that includes the participation of some kind of spiritual or dimensional entities should also be discarded, as well as that which supports an exclusively parapsychological process or the omniprotective help of Carl Jung's collective unconscious.

Close encounters with UFOs are highly subjective and creative experiences that are related to other types of supernatural visionary experiences that have occurred throughout history, and that have had strange entities, creatures and beings as protagonists. All events are sporadic, unpredictable and random, with nothing recorded in the course of an experience having any real consistency in our world (or yours).

We are facing an unknown parapsychic process whose result is a highly moldable experience, where the human psyche interacts unconsciously with the phenomenon, giving it a certain aesthetic in an attempt to decode the source of the same. Our socio-cultural stereotypes, especially of the mythological, folkloric, religious, philosophical and supernatural order seem to be the elements used by our unconscious to recompose a scene that tries to order the experiential content. And what does this mean? Very simple and easy to understand. That what is observed during a UFO encounter, as well as in other kinds of fortean incidents, would be a simple vehicle of transmission of information that can get lost in the sensory noise created by our psychic interference. Therefore, at this point we must clarify that the scenario exposed in the close encounters does not obey to a brilliant resource of the UFO phenomenon to camouflage its true aesthetics (essence) before the observers. Nor is there an intentionality in showing a certain aspect to deceive the witnesses according to the time of the manifestation.

The paranormal component is a drift, perhaps the most important one, caused by the involvement of the human psyche in the decoding of this expanded reality accessed by the witnesses during the fleeting contact with an undetermined external agent, which may ultimately be the instigator, detonator or enhancer of these visionary episodes (not hallucinatory or imaginary).

If this thesis is true, its main conclusion distances us from most of the approaches established so far, since the uniqueness of the phenomenon does not lie in what we see. That would be only a reflection. A process. An automatism. The authentic reality of these manifestations transcends completely the external appearance that we register enthusiastically for the spectacularity of the "special effects", whether they are extraterrestrial ships or spiritual entities. We believe at face value the literalness of the image, both in its most obvious meaning and in the derivations that its procedure incites. But the most feasible thing is that the truly cardinal of the experiences is what we have labeled as epiphenomena or collateral effects (PSI development, clairvoyance, space-time anomalies, etc.). What we have noted down in our field notebooks, however attractive it may be, is still a powerful sociocultural decoding, where the witness contributes most of the content exposed before his eyes in a co-creation that gives rise to a psychic architecture.

Therefore any analysis or hypothesis, even reinterpretations of what is obtained or developed from these superficial layers of the manifestation, are inconclusive, inaccurate and illusory. Neither the image nor most of the information content of these apparitions are caused by the phenomenon per se, therefore we build castles in the air when we try to create typologies or extract patterns from the behaviors of the ufonauts. The process at hand is not the phenomenon itself. Therefore, the shape of the UFOs, the clothing and behavior of the ufonauts, the messages, symbols and other narrative and aesthetic elements that we find embedded in a ufological story are nothing more than mere ideographic screens whose analysis can only lead us to dead ends.  To a dead end. The ufological episodes are personalized interactions with the phenomenon that cannot be integrated into a phenomenological whole from a conventional point of view. We can find neither continuity nor coherence, since each psyche will respond, interpret and develop the manifestation under individual parameters. And this would explain the non-repetition of ships and crews that undergo constant modifications, as if adapting to each individual.

The investigation of the UFO casuistry must be carried out case by case, taking into account that each witness will obtain a different result in his or her personal and non-transferable attempt to decode this expanded reality. And even if a large group of witnesses use the same stereotypes to make this reading, the results will never be the same. The stereotypes only work as a filter, they are not a fixed and immovable scheme, so that even if different witnesses use the same concept, in our case the idea of the arrival of extraterrestrials on Earth, they can never obtain the same result, nor of course get a perfect continuation of a process executed previously. This tells us that the phenomenon is incapable of transferring the same concepts from one place to another. Information does not travel from one place to another.

