TRAPPED IN LITERALITY: THE QUICKSAND OF UFO THEORIZING

For decades, much of the theorizing around the UFO phenomenon has rested on ground that was thought to be solid and unshakable. For many ufologists, the analysis of thousands of recorded incidents worldwide seemed to offer a straightforward interpretation, pointing to a clear and undeniable conclusion: we were dealing with physical, technological machines piloted by intelligent beings visiting our planet. The premise was simple—if they weren’t human, then the only question left was: where did they come from?

But soon, something fundamental was forgotten: the cases themselves.

Once a broad overview had been drawn from hundreds of reports, it was assumed there was no need to dig deeper into individual incidents or revisit the details. Many even dismissed the stranger cases as irrelevant, not worth the time.

The core idea of the UFO phenomenon was reduced to a literal reading of the simplest accounts. But that approach carried a serious risk: it stripped away the nuances found in most experiences and obscured the true scale of the phenomenon.

Thus, the conclusion that UFOs must be crafts and their occupants intelligent beings—taken almost as unquestionable truth—may actually be a mirage that has limited our understanding. A great many interpretations about the nature of flying saucers have, in reality, been built on quicksand.

Most hypotheses—whether extraterrestrials from distant star systems, intraterrestrials, interdimensional entities, time travelers, or descendants of ancient civilizations like Atlantis—rest on an unstable foundation: taking sightings literally, as evidence of physical craft and beings. This does not mean denying the UFO phenomenon itself, but questioning the assumption that what is seen must necessarily be a material reality, a tangible object like a plane or a mountain.

And why should we doubt the spectacle put on by flying saucers? Some might ask.

Because the doubts are more than justified.

The body of UFO reports worldwide presents a picture that is far more complex, puzzling, and often incompatible with literalist interpretations that ignore the possibility of decoys or sensory illusions.

Perhaps what we are dealing with is not an “intrinsic reality” at all, but something that merely presents itself as real. In other words, what we see may be a construction of perception, entangled with an unknown phenomenon—one that doesn’t necessarily involve machines or visitors carrying galactic passports. Perhaps what we’re witnessing is a kind of sensory screen.

Witness accounts provide no certainty that the “objects” or “beings” observed correspond to an objective reality. After eight decades of research, doubts remain.

Reports frequently describe events that defy our physical and temporal expectations: appearances that vanish without a trace, constant shape-shifting, inconsistent observations, dramatic perceptual shifts in witnesses, and links with psychic or parapsychological phenomena.

And then there is the connection between UFOs and other extraordinary manifestations recorded throughout history: religious apparitions, encounters with supernatural beings, mysterious lights in the sky, or folklore phenomena. These parallels suggest the phenomenon is not exclusively modern but has adapted itself across centuries, reshaping to fit the cultural beliefs of each era. This makes it difficult to take observations at face value; the true nature of the phenomenon may be far more ambiguous and complex than conventional explanations admit.

Ultimately, what we perceive with our senses may not match objective reality at all, but instead may be altered, filtered, or distorted.

This means the dominant theories about UFOs have largely been built on a “sensory screen” produced by the interaction between witnesses and the phenomenon itself: the idea that “something” or “someone” is visiting us aboard physical machines made of nuts and bolts. For decades, this mechanistic and technological outlook shaped ufological thought, directing interpretations toward tangible space visitors while sidelining other possibilities.

And under that powerful framework, almost any origin story could fit: starships from Orion, dimensional portals, lost civilizations, humans from the future. Yet none of these conjectures adequately explains the weirder corners of the UFO archives beyond a superficial level.

This shallow narrative of “ships and beings” has also fueled some of the more curious directions in UFO theorizing. From this perspective, ufologists have interpreted the supposed actions and behaviors of “saucer occupants” through the lens of cultural bias. Thus, we hear of civilizations bound by “cosmic treaties” not to interfere with less advanced species, of genetic experiments on humans, of time travelers conducting anthropological studies, or of interdimensional entities manipulating us for sinister ends. But these stories simply project our archetypes and expectations onto the phenomenon, reinforcing a literalist view.

Instead of bringing us closer to the truth, this synthesis has created a tangled web of interpretations where imagination often substitutes for evidence.

The more ufologists speculate about the motives and actions of supposed UFO occupants, the more elaborate the theoretical scaffolding becomes. Over time, this scaffolding solidifies into a self-supporting system of beliefs. Once entrenched, it becomes difficult to abandon—even when many incidents contradict it. This dynamic explains why new approaches struggle to gain traction: accepting them would require dismantling the entire framework of ideas, a vast belief system that not only assigns extraterrestrial, interdimensional, or ultraterrestrial origins to the phenomenon, but also builds upon it with sprawling narratives about genetic experiments, cosmic guardianship, or malevolent controlling entities.

Even scientists and outside researchers who occasionally engage with the subject often fall into the same trap. While their intention may be to apply academic rigor, they usually reinforce the same surface-level idea: that UFOs must be “crafts and beings.” In doing so, they add layers of confusion instead of clarity, when the actual evidence suggests something far less concrete and far more elusive.

Today, many scholars argue that the real challenge is to shed old assumptions and re-examine the evidence with fresh eyes—ones open to unknown dimensions of reality, aspects of human consciousness, or even undiscovered principles of physics and perception. If the UFO phenomenon has shown us anything, it is its ability to overwhelm our categories of thought and resist simplistic explanations. After more than seventy years of investigation and debate, we are still no closer to a definitive understanding. The UFO enigma not only unsettles our most basic explanations—it forces us to rethink what we mean by reality itself.

In the end, any hypothesis that does not rest on a deep and rigorous examination of the ufological record will remain vague, partial, and biased—lacking the foundation to stand against the abundant evidence that has been collected over decades.

JOSE ANTONIO CARAVACA