What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

Avalon · Post by **Avalon** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:08 pm

The Old Hag/evil incubus concept, while a legitimate medical/psychological occurence, is usually one of the first straws grasped at and brandished by debunkers of contact experiencers (no, not anyone posting here). It seems to be trotted out whether or not there is any other corresponding UFO or other high strangeness event associated with it. While I don't know if he or anyone else has done any statistical work on what hours contact experiences have occurred, Larry Hatch has done some terrific work quantifying UFO statistics. "This distribution mirrors studies done by Dr. Jacques Vallee and others, which show a steady rise in sightings to about 2100 hours ( 9:00 PM ) and then a sharp drop into the morning. About half of all sightings occur in the 5 hours between 7:00 PM (1900 hours) and midnight." <a href="http://www.larryhatch.net/HOURLY.html">www.larryhatch.net/HOURLY.html</a> We know people aren't generally sleeping before 11, which is why that time frame is considered to be prime time for the television audience. I would assume that legitimate Old Hag sleep disturbances should be at some uniform part of the sleep cycle. Anyone seen any statistics on this?

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:58 am

Two comments: For Hanshan, without quoting...why do you assume the two are mutually contradictory? And my wife would be the first to know...but moving on. As for Old Hag, interesting story. Here's what is interesting to me. "Scientists" can explain the "old hag" visits as sleep paralysis. Fine...that explains the state, but not the CONTENT. Why are so many experiences similar? Ditto aliens. At some point, people should have experiences of horses coming into their rooms, or angry pizza delivery boys, or car salesmen. Yet the stories are so similar that these legends have passed down relatively unchanged for generations. Alien abductions...ditto. Scientists stop at "sleep paralysis". Perhaps this state simply makes one receptive to such experiences? I don't know. I described my own minor one elsewhere, and in the same house, my Buddhist monk friend was actually attacked one night and wrestled for some time with...something. The next morning we noticed the downstairs clock had stopped at the time of the event.

Sokolova · Post by **Sokolova** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:40 am

Okay, I can't offer much insight into Strieber, Koury, Chalker or the rest but I can come to this with some medical perspective, which might help a little bit. 1. HIV/AIDS. Whoa. Before getting on the conspiracy-train about the origin of HIV, or the 'alien' train about possible genetic manipulation to create 'immunity' to it, let's first establish, it is the cause of AIDS. So far no immunological tests have shown any causal link between HIV and AIDS. It has totally failed the Koch test (which is the standard test of whether a virus causes a particular condition), and AIDS has not so far ever been induced in any experimental animal injected with HIV. So the role of HIV in AIDS (mega drug company profits aside) continues to be entirely speculative and many researchers are becoming increasingly doubtful that HIV is directly involved in the development of AIDS at all. 2. DNA in hair samples. Dreams, you can extract DNA from the shaft of a hair; the DNA in question is 'mitochondrial DNA', inherited from the mother only, and nothing like as good a diagnostic tool as nuclear DNA. Without reading the original report from the lab that tested the hair it's not possible to know how unusual the result really is. And unfortunately as I understand it, Chalker refuses to disclose the names of the scientists who did the test, or the lab they worked for. Without such confirmation an obvious questionmark remains over it all. Perhaps if Chalker could post a copy of the report, with names blanked out then we might be able to decipher what is going on for ourselves? There's also the problem of provenance. We only have Koury's word for where the hair came, and scientifically that's just not certain enough. The chain of evidence is only as strong as its weakest link, and there's no scientific way of testing whether Koury is telling the truth or not. But as I understand it, the hair is 100% human. So, I remain unsure exactly why it is considered so meaningful. Again we need to see the report to be able to assess if Chalker's claims are a reasonable assessment of the scientific conclusions. Ellie

Rigorous Intuition · Post by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:02 am

Chalker's book includes a 30-page appendix of the technical report prepared by the lead biochemist of the team that performed the analysis. I find it of tremendous significance that, though the hair has bizarre properties, it actually does appear human. Because this isn't an "off-world" phenomenon.

