IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Spontaneous Oneirosis in "UFOs" "abductions"?

Michael Edelman mje at mich.com
Tue Apr 6 12:49:40 EST 1999



patanie at my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Below is evidence which,in my opinion, might point to a neuro-psychological
> explanation of alleged "abductions" by "Ufos":

Or just the usual bullshit. Let's take a look:

>
>
>  Volume 11 : Number 4 : Article 1
>
>                    (Journal of scientific Exploration)
>
>                     Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO
>                              Experiencers
>
> .... Analysis of their EEGs revealed
> that all subjects entered voluntarily into an hyperaroused trance. In
> this state, they maintained a condition of muscular relaxation and
> immobility while their EEGs exhibited high frequency (beta) activity
> at all 19 electrode sites, but with maximum activity at the prefrontal
> and adjacent loci.

Translation: They were awake.

> Inspection of the EEGs from the
> prefrontal/frontal sites revealed intermittent trains of rhythmic,
> approximately 40 Hz activity, attaining very high amplitudes, at
> times exceeding 40 microvolts. This activity was distinct in
> morphology and frequency from faster, usually concurrent activity,
> probably attributable to scalp muscle discharge (EMG). Analysis of
> 40 Hz, midline scalp activity, statistically controlling for the effects
> of EMG, revealed significantly more 40 Hz activity in trance than in
> baseline (p < .006). Also, the dominant alpha frequency increased
> during trance (p < .01). Both EEG findings suggest the occurrence
> of a state of hyperarousal. There was no evidence of epileptiform
> discharges in our data or clinical indications of possible epilepsy.
> Also, there was no brain activity suggestive of psychopathology,
> particularly schizophrenia, nor were there clinical indications of
> psychopathology.

What does that all say? Nothing. There is absolutely nothing unusual or
pathalogical in these findings...except for the lies. The "subjects" are
compared to "baseline"- but there's no baseline data. They're comparing the
subjects to population averages, which is meaningless.

In other words, this is all nonsense couched in terminology to impress the
rubes.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net