This post over at the information-rich UFO Chronicles website drew my attention for reasons I can’t fully divulge right now: “Questioning Alien Abduction Research Methodology.” The post leads to another post by Dr. Ellen Tarr, accurately describes as “a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and Immunology [and] an Associate Professor at Midwestern University.” I’ve corresponded with Prof. Tarr in regard to her recent paper on the misunderstandings over (and abuse of) Rh-Negative blood factor. Seems some “researchers” out there want to associate this blood factor with alien hybrids and nephilim offspring (eye-rolls are appropriate at this point). Dr. Tarr graciously gave me a copy of her presentation, which is awaiting publication — hence I can’t get into its details here, at least right now. But take note, all you out there who think such misguided thoughts about Rh-factor blood. Tarr not only shows these ideas to be absurd; she shows the whole thought process about Rh-Negative to be woefully uninformed. You might want to recant early before her work appears in publication. Just a heads up.
Anyway … The above post leads to Dr. Tarr’s thoughts on the recent research survey by FREE (Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial Encounters). I blogged about the survey back in July. Dr. Tarr has some critical things to say about the study in her post, “Not So Fast on the UFO Warm Fuzzies.” Here’s her first paragraph:
On Feb. 19, Motherboard posted an article by Daniel Oberhaus entitled, “This Neuroscientst Wants to Know Why People Who See UFOs Feel So Good.” The interview with Dr. Bob Davis discussed recent results of the FREE (Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial Encounters) study. Information about the study as well as results from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys can be found on the FREE website. The finding highlighted in the article and in their first paper is that of 3,057 people studied who have conscious memory of “contact with a physical craft associated with some form of non-human intelligence,” approximately 85% “are being transformed in a very positive behavioral or psychospiritual way.” This is an interesting finding, and even Davis points out that is wasn’t what was expected. However, there are a number of reasons these claims should be interpreted with caution and at least a little skepticism.
The short post is worth the read. I’ve asked FREE for the raw data of the survey, which, not surprisingly, they won’t release. Too many of the questions are, in my view (and I’m certain survey-creation professionals would agree and see even more) far too leading. Why not subject the questions (the whole idea really) to those who specialize in the language of such things? Hmmm.
