Monday, December 12, 2011
AN ARMY OF ALIENS IN A "BUS"
Copyright 2011, InterAmerica, Inc.
http://caravaca-files.blogspot.com/2011/12/army-of-aliens-in-bus.html
One night in mid-September 1971, Juan Rodriguez Dominguez, 80, was guarding a melon farm owned by a lieutenant general of infantry, called "Los Lunarejos" in Aznalcóllar (Sevilla).
About 10:00 pm, Juan, came into the village, very nervous and very scared.
He told his neighbors that "something" very big, like a bus, had landed in the field.
The researchers Ignacio Darnaude and Manuel Osuna managed to interview the witness.
Juan said that about 350 feet away, he watched the landing of a large luminous object, from which descended out of two doors (front, side and back side) a large number of humanoids.
The witness said it was very similar to buses on route to the capital Seville.
He saw more than 50 men of small stature wearing tight, blue uniforms.
They wore "visors" or "something" that prevented him from seeing their faces.
They advanced like a small army, without speaking, in perfect order.
They all went in the direction of a well.
5 or 6 humanoids stayed in the vicinity of the device.
One of small beings had a "lantern" that shone on the witness, causing minor discomfort.
Juan was armed with a shotgun, but never thought of using it (deterred by the large number of humanoids).
At that time, he believed that the beings sent him a mental command (telepathy) to leave the place. He did so, fleeing in fear to the village.
At first Juan thought it might even be an attempted coup against the regime of Francisco Franco.
In the landing place, there appeared traces of a multitude of small footprints.
No doubt this incident is a case of distortion, as Juan Rodriguez, had done military service, worked for a high-ranking military and humanoids behaved and dressed as military.
Besides, the "vehicle" that came down with more than 50 "soldiers" was very similar to the bus that the witness was accustomed to seeing pass through the village.
In fact, the “vehicle” had two doors like that bus which contained lots of people just like the humanoids in the UFO.
Juan unconsciously combined the passengers factor with the military factor (the military is evident throughout all the experience ).
Even the conduct of the alleged alien who shined a light on Juan, was the same as what a military troop might do.
What logic is there in a landing of 50 humanoids to see a well?
JAC
One night in mid-September 1971, Juan Rodriguez Dominguez, 80, was guarding a melon farm owned by a lieutenant general of infantry, called "Los Lunarejos" in Aznalcóllar (Sevilla).
About 10:00 pm, Juan, came into the village, very nervous and very scared.
He told his neighbors that "something" very big, like a bus, had landed in the field.
The researchers Ignacio Darnaude and Manuel Osuna managed to interview the witness.
Juan said that about 350 feet away, he watched the landing of a large luminous object, from which descended out of two doors (front, side and back side) a large number of humanoids.
The witness said it was very similar to buses on route to the capital Seville.
He saw more than 50 men of small stature wearing tight, blue uniforms.
They wore "visors" or "something" that prevented him from seeing their faces.
They advanced like a small army, without speaking, in perfect order.
They all went in the direction of a well.
5 or 6 humanoids stayed in the vicinity of the device.
One of small beings had a "lantern" that shone on the witness, causing minor discomfort.
Juan was armed with a shotgun, but never thought of using it (deterred by the large number of humanoids).
At that time, he believed that the beings sent him a mental command (telepathy) to leave the place. He did so, fleeing in fear to the village.
At first Juan thought it might even be an attempted coup against the regime of Francisco Franco.
In the landing place, there appeared traces of a multitude of small footprints.
No doubt this incident is a case of distortion, as Juan Rodriguez, had done military service, worked for a high-ranking military and humanoids behaved and dressed as military.
Besides, the "vehicle" that came down with more than 50 "soldiers" was very similar to the bus that the witness was accustomed to seeing pass through the village.
In fact, the “vehicle” had two doors like that bus which contained lots of people just like the humanoids in the UFO.
Juan unconsciously combined the passengers factor with the military factor (the military is evident throughout all the experience ).
Even the conduct of the alleged alien who shined a light on Juan, was the same as what a military troop might do.
