• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Distortion Theory: In Search Of The 'Engine' Of UFO Encounters By José Antonio Caravaca

Paul_Exeter

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
3,660
A quite lengthy blog post from Spanish ufologist Caravaca that outlines what is certainly my preferred theory for Ufos and also cryptids:

"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."

https://ufoconjectures.blogspot.com/2023/01/an-explication-of-distortion-theory-in.html
 
Well, I agree with him on some points.

1) Many alleged UFO/"Alien" encounters include elements that partake of science fiction current at the time of the encounter, but which age hilariously with our improved understanding of science, and particularly of exobiology and space travel.

2) Many such encounters include language or mannerisms attributed to alleged nonhuman beings that might be natural to the culture of the people witnessing them, but could hardly be expected of visitors from off-world.

3) Many such encounters include elements that are patently absurd, or otherwise incompatible with a simple Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. For example, figures from human myth being reported flying around in a literal spaceship with robots, all the while delivering religious lessons that contradict their recorded teachings.

4) There are definite parallels and crossovers among paranormal experiences traditionally classified into different "bins."

His hypothesis seems to be that this is a two-part phenomenon: a paranormal component that initiates the process, and a witness whose subconscious beliefs and knowledge bloom into a vivid, but ultimately hallucinatory experience.

I'm not convinced that his hypothesis is the most "rigorous" explanation. Whenever we are faced with a phenomenon that, by its nature, can't be accepted at face value, then pretty much all bets are off.

For example, in any piece of popular fiction, once the story has established the reality of memory modification, or any similar technology, then literally anything can turn out to be true. The protagonist may actually be the villain's best pal, or the viewers might actually be the bad guys somehow. In Marvel Comics, for decades it was a joke that anything happening contrary to established canon somehow involved Skrulls (a species of shapeshifting aliens).

Ultimately, any explanation that involves hallucinatory experiences can be simplified to just that: a hallucination. Adding extradimensional forces, trickster beings, or other elements only makes sense if they somehow improve the explanatory power of the hypothesis. I'm not convinced that Caravaca has made his case for an impersonal paranormal force.
 
Ultimately, any explanation that involves hallucinatory experiences can be simplified to just that: a hallucination. Adding extradimensional forces, trickster beings, or other elements only makes sense if they somehow improve the explanatory power of the hypothesis. I'm not convinced that Caravaca has made his case for an impersonal paranormal force.
For the record, his book is massive, and an excellent read - it also includes cases with physical effects - so can't just boil down to "hallucination".
 
Fair enough: physical effects require some additional explanation that wasn't present in the blogs linked above.

Does he also explain in his full works why he thinks it's possible to eliminate all motivations for the paranormal actor, leaving it as an impersonal force?

It still seems to me that a deceptive phenomenon could mask any motivation whatsoever, all the more so if it can produce physical effects in addition to visions. An inhuman actor could very well have motivations that we would not be able to understand, much less identify, after all.
 
Another article from the Spanish ufologist:

"For decades, dozens of researchers believe that the UFO phenomenon hides behind an excellent camouflage to deceive and manipulate witnesses for purposes and purposes that we do not understand.

It did it centuries ago with the manifestations of fairies, elves, supernatural creatures, and Marian apparitions, and in the 20th century it managed to camouflage itself under the label of extraterrestrial visitors.

But, are we before an intelligent phenomenon that perfectly chooses its role to present itself to humans, or on the contrary, are we before a disconcerting cognitive paradigm that evidently shows itself with socio-cultural "disguises" present in each era of its performance?"

I personally do not agree with his theory that it is "all in the mind", however I do feel he is getting closer than most to the truth

https://ufoconjectures.blogspot.com/2023/07/are-ufos-cognitive-paradigm-whose.html
 
Back
Top