Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Bookstore 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 2000 -> Feb -> Here

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 15:46:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 17:38:21 -0500
Subject: Re: 60% of Abductees Are Gay - Randle & Estes


 >Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 22:30:08 -0500
 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
 >Subject: Re: 60% of Abductees Are Gay - Randle & Estes
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 10:42:34 -0500 (EST)
 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Subject: 60% of Abductees Are Gay - Randle & Estes
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>You need to find what Mark Cashman, in many posts here,
 >>>has called "discriminators" -- things that would be true if
 >>>abduction imagery was derived by science fiction, and would
 >>>_not_ be true if it was derived from real encounters with
 >>>aliens.

 >>What would be an example of such a discriminator?

 >>>And, no, you can't first ask for proof that the aliens are
 >>>real.

 >Hi, Bob!

 >Information about the normal scientific process as applied to
 >UFOs can be found at

 >http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/methodology/whatkindofscience.htm

Hi Mark, hi Bob, hi All,

I'd just like to try to 'tie in' this conversation to the
original subject of this thread which is Randle & Estes'
outrageous claim that "60% of Abductees Are Gay." They claim to
have arrived at those figures by conducting some kind of
"abductee" survey/poll which no one seems to be questioning.

The 'silence' from the Randle/Estes camp has been deafening! I
have asked repeatedly for information regarding 'how' this
"poll" was conducted, what _criteria_ was used to either include
or exclude a respondant, and then to find out _how_many_ alleged
"abductees" they polled. (The whole thing is a circular joke.
How do you 'poll' something you are claiming doesn't exist! -
UFO abduction victims -)

No response from Randle or his 'tag team' partner Russ Estes on
these all-important questions.

The fact that the statistic has been 'put out to the public'
without equal disclosure provided for the 'methods' used to
arrive at it, is an outrage and just plain sloppy (amateurish)
science. I like Stan Friedman's little 'tagger' "Science by
decree!" That's exactly what Randle and Estes are doing by
putting out a stat like that with no background info on how it
was arrived at.

No one else seems to be questioning it either. This thread has
moved on to another whole topic. Randle's stat stands
unquestioned, forgotten, ancrowdd unexplained. Where the hell
are all the 'scientists' that are always placing demands
for empirical proof (granted they are valid, but _that knife_
should cut both ways!) on UFO witnesses. Why aren't you up in
arms when it is a Ph.D that is attempting to pass off
'speculative anecdotes' as if it were proven fact?

I'm not a 'pollster' or a 'statistician' so I'm not terribly
familiar with the criteria used to determine the statistical
validity/relevance of any given poll.

Mark, Bob, anyone...?

What kind of "discriminators" need to be applied to a
poll/survey in order to determine it's validity? How many
respondants would be considered _statistically_significant_?
What criteria would you need to use to determine if the
respondants should be included in a survey of "abductees"?

Tough questions eh? I'm asking you guys because Randle/Estes
haven't responded to simply explain their statistic and how they
arrived at it.

Between you and me and the walls, I blame their collective
silence on the fact that in the end, I don't think they will
be able to justify their outlandish statistic.

This is an interesting thread gentlemen (discussing
discriminators) but please don't forget the original topic of
the thread. Stats like the one above _need_ to be questioned.
The Nazi's counted on the fact that no one would challenge or
question their 'stats' regarding race and human anthropology. We
all know where that ended up. No, I don't think there will an
'abductee holocaust' because Randle & Estes call the majority of
them Gay, but tell me then, what 'eventually' happens to the
number and credibility of the abductees and witnesses that come
forward to report when guys like Randle/Estes can publish
unsubstantiated/unproven "facts" like the one we are discussing
without any fear of having 'it' or their methods questioned by
anyone.

Anybody want to field this?

John Velez,
- Tired of having important issues swept under the rug. -