What logic is there in a landing of 50 humanoids to see a well?
JAC
11 comments:
- Part Two
As you say, "What logic is there in a landing of 50 humanoids to see a well?" Exactly! On its surface, superficially, totally silly and truly absurd. But what if that was part of a staged or designed external scenario, and not purely imaginal or internal to the witness? I mean, who would believe it, right? I sometimes use the metaphor of the Wizard of Oz, and suggest we should try to find the curtain behind which the manipulative source, whether prosaic or not, may create the appearance of a kind of "absurd reality," at least to the witness(es), and more intriguingly, unbelievable to those the story is told or becomes known to. There just could be a wizard behind the wizard who resides quietly, out of sight, behind the invisible curtain, manipulating human consciousness and mind in some situations.
Or, maybe not. Kind of depends on the circumstances, as always. But I do not consider it impossible that what the witness described might not have been shown to him with other motives and purposes involved, whether human, non-human, or triggered by prosaic natural phenomena affecting and creating a dream-like story in the witness' mind. Do we really know? Can it be proven? Does the evidence only point in one direction? Ockham's razor does not always apply, especially if some intelligent agency, regardless of origin or form, natural or not, is active and is operating covertly or outside of our understanding--tactically, that simplistic variable would be taken into consideration beforehand. Maybe the more absurd the better--but the accumulative volume and weight of these tales has an impact on human consciousness and belief in the long run, like snowflakes individually falling can become a snowstorm and deep fields of icy snow that need plowing. Look at the impact of myth, belief, and religions in particular. Need I say more?
Whether the incident as described occurred as portrayed by the witness, or not, cannot be proven one way or the other, and operates on a liminal or mythological level as a consequence.
The mere _debate_ about such anomalous and fortean incidents itself acts mimetically within cultures and upon human belief structures anthropologically and sociologically speaking.
It would not be wise to reach hasty or seemingly logical or prosaic psychological conclusions as the basis for some incidents, despite their inherent "high strangeness," such as in cases like this one, although I generally agree that your interpretation is more likely than the first-level one that the incident occurred as the witness stated, regardless of the nature of the "footprint evidence," which could have also been belatedly hoaxed. OTOH, you could be wrong. \
Think about what I'm trying to say--there could be other, more esoteric explanations for the seemingly fabricated or confabulated scenarios and tales some witnesses tell of very strange UFO encounters. How can we tell what a non-human (or conversely, unknown natural cause, like tectonic electromagnetic effects for one prosaic but sub rosa factor) might do to co-create or synthesize an experience that seems irrational, absurd, and illogical to most? Is there a wizard behind the curtain showing us the imagery of Oz, or not. I would suggest both options have at times occurred, that it is not a binary, either/or reductionist choice to be made. There is a "Third Kingdom," as Jerome Clark has discussed, and I simply ask you to consider other possibilities may be involved at times in such strange cases. We simply do not know, as yet, how to separate the wheat from the chaff to the degree we would like to sometimes think.Reply - @Mynona
What is your point? A great deal of what you underlined here is EXACTLY what Jose is contending. Forgive me, as I am in no way attempting to be rude, but your post seems to be flying around Jose's DT in circles here.Reply - Mynona, the distortion theory gives an answer to the absurd and illogical cases that Jacques Vallee seen as a complex phenomenon (with my admiration of his work).
Note that the UFO phenomenon, first of all, is a phenomena, singular and unique, so the mind of the witness prevails over the "external intelligence".
My theory explains "no logic" (Vallee Theory), the logic is provided from the unconscious of the witness, and so the logic is the same that produces dreams. It depends on the imagination of the witnesses and how they interact with the phenomenon.
Although you should know that my hypothesis envisages the existence of a real phenomenon (external) that serves as a guideline for the development of experiences.
I appreciate your extensive commentaryReply - AnonymousDec 16, 2011 05:21 AMThis assumes that the "well" that was being scrutinized was actually a well.Reply
- In that time, you could fly helicopters (chinook's) around the country to poison the water supply.
NATO or ANTI-NATO, perhaps.
The old man may have never seen a helicopter. How would you describe one, if you weren't allowed to use the actual word 'helicopter'?Reply
mental command (telepathy) to leave
He can't see the person he hears. Perhaps he has never seen a bullhorn?Reply- Anonymous,
You bring up an interesting point. If rebel forces were in the area, and you wanted them dehydrated ASAP, you'd poison wells. Perhaps there was no actual well -- but the melons themselves served as a water hole. Perhaps there was a lot of melon-busting taking place...
Who is the god of the water hole?Reply - Hi Parakletos...Reply
Their contribution is interesting. But be aware that the investigation of the incident determined that the object was silent and was very bright (the artifact). In fact the whole experience was a great silence.
The witness insisted that the crew were very small.
Ignacio Darnaude and Manuel Osuna, had extensive formation and experience, if it had been a helicopter, the researchers would have discovered...
determined that the object was silent and was very bright
It was dark out. The helicopter would have been illuminated. And in pitch-black night, things appear brighter than they would in the daylight.
I would need to see the exact questions that were asked of this man, as well as his exact responses.
An investigator might only ask enough questions to get the answer he wants, for his own psychological reasons.
Dear Mr. Caravaca:
Reference your "distortion theory," and the following blog post comments here, where you say:
"In fact, the 'vehicle' had two doors like that bus which contained lots of people just like the humanoids in the UFO.
"Juan unconsciously combined the passengers factor with the military factor (the military is evident throughout all the experience ).
"Even the conduct of the alleged alien who shined a light on Juan, was the same as what a military troop might do.
"What logic is there in a landing of 50 humanoids to see a well?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Logic? You expect any form of advanced non-human intelligence to appear or behave necessarily in some anthropomorphic, rational, or logical manner?
I think I'll have to act here a little as a kind of "devil's advocate" in order to broaden the discussion, and to question to some degree your findings or interpretation in this case, although you could be correct in your conclusions. Maybe.
How about an "intended distortion theory," or forms of deliberate "anti-logic"?
While it is most likely, as you say, that, due to the witness's age (80), prior experiences, perception on a subliminal level of surrounding environmental changes, etc., that the witness may have hallucinated and/or confabulated his experience and his subsequent retelling of it, due to a variety of psychological, subconscious, and other internal factors, do you dismiss out of hand that perhaps there may have been an external triggering event (whether prosaic, natural, or possibly intentionally directed at the witness by unknown variables)?
I think you should not leap to conclusions based on what you think may be the causal factors, or what seems rational and logical to you, when, in fact, your analysis is a retroactive construct based upon the residual data still available in the record about this case. The UFO phenomenon, and the intelligence behind some of it, which may be non-human in rare cases, and thus _could_ be extremely sophisticated or beyond the imagination of most and just might be involved.
You may need to rethink your distortion theory, as it certainly does not explain some of both the best and equally, bizarre, cases on record.
Perhaps an "intelligent agency" of some kind, non-human or otherwise, could initiate a trigger event or incident, drawing upon witness memory and environmental cues or even inadvertently (intent vs. no intent) affecting the perception, mind, and recall of the individual concerned, and the witness then sincerely believes and expresses a supposed sequence of events and sights which may or may not have happened as the witness both recalls and characterizes it.
That does not necessarily mean it all occurred in the witness's brain or imagination, however.
As Jacques Vallee has long noted, some UFO incidents have a character and modus operandi which denies logic, may be deliberately absurd and unbelievable to non-witnesses, and yet could still have been generated by external factors working on internal mind and brain functions for a variety of reasons, including plausible deniability, creating a social and cultural affect (myth is powerful), and injecting on a very subtle meta-level memetic effects not just on the witness, but more strategically, on those who learn of it, discuss it, publicize it, and contemplate the meaning or significance of it, even if there are no clearly known facts or evidence that can be used, discerned, or forensically provable at the first level of interpretation and analysis, meaning most debate about such stories resides at the "first-level" of whether the incident transpire as perceived and as the witness(es) describe, or not. There are however, ways to look at this issue on a second and third, or meta level.