To arrive at these deductions I have had to dissect a good number of close encounters with UFOs to understand how the transfer of information between the subject and the phenomenon can occur. And to do this I have synthesized the visual and narrative content of these experiences to make comparisons with the material surrounding the witnesses. With the intention of seeing the direction of transmission (witness/phenomenon or phenomenon/witness). This detail is more substantial than it seems. It was necessary to find out where exactly the information that made up the ufological scenography came from. From the unconscious of the witness, from the collective unconscious or if, on the contrary, there was an external source that used this language as a coded message. The paternity of the scenography could give us many clues.

It was also necessary to elucidate whether these contents were derived from science fiction or from other media such as publications about flying saucers, since some authors believe that this material would be the "library" from which the personal unconscious, the collective or the external source would be nourished. But this entailed another enigma. It was not the same the incorporation of the information by direct contamination, by contact with these works of science fiction, television, radio or magazines about UFOs or if the contagion was produced by an unknown route. These were not simple nuances.

And the conclusion I came to is that, probably, most of what is visualized in these encounters is distorted information previously stored in the observers themselves without any external input or influence. The concepts extracted from the unconscious are distorted by the construction process of the scenography that embeds them in an extraordinary collage of oneiric characteristics. And one of the most significant data I obtained is that the psychic architecture (not unreal) could take almost any type of content lodged in our psyche to conform its aesthetics, from a map of a battle of the Second World War (CASE HILL. 1961), a wood stove (CASE LOTTI. 1954) or the pyramids of Egypt (CASE MARIBEL. 1997). Therefore, not only the contents related to UFOs, science fiction or astronautics influenced the elaboration of the experiences. Hence, the insolent instability of what was observed. In fact, the study of science fiction (Méheust) showed that human imagery had already delineated many of the ingredients poured by ufological casuistry before they were deployed by the UFO phenomenon, but it was not clear that this was what was literally copied by the ufonauts in their appearances, since most of the time the witnesses did not have access to this information (visual or narrative). Without direct contact it did not seem that science fiction (books, comics, movies, etc.) could influence the witnesses (unless we admit the existence of an unknown means of knowledge; telepathic, collective unconscious, parapsychic, etc.), but certainly this shattering "precognition" demonstrated a more than interesting aspect, the human mind had the capacity to sketch the embryonic idea of extraterrestrial visitors of light beams, scorpions and contacts in the desert. The imaginary, whether we liked it or not, came to life in UFO encounters.

But the influence of the witnesses in the covert composition of the UFO episodes did not only cover the visual spectrum. Apart from giving a personalized aesthetic to the manifestation, I concluded that the observers probably incited part of the ufonauts' behavior as if they were the characters of a dream. So what are close encounters with UFOs? 

The most immediate consequence of this transfer of information (for decoding) is the projection of a complex scenography, a sort of virtual (but not imaginary) reality embedded within our habitual reality. Sometimes these visionary experiences can contain "matter" and provoke diverse quantifiable effects on the medium and the observers (although all of them with high strangeness). The procedure that executes the narrative of this psychic architecture has a way of proceeding (scripting) very similar to the one we experience in a dream state. It must be remembered that our psyche while sleeping, among other things, manages to compose fantastic and complex scenarios, actions and dialogues worthy of a Hollywood movie. But everything is seasoned with a certain air of surrealism and disorder, without a coherent temporal or plot structure. Hence, perhaps, although it is a different process, the enormous load of absurdity of the encounters with UFOs, and the spatial-temporal and sensory anomalies that are pointed out. 

And if this is so, it is necessary to eliminate with one stroke of the pen all the approaches that see in this absurd procedure a systematized UFO theater whose function would be to plunge us into a total bewilderment. Nor would it be a superb psychic manipulation (Keel) or even, as the most optimistic point out, an ultra-dimensional training in the form of an ultra-terrestrial Zen teaching (Vallée). I am convinced that both the visual (the general aspect of what is observed) and the informational and behavioral (the actions and conversations of the ufonauts) arise to some extent from the interaction of the witness with the phenomenon, therefore, none of this can offer us reliable clues about the origin and purpose of the manifestations, although it can offer us reliable clues about the process of construction of the experiences. The beings and entities that appear are erected from nothing, as objects created with a psychic "mud", and their function, although different for example to that of the ship from which they descend, have basically the same nature as the rest of the elements that we observe. Therefore the ufonauts are not independent entities, nor the intelligences that are behind the visions, they are only interactive parts with a specific function in this interactive process. And as fascinating and captivating as we may find UFO apparitions, they are merely a sensory lure that cannot distract us or lead us to elaborate complex hypotheses about manipulations or social or evolutionary controls. But we can up the ante... 

What if, regardless of the nature of the objects sighted by the American pilot, the gigantic media repercussion caused by his story had unintentionally triggered the same psychic springs that in times past originated certain phenomena and encounters with unknown entities that gave way to supernatural beliefs? What if everything that happened after Kenneth Arnold's incident in 1947 was the chaotic result of a powerful call effect that managed to reactivate a millenary phenomenon of psychodimensional character? What if the numerous publications on flying saucers incited the human imagination and were the appropriate spark that shaped and gave shape to a new and renewed scenario for these manifestations to be channeled in the twentieth century? 

It should be remembered that the idea that we were visited by astronauts from other worlds immediately attracted the attention, interest and imagination of millions of people around the world who saw it as a more than real possibility. Almost a fascinating scientific certainty wrapped in an overwhelming mystery. For the first time in the history of mankind, the belief in an anomalous paradigm (in this case UFOs), managed to spread exponentially, achieving wide ramifications that centuries ago would have been inconceivable. It is as if the time periods or "contagion" established to date for the evolution of a phenomenon related to the possible existence of manifestations of unknown beings and entities (Marian apparitions, fairies, demons, deceased, etc.), had been drastically shortened and what for decades were manifestations encompassed in different societies and cultures, almost endemically, took a great leap worldwide sponsored by the media.  Therefore, was Kenneth Arnold's famous sighting a silent instigator, an authentic atomic detonation at the core of the collective mental cosmos that generated a shock wave that affected thousands of potential witnesses? Did the synchronous generalized belief of millions of people manage to open a fissure in an unexplored cognitive dimension and provoke thousands of experiences filtered under the same prism: the extraterrestrial, or, on the contrary, did this lightning effect make that people of all kinds and conditions could momentarily tune in to the signal emitted from the universe where these manifestations come from, did Kenneth Arnold give origin to the last great folklore of humanity, which in synthesis was an extension of other ancestral arcana? In fact, coldly analyzed, modern encounters with alien beings, with all their absurd cosmic paraphernalia, and despite their pretended technological patina, do not vary too much from the contents exposed by the various folklores that spoke of apparitions of unknown beings and entities behind ghostly mists and strange glows. The middle of the twentieth century offered an unrepeatable breeding ground at the social level, which made a sum of factors sponsored, among other things, by the powerful human imagery, configure and shape a recycled ancestral paradigm. At that time an unparalleled conjunction took place, the ancient world merged with the modern world, superstitions with information technology, and during a certain period of time the beliefs in extraterrestrial life and its supposed arrival on Earth emerged with an unusual force, settling in the unconscious of many people. Imagination, fascination, beliefs and some states of consciousness are probably the hidden engines of many of these phenomena. And it could not be ruled out that an event not directly related to the manifestation of this overwhelming reality for the senses (for example, the discussion about some mysterious distant sightings), but with sufficient depth in the emotional realm could activate certain psychic springs, causing the manifestation of this paradigm.  

If a genuine alien spacecraft, 100% made of sheet metal and nuts, were to land tomorrow in the middle of the White House gardens before the astonished gaze of the President of the United States, this event could not resolve the welter of chronicles of other times sprinkled with techno-space garnish that the monumental UFO casuistry has erected. Could the landing of some extraterrestrial travelers from a distant planet in 2021 explain a UFO incident that occurred in 1974 in a small village in Spain, or in a remote Italian region in 1954, or would a meager UFO landing certified by the authorities solve the thousands of ufological incidents recorded worldwide? Or who the hell baked Simonton's cakes in 1961? I'm afraid not. Not by a long shot. Unless the aliens held a months-long press conference explaining these incidents one by one. 

UFO experiences could simply be noise and interference caused by our mind penetrating an overwhelming and suggestive expanded reality that has always been there. A moldable dimension that throughout history has given sporadic signs of life to show us that the universe does not end with what we perceive, but that our psyche is probably capable of traveling beyond what we know. To a place that perhaps harbors answers about our existence and becoming... Who knows? 


Distortion theory establishes a relationship between the observer and the observed. In our particular examination, we could divide UFO encounters into two complementary parts, the witness and the experience. THE WITNESS: If when investigating a close encounter we carefully analyze the witness, for example, asking about his hobbies, studies, readings, profession, etc., it is very possible that part of this content is somehow reflected in the aesthetics or narrative of his incident (depending on how complex it is). Therefore, before even listening to the details of the encounter he has starred in, we can intuit or predict some elements that we will find in his account. For example, if the witness is an enthusiast of Egyptian culture, it is very feasible that this hobby oozes somewhere in his sighting (for example, that the UFO observed has the shape of a pyramid or that the occupants were wearing a belt with hieroglyphics). But there is more. The witness's own usual environment can offer unexpected clues. If the observer has a particular building in front of his home, with a very specific and unusual shape, such as a water tower or a repeater antenna, it is quite possible that the flying saucer will acquire a very similar shape (what we would call the visual origin of the aesthetic conformation). And likewise, all the details inherent in the personality of the observer should be noted. If the witness is fearful or cautious, it is very likely that his encounter with the ufonauts will not be very close and the beings will not even bother to talk to him or invite him to come up to the spacecraft for refreshments. In fact, if his fear is exacerbated, he will probably not even have the opportunity to see the occupants of the UFO clearly or he will have a terrifying encounter. However, as we saw earlier, in more curious, extroverted, adventurous or courageous individuals, the crewmembers will be much friendlier and there will be more interaction with the phenomenon (what we would call the origin of the shaping of the narrative). And in the same way, more intellectual observers (not necessarily supported by studies) will elevate the content of the communication with the ufonauts.

PHENOMENON (THE EXPERIENCE): In the same way, if I am correct, the process that makes up close encounters with UFOs is a two-way process.  That is, information from one side of our equation is equal to the opposite. Therefore, if when we carefully read the details of a close encounter, we pay special attention to the shape of the UFO, the behavior of the UFOnauts or the details described by the witnesses, we will be able to draw up an approximate profile of the type of person who would report on that particular type of experience. The study of the aesthetics and narrative of the incidents can provide us with a lot of covert data about the personality of the observer (since everything observed has sprung from his or her psyche). For example, in an event where the witness has described a helicopter-shaped UFO and its occupants as military-like, it is quite possible that this person has some connection with the military or may live or work in the vicinity of a military base (what we would call the origin of the shaping of the aesthetics). Likewise, if the ufonauts looked terrifying and avoided approaching the observer, it is very likely that this person is not very daring or outgoing (what we would call the origin of the shaping of the narrative). If we take into account this way of approaching the cases, we will verify the existence of a series of patterns, both narrative and aesthetic, that seem to be repeated with a certain suspicious frequency in the casuistry. It is usual, and this is reflected in the literature, that both children (through their games), police, military and people who own or like firearms, have UFO experiences where the UFOnauts carry some kind of object that they identify as a weapon. In addition, to further astonishment, these weapons (supposedly originated by an extraterrestrial civilization), in most cases, are very similar, almost to the detail, of our pistols or rifles, which makes quick and obvious their identification and function by the witnesses. Nor does it seem accidental that most of the cases with ufonauts with the appearance of the famous Michelin doll have occurred in French territory, where the tire brand originates. 


The real contributions of TD to the understanding of the UFO phenomenon can be reviewed in the analysis of some of the incidents contained in my research and books. This is the genuine germ of TD:

CASE MANUEL DOS PASSOS DA SILVA (PORTUGAL. 1952) UFO shape and appearance of the ufonaut.

LOTTI CASE (ITALY. 1954) Form of the UFO, appearance and behavior of the ufonauts.

TRIPOLI CASE (LIBYA. 1954) UFO shape and appearance of the ufonaut.

DINAN CASE (FRANCE. 1955). Appearance of the ufonaut.

HILL CASE (USA. 1961). Star Map. Dress of the ufonauts.

JOE SIMONTON CASE (USA. 1961) Appearance and behavior of the ufonauts.

CISCO GROVE CASE (USA. 1964) Appearance and behavior of the ufonauts.

NEW BERLIN CASE (USA. 1964) Behavior of the ufonauts.

HAMPTON CASE (USA. 1966) Form of the UFO.

CASE TAD JONES (USA. 1967) Form of the UFO.

CASE REUNION ISLAND (FRANCE. 1968) Appearance of the ufonaut.

TORIBIO PEREIRA CASE (BRAZIL. 1968). Dress of the ufonauts.


AZNALCOLLAR CASE (SPAIN. 1971). Form of the UFO and behavior of the ufonauts.

DEMING CASE (USA. 1972) Appearance of the ufonaut.

JOHNY SANDS CASE (USA. 1973) Appearance of the UFOnaut

CASO CORELL (SPAIN. 1974) Appearance of the ufonaut.

PAUL BROWN CASE (USA. 1973) Dress and behavior of the ufonauts.

LYNDIA MORET CASE (USA. 1973) Form of the UFO.

REUNION ISLAND CASE (FRANCE. 1973) Appearance of the ufonaut.

LAKE COMMON CASE (ENGLAND. 1973) Appearance and behavior of the ufonauts.

WARNETON CASE (BELGIUM. 1974) Appearance of the ufonaut.

KOFU CASE (JAPAN. 1975) Appearance of the ufonaut.

CASE JEAN DOLECKI (FRANCE. 1976) Appearance of the ufonaut.

CASE MALTONI (ITALY. 1976) Dress of the ufonauts.

SUNDERLAND CASE (ENGLAND. 1976) Appearance and behavior of the ufonauts.

TALAVERA LA REAL CASE (SPAIN. 1976) Appearance of the ufonaut.

FLYING CABIN CASE (SPAIN. 1977) UFO shape and ufonauts' clothing.

TORDESILLAS CASE (SPAIN. 1977). Form of the UFO.

SANGONERA DE LA VERDE CASE (SPAIN. 1979) Dress of the ufonaut.

LAXTON CASE (USA. 1966). Form of the UFO, clothing and behavior of the UFOnauts.

JUAN GONZALES SANTOS CASE (SPAIN. 1982). Shape of the UFO, clothing of the UFOnauts and symbols observed on the fuselage of the object.

BURTOO CASE (ENGLAND. 1983) Form of the UFO ufonauts behavior.

VORONEZ CASE (RUSSIA. 1989) Appearance of the ufonaut.




  • In some regards Distortion Theory brings to mind the concept of "the observer based universe." but like most of the proposals to solve the problem of what an observer actually is seeing. Most of the ETH believers will without a doubt say they saw "an alien from another planet" even though that is actually very unlikely.

    Usually when the idea of an "Observer Based Universe" is described the examples [such as Schrödinger's Cat] are of a single observer and a single something being measured or observed but when we speak of other phenomena in other contexts that is not necessarily the case. What if the "thing observed" is also an "Observer"? Do you see them because they see you? Or is there something strange and inexplicable about what we think of as "local reality."

