Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Dec -> Here

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:04:29 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 07:25:52 -0500
Subject: Re: On False Memory


 >Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:32:16 -0500 (EST)
 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: On False Memory
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Mack's comment was, and is, nonsense. I waited to see if anyone
 >would bother to check the studies to which he referred to learn
 >what, if anything, they had to do with personal memories. These
 >studies are about memorizing lists of real words as opposed to
 >nonsense words, among other things. They have found that people
 >more easily, and more accurately, remember the lists of real
 >words. In one study, a chess master more easily remembered the
 >position of the pieces on the board if it revealed a crafted
 >strategy rather than random placement. Mack's attempt to use
 >these studies to suggest that a traumatic experience, which is
 >of more importance to a subject than what he or she had for
 >lunch seven weeks ago Tuesday, are more accurate does not apply
 >here. The studies he cited do not show what he suggested they
 >did and therefore, his comment about them was, in fact,
 >nonsense.

Just to educate us on his research technique, I wonder if Kevin
might point us at any web references that document his above
claim which ties the studies he cites above to Mack's statement
on the PEER site.  Mack stated that people remember traumatic
events much better than other events.  The above studies sound
_totally_unrelated_ to the study of memories of traumatic
events.

Hence I'd suspect the above studies are NOT the ones Mack is
referencing.  Now, no doubt Mack may be involved in the above
studies; in his position I assume he is/has been involved in any
number of studies, past and ongoing.  But if Kevin can cite hard
references showing conclusively that Mack's comment specifically
references the above study, I'd definitely like to see it "in
print" (as it were) right here.  Point us at a web page or
journal or whatever, Kevin, that clearly ties Mack's PEER site
remark to the specific study you cite above, to the exclusion of
any other study Mack may be involved in.

If you can, my opinion of Mack may take a nosedive;
if you can't, the same may happen with respect to you.

Thanks in advance,

-Brian Cuthbertson