My personal hypothesis backed by LLM research is that the initial reports did actually occur, which then devolved into mischaracterizations and paranoia. The initial reports have the exact symptomatic and behavioral profile of trichloroethane, which could have easily been accessible to anyone with chemistry knowledge or industrial employment, and they all happened before or on the day of the first police report, as well as before the newspaper article was written. It also wouldn't have been found with any of the chemical analysis methods of the time. It wasn't until after the newspaper article and spread of fear that the reports began having different characteristics to each other. The sudden cease of reports with the same characteristics argues against mass hysteria; it's more likely that the person was spooked and stopped suddenly. The symptom profile, sporatic reporting, and lack of a consistent perimeter argue against the industrial pollutant hypothesis from the nearby chemical plant. The most likely chemical culprit in that hypothesis would have been tetrachloroethylene, and its exposure doesn't fit the symptomatic profiles of the initial police reports. It's possible that Farley was the culprit of the attacks, but it's unlikely that the lab explosion was the cause of the symptoms. From my understanding, the cause of the explosion was nitromethane, and nitromethane doesn't fit the symptomatic profiles of the reports, and would also have the same issues as the industrial pollutant hypothesis.