domingo, 26 de septiembre de 2021

ARCANE ENCOUNTERS WITH UFOS






The interpretation of the genesis of ufology has undergone a remarkable evolution over the years, from the extraterrestrial hypothesis (Keyhoe, Friedman), to a redefinition of the origin of the phenomenon, with the possibility of UFOs coming from parallel universes or unknown dimensions (Vallée, Keel, Michel), all in an attempt to find a place for the anomalous and paranormal component present in many of these experiences. However, both positions still shared the same general points: the existence of intelligent entities alien to human beings, and the presence of strange unknown airships interacting in our environment. Subsequently, the possibility arose that flying saucers were a phenomenon radically different from everything we had established to date, and as a result of the approaches of the famous psychoanalyst Carl Jung, other approaches arose that contemplated that UFOs were neither vehicles nor extraterrestrial intelligences behind these appearances (collective unconscious and psychic phenomena). The Distortion theory follows to a certain extent this last stele by considering UFOs and their occupants as a sort of artificial sociocultural screen raised by our psyche and that hides, in an involuntary and not premeditated way, a mysterious and disconcerting paradigm of cognitive order.



JOSE ANTONIO CARAVACA





martes, 17 de agosto de 2021

ARE UFOS TECHNOLOGICAL OR SOME OTHER KIND OF PHENOMENA?






To date we have no evidence that the extraordinary and unknown capabilities and properties exhibited by the UFO phenomenon are due to the existence of an extraterrestrial technology deployed before our eyes. In fact, the evolutions of strange luminous spheres in the sky, the appearance and disappearance of humanoids, electromagnetic interference, paralysis or that some objects or entities can pass through matter, have been described in many other supernatural contexts for hundreds of years without having been thought to date to be the product of an unknown science, but rather as the manifestation of a reality that normally seems forbidden to the ordinary senses. So it is clear that the similarity of UFOs with these other strange phenomena could indicate that we have been reinterpreting, perhaps influenced by our cultural filters, a series of paradigms that since the dawn of history have been present in different human cultures and that seem to react to our presence by changing and metamorphosing their external appearance. Curiously, telepathic communications are not an exclusive resource of UFO crews either, but practically all entities that have come our way, have used this means to communicate with us. But only from the second half of the 20th century experts began to consider that the anomalous manifestations could conceal a lavish alien technology, but are we sure about this?

Can we be sure that UFOs, their occupants and collateral phenomena are a consequence of the irruption of a science from other worlds on our planet? And even more taking into account that very soon the ufologists noted that, together with the manifes- tations of flying saucers and ufonauts, phenomena such as poltergeist, precognitions, strange dreams, etc., which were not unprecedented for the investigators of other heterodox subjects, were making an appearance. So, in reality, none of the UFO paradigm, except for its particular aesthetic scenography (with certain nuances), has been completely unknown to us, but obviously what has changed is the inter- pretation we have given to these apparitions. That an unexpected nocturnal visitor bursts into our bedroom has never been considered an extraterrestrial interference for scientific purposes until our civilization has contextualized these apparitions under a certain explanatory framework in line with a supposed technology that would allow extraterrestrials to go through walls to reach us. But obviously this approach ignores the fact that all kinds of entities have performed these same tasks since the dawn of history, in fields as diverse as the religious, the mystical or the philosophical. In the last seventy years thousands of people have described incredible apparitions that seemed to simulate in their appearance to be the result of an unattainable extraterres- trial science, although on the other hand, the similarity with our own evolutionary development (anthropomorphizing of the occupants) and technological development (scuba diving suits, autonomous respirators, ray guns, ladders, antennas, windows, control consoles, etc.) led many other researchers to suspect that it could be some kind of mirage or socio-cultural distortion of our own civilization raised by a phenomenon that we do not know how to decode properly.

Therefore it cannot be ruled out that what we have erroneously labeled to date as close encounters with extraterrestrial beings is the product of other types of phenomena or issues related to human perception of unknown chinks in our reality or our own mental universe that sometimes assaults us outside the walls of the psychic with a rapturous force.




JOSE ANTONIO CARAVACA

jueves, 1 de julio de 2021

THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN UFOS IN THE NEAR AND FAR DISTANCE

 






Since practically the beginnings of modern ufology, the behavior of the UFO cases has only made evident that distant sightings do not have many points in common with the so-called close encounters. It is in the closest experiences with the Unidentified that the paradigm reveals itself in a much more ambiguous and disconcerting way, moving away from our assumed presumptions about the origin of the phenomenon. And we cannot deny that there is an abysmal and substantial difference, in form and substance, between both facets of the UFO paradigm, and although both share obvious common features, it does not seem, after a thorough analysis of the issue, that they fit exactly the same phenomenon, at least in the way of experiencing it. But how is this possible, and did the distant sightings engender the birth of a different phenomenon? The doubts and questions that arise from the study of the ufological literature are wide and diverse, and until we do not get to delimit which is the true dimension of the close encounters with UFOs we will not advance in the understanding of the phenomenon. 






JOSE ANTONIO CARAVACA

domingo, 2 de mayo de 2021

WHEN ART LEADS THE UFO PHENOMENON




Someday, if we want to understand what is behind the UFO phenomenon, we should value the true role and influence exerted by many graphic artists who, in countless books, articles and illustrations, have captured their particular vision of the UFO manifestations based mainly on cultural and imaginative stereotypes rather than on what the witnesses actually described. The proposal of these cartoonists offers a defined and delimited image of the paradigm, almost photographic, that in the majority of occasions does not correspond at all with the reality contained in the reports, but that obviously transferred a series of very deep visual archetypes that fit with certain beliefs that could be sponsored, in a strange and paradoxical feedback, by these same images...




JOSE ANTONIO CARAVACA

viernes, 2 de abril de 2021

WHAT IS DISTORTION THEORY?: CLARIFYING CONCEPTS...





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. 




JOSE ANTONIO CARAV@CA

viernes, 19 de marzo de 2021

UFOS: 9 KEYS THAT INVALIDATE THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS





Although many researchers continue to defend the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis as the most accurate answer to explain the UFO phenomenon, its coherence has been much in recent years. And only by disregarding a large part of the informative material gathered by ufologists is it possible to maintain, to this day, that the visions of these artifacts and their occupants may be caused by the arrival on our planet of a troop of extraterrestrial scientists. In my opinion, there are nine key factors that we must take into account when analyzing this paradigm:

1.- Infinite diversity in the descriptions of airships. (Not even in basic shapes such as "saucers" or "spheres" there is unanimity in sizes or colors).

2.- Infinite diversity in the descriptions of humanoids.

3.- Exclusivity of each incident. No repetition in the casuistry of most of the elements and characteristics observed.

4.- Absurd elements (fairies with scandals, cooking aliens...).

5.- "Paranormal" characteristics of the incidents.

6.- Total absence of weighty evidence confirming the existence of these "extraterrestrial" visitations.

7.- The non-existence of a global plot that could unite all the incidents in a big story.

8.- That they appear to be phenomena that move between two antagonistic universes, the physical and the psychic.

9.- Elusive information that does not determine the true origin, nature or purpose of the occupants of the UFOs.

The sum of these factors gives us an uncertain and disturbing result. How is all this possible? What can explain the infinite capacity of the phenomenon to vary from one episode to another? Why does it restart in each encounter? Why is it, often, so absurd and hilarious? Why have we not been able to obtain a single irrefutable proof? How is the phenomenon regulated to remain "clandestine", despite its numerous appearances? How can they "move" between the real universe and the psychic one?



JOSE ANTONIO CARAVACA

lunes, 1 de febrero de 2021

THE INSTABILITY OF THE UFO PHENOMENON

 




My studies on close encounters with UFOs have pointed out that both the aesthetics and the narrative of such episodes are closely related to the unconscious of the witnesses. Although the conclusion I have reached is that rather than belonging to a collective of beliefs, UFOs and their occupants seem to be constituted primarily on information extracted from a single individual.

But what does this mean? On the one hand, the phenomenon is constructed under very specific socio-cultural patterns, and on the other hand, these resources are contributed, although involuntarily, directly by the witnesses when they are witnessing these apparitions. It is as if the decoding of the ufological paradigm passes under the particular filters of each individual who experiences these encounters without taking into account the preceding incidents. And although it is clear that we are confronted with global experiences, on the contrary, their development is clearly personal, which is why the unification of criteria (at the UFO cases level) is complex beyond recording and noting the characteristics of the modus operandi of the paradigm. This is, in my opinion, the most important thing in order to begin to understand the UFO enigma, to decipher why the witnesses perceive the phenomenon in a certain way.

And where does this lead? To what, probably the UFO phenomenon is not being expressed under a single image or a single message but it is leaving each witness to embellish it or dress it under a certain aspect that plays with the cultural stereotype (and this is very important to understand) of the extraterrestrial visitation. To the extent that the modus operandi of the UFO phenomenon has been traced, at least in the events of greatest proximity to the witnesses, it does not seem to be due to an event isolated from the presence of the observers.

Furthermore, in the UFO apparitions converge a high malleability and instability that would indicate that, in origin, the phenomenon is being modified (not to be confused with interpretation) in some way by the interaction of the witnesses before it is even present in front of their eyes. The descriptions of the elements that compose the UFO paradigm (the binomial ship and occupant) are not homogeneous or coherent with a stable phenomenon of an exclusively ordinary physical nature (that we are being visited by 1 or several extraterrestrial civilizations). UFOs seem to be the manifestation of a psychodimensional phenomenon capable of materializing following the aesthetic and narrative instructions of the unconscious of the observers, demonstrating that perhaps all our ufological literature is built on an armour of beliefs and socio-cultural factors that cover a genuine phenomenon paradigm but interfered with by the witnesses when [they] decode it.

If flying saucers were the message of the collective unconscious, Jung's famous mandala, the image transmitted by the UFO phenomenon would be much more homogeneous and to some extent static, however ufological literature indicates the opposite. Each individual accesses an apparently same "signal", but under his socio-cultural patterns he decodes it in a certain way, completely annulling the supposed purpose (if it exists ) of the transmitter.





JOSE ANTONIO CARAVACA