Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.
Jose Caravaca is developing an hypothesis to explain UFO encounters, and he’s tagged it The Distortion Theory.
I find his ideas intriguing, and accept his views – up to the point where he posits an external force or presence as an integral, instigating agent that creates, with the help of UFO witnesses, the various but somewhat similar scenarios that make up the events that we’re all familiar with (and many that we are not familiar with for which he has provided details here and at his blog).
UFO encounters, where entities are observed and often engaged in out-of-the-ordinary activities, are seen, by some, as visitations by extraterrestrial visitors, whose behavior is attributed to alien purposes that we humans just do not understand.
Or the encounters are part of a paranormal reality that has been concomitant with humans since time immemorial and whose behavior is obscure for reasons we just do not understand, and never have.
Some of us think that UFO encounters are neural hallucinations that are made somewhat tangible by actions of the witnesses while they are in a kind of fugue state, whose psychological and/or physiological etiologies are yet to be determined or found.
But Señor Caravaca challenges the neurological explanation by pointing out that the encounters he’s listed and those that are better known (the Hill abduction, for instance) all occur in a kind of dramatic scene that is similar in many ways, across he encounter board.
That is, if a neurological explanation or stimulus were the cause of UFO encounters as we know them, why are they always, or nearly always, along roadways and in rural or semi-rural venues?
Why no neurologically induced encounters at football games, or in restaurants, or the grocery store, or at a corporate picnic or gathering?
The settings for UFO encounters, by and large, are in venues that are sylvan-like, not urban.
The 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter/Hillsdale sighting by Frank Mannor and that in Hillsdale, Michigan at the same time were in rural settings, swamp areas actually, without entities but with air-borne craft commonly know as a flying disk or flying saucer at that time.
The absence of entities is intriguing in that the setting or staged event was ripe for one of those encounters that Señor Caravaca derives his theory from.
So, flying saucer sightings, even those that contain hovering near-the-ground machines, like the Ann Arbor sighting or the Michalak encounter cited here earlier are removed or have to be from the Distortion theory.
Or do they? Not necessarily. Jose Caravaca’s hypothesis allows for limitations on what occurs during a UFO encounter.
The limitations stem from the inherent limitations that the witness imposes upon the encounter; e.g., a witness with limited exposure to science fiction imagery would have a much less vivid encounter than a witness who had much exposure to science fiction movies, books, magazines, or archetypal forms, such as the Michelin Man that Señor Caravaca so amply displayed in his most recent distortion presentation.
Thus, the Hillsdale College co-eds and farmer Frank Mannor (whom I met when I worked for The Detroit News) would not have as vivid an encounter as would someone who had proximity to things that are science fiction oriented.
But did anyone determine exactly what science fiction materials or materials of an other-worldly nature came into contact with those who have reported their alleged encounters?
The forensics are missing.
So we, and Jose Caravaca, are working with incomplete data and incomplete information.
But Señor Caravaca’s point that UFO encounters have not taken place, spontaneously, in public venues or urban venues, at least not in the numbers that encounters have occurred in rustic settings.
If psychological or neurological stimuli were the cause of UFO encounters, one would expect encounters to occur in places other than where they have generally occurred: pastoral settings mostly.
ET proponents might suggest that extraterrestrials pick arboreal places for their visitations to hide their agenda or presence, for reasons that only they, the alien visitors, know.
I’m troubled by such views, and even by Señor Caravaca’s “others” who, he says, conceive and direct the encounters and purposely select their marks who, as I see it, are often not in the highest I.Q. categories.
But his point that psychological or neurological causes are not selective, as far as we know, is well-taken.
Jacques Vallee’s views are stymied also by a lack of logic or coherency that is endemic to his Magonia selections.
The ETHers are similarly hobbled by the incongruity of their extraterrestrial visitors.
How could an alien culture, able to put together vehicles for interstellar travel, be so silly after they arrive here, engaging in behavior that borders on insanity or, at least, inanity?
Again, we are back to phenomena that are adjuncts to the categorical UFO phenomenon, and no closer to a sensible denouement.
But Jose Caravaca’s Distortion Theory is very interesting, One has to give him that….RR