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

Spontaneous Oneirosis in "UFOs" "abductions"?

Grushnik james.teo at chch.ox.ac.uk
Tue Apr 6 18:48:12 EST 1999

On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:49:40 -0400, Michael Edelman <mje at mich.com>
>>  Volume 11 : Number 4 : Article 1
>>                    (Journal of Scientific Exploration)

Sheesh, this journal titles takes the cake.

>> .... 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.

Huh? I don't get. Didn't the abstract say they had Beta wave activity?
Doesn't that indicate a trance which mimics a sleep state? What does
what you say have anything to do with it?

>> 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.

I do not understand what you mean here. I don't think baseline meant
'control' (and even if it did, there are such things as controls of
normal subjects you know). Although this is not clarified in the
abstract, I think baseline here meant when compared to the EEG
recordings when not in trance.

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

Probably, but your criticisms aren't sound either.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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