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:39 am

Yes, Elllie, I stand corrected about the DNA extraction from the shaft of the hair...by Chalker himself if you see the above post. I expected to be corrected, as such a basic error surely could not have made it into that book. Beyond that, it's only if the hair has some really unexplainable and verifiable anomolies that it's significant, because, as you mentioned, we only have this guys word for it as to where it came from. If the book gets any notice at all, then it should certainly draw out the debunkers and that debate can be held among people who know about such things. I do find it sort of fitting that he's using PCR multiplication techniques developed by our good buddy Kary Mullis, whom we were discussing some weeks ago...but that's just for grins.

Sokolova · Post by **Sokolova** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:17 am

Thanks J. Does the appendix publish the actual text of the report? If so does the report offer any statistical assessment of how likely the DNA sequences and other anomalies would be to occur together in nature? Ellie

hanshan · Post by **hanshan** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:43 am

mutually contradictory? <img src="http://www.michaelmhensley.com/images/Inspiration%206%20Succubus%20460px.jpg" style="border:0;"/> whoa...outside of culturally conditioned sequences wherein that phenomena obtains, didn't suspect you & yourn as necessarily that enlightened. Will, in future, restrain any tendencies to wards overarching assumptions. & it's a shame your linus/gimp can't apparently read HTML &/or ezboard markup. Oh well. pj has an interesting description of her own involvement w/ the night-hagphenomenon, although in her case the attacker was male, & the experience was highly sexually charged. Don't know if you read that far. Sokolova brings excellent up points: So far no immunological tests have shown any causal link between HIV and AIDS. It has totally failed the Koch test (which is the standard test of whether a virus causes a particular condition), and AIDS has not so far ever been induced in any experimental animal injected with HIV. So the role of HIV in AIDS (mega drug company profits aside) continues to be entirely speculative and many researchers are becoming increasingly doubtful that HIV is directly involved in the development of AIDS at all. These are astounding revelations (which I have read elsewhere) & the question becomes why the MSM has virtually ignored this discovery. It also begs the question as to: if not HIV then What? What is the active viral agent responsible for the condition known as AIDS ? Or, is it even viral in origin? We only have Koury's word for where the hair came, and scientifically that's just not certain enough. Indeed. Extraordinary claims. Harrumph & Dreams, re: your Buddhist friend - did you referee the ghost match? ....

Rigorous Intuition · Post by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:05 pm

Ellie, Yes. I'll copy some of the relevent analysis, which references a table of mitochoncrial sequence variation in the hair root: By comparison with all other human sequences which have been determined (Mitochondrial DNA Concordance, <a href="http://shelob.bioanth.cam.ac.uk/mtDNA),">shelob.bioanth.cam.ac.uk/mtDNA),</a> we find that the four substitutions found here for a blond "alien" hair root, definitely place that female within the general range of Basque-Gaelic genetics. Thus, two of the four substitutions 16,223 and 16,278 are found together in 3% of Caucasians from the UK or northern Spain (Piercy et al, 1993), or in roughly 10% of the blue-eyed, blond Caucasians who inhabit northern Scotland and the Orkney Islands. Examining next only those people who contain both 16,223 and 16,278, we find that even fewer (1% in the UK or 0.5% in northern Spain) contain an additional substitution at 16,255. Finally, no one in the current database contains a fourth substitution at 16,294, in combination with the other three. Yet 16,294 can be found along with 16,223 or 16,278 in some individuals. Recent studies of the Y chomosome (Hill, E, et al, Nature 404, 351, 2000) enable us to pinpoint the location of our blond "alien" genetics more closely. Thus, it seems that the western Irish and Basque share a rare Y-chromosome haplotype known as "hg 1," not found commonly anywhere else in the world. The geographic distribution of "hg 1" seems to match well the geographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA from our blond "alien" hair; which suggests that both kinds of genetic variation may have spread from western Ireland, by population expansion into Scotland and northern Spain.

Sokolova · Post by **Sokolova** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:51 pm

Thanks J Just to be clear, is Chalker's book reproducing the actual report here, or a paraphrase of it? Could you (or someone else who isn't as cheap as me and has bought the book!) clarify this? First off, genetics isn't my area, and I many be misreading, but what is this about the Y chromosome? Wasn't the subject supposed to be female? Females don't have Y chromosomes. How is this 'hg1' factor helping to locate the hair's mtDNA? Any hint about this in the report, or am I being embarrasingly dumb here? Second off, I don't see anything that odd in the sections of the report as posted. The fourth substitution could or could not be odd, depending on the size of the database. Does the report comment on whether they would expect such a finding or consider it very anomalