Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Re: 'Electrically Induced Hallucinations'

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:18:48 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 16:34:39 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Electrically Induced Hallucinations'

> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 11:21:45 -0500
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'Electrically Induced Hallucinations'

> >Uh - but that's *not* true, John. That's the whole point. When you
> >examine how the stats were fudged, there *is* no such correlation.
> Fudged?  Fudged how?

By allowing dubious data into the equations. The "correlations" only
worked when the UFO data included cases that occurred 6 months prior or
after the seismic events, and as much as 700 kilometres away,
Furthermore, the UFO data included 90% misidentifications, whicj
somehow were required to make the correlations work.

Any statistician I showed the studies to recognized it as fudging.

> >When we actually look at the NL and DD data, there are very few that
> >appear to be explainable as EM activity. Airplanes and fireballs,
> >maybe, but not EM activity.
> I don't think we know enough about how the human mind responds to magnetic
> fields (generated by geologic activity or not) to make that claim just yet.

Claim? What claim? We know for a fact that airplanes and stars are
misidentified as UFOs in the vast majority of cases. When we whittle
down the statistical sample, we're left with very few that seem to fall
into other categories. Now, *these* might have something to do with EM
fields, but that's where the TST must go.

> >Oh, I don't know about that. If we can't understand the basic and
> >overwhleming majority of UFO reports, I wonder how ufology can come to
> >terms with more complex cases.
> Yep, I understand that angle.  I frequently make the assumption (possibly
> dangerously) that the bulk of sightings, being short-duration and
> low-detail events, are fairly close to (therefore) being irrelevant, while
> the long-duration and high-detail events are the more important.

I'm with you 100% on that one. Many researchers don't even record te
NLs beacuse they feel they're not relevant. There are some ufologists
who have given up case investigation entirely to focus only on
abductions, a step that I feel is going backwards.
>
> >... although Devereux explained the Welsh Revival flap as due to EM
> >activity (Earth Lights), for one.
> I don't know anything about that flap so I can't comment.  Generally, I
> doubt that any 'flap' can be so explained.

Me, too. :)

> >PS: Heed Pat's warning, John! Have you ever had that feeling you were
> >being watched ... ;)
> Hahahahha!!!!  All the time...

;)  Must be the NSA stooges in our midst!


--
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca
(and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca)
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada