What is the Distortion Theory: Clarifying Concepts by Jose Antonio Caravaca – UFO Conjectures

Read Time:5 Minute, 4 Second

Copyright 2021, José Antonio Caravaca

Over the years I have experienced that some
readers find it difficult to accept or understand the Distortion Theory. Some
reject the idea out of hand, with no attempt to comprehend it as if it were
sheer nonsense.

I can only speculate that much of the inhibition to
accept or understand my thesis derives from the use of the term distortion,
which somehow evokes in many an hypothesis linking UFO visions with
hallucinations or mental disorders.

I have commented on countless occasions that my approach
does not detract one iota from the mystery of UFOs. But this has not been
enough for many people to continue thinking that the Distortion Theory defends
the non-existence of UFOs.

I suppose that some of these detractors don’t waste their
time reading my articles, beyond the, also ignoring my books about the
hypothesis. These people make clear that they think I’m little less than a
skeptic or even an avowed denier of the ufological paradigm who is convinced
that the witnesses are somehow mentally “distorting” when they
claim to have had a UFO encounter.


And they are so sure of this, that time and time again they ask me a series of
questions as if they had discovered the Achilles’ heel of my approach.

That is why in my lectures or comments in my articles I
usually find, as in an eternal deja-vu, some repetitive questions: How
do you explain that UFOs are detected on radar screens and can be photographed?
What happens when a UFO is seen by many people at the same time? They are all
distorting at the same time? Can distortions leave traces and marks on the
ground? Can a dog detect a distortion? All such queries based on the premise
that distortion equals mental derangement, as if the Distortion Theory
restricts the UFO phenomenon to a mere mental state that makes witnesses dream
with their eyes open of flying saucers and extraterrestrial beings.


But obviously these people are wrong in their judgments and opinions. One can
only legitimately disagree with an idea when one knows it in depth.

To begin with, I would like to clarify that the
Distortion Theory was born with the intention of trying to decode how close
encounters with UFOs occur, or in other words, why do people experience these
kind of strange visions and why do they see them in a certain way?


My analysis does not go so much into assessing or uncovering the ultimate
nature of the phenomenon, as trying to put on the table a series of clues that
seek to understand the mechanisms that could be behind these manifestations and
that could explain why the witnesses explain these phenomena in such a
personal, subjective and non-transferable way.

But that is one of the keys of the Distortion Theory, to
banish preconceived ideas based mostly on serious errors of analysis
perpetrated on the UFO cases.

It is also essential to keep in mind that my area of
study focuses on close encounters with UFOs, which evidently exhibit a higher
strangeness than distant sightings, so for many readers, it is difficult to
understand the enormous leap that occurs in research of this type of incident
 in comparison with observations of unidentified objects at a distance.

The so-called close encounters of the third type
demonstrate that we are not before a stable phenomenon with an “aesthetic” memory that we can trace or follow from one event to
another.

Regardless of the fact that sometimes these apparitions
are physical, which is indisputable at this point, UFOs have never presented
continuity, that we have been in the presence of the same craft and the same
crew-members. This is already a very suspicious fact.

To deny the reality of the phenomenon while undertaking
alternative ways to find an explanation in the extraterrestrial hypothesis
supports the idea that the main ingredients of the UFO paradigm– i.e.
the alleged spacecraft and their occupants have varied ingredients both in
their typology and anatomy respectively, and in their behavior towards
witnesses — indicates the manifestations are restarted with each witness
encounter from scratch. And this would demonstrate, among other things, that
the UFO phenomenon, whatever its origin, modifies and reacts interactively to
the presence of observers.

Therefore, it has been a mistake on the part of a great
majority of researchers to try to transfer a template of a coherent and uniform
phenomenon about which different witnesses from all over the world gave an
account.

UFOs have never possessed a fixed photograph. Like
dreams, these apparitions have been subject to a wide range of personal
interpretations and decodings, as well as a filtering under socio-cultural
conditions that would point out that the observer has a decisive or prominent
influence on what is observed.


If we do not accept that our psyche modifies and interferes in an active way in
the scenographic content exposed in the UFO experiences, we will be very far
from reaching a correct interpretation of the paradigm.

And this adds another important fact: all the analyses
that we carry out on the casuistry have to take into account this active
interference on the part of the witnesses in the content exposed by the
phenomenon.

Otherwise our hypotheses will be confused because the psychic
architecture resulting from our interaction with the paradigm projects a fictitious
composition that adorns the real phenomenon with elements and characteristics
that have nothing to do with its true essence.

To conclude, I will say that these anomalous
manifestations seem to stand in a liminal territory between our reality and the
place from which these phenomena come (which may even be unexplored chinks of
our own reality), and this could explain the complex amalgam of paraphysical
factors recorded in ufological apparitions.


But we have to keep in mind that only by understanding the modus operandi of
UFOs in their closest encounters with witnesses can we take the next step. To
venture to discover the cause of these fascinating apparitions. 
 

JAC

Source: The Anomalist

0 0
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleppy
Sleppy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %

Average Rating

5 Star
0%
4 Star
0%
3 Star
0%
2 Star
0%
1 Star
0%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.