The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Jose Caravaca elaborates on his Distortion Theory

Jose Antonia Caravaca has provided a significant elaboration of his Distortion Theory, using the Michelin Man logo as the prima causa for some UFO and non-UFO events.

This is must-reading for those who've found, thus far, Senor Caravaca's views palatable as an explanation for many, if not all, UFO encounters.

Click HERE to access his blog and latest effort to define his developing "theory."

9 Comments:

  • Lately I think no distortion is required inasmuch as we are distorted and that these events are like a pinhole lens that focuses with clarity just how lunatic we are.
    Of course, we say these events are nonsensical, self referential, dithering in their contradictions. The truth may be as simple as it appears to be as sure as when we look into a mirror. We disown this quandary with plausible deniability., These events..are the mischievous doings of Gods or now, these flighty Extraterrestrials..Twain is in on this joke and if it were not for the bodies lying around, it would be funny. It's not.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 22, 2012  

  • Part 1 of 2:

    I would really like to see Jose Caravaca do a blog post which clearly defines and delineates his "distortion theory," or to give us a synopsis of it as developed so far, since, when reading the various posts at his blog site, it's not entirely clear to me to what degree he is suggesting that witnesses include visual or other "clues" from their immediate sighting environment, and from their past prosaic experiences, or how, which Jose seems to imply are transmuted and incorporated into their recollection and retelling of their sighting experience, only transformed into aspects of the recalled sighting itself, and not consciously understood by the witness as having been subconsciously adopted from these prosaic elements into their sighting reports.

    While Jose also hypothesizes that this "distortion theory" of his causes UFO witnesses to combine local environmental cues and other past associations into their sighting reports and recall of the CE experiences involved, and that there may be some external trigger that causes this, such as a genuine UFO incident (rather than being wholly fabricated or confabulated from internal memories or sub rosa psychological constructs), it is not clear to me whether he is positing that the initial external trigger, due to an actual "UFO" (or some other unknown or unidentified anomalistic but prosaic or natural phenomena, such as Persinger has suggested can create CE or "contact" experiences, via magnetic field effects in his experiments) may then cause the mind to "pull in" or draw upon the immediate physical environment and/or past memories and experiences, which are then transmogrified and converted into the overall "story" or recollection of what may seem to be a genuine CE experience, or whether, as Vallee has speculated and would be quite intriguing, if the external trigger mechanism, whether UFO or other source, may itself, with intent, also manipulate or convert these potentials, of environmental cues and memories, into an anthropomorphic but distorted and "standardized" yet strangely "masked" or unique sighting report, and if so, whether this implies in turn some unknown form of "telepathy" or "brain scan," in order for the UFO or other non-prosaic, anomalous external "trigger" to use those same mundane and prosaic elements in a combined, surreal fashion to then be incorporated into the witnesses recollection and report of the nature and specifics of the sighting (or not).

    [If so, this would mean the sighting as experienced would not be as it may have actually been, say as reported by another witness some distance away, for example, less affected by EMR or other UFO energy radiation effects.]

    [This disparity would also add greatly to the factor of plausible deniability, making the sighting as experienced by one (as opposed to reported to others, who then attempt to determine its veracity, and must use the reported data to interpret it) different from what may be reported by others, in multiple witness cases, for example. How do you separate the wheat from this kind of chaff in single witness CE III cases in particular?]

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Monday, January 23, 2012  

  • Part 2 of 2:

    It seems this latter possibility, which assigns an external, sentient agency that can use these environmental cues and memories as part of the constructed or recalled incident, and which suggests a more intimate, deliberate but very subtle level of direct contact with and knowledge of the witness's psychological make-up, environment, and memories, which may then be manipulated and distorted into forms which seem to have been part of the UFO contact experience, as perceived by the witness, seems not to be what Jose suggests is part of his "distortion theory," but an alarming step beyond it, but I'm not entirely sure if he rules out this latter possibility, or not.

    And if so, on what basis would he not consider this more esoteric possibility as part of his theory? What would rule it out, or in? How and why can that be distinguished?

    Either way, this latter concept also raises the possibility of deliberate, "self-denying" manipulation of the CE witness by some form of extremely advanced non-human intelligence, which intentionally obscures and overlays with misdirection its actual nature, and would thus make it very difficult for researchers to determine what may have actually occurred, which also could be intentional, as it would create a "non-pattern" or false pattern keyed to the individual's mind, simultaneously making it nearly impossible to determine the actual facts of an encounter while still having a witness report data which they honestly believe was part of the experience, but may seem fabricated or confabulated to others attempting to investigate, and which would leave a strong residue of mixed information that seems mutually contradictory or simply anthropocentric in nature, at the same time it creates a significant sociological or subtle cultural impact keyed to human beliefs about "the other" as a consequence or result, particularly when longitudinal analyses of large numbers of such cases are studied, and, intriguingly enough, may be the overall goal or intent involved by "the other(s)."

    It would also seem as equally critical to thoroughly study the witness and his psychological history and state of mind, as much as the reported sighting data presented by the witness(es).

    Naturally, this too is simply speculation, but I think these factors need to at least be considered and investigated also, in order to attempt to get a clearer, holistic picture of the entire scenario presented and reported by single witness CE III cases.

    Another potential problem of similar nature is presented when multiple-witness CE I, II, and especially III cases yield both disparate and parallel reports between multiple witnesses.

    Either way, the challenge of being able to parse and identify all the various factors that may be involved seems almost insurmountable or incommensurable, particularly when only dealt with by vested UFO investigators, either singly or in group efforts to research, as most do not have the scientific backgrounds, education, or experience necessary to conduct multi-disciplinary analyses with the requisite tools and techniques needed to actually determine the origins, nature, and sources of such reports. Vallee discusses the problems of "first-level" interpretation, such as the standard or UFO mainstream "nut 'n bolts" old school ETH or alien entities predominance, and argues for an entirely different approach as being required, as he and Eric Davis discuss in their "Incommensurability..." paper.

    See: http://ufos.homestead.com/vallee-davis.pdf

    However, since most scientists reject the UFO phenomenon as being worthy of truly scientific, multi-phasic investigation, and little or no funding is available, for now, it seems we may be at an impasse. Which presents a bit of a dilemma.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Monday, January 23, 2012  

  • Postscript:

    If Jose were to write a post addressing some of the questions and concepts above, and clearly stating all the elements, patterns, and aspects of how and why his theory either includes both ideas, or only the former concept outlined here (if not both), it would go a long way towards a better understanding of the parameters of his hypothesis, and how he defines it, for our mutual edification, IMHO.

    I look forward to any comments on all this he, or others, may have on these issues, and to Jose eventually composing a blog post better defining the "distortion theory" after considering some of these supplementary ideas and concepts, as I think his theory is actually quite interesting and could be of use in getting beyond the usual "first-level" interpretations of the past.

    Kind of "Neo-Valleean" in approach, which is to be commended.

    The "old thinking" and interpretations of the UFO phenomenon over the past several decades have not provided much better results than we have today, and somehow we must "think different," employing inference, both deductive and inductive reasoning, and all the tools, techniques, and methodologies of science, empiricism, psychology, cosmology, physics, philosophy, focused speculation, and objectivity we can muster, and take a few meta-steps back to reconsider, contemplate, and then determine how best to now to go forward, if we are to make any progress in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon and possibly related anomalous phenomena.

    Orthodoxy is not working.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Monday, January 23, 2012  

  • The ten blind men and the elephant comes to mind. The classic observer effect. This effect I wrote about quite some time ago, and so..

    What we are looking at is a dream state unique in that what is in the mind as content is perceived as being outside. The ontology of this leads to what I call plausible denial. It did not come from me. Classically this is called a hallucination. There are many biological causes for them, if one cares to cite them.

    What is unique is the trigger mechanism, which appears to be environmental, although it may not be. This theory requires a ground wire, an anchor in neurobiology.
    The theory to me is yes, this is so..but then what?

    Look at history. Prior to the advent of space travel, gnomes, fairies, etc were reflected. No ET required. What is perceived is the subcontext, not the issue that is critical, which is how the mind\brain creates these hallucinations..a rare physiological, transient state.
    Again, no ET required.

    Projecting ET into this is the same as projecting elves.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 23, 2012  

  • Another venue for exploring this phenomenon:
    http://www.gold.ac.uk/apru/what/

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 23, 2012  

  • Hi Steve....

    The limitations of my explanations, are only due to my bad knowledge of English (thank goodness we have the help of Rick).
    I have spoken in my reports of the "external factor" or "external agent" (non-human). Distortion, not caused by an environmental factor (Persinger Theory), or by mental illness.

    1 .- Close encounters are the result of the interaction of this "external agent" and the psyche of the witness.

    2 .- The "external agent" is a kind of intelligence unknown. Interact, for centuries, with the human mind, with different appearances, according to decoded the human mind. Probably all anomalous phenomena to which we face, from Bigfoot to the elves, are the product of the distortion.

    3 .- I do not think it is an extraterrestrial intelligence (using a system of psychic camouflage)

    4 .- The interaction of the "external agent" with the mind of the witness can produce "physical matter" and can be observed by several people.

    5.- The "external agent" in the interaction, the first thing proposed is the main theme of anomalous experience: UFOs, Ghosts, Marian apparitions, etc.
    For example, in the case of UFOs, the "external agent" adds some recurring elements (found in almost all experiences): light rays, "freeze" the witness, actions of the crew (sample collection, repair, etc. ).
    The psyche of the witness, in the process of interaction, blending these concepts with their own imagination and the result is a close encounter with a UFO.
    This explains the diversity of the typology humanoid, because there are so many "aliens" different, so different are as a person of another.

    6.-With this report, I wanted to demonstrate (among other things) that if all recurrent elements of close encounters are observed with only a certain (type) of entity (Bibendum), means that others humanoids follow the same guidelines . Therefore, the external appearance of the aliens is a chimera, a product of the distortion.


    This is all I can write my English ...

    Certainly, Bruce, we agree 80%....


    SALUDOS...... Jose

    PD: Take this opportunity to thank Rich, who is the person who makes this all possible ... with its particular magic ...

    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Monday, January 23, 2012  

  • Jose,
    When I wrote about this subject, I came to the semi-"conclusion"that this phenomenon was cellular rather than sentient. In other words, a self organizing system. Self-organization is the process where a structure or pattern appears in a system without a central authority or external element imposing it through planning. This globally coherent pattern appears from the local interaction of the elements that make up the system, thus the organization is achieved in a way that is parallel (all the elements act at the same time) and distributed (no element is a central coordinator).
    What are the thoughts leading to the 20% that this phenomenon is sentient?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 23, 2012  

  • Bruce...

    As I said, I think there is an external agent that interacts
    with the witness.
    My rejection of the possibility of a mental phenomenon unknown or some type interference (Persinger) is very clear.

    If this were so, close encounters occur in any circumstance, for example in a theater or a restaurant.. There would be no "autoregulation" that we have detected in the incidents...

    I think that the external agent chooses the person and the time of appearance.

    There you have my 20% ...

    Saludos

    Jose...

    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Tuesday, January 24, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home