From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 14:37:48 -0400 Archived: Sat, 07 May 2011 07:37:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Time For CUFOS To Release Abductee Home Data >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:23:03 -0500 >Subject: Re: Time For CUFOS To Release Abductee Home Data >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 07:26:00 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Time For CUFOS To Release Abductee Home Data >>>From: Eleanor White <ewraven1.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 16:48:25 -0400 >>>Subject: Re: Time For CUFOS To Release Abductee Home Data >>>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> >>>>To: <post.nul>, >>>>Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:03:31 -0400 >>>>Subject: Re: Time For CUFOS To Release Abductee Home Data? >>The other side of this study were the notes kept by the subjects >>that were used to correlate anomalous environmental readings, >>and I have not heard of any 'events' that were recorded by them. >>Now, does that mean that the abductors kept their distance, or >>that they were able to completely avoid detection, or perhaps >>it's all psychological and the subjects were aware that they >>were being monitored? Without a real analysis, I don't think we >>learn much. >Though even if it 'failed' in the sense that it filmed no >abductions, the project was worth doing. If it had 'succeeded' - >that is, filmed abduction-related activity - that would have >been thrilling both for the scientific data gathered and for the >chance to demonstrate them to a world that heretofore had done >nothing but scoff at such experiences. I do suspect, however, >that a properly funded effort which could have been seen through >to its conclusion would have arrived at the same results. <snip> I certainly agree that the Project was worth the effort. Let me clarify for some who aren't aware of details, this was not a "filming" effort, per se. It was an effort to monitor environmental levels, and not to get a picture. There have been a few cases where video cameras were set up to monitor potential abductions, but the AMP project was attempting to add measurable data to the anecdotal landscape. To avoid the issue of having someone tamper with the system, the variables being monitored were not disclosed beyond a few people, and the data was automatically phoned to a central location daily, where it was gathered for later analysis when the daily logs were obtained. The concern that I would have in releasing the raw data (if that was permissible under privacy requirements) is that it doesn't appear to show anything clearly and it would give a lot of data for everyone to draw their own conclusions as they pick and choose among the data points in question. The validity of this project rested in the fact that a disinterested third party would perform the analysis, and not someone involved in the genre. To be honest, it was very difficult trying to find subjects for this study, which caused it to drag out and cost more than it should have. Of course, there were also equipment failures and other issues that delayed completion. The individual who was funding the UFO Research Coalition (primarily for this project) became less and less interested as time wore on, and in the end he decided enough was enough. Steve While I helped set up the detection system and take initial measurements for one subject, I have not been intimately involved in it. Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp