Tuesday, May 1, 2012

WILLIAM LAXTON INCIDENT: DISTORTION IN IMAGES

If we analyze the close encounter of William Laxton in 1966, we find that this incident gives us many clues on the origin of anomalous experience. The case was investigated by the USAF and the members of Blue Book but they could not identify the aircraft observed by the witness.
Moreover, as a member of the USAF military, Laxton was so used to seeing all types of aircraft in flight and on land, that what he saw onet night was definitely a UFO.

Recall the incident:

Mr. William "Eddie" Laxton, an electronic engineer for 56 years at Temple, Oklahoma, experienced a unique encounter with the unknown.

It all started about 5:30 am on the morning of March 23, 1966, on a stretch of Highway 70, between Oklahoma and Texas, where Mr. Laxton routinely drove to his teaching job at Sheppard Base Air Force (Wichita Falls, Texas).

At that time the witness was surprised to see a great light on the road. Then he saw an odd machine elongated across the road at an angle of 45 degrees that prevented his passage.




The machine seemed to be composed of aluminum and was about 22 meters long and 2.5 meters high and 3.5 meters wide. It had a window in the side like a porthole and was supported by 4 legs. At the top was a six-foot antenna bent backward. The machine was shaped like a fish, divided into 4 equal sections.

Mr. Laxton stopped his van about 90 yards from the machine and approached on foot to about 50 meters from it; the extreme luminosity of the phenomenon allowed him to see with perfect clarity.

"There were four very bright lights on both sides (...) bright enough for a man to read a newspaper from a mile away."

Mr. Laxton subsequently confirmed to journalist Paul Harvey and ufologist Hayden Hewes that the thing seemed to be lit from within and "had a plastic bubble in front, a meter in diameter, and he could see light through it."

The witness said it was similar to the cockpit of a B -26. At the back was a horizontal structure of about 76 cm long and a "kind of stabilizer tail." The side of the aircraft had some numbers and letters painted on a vertical black and "dark circular window."




Laxton thought it was the initials TL and the number 47 (or 41, or A1) and 68..

At the bottom of the object, he perceived a gate about 120 cm tall and 60 cm wide. The hatch was open and he saw a white light inside.

Under the machine appeared a silhouette of a “person” who seemed to be busy in repair functions of the machine, using 'something' like a flashlight.



The “person” noticed the presence of Laxton and climbed into the object via a short ladder.

Asked about the appearance of the “person,” the engineer said he had a height of 1.5 meters and about 80 kilos and Laxton estimated the “person’s” age between 30 to 35 years.

"He wore a two-piece suit like a green military uniform with a "baseball cap.” He thought it had three bands above and three below on the sleeve (like the stripes of a sergeant major). The bands were in a bow and below the lines are in a more broadly V."



When the door closed, the sound produced was like "metal hitting metal."

Moments later, Laxton heard a noise like a drill running at high speed, then the huge metallic “fish” rose from the ground to about 15 '5 feet and disappeared at high speed, about seven hundred kilometers per hour, toward the Red River.

After the machine left, Laxton said he felt static electricity in the air, "the hair on the back of my neck stood on end and [on] my hands," he reported.

Following the departure of the strange metal "fish,", Laxton drove for a little over a mile until he found a truck parked beside the road. The truck’s driver, Anderson C. W. Snyder of Oklahoma, said he had seen, in his mirror, a light towards the river. No other vehicles traveling the road saw or reported the aircraft.


Let's analyze the event from the Theory of Distortion.

1) The first thing that attracts attention is the clothing of the alleged UFO pilot, which is identical to that of a military mechanic. Furthermore, the witness has observed that the humanoid arm gallon was that of a sergeant major. In this incident we find the use, by the external agent, a recognizable archetype of the witness, the repair of aircraft, so common in close encounters. All these elements, mechanical repair and gallons, were due to a distortion of facts and circumstances of the witness’s work environment, in an Air Base.



2) The appearance of the UFO, remember, is a distortedimage: two models of helicopters of the USAF, the model Piasecki H-21 (1953) and Hughes XV-9A (1965) model. The description of the witness, indicates that the fuselage of the object was divided into sections, which is very common in aircraft of the USAF.


a. The Hughes XV-9A model has many similarities with the UFO observed by Laxton. In addition to the elongated shape it has an antenna at the front, and the distribution of the different elements seem to coincide with a distorted view of the helicopter.


b. The area of the front cockpit of the UFO is very rare in flying saucers, but common to helicopters and planes, which clearly define the participation of the psyche of the witness in making experience.
c. The back of the object is very much like the "tail stabilizers" in airplanes and helicopters of the USAF.
d. Also note the distortion of human elements: it is observed that the signs outside the UFO are perfectly recognizable numbers and letters. The initials TLA7 may be a distortion of the letters USAF.



3. There is little doubt that, in this particular incident, prior knowledge of the witnesses (from his military environment) has a decisive influence on the development and staging of the experience, the external agent tuning in to the mind of Laxton, full of information about "things" military, and converts (transforms) the event to a close encounter with a "flying saucer" using a distortion with a helicopter and its crew. An extraterrestrial wouldn’t be wearing cap and using a flashlight for repair work.
William Laxton’s memory was exemplary. This meeting occurs at night, but with impressive lighting so he was able to remember every single detail.

JAC

6 comments:

  1. Although we can't be sure what an 'extraterrestrial' might be wearing or to what use a 'flashlight' might be applied, your argument does make sense regarding your overall case. Cockpit details and images only make it clearer.

    I've been thinking about a problem for quite some time now. It's the element of telepathy, mind-reading or whatever terminology makes folk feel comfortable. Thought control? It's present, as an explanation, in the history of apparition sightings (Gurney et al, Lang, Podmore). It's also present in our more recent 'UFO Age.'

    The Distortion Hypothesis is reliant on something being instrumental in accessing the imagery in a mind. Where I'm calling it a 'problem' is in the way it would relate directly to personal sovereignty. It would overlap (overrule?) freedom of thought and independent actions.

    So, a Distortion Theory would render our independence obsolete under the authority of anyone with that technology. Quite a disturbing concept huh?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kandinsky: "Although we can't be sure what an 'extraterrestrial' might be wearing or to what use a 'flashlight' might be applied..."

    I recall someone telling me that since we don't know the intricacies of UFO/ET technology then it is fool hardy for us to describe how these machinations effect our current technologies, or in the case of Mr. Caravaca, cognitive perception. I disagreed with the ET technology analogy viewing it as a weak hypothetical argument.

    However, in this case Kandinsky has a good point.

    The idea that distortion theory is predicated on an extrinsic factor is interesting. What is the trigger mechanism? Something physical, psycho-neurological...?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tim and Kandinsky...

    Maybe not be something technological, perhaps it is something purely mental, somewhat independently, but with a kind of primary and parasitic intelligence. In recent years, the repercussions of UFO phenomenon, is still anecdotal.
    I think the principal activation between the external agent and the mind of the witness, is a neurological level, but then may have a corresponding physical effect.

    Saludos....

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's a problematic area for discussion as the 'terms' of engagement haven't been agreed upon. For example, no consensus exists that the incidents took place. No one is sure of the phenomena existing and then we attempt to categorise suspected *phenomena* into sub-sections of a suspected phenomenon.

    On a broader perspective, there's also no consensus in the scientific community of what exactly consciousness or where the boundaries of such a thing may lie. And yet we still attempt to rationalise these uncertainties into more than a collection of intangibilities.

    At heart, I find it difficult to escape the idea that we're really discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Who knows if angels or their pins exist?

    Perception is a given - it exists. From there, I guess we're back to wondering who, or what, controls perception?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello, mr. José A. Caravaca. One can resist the invasión of an army but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas (Victor Hugo). Excellent blog. Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Raimundo...

    Thank you very much for your comment, this blog would not be possible without the support and councils Rich Reynold, good friend...

    Saludos y gracias de nuevo...

    ReplyDelete