    The Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen Paradox [which Einstein famously called "spooky action at a distance"]. Einsten believed there was something hissen that was not part of Quantum Theory. Yet again it was shown experimentally again and again that what we believe to be "local reality" is an illusion and that things impossibly far away can effect observations "here".

    In April 1954 my mother woke in the middle of the night to see a "'Thing' glowed a soft pink" floated a few inches below the ceiling above her bed. This type of 'thing' as she described it so far as I am aware has not been reported at all in "close encounters" reports. [I believe has a copy somewhere of my father chronicling this event].

    One could immediately jump to the conclusion that this was a dream or a psychic / paranormal event. Yet it wasn't the next morning my father had to remove a melted nylon hair net from my mother's hair. Nylon has a minimum melting point of 374 deg. F. which seems to make a non-physical cause unlikely. My mom was no psychic.

    The basic issue really is: "What is Reality?" We tend to shape what we think is true by what we "see" but what if what we are seeing is no more than an illusion that is the result of forces we cannot see or actually understand. We look through a glass darkly yet can never actually know what we are seeing.

    We assume a UFO / UAP encounter is something we are able to understand and that encounters with "beings from otherwhere" are also understandable. What if they are not understandable by human intelligence?

    This does not even broach the idea of a encountering civilization which is technically more advanced than we claim to be. They could destroy us on a whim or choose to ignore us completely as being an "Non-interesting species".

    I commend Senor Caravaca for his singular pursuit of an idea that sticks in the craw of some who think they know "the answer" yet have failed to pull away the curtain of their actual ignorance.

    regards Rich!

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Saturday, January 07, 2023  

  • Thank you, José, that was really interesting.


    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Saturday, January 07, 2023  

  • Joel Crook and Jerry Cornelius, thanks for your comments...

    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Saturday, January 07, 2023  

  • Does this theory apply with the same rigor to non-close encounters? In levelland (1957), multiple observers reported basically (although not exactly) the same experience. Do we assume some sort of an information exchange between the observed UFO and the observers?

    By Blogger Dominick, at Saturday, January 07, 2023  

  • Dominicjk... My ideas are raised about close encounters with UFOs, in many of these incidents more than one witness is involved, so it is evident that these manifestations have a certain objective/external reality. I believe that the interaction of the phenomenon is with only one person, independently that the result can be observed by more witnesses.

    By Blogger jacaravaca, at Sunday, January 08, 2023  

  • you mention some cases, but skip over Socorro and Lonnie Zamora. From all interviews with him and those who observed him, it speaks of an unwitting participant who came to deeply regret what he encountered. He claimed no prior interest in UFO's, no belief in ET, and due to the resulting pressure, even back-tracked on his statement that he observed two occupants (which having made, could not really be back-tracked). He appears to have been a policeman doing his job, namely, investigating a potentially dangerous situation which turned into a life-changing few minutes. To me this falls under the Keel explanation (a cosmic version of Ashton Kutcher's "Punk'd" program of years past), with Zamora being the person chosen at random to experience this (to me it would have been fascinating, but I can see how Zamora, by all accounts a fairly 'simple' fellow, might find it all to much to take in).

    Apologies for straying from the topic, but as a further example, the famous Patterson-Gimlin film of a Bigfoot in 1967 (a lot of high strangeness in the 60's) features the well-known 'frame 352' whereby the creature turns briefly to the camera, revealing indisputable breasts. Yet anatomists have all stated the walk is distinctly male, the body morphology as well. More cosmic farce? Topics such as UFO's, Bigfoot, and the fairly recent 'unaccounted for' faces in pictures may be nothing more than introduced theater to keep us perplexed about the world we live in.

    By Blogger jamesrav, at Thursday, January 12, 2023  

Post a Comment

<< Home