The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

The 1954 Macerata, Italy Encounter


Jose Antonio Caravaca continues to example UFO encounters that may be used to bolster his Distortion Theory when it is fully presented.

You can read his account of the 1954 Macerata, Italy encounter by clicking HERE

10 Comments:

  • Let's see if we can nail this "distortion" theory down a bit more. In the article you post, there are 3 different (but roughly similar) drawings of UFO crafts. Now, does distortion theory assume that the different witnesses in each case describe what they see differently because their age, experiences, personal history, etc..."distort" the underlying reality of the phenomenon? Or, alternatively, does it assume that there is no "underlying reality" at all? I can handle the idea that people are seeing something (some thing) but that their perceptions are distorted, either by the "something" or by the observers themselves. But I have real trouble accepting that there is no "reality" behind the phenomenon (or that we will not at some point come to understand it.) There is, it seems to me, way, way to much evidence for that.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Wednesday, April 04, 2012  

  • Dominick...

    Distortion theory suggests that the UFO phenomenon, is an external manifestation, three-dimensional and independent of the witness, however, items that are used in the manufacture of the encounter are provided by the psyche of the witness, based on their knowledge and experiences. In the cases mentioned in my report, it appears that there are three similar sightings, but with obvious differences in size, shape and color. What seems to me indicates that the external agent (cause of the phenomenon) uses basis elements (small humanoid and barrel-shaped object) and is the mind of the different witnesses, adding and distort all other components that converge in the close encounter.
    The distortion theory explains convincingly, some of the great enigmas of ufology, variety, almost infinite in the typology of humanoid and "flying saucers" seen, as well as the absurdity factor that accompanies the majority of close encounters. Since all of this, it would result from the interaction of so-called extern agent, and the privative mind of the witness . If we analyze carefully the casuistry, we realize that behaves very similar to our oniric world.

    Saludos

    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Thursday, April 05, 2012  

  • Thanks for the explanation. What you suggest is a reasonable hypothesis for an almost magical phenomenon. However, there is a far more "simple" hypothesis that "explains" the three different (but similar) UFOs: and that is that the witnesses simply saw three different UFOs! After all, there were seen on different dates in different countries by 3 different sets of people. The crafts and humanoids could have all been different....and no exotic "distortion" theory is needed as an explanation. What about that?

    By Blogger Dominick, at Thursday, April 05, 2012  

  • Dominick...

    Personally, I think that sightings are not far either in time or distance, to have so many differences. We can not allow so many differences between small humanoids, the crew of normal height and giants. There are many types of humanoid different is practically impossible to make a classification. This suggests that one mental and subjective factor is involved, to get these close encounters are highly personal and unique.
    Or at least that's what I think...

    SAludos y thanks for your comments

    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Thursday, April 05, 2012  

  • Imagine the following: A UFO lands in 3 different places: a tractor-trailer yard; a school yard; an African village,all on same day. In the trailer yard he (the alien) sees very large metal vehicles and 6 foot tall humans. In the school yard, an alien sees 3 foot children "driving" small plastic "Big Wheels". And in the third situation, he spies dark skinned humanoids moving supplies in ox-drawn wagons. The alien sends that information back to his planet. But his handlers get back to him and tell him that the differences he reports are not real, that there were no differences in fact and that the Earth's "distortion field" produced the differences he thinks he observed. Sound reasonable?! I think not.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Friday, April 06, 2012  

  • Dominick:

    Jose Caravaca should answer this, but your closing comments - "Sound reasonable? I think not" goes to the heart of the UFO phenomenon: it isn't reasonable, and has never been so.

    Once one accepts that premise, every conjecture or explanation is grist for debate.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 06, 2012  

  • Every conjecture and every explanation IS grist for debate, but the debate must have a reasonable component with some things more likely than other things, don't you agree? Notice, for example, that more often than not, observers of the SAME daytime landing describe the phenomenon with remarkable consistency. Now if reality was being manipulated by some unknown OZZ, or if individual experiences really colored accurate observation, that would not necessarily be true. Some would describe a large round silver ship with legs; others in the same sighting would describe a small red box-like craft with jet exhausts. Doesn't happen. So, again, I think that everything is up for debate (why not?) but that reason allows us to conclude that some "explanations" are more reasonable than others.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Friday, April 06, 2012  

  • Yes, Dominick, some "explanations" are more reasonable than others.

    But after all is said and done the phenomenon remains unreasonable.

    So even the consistency you find among witnesses to the "same" UFO sighting can be interpreted as a kind of distortion, per Jose Caravaca's hypothesis.

    Moreover, you are citing UFO sightings (in the sky mostly) and Jose and I are concentrating on bizarre UFO events that involve interactions with landed entities.

    When those events are witnessed by multiple persons, as in the Russian sighting posted here recently, the distortion scenario remains intact and viable.

    But everything is debatable surely.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 06, 2012  

  • Dominick...

    It is certain that the UFO phenomenon is open to debate, until we find the real nature of these anomalous events. In my view, not is viable there are so many different types of entities associated with UFOs, much less that the experiences parezacan unique and nontransferable. However, obviously there will be those who think that this is due to a peculiarity of the alien phenomenon.
    I think that so far, in several of my reports can demonstrate the interaction of the mind of the witness in "making" of UFO experiences, and give a meaning of the absurd factor, beyond the approaches of Jacques Vallee.

    I'm not trying to convince anyone. If, only, one reader doubt, I am satisfied ...

    as always thank Rich for his invaluable help ...


    Saludos

    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Friday, April 06, 2012  

  • Jose,
    I would be the last to disparage your investigations, in respect your efforts while I must agree with Dominck to a certain extent as my own comment on another post here said much the same as far as the distribution of common cultural input in uncommon cultures ( some with little media distribution in terms of the arcane aspects or characteristics of reported apparitions)
    However, I am following a new lead or path in my investigations I would like to share with you. There is a certain psychic medium who can visualize full bodied apparitions or ghosts and as a result is uncannily accurate. I am going to interview her as I think the connection between ghost phenomenon and "UFO" occupants is provocative as one cannot help but be struck by the similarities. If you wish to discuss this further please fell free to contact me at my e-mail address.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, April 10, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home