posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Not having any faith in Blue Book, the fact that it "couldn't" identfy the object doesn't hold much weight with me. Being a military construct, Blue Book would have had incentive or could have been pressured to call the object an unknown if it actually was a top secret prototype (which seems likely) that Mr. Laxton stumbled upon on that lonely highway.I'm sure many others will feel quite differently. But this case (which I've read about before) has always seemed questionable to me.
By purrlgurrl, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012
purrlgurrl...Laxton's case is very strange. The witness is qualified to know whether it is a military aircraft. The incident also contains one of the premises which indicates Dr. Hynek, the landings take place on a road. As usual in these incidents, no other vehicle, traveling on the road while events occur. Nor is it an isolated incidents, the crew of a UFO is described in a completely human, and military appearance.saludos
By jacarav@ca, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Rich, if you recall my comments to Zoam about whether or not people report seeing a ufo/disc/saucer or something else. I gave the examples of non-ufo reports: Arnold, Rhodes, Zamora; and ufo reports: Kelly Johnson and crew.Arnold first thought he was seeing a flock of birds or a formation of airplanes; Rhodes reported at first he thought it was a P-80; Zamora at first thought he saw a car wreck. Thus, like Laxton, their impression was of something they expected to see in the circumstances based on their experience (or "knowledge"), rather than a ufo/disc/saucer. It was the collectors -- the Air Force, and also the press, that categorized the sightings as ufos. "The observer [Laxton] stated that he thought the object was some type of army or air force research aircraft".I agreee with Mr Caravaca that "There is little doubt that, in this particular incident, prior knowledge of the witnesses (from his military environment) has a decisive influence.."I think that is true of anything, one's "prior knowledge" (I'd say 'experience').But I have no need to introduce any other entity, no external agent, to explain what is simply a commonplace thing.I ask Mr Caravaca, though, to substantiate this statement of his:"...the external agent tuning in to the mind of Laxton, full of information about "things" military, and converts (transforms) the event to a close encounter with a "flying saucer" using a distortion with a helicopter and crew."Mr Laxton did not report any "close encounter", not with a "flying saucer" or anything else. That's ufo-collector talk.I agree with PG about PBB's investigation. I wll point out the ufological affect PG demonstrates is 'distorting' of good research and comprehension.RegardsDon
By Don, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Don:Jose Caravaca will see your comment and reply I think.The mechanism at work here is psychological I believe.The "external agent" is not something out there, but something in there.I'm trying to get Jose to determine what his "external agent" is, the essence of it, or a definition.He's struggling with the concept, but thinks it is there.(I see it like a religion: the main ingredient is a God, which always remains hidden.)The Distortion Theory is an evolving hypothesis, obviously.Caravaca is providing substantiation of his views.Now he has to come up with the premise -- the first cause, and why.RR
By RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Don...Laxton was questioned by members of the USAF and the witness indicated clearly that the object lacked wings and engines, although he thought it was "something" made in USA. We not know if the censorship could be exercised on his testimony. Personally, I do not think that a secret prototype, lands on the middle of a road, which was strongly lit like to read the newspaper quietly a few yards away. And the pilot of the device need a flashlight. I think the elements of this close encounter, as in the incident Ujvari or Simonton, contain many points in common with human technology, or appearance with a normal human being, that the theory of distortion can find an explanation to this. For example, another military (marine) witness, in Twenty-Nine Palms California, in June 1979, About 1:00 a.m., had a UFO experience and communicate to researchers that in inside the UFO, "in a large room he was shown appeared to be what military weaponry. "causaidad?? I personally think that the unconscious of the witness is used in the representation (theatre) of close encounters...thanks your comments...
N.B. We couldn't get Blogger to post this, so we had to insert under the RRRGroup rubric. Don should not be seen as okaying our positions by appearing under our mantle.)Caravaca wrote: "Personally, I do not think that a secret prototype, lands on the middle of a road, which was strongly lit like to read the newspaper quietly a few yards away. And the pilot of the device need a flashlight."Was it in the middle of the road? I haven't studied the case, but what I have read is "The object was so parked that it blocked out a portion of a road curve sign". I'm not sure what that means. It could mean it was parked partially on the shoulder of the road and partially in the road.There is a deliberate (and inevitable) blind spot in all AF ufo projects: domestic r&d. Call it passive censorship. This might be an example. I don't know.The case file doesn't seem to be large or complicated, so I'll probably read it this weekend.What if the sighter had been a highway patrol or police patrol officer? Would they have seen a 16 wheeler semi rig broken down on the side of the road and extending into the traffic lanes? Would the being be the driver, and the insignia on his sleeve the logo of the trucking company? If it were like that, then the case would fit in with my examples of Arnold, Rhodes, Zamora, if the object took off into the sky. That officer would know he was wrong. It couldn't have been a semi trailer. But Laxton and his knowledge and experience? No. The first thing I'm going to do is find out how this case first got to the AF.Would that mean (and in the three cases I refer to) the distortion effect was cancelled? Nullified? Does it mean the theory doesn't have univeral application?Regards,Don
Jose Caravacca's idea might well tie in with what might be called the Translation Problem which you get whenever two or more different groups try to communicate across language or conceptual barriers which only gets worse when the two groups don't realise they're talking about different things (viz your narky put down of your commenters a few blogs back).In an earlier blog though you asked what was the point of the (seemingly never visually evolving) craft in UFO encounters?But isn't the Laxton sighting (like so many others) a good example of precisely the same approach used by even the likes of serial killers (at least in movies)?The craft draw and fasten the attention of the intended 'victim(s)' as well as partially block their escape but aboveall establish by their 'repairing' activities the idea the crafts inhabitants're the ones who're vulnerable thus lowering the guard of the 'victim(s)'.[Though contrast this with the personal ordeal of seemingly finding yourself on another world and being told by SOMETHING to start limping before the inhabitants tear you to pieces leading me at least to conclude the limping alien life forms often reported in South American accounts're probably some poor buggers from elsewhere being put through the same lab rat maze run here!].
By alanborky, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012
I didn't follow any of that but thank you Alan.RR
I think Alan means the distortion as an imposture.I'm satisfied the theory is to be considered of an encounter with an object and a being. So, not Arnold, not Rhodes. If the two figures count as 'beings', then maybe Zamora, except the distortion or imposture failed. Wrecked cars don't fly away.This leaves what I hoped to get to before. What about the contactees or the abducted? Stipulating for the sake of argument to the contact or abduction not being a hoax, is a CE report with an alien and a ufo a distortion? That means the reality of the reported encounter (the Hills, Adamski) is other than what they reported, but not, as the skeptics might have it, of something plausible or normal, but some perhaps even less normal and plausible than beautiful young men from Venus, or long-nosed aliens in a spaceship.Regards,Don
By Don, at Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile