From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul> Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 01:34:34 EDT Fwd Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:03:33 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 09:55:54 -0500 >Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear >>From: Peter Rogerson <progerson.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 18:44:40 +0100 >>Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:28:42 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear >>>>From: Peter Rogerson <progerson.nul> >>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>>Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 19:23:42 +0100 >>>>Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear >>>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>>>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:05:12 -0500 >>>>>Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear >>>>>>From: Peter Rogerson <progerson.nul> >>>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>>>>Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 19:17:55 +0100 >>>>>>Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear <snip> >You may also wish, as I've urged once or twice before, to read >psychologist Stuart Appelle's comprehensive review of >psychological explanations and their empirical inadequacies, >published in JUFOS a few years ago and available from CUFOS >("The Abduction Experience: A Critical Evaluation of Theory and >Evidence," Vol. 6, 1995/1996: 29-79). The difference between >Appelle's approach and Rogerson's is the difference between >scientific inquiry and literary criticism. Unfortunately Appelle does not give much in the way of statistics to answer the recent questions here on UFO UpDates as to the prevalence of abductions involving normal daily activities versus those where the abductee was sleeping or having a dream or dream-like experience and/or sleep-type paralysis effects. As Stan Friedman said at the start of this particular sub-thread there are "literally hundreds" of abductions during normal activities and not sleeping or in "horizontal" activities. Bullard (1998) gives some statistics but they are a bit confusing. He surveys his own studies of 1987 and 1995. The 1987 study involved about 300 abduction cases about 103 of which I gather were detailed enough to develop statistics. The 1995 study involved about 1,700 abductions but we're not given the exact number statistically analyzed, only told it is "half." I assume that means about 850 cases. Bullard gives no statistics on how many abductees were sleeping or dreaming. Instead he gives 23% "taken from bedroom" in the 1987 survey and 57% in the 1995 survey. Does that mean 77% of 103 and 43% of 850 were of abductees engaged in ordinary non- sleep and non-dreaming activities, or a total of about 444 "ordinary activity" abduction cases? Apparently a UFO appears in only 60% of the 1987 case study or 45% of the 1995 study. Still that is a sizeable percentage with an actual UFO instead of a potentially dream-like experience. But I cannot be quite sure of these somewhat confusing numbers. As I argued previously a dream-like explanation should be supported by statistics of a very high percentage of fragmentary episodic stories comprising the typical abductions. But Bullard's statistics are not cross-correlated. I can't segregate out the "ordinary activity" type abductions with real UFO's and compare them with the dream-like non-UFO cases. All I can say is that Bullard reports that 66% of his first sample (the small 103 case set) reported the Return portion of the abduction, so that apparently means that the Return is missing in 34% of the cases. Unfortunately he gives no such statistics for the larger 850- case sample. Nor any statistics on how many cases are dependent on hypnosis and how many are not.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp