From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:10:26 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:01:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Abduction Tales Offer Clues on Memory -


>From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:33:52 -0700
>Subject: Re: Alien Abduction Tales Offer Clues on Memory

>NIDS obtained permission to publish the entire McNally research
>article on the NIDS web site at:

>http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/spacealiens.pdf

>Regarding List member's reaction to this paper, some of which I
>have read:

Mr. Kelleher,

>The journal Psychological Science is one of the more prestigious
>journals in psychology and is also one of the flagship journals
>of the American Psychological Society. It is read by thousands
>of professional and research psychologists worldwide.
>Cumulatively Psychological Science readers hold tens of millions
>of dollars in research grants from NIMH and other grant giving
>bodies.

>My hunch is that the data in this paper will surprise many
>Psychological Science readers in the  psychology research
>community, since it greatly undermines their common perception
>that abductees are merely attention seekers, charlatans etc who
>want nothing more than to get their 15 minutes of fame.

This is certainly a "piece of enlightenment," speaking only for
myself; I was unaware that such a prestigious body, as that of
the "American Psychological Society" held a "common perception"
that "abductees are merely attention seekers, charlatans etc who
want nothing more than to get their 15 minutes of fame."

I'm sure abductees who are seeking help trying to cope with
their experience from those in the field (psychologists) will
find that statement most comforting.

>The data
>in Dr McNally's paper are saying that the responses of PTSD
>victims and abductees are almost indistinguishable and will
>therefore demolish some commonly-held stereotypes. I believe
>that Dr MacNally's paper may stimulate members of the
>psychological research community to take the next research step:
>to use the tools of fMRI and other brain-imaging techniques to
>take these (to their readers, very surprising) data to the next
>level. That is precisely what is needed in this field.

>As such, I believe Dr McNally's paper is a positive contribution.

>Regards

>Colm Kelleher
>NIDS

Hopefully the members of the "American Psychological Society,"
i.e., the readers of the "The Journal Psychological Science"
will note that any conclusion(s) of Dr. McKnally's study is
flawed, because the components of the experiment are flawed. He
has separated "PTSD victims" from "abductee victims" without
merit, and I propose, scientifically speaking, that until he can
prove that the events described by an "abductee victim" have not
occurred, then his protocol is flawed, therefore; any
conclusions based on this study would have to be re-evaluated.

He, like his colleagues, as you have pointed out are biased,
which of course is fine, when reading a journal, however;
allowing bias into a study or an experiment certainly negates
the "science" from it.


Respectfully,

Frank Warren