One will find in any listing of close encounters of UFOs, incidents that seem to defy reason and are absurd products of the mind.
They contain elements with the sole purpose of undermining the credibility of those who are encountered.
The encounter is not believed, and is taken as a joke.
Nor does it seem logical that an alleged witness who "invents" an episode of an encounter with a UFO (to fool the press for example) would create absurd and illogical details that cause their case to not be taken seriously.
Therefore, since the root of these elements is absurdity and incoherency I have called it the Distortion.
When there is a close encounter, the entities make up the scenario (stage, actors, etc.) for its representation, in the eyes of the witness, with psychic material extracted from the witness's mind.
It is something like dreams, where the logical and the absurd come together.
When we sleep, our mind represents scenes from "life", many of them inconsistent, but accepted as "normal during the dream.
But when we wake, we see the absurdity of the dream content.
Something similar happens during close encounters with UFO experiences; the intelligences that cause them, they use a “dream” language based on images and sensations.
When "they" are introduced into our reality, they deliberately cause a distortion to manifest itself.
"They" do not show their true appearance.
Achieved virtually (like dreams) the experiences are non-transferable and personal.
While sharing common features (UFO sightings), the data highlight of close encounters is its individualistic character.
There seems to be a different alien different for each witness.
Here is an example of what we speak:
On April 18, 1961, in Eagle River (Wisconsin), Joe Simonton 60, who lived alone on a farm on the outskirts of the city, had a very strange encounter with rare "aliens cooks."
About 11:00 am in the morning, Mr. Simonton heard something like the sound of "knobby tires on wet pavement."
Mr. Simonton observed a metal object landing in his yard.
It was a chromed artefact, very brilliant, 9 meters in diameter and 3.5 meters in height.
The object had the form of two reversed bowls with "exhaust pipes" on its edge.
It did not quite touch the ground.
The witness approached the object. He opened a “gate” and observed a UFO crew of three with dark complexions.
They had a height of 1.5 meters, wore black or navy blue clothing with turtleneck shirts and helmets.
Simonton told the press that the crew seemed to be of "Italian descent" and about 25 or 30 years old.
One of the occupants gave the witness a “metallic” jar with two handles, indicating with gestures that he needed water for drinking, holding the jar to his mouth.
As a good host, Simonton agreed to the request and went to
his house to fill the water jug, which weighed a bit more than aluminium.
Returning, he noted that inside the artefact, one member of the crew was using a grill, making "cookies" (pancakes?).
Simonton didn’t see a fire in the grill.
The interior of the object was similar to wrought iron and matte black and there were several "dashboards."
The witness says he heard a noise like an electric generator.
Simonton asked for some cookies from the "Italians".
The "chef," who had red stripes on the pants, gave Simonton four hot cookies of about 7.5 centimeters in diameter, with small holes.
Then one of the occupants of the device closed the gate and the machine rose at an angle of 45 degrees.
The UFO moved away at high speed toward the south, causing the tops of nearby pine trees to bend, but without causing any visible damage to them.
The experience lasted five minutes.
Simonton ate one of the cookies and told reporters that it "tasted like cardboard."
The police, who knew Simonton for fifteen years said that they believed in the truth of what he said."
The USAF investigated the matter and examined one of the cookies at the "U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare's Food and Drug Laboratory".
The result: hydrogenated fat, starch, buckwheat hulls, soy bean hulls, wheat bran. (Bacteria and radiation readings were normal.)
Chemical, infra-red and other destructive type tests were run on the material which indicated an ordinary cookie of terrestrial origin.
The whereabouts of the mysterious cookies:
1. Eaten by Simoton.
2. NICAP.
3. The USAF.
4. Remainder to Simonton.
An interesting detail from the analysis of the cookies: they did not contain salt.
Jacques Vallee, in his book Passport to Magonia, compared this "culinary gift" with the food of the fairies which does not contain salt.
Dr. Joseph Allen Hynek, told Major Robert Friend, that the witness told the truth, but it was the product of a "lucid dream" while preparing breakfast.
Simonton was sorry he told his story to the public, as he suffered continuous ridicule and jokes by his neighbors and the press.
ON "LUCID DREAMING", COOKIES AND CLOSE ENCOUNTERS
I agree in part with the approach of Dr. Hynek: that the witness had an "experience like a dream.”
Simonton certainly had an encounter that seemed "physical", "real," and tangible, caused by an "external intelligence" influencing Simonton's mind.
The psyche of the witness added everyday elements to the alleged UFO landing.
It is particularly strange that a spacecraft had a grill for making cookies, in addition to being manned by "Italian tourists" that offered the cookies but needed a jar of water.
No doubt all these aspects are the result of a complex phenomenon of “distortion” which arises from the union of the mind of Simonton with "unknown intelligences."
If normal dreams usually have aspects and components that are inexplicable, absurd and difficult to understand, imagine the result of the union of the unconscious of a witness with "minds of non-humans," that have the ability to recreate matter at will.
My theory is mainly developed from an individual's perception of any anomalous phenomenon (paranormal, UFOs, cryptozoological, et cetera.), where the witness becomes CO-CREATOR, participating in the elaboration of the unconscious experience, contributing psychological material about the conduct of the aliens, external aspects of the machines, et cetera although the "unknown intelligences" after adapting it, represent it according to their whim, acting as INTERPRETER, decoding of the "manifestation."
I think the main effect of all anomalous experiences are based on my principle called “distortion” (which occurs at the time that the external phenomena connects with the witness) and also because of the strange effects caused by communication between dimensions.
If it were a "mathematical formula" it would be something like this:
DISTORTION=PERCEPTION (transformation of experience with a union of the psyche of the witness and unknown entities)
I am convinced that the principles and mechanisms that are used are similar to dreams + TIME (the phenomenon may be accompanied by alteration in time) + PHYSICS (effects on the subject, creation of matter, alterations in the environment of witnesses, et cetera)
The DISTORTION must be understood as:
1. One means of communication, between "them" and the witness, based on sensations and images.
2. One mode of hiding: A perfect disguise.
At the time of the UFO landing at Eagle River, the "unknown entities" grabbed the mind of Simonton, making sure he would wish for a encounter with "ordinary people of stars" (not monsters, nothing unusual), hospitable, cooking in the spacecraft, pancakes just like any Earth neighbour.
This small detail, the cookies, makes it difficult for many people to believe the testimony of Simonton.
Laughter and disbelief are guaranteed.
Therefore, the "distortion" carries an inherent capacity of absurdity and impossible imagery, the signature of many encounters with UFOs, that allows the phenomenon to move between the real and the extraordinary, between waking and sleeping.
Cookies do not contain anything special in our known universe. But still, by analyzing from our perspective, we notice that the cookies are the product of distortion of reality and because they contained mundane ingredients, there is another more important subliminal, transcendent message, a message that we still do not know how to decode.
THEORETICAL CONCLUSIONS
1. I believe in the inter-dimensional nature of the UFO phenomenon.
2. It is an "intelligent" phenomenon (entities) that exists outside of us.
3. The phenomenon has takn many centuries, and many demonstrations to interact with humans.
4. The phenomenon has demonstrated mutability, but does fit into society at the time it manifests itself. (Entities never act in an orderly fashion, or follow an established pattern of behaviour. Its manifestations, via mutability, are related to individual perception and distortion.
5. The diversity of the UFO phenomenon:
a. Many humanoid types (tiny, normal, giant, hairy, bald, cyclopian, et cetera.)
b. Multi-forms of "flying saucers" of every size imaginable, from several centimeters to hundreds of meters and multiple forms: plates, round, square, triangular, cigar-shaped, et cetera.
c. A comprehensive report on visitor behaviour (aggressive, curious, funny, naughty, et cetera) with (various languages: English, Spanish, Russian, French, accompanied by gestures, telepathy, animal grunts, et cetera.)
d. Erasure (almost magical) of any trace or evidence (by more than half a century of the manifestation) which could prove its reality to the whole world.
