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

Spontaneous Oneirosis in "UFOs" "abductions"?

Chuck Davis roshicorp at xROSHI.com
Tue Apr 6 20:10:09 EST 1999


> 
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:49:40 -0400, Michael Edelman <mje at mich.com>
> wrote:
> >>  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
> >rubes.
> 
> Probably, but your criticisms aren't sound either.

Indeed! I suggest getting the whole article and checking it out. They
used some bonafide instrumentation, in this test,

    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp at ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
http://www.post-trauma.com/roshi.html
http://www.Starsaga.com/biofeedback.htm






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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