|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It was during an interview conducted by a writer with Omni magazine that I was reminded of the phrase, "Leave no stone un-turned." After what felt like an eternity of answering questions and shuffling through my office for charts, files, and notes, I asked him what he thought of my Researcher's Supplement. One of the main points I remember about this interview was being told, "Yes-but the numbers aren't statistically significant." What I had asked was his input on a personal research project I published in Section I of The Alien Jigsaw Researcher's Supplement. Section I covers four and a half years of data in which I correlated my abduction experiences with specific times of the month. Did a key to the whole purpose of abductions lie in this relationship? It seemed like a promising fit because one of the most popular theories as to why alien beings might be coming to Earth is to abduct humans for the collection of sperm and ova samples. As I stated in my researcher's supplement: "The general theory is that this sample taking is for the purposes of creating life, and this new life is being created from a combination of genetic material from human beings and alien beings. The results are what abduction researchers call a hybrid being." [1-2] Many reports backed up this supposition, and I strongly believed it merited further exploration. When I considered the idea of sample taking, I believed one way a female abductee could collect meaningful data was to document abduction experiences during particular times of each month. My conjecture was, depending on the particular biological and hormonal changes that occur within the human female each month, perhaps some type of correlation will be found to exist between time of the month and frequency of abductions. Here was an exciting opportunity to put the theory to the test. The following information is taken from my Researcher's Supplement: "The dates used in this supplement are taken from my journals. (My journals were published in The Alien Jigsaw in 1994). They represent the dates I strongly believe interaction between an alien being and myself transpired. The dates indicating spontaneous memories and memories that surfaced in dreams are clearly indicated as such in this supplement and are not included with the data in Section I titled, 'The Human Menstrual Cycle.' There are three sets of data I had to work with from the table under the topic Menstrual Cycle (hereafter called M. cycle). These categories are: Undocumented, Actual Dates, and Inferred Dates. Specific dates were not always obtainable for a variety of reasons. Undocumented means the experience as it correlated with the M. cycle for that month was not, or could not be documented. The total number of my experiences that fall in this category are fourteen. (I then listed the specific dates and the reasons for each undocumented experience, but will not do so here for reasons of conciseness). Sixty-six percent of my experiences were documented as they relate to my M. cycle with 100% accuracy. These dates and experiences were designated Actual Dates. There were times when I did not document when my M. cycle occurred. For these time periods, I calculated Inferred Dates by counting from the last known M. cycle forward. If the time period was for three or four months in a row, [which only occurred once] I would count forward 28 days for one month (month one), and forward 25 days for the next month (month two), since I averaged a M. cycle every 25 to 28 days. I would then count back from the next Actual Date the same way (month three and month four). This allowed for more accuracy between the two known M. cycle dates. Twenty-three percent of my experiences have inferred dates. This data will be included under the category heading Actual and Inferred Dates. The number of Actual and Inferred Dates accounts for 88% of my abduction experiences." The different phases of the M. cycle and what occurs in the body during that stage was described. This will be omitted from this paper, and for reasons of conciseness, I will simply give the name of the phase and the frequency of abductions documented during that phase over a four and a half year time frame. Menstrual phase: days 1-5
Proliferative phase: days 6-13
Ovulatory phase: day 14
Secretory phase: days 15-26
Ischemic phase: days 27-28 (27-31 for a late M. cycle)
I then considered the possibility that the first eight days after ovulation might be critical for fertilization. I discovered that the highest frequency of my abductions occurred during the first eight days of the secretory phase, or the first eight days after ovulation. First 8 days after ovulation (Days 15-22)
First 8 days after ovulation (Days 15-22)
Other abduction related experiences that I remembered involving skin scrapings, hair clippings, surgery, gynecological procedures, laparoscopy, and implants, were charted and their frequencies were given. However, they will not be covered here since they do not directly relate to this paper. I concluded by saying: I believe there is merit to the theory about the collection of ova for reproductive study by some of the alien beings. In addition to the testimony from many other abductees, the fact that I was abducted more often during the week after ovulation leads me to [hypothesize] that the aliens may in fact be collecting ova (or possibly fertilizing ova) during this time frame. Looking at this from a scientific point of view, why would anyone collect the seeds, if you will, of reproduction if they were not going to study how reproduction occurs? If the eight day time period immediately following ovulation turns out to be directly related to the life-span of a fertile ovum, and other female abductees are being abducted more often during the first eight days of the secretory phase of their menstrual cycle, we may have another piece of information to lend support to the theory that the aliens are collecting ova. It may not support the reason why (we believe) they are collecting ova, but simply that they are." 3 Further Investigation I was thankful that the interviewer with Omni pointed out what he considered a discrepancy with my hypothesis. After the interview I found that I was more inspired than ever to investigate the possible correlation between times of the month and frequency of abductions. Over the last several years I have often been told by other female abductees that they felt they were being visited during a particular time of the month (usually around ovulation). However, I have yet to locate anyone who has actually documented the dates in their journal. I then decided, in the interest of a true scientific investigation, that I would have to obtain a scientific analysis of my data. I am very fortunate to have obtained an analysis of the data just described. The analysis was performed by Thomas E. Bullard, Ph.D., of Indiana University at Bloomington, Indiana. I would like to thank Dr. Bullard for his analysis and for his excellent explanations directed to both the lay investigator and the professional researcher. Below is the complete analysis with notes and comments from Dr. Bullard. Explaining the Statistical Test What we want to know is, "Are some days more abduction-prone than others?" and if so, "Do abduction-prone days correspond to any segment of the menstrual cycle?" If the answer is yes, then perhaps the aliens call because something related to that cycle attracts or interests them. If the answer is no, then they time their visits according to some other schedule, or according to no apparent schedule at all. The "chi-square" test compares the data in hand with what we expect to see if events happen according to random chance. Flip a coin long enough and we should count an equal number of heads and tails. If we get a lot more heads than tails, something besides chance is at work-maybe the coin is warped or weighted. Whatever the reason, if the results violate expectations based on chance, we can feel confident that some more specific cause shaped the results. The same principle applies to your abduction data. If abductions scatter randomly across the monthly calendar, there's no reason to suspect the abductions relate in any way with the menstrual cycle. If the events concentrate into some segments of the cycle and slight others, then we have good reason to suspect some relationship. Another question is, "At what point does a difference from expectation become significant?" Flip a coin 100 times and we would expect a perfect 50 heads-50 tails. In reality we might get 51 heads and 49 tails instead. That's a difference, but a small one-too small to be significant. This difference falls within the bounds of chance. The chi-square test provides the benchmarks to judge where chance differences end and significant differences begin. The test sets up a "null hypothesis," that is, it defines the ideal chance situation. A proper null hypothesis for your data says that one day for an abduction is as good as the next, no day or days related to the menstrual cycle finds special favor. A calculation of the estimated events for each category must allow the beings equal chance to carry out an abduction on all 28 (or 31) days. Using both the 28-day data and the 31 day data, for the "actual" and "actual and inferred" tables, the expected number of events per day is shown below, for example, 77 events divided by 28 days, giving 2.75 events per day. The final expected value for each category is this daily rate multiplied by the number of days per category. A comparison of the expected frequencies of events with the actual frequencies you list in your tables comes next. What we are looking for is a "goodness of fit." Does the pattern of events you've set out match the expected pattern, or not? If the two patterns match, the "fit" is a good one and there is no reason to look for anything but chance to explain why your events fall on the dates they do. If the patterns fail to match, the alternative hypothesis is true-the probabilities are not identical, not chance, but something else arranges the distribution of events. The procedures of the chi-square test have complex rationales rooted in probability distributions, but the method is a tried-and-true way to compare the expected-vs.-observed patterns and arrive at a likelihood of the two being alike or different. Standard tables give values that represent significant cutoff points. For a case with one degree of freedom (that is, one variable), a chi-square of 3.84 sets a probability limit of 5%. This means any value over 3.84 has a less than 5% probability of being due to mere chance, while any value under 3.84 has a greater than 5% likelihood of resulting from chance. A test using five degrees of freedom-in this case, one that looks at all your data at once-has a value of 11.07 to mark 5% probability. This percentage is an arbitrary mark, and is considered a weak threshold of significance. Something stronger is usually necessary to make us sit up and take notice, commonly the 1% benchmark, or a chi-square value of 15.09 in the case of this test. The Test As Applied To Ms Wilson's Data Actual Dates Expected = 77 / 28 = 2.75 x # days per category
Actual and Inferred Dates Expected = 104 / 28 = 3.7 x # days per category
Whether we look at the actual or the actual-and-inferred events, whether we calculate by the basic 28-day data or the expanded 31-day list, the results are the same: Your chronicle of events remains very close to a chance distribution. Just compare the "cases" column with the "expected" column for each category and the numbers are not far apart-pretty good intuitive evidence that no surprises are in store. The tests only reaffirm this impression. Three individual values out of twelve in the "actual" table squeak past the 5% significance barrier, only one in the "actual and inferred" table. None of the values pass the 1% test. Dr. Bullard's Conclusions My conclusion would have to be that your events follow pretty much the distribution expected by chance. There are no striking concentrations of events during the days of any category, nor is any category notably lacking in events. The few significant readings are weak at best and marginal as well. In both tables the 31-day value for the last category reaches a low significance mark, but these data are unusual because they exceed the 28-day cycle and are, as you say, uncommon for you. These maverick data points are liable to upset the typical pattern of distributions, and seem to do so here. The overall tendency is very clear-frequencies depend on chance alone. For want of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, it seems to me that your abduction events are not related to phases of the menstrual cycle. I realize this conclusion is a disappointment, to you and me alike. We have so many questions and so few answers for this phenomenon, so little hard data. The prospect of finding something substantial, such as your data promised, is just the sort of thing we need. However, even this negative result is valuable knowledge in its own right. It is, moreover, worth publishing. It does bear on the hybridization hypothesis, and researchers ought to know that the tie between abduction events and the menstrual cycle is not obvious and common. I want to congratulate you on your care in keeping meticulous records of your experiences and using these records to test a hypothesis. This is the true scientific spirit, much unlike the skeptics who make armchair pronouncements, or for that matter, ufologists who may start out with data from legitimate investigations, but then press it into illicit speculations without proper test or considerations. It would be valuable to compare similar records of other abductees' events. Ms Wilson's Comments I would like to thank Dr. Bullard for his analysis and explanations. The results from Section I of my Researcher's Supplement and this analysis are not meant to imply that the aliens are, or are not collecting ova from female abductees. It means that if they are, they may not need to collect ova during a particular time of the month. It seems in my case, it does not matter what types of biological changes are occurring (within the human female reproductive cycle), as to whether or not the aliens are going to abduct me. Is there still merit to the hypothesis that aliens are retrieving ova from their human specimens? Some abductees sincerely believe that they are being abducted more often around the time of ovulation. I may have had more encounters during this time frame (the first eight days of the secretory phase), but the number of encounters are not statistically significant. We should view these results with care. It is not the intention of this study to infer that these findings relate to all abductees everywhere. As Dr. Bullard stated, we should compare similar records of other abductee's events. It is my hope as well, that others will read this report and pursue a similar investigation. Until that time comes, we should ask ourselves two important questions: "Are too many assumptions being made based more on the 'feelings' that abductees relay rather than on carefully documented experiences that can be scrutinized by statistical analysis"? "Are abductees (perhaps unconsciously) trying to make their experiences fit the hypotheses of the most well-publicized researchers"? No one in abduction research likes these questions, but we must ask ourselves questions like these from time to time, if only for the benefit of keeping ourselves grounded. We should stringently evaluate not only the information, but the source of the information and the methodology of the researcher and lay investigator alike. The Alien Jigsaw Researcher's Supplement contains four other sections that are not statistical in nature. The information covers what I describe as 119 abduction-related experiences over a thirty-two year time period. Topics include the frequency of: (1) types of beings, (2) types of craft, (3) locations, (4) physiological, psychological, and emotional effects, and (5) abductions involving telepathy, travel, and control. TAJRS also contains hypnosis transcripts, and symbols and unusual writing. I'm listing these here because I believe that similar data should be collected from all abductees who are investigated. This supplement may be a useful guide for other abductees to follow. I strongly encourage experiencers of abduction to document and report as many details of your abduction encounters that you can. It is up to those who 'report' as well as those who 'research' to come together in order to understand what is really happening to us, and-as we have just seen, we may not find what we expect! This article was originally published in The MUFON UFO Journal (Number 327) and is reprinted with permission by The Mutual UFO Network.
1 Budd Hopkins, Intruders: The Incredible Visitations At Copley Woods (New York, NY: Random House, 1987) The theory was extrapolated from my reading the entire story. No one particular page number suffices. 2 David M. Jacobs, Secret Life: Firsthand Accounts of UFO Abductions (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992) No particular page number suffices. The majority of the information is contained in Chapter Five: "Machine Examinations, Mental Testing, and Hybrid Children." 3 Ms. Kay Wilson, The Alien Jigsaw Researcher's Supplement (Puzzle Publishing, 1994) 9-18. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