All these points point to an obvious distortion of our perception of "them," with the sole purpose of carrying out a great "hoax."
6. If it were a distortion caused by the intrusion into our universe or an aspect of quantum theory, the UFO phenomenon would not present an "aberration" of information as we know it.
7. The most striking feature of the UFO phenomena is, without doubt, the individual characteristic that is presented.
(It has all the features, although obviously not, of a mental phenomenon, as each case seems made for a single witness.)
8. The important connection with other anomalous phenomena (cryptozoology, apparitions of the Virgin, et cetera) indicates that the "intelligence" from "hidden" dimensions use various types of events to deceive.
9. The existence of cases where different anomalous phenomena (at least in appearance) are mixed; for example UFOs manned by Bigfoot, or apparitions of the Virgin seen as part of a UFO sighting (Fatima) clearly indicates that the interaction with the observer goes beyond what one would normally expect.
Obviously this distortion, instigated by unknown intelligences, causes total confusion.
Distortion is a means of communication but also a means of concealment.
The purpose? We do not know…
JAC
As I understand it Barry Greenwood possesses the last of Joe's 'pancakes.'
ReplyDeleteSimonton contacted the FSR in 1962 (May-June) and described something that has since become quite familiar in the humanoid encounters - enchanting eyes.
He wrote, 'First those men had a complexion much finer than any woman I ever saw and their eyes just looked right down to the bottom of your shoes. Do you understand? When they looked in your eyes, well you just couldn't stand to look at them for long. They seemed to do something to you.'
This claim was made before the Hills' case was widely known and represents a very early reference to compelling eyes. It also hints at an interaction on a different level than simple physical reality.
I can't settle on an explanation that leaves me comfortable. It could be a bizarre case of 'lucid dream' as suggested by Hynek et al. More exotically, it's possible to speculate that it was a stage-managed interjection by something we don't yet understand. This direction is something I'm drawn to as it seems to address aspects of the humanoid encounters that other ideas do not. 'Lucid dreams' cannot account for many other reports...
In a typical analogy, the presentation of beings, in an absurd situation, could be like the 'shell-game.' As the percipient/witness' attention is focused on the 'show,' something else entirely is on the mind of the intelligence behind the 'show.' Our politicians do something similar every day; they wave around distractions as their real agenda lies out of sight.
It would be much easier and persuasive to accept the psychological explanation if not for the smaller sub-set of reports that have included multiple witnesses or which have left some form of physical evidence in cases of single witnesses. This doesn't rule out a psychological experience; it seems to put the instrumentality behind the experience out of the jurisdiction of us. In that sense, a physical *something* instigates the experience.
Puzzling stuff.
"What exactly is a joke?" asked Syd Barrett. Perhaps it is that the pricks at our weaknesses and and this case the punchline is a pancake. When this edible and behavioral metaphor is dissected by forensics, it may be there are no pancakes in nature, yet all the ingredients naturally occur. You could say reasonably, mind you, that a pancake is a composite.It has to be intentionally created from a recipe. The ingredients must be gathered. The ingredients processed. The product to be eaten and then digested. The eating of a pancake is experiential.The event was a pancake.
ReplyDeleteWhy would aliens bother to discredit, distort, obfuscate one story and not thousands more?
ReplyDeleteIs it not more likely one man, Joe Simonton, would want to confuse ufologists?
Chris, thanks for comment ...
ReplyDeleteSimonton's incident is just one example, there are multiple cases where the "absurdity factor" is present in the accounts of witnesses. In this blog there are other examples of what I try to be called the theory of distortion.
Saludos
Kandinsky...
ReplyDeletethanks for your comment very interesting
Jose
'Is it not more likely one man, Joe Simonton, would want to confuse ufologists? '
ReplyDeleteAs you use the term 'aliens,' between Simonton hoaxing and 'aliens' landing in his back yard to borrow a cup of water, the hoaxing explanation is much more likely.
Having said that, there was nothing to suggest (at the time) that Simonton was prone to hoaxing. Also, there's no apparent reason to think he, or anything else, sought to confuse ufologists.
He could well have been a hoaxer, although one of the reasons why his exotic claims are being considered is in the way they coincide with similarly absurd claims. You're an actual researcher whereas I'm just an interested 'extra' in the discussion. As such, I won't try to persuade you to alter your view.
A reason why I haven't dismissed his account as hoaxed is because it follows a similar MO in other encounter reports. In these, we tend to have people describing absurd encounters who have no history of hoaxing and are never heard from again. Mostly, they receive negative attention and no financial reward. This, for me, is just cause to consider explanations other than hoaxes.
I agree with you Kandinsky, essentially the sighting of Simonton does not differ in content of the events described in other parts of the world. For example, the water is substantial detail on many encounters with UFOs, even during the famous AIR-SHIP wave of 1896/1897, the crew of the dirigible looking water.
ReplyDeleteAs with the UFOs supposed damaged, another excuse used in many reports. All elements clearly recognizable by the witness, the need for water, or the breakdown on the road.
Siminton's case is unique, this is why it's so well-known. This is also why it does not coincide with other claims.
ReplyDeleteAbsurdity in itself is not a useful common denominator, it's just an excuse to make the jigsaw of ufology more complex, awe-inspiring and unsolvable. Some puzzle pieces belong to completely different jigsaws.
The need for water is common to known hoax stories, too. It doesn't help.
Estimado Crhis, me permito contestarte en español, para mayor entendimiento:
ReplyDeleteEl incidente de Simonton no es único, la “galleta” si (al menos en nuestra época), pero de ninguna manera los comportamientos y procedimientos mostrados de los tripulantes de los OVNIs.
La casuística OVNI esta repleta de incidentes donde existe un elemento desconcertante o absurdo que se puede comparar perfectamente a la “galleta” regalada a Simonton.
Sra. Lotti (1954. Francia) en cuyo encuentro cercano dos humanoides risueños le “robaron” flores y una media, además de intentar hacerle una “fotografía”.
Máximo Muñoz (1953. España) al que un diminuto ser saltarín, que surgió de una tinaja voladora, dio una bofetada.
John Trasco (1957. USA), al que un supuesto extraterrestre de un metro de altura, con ojos de rana le dijo: "Somos gente de paz sólo queremos tu perro?.
A mi entender todos estos conceptos agrupan la “galleta de Simonton” así como un evidente factor absurdo compartido en la mayoría de los incidentes de encuentros cercanos.
Respecto al “agua” y las supuestas “averías” en los OVNI, son perfectas coartadas que hacen que el testigo se sienta mas “seguro” ante la extraordinaria y nada cotidiana visión de un fenómeno anómalo. Al menos dentro de un contexto extraño, esta observando y reconociendo unas necesidades humanas muy normales “que tu coche se averíe en mitad de la noche” o por ejemplo la “necesidad vital del agua” (Prospera Muñoz 1947, España, los "visitantes" le pidieron un vaso de agua que nunca bebieron).
Son coartadas cuya misión es introducir elementos reconocibles y asimilables (tranquilizadores) en las experiencias que probablemente son fruto de la Distorsión provocada por estas entidades. Queda fuera de toda lógica y probabilidad estadística, que se hayan presenciado tantos OVNI averiados, al lado o sobre una carretera en cualquier rincón del planeta (Incluso los Air-Ship 1896/1897 y los aeroplanos fantasmas 1934, registraron incidentes donde sus tripulantes ejercían labores de reparación).
Un claro ejemplo de Distorsion. William Laxton (1966. USA) “sufrió” una distorsión que le hizo observar un OVNI en forma de avión militar, que el piloto del artefacto estuviera vestido de militar, llevase una gorra de béisbol o incluso tuviera “galones”. Por no hablar de las letras y números “terrestres” que distinguió en el fuselaje.
William Laxton trabajaba en una base de la USAF y estaba familiarizado con todos y cada uno de los aspectos que observó en su encuentro, pero evidentemente no correspondía a una aeronave de procedencia humana.
Recibe un cordial saludo
Jose
I read fluent 'google translate,' and agree with Jose's examples as they gather together some accounts that share the absurdity of some distinct accounts. They are all unique in their own way, and yet so are many, more typical, close encounter claims - differences in descriptions of craft or beings etc.
ReplyDeleteI think Gary Wilcox, Jean Hingley, Carl Higdon and Robert Taylor et al also fall within the same type of accounts. They are all (claimed) parties to absurd encounters with unusual beings that communicate either nonsense dialogue or surreal physical actions. They also include UFO sightings with secondary source evidence from neighbours and/or police investigators.
I find these accounts intriguing and am drawn to speculate on the stimuli that provoked them. As such, I've read about PTSD and War Vet hallucinations to see if there's a psychological trigger that could link them to a known cause. Mini-strokes (TIAs), infrasound and other possible causes have so far left me unsatisfied.
So far, hoax or that something unusual occurred appear to be the best options.
So, the wilder and more unique the claim, the better it fits a pattern? l can't think of one good reason that should make sense.
ReplyDeletePatterns are composed of repeating or predictable elements. Random scenarios, no matter whether you personally think they are all "equaIly silly," indicte the exact
opposite.
Take 15 or 20 obviously untrue superstitions (walking under ladders, black cats, breaking mirrors, etc.). Should we assume they are all born from the same real supernatural intelligence because they are all so absurd (yet have followers)? Do the same with a dozen urban legends. Should we assume these things are true because they are so silly, lack evidence yet seem to be believed? Surely not. So why regard the silliest tales of UFOs as somehow likely and worthy of rationalization?
'So, the wilder and more unique the claim, the better it fits a pattern? l can't think of one good reason that should make sense.'
ReplyDeleteReductio ad absurdum Chris? Would you agree that the general breadth of UFO reports are inevitably wild and unique? In your book's intro, Bob Goode and Billy McCoy described a huge craft that left physical effects on Goode - this in itself is a pretty wild claim. It's amongst my favourite accounts and should be consigned to hoax by reasoning of its uniqueness.
Father Gill and his 30+ witnesses in Papua New Guinea are often cited as a strong case through witness credibility, but it's pretty wild stuff. Waving entities? Unlikely! Tehran? Probably a little too much Iranian sun went to their collective heads.
My point here is to ask where do you draw the line for what is worth considering and what is not? Is the suspicion of unknown aerial craft acceptable and the apparent association of beings with a craft a step too far?
Estimado Chris, permíteme que siga respondiéndote en español,
ReplyDeleteSigo pensando que el "fenómeno" al que nos enfrentamos interactúa con los testigos creando todo tipo de experiencias inusuales (hadas, apariciones marianas, big foot, etc). A mi parecer la teoría de la Distorsión esta relacionada o tiene analogías con el estado provocado por el sueño lucido o por ejemplo las alucinaciones comunes (aunque su origen, en nuestro particular caso, provenga desde el exterior provocada por la acción conjunta de nuestra mente y la inteligencia desconocida).
Referente al concepto absurdo dentro del fenómeno OVNI, el propio Dr. Hynek, se mostraba desconcertado ante la naturaleza de los "platillos volantes" debido precisamente a la “incoherencia” y extremada diversidad ofrecida por la casuística.
Siguiendo tu ejemplo de las Leyendas Urbanas. Imaginemos que estas siguieran o imitaran la estructura argumental de los encuentros cercanos.
Los relatos contendrían elementos (partes de la trama) que restarían credibilidad y seriedad al conjunto de la “ficción”. Estando en contra del propósito principal de las Leyendas Urbanas, que es la propagación de un mensaje (una mentira) entre la mayor cantidad de personas. Sin embargo esto no sucede, ya que mas creíble o no, las Leyendas Urbanas se caracterizan por transmitir una “historia” que puede ser aceptada sin problemas por una gran cantidad de personas, aunque se carezcan de cualquier tipo de pruebas. Si desarrollamos nuestro modelo de prueba, o sea si las Leyendas Urbanas actuaran como los encuentros cercanos y su factor absurdo estuviera presente en los relatos, algunos de estos rumores fantásticos serían así: “En las alcantarillas de Nueva York existen cocodrilos albinos de gente que los ha comprado como mascotas y cuando han crecido peligrosamente, los han arrojado por los retretes, algunos de estos ejemplares llevan incluso las gafas de Bruno Mars”. “En la curva de la carretera 54, aparece el espectro de una joven que murió hace 30 años, pidiendo ayuda ya que nunca fue socorrida, mientras la observas suena de fondo la música de Benny Hill”. Evidentemente estos “añadidos absurdos” van en evidente contrasentido del propósito final de las Leyendas Urbanas. Nadie en su sano juicio, que quisiera perpetrar un engaño se le ocurría inventar tales historias llena de despropositos. ¿Entonces, por qué las historias sobre “platillos volantes” están repletas de aspectos desconcertantes?...
Esto nos lleva a deducir que mas que un “ingrediente” sin sentido, el elemento “absurdo” de las experiencias OVNI se torna en una pieza clave del rompecabezas. Descifrar por tanto su origen y finalidad nos puede conducir, si no a la resolución del enigma, al menos a entender algunas pautas de su funcionamiento. Esa es al menos es mi modesta opinión.
Jose
Kandinsky
ReplyDeletethanks for all your comments, I very much agree with your approach. The stimulus created the witnesses are key to understanding the whole argument of close encounters.
Excuse for introduce some post in Spanish, my English is very bad to express clearly, if not for the help of Rich Reynolds, this would be more complicated. Take this opportunity to publicly thank Rich is GENIAL...
Jose...
ReplyDeleteYour English is far better than my Spanish, and your thinking is far better that most in the UFO field.
It's our pleasure and honor to have your material available to readers here, via our blog spot(s).
RR
Very kind Rich, your words are a compliment coming from a great researcher and a better person...
ReplyDeleteI do not rule teaching some Spanish
saludos
Jose...
ReplyDeleteI took French in school.
Who could have known that Hispanics would, one day, rule the world.
RR
Hi Jose,
ReplyDeleteWe'll agree to disagree on this one.
You accept that unlikely stories may represent a deliberate pattern designed by a single intelligence.
I accept that most unlikely stories may represent a pattern, too: attempts to deliberately hoodwink UFO researchers.
You see absurd claims as distortion carried out strategically by a mysterious intelligence.
I see people distorting ufology in their effort to make sense of absurd claims.
Ufology won't progress without innovation. Your idea is to explain what's beyond improbable by redefining it, mine is to dump it like so much deadwood and examine the remaining 99.99999% of cases on file. Neither idea is innovative or fresh so the field will have to gets its revolution elsewhere.
As long as we don't want to get married and live together I see no reason why we can't co-exist quite happily with our own opinions and methodologies.
@ Jose - 'thanks for all your comments, I very much agree with your approach.'
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your kind words and respect your reasonable style.
@ Chris - 'I see no reason why we can't co-exist quite happily with our own opinions and methodologies.'
Spoken like a true scholar. I wish everyone took the same approach as often as possible.
It's frequently overlooked that 'opinions and methodologies' aren't necessarily in conflict and can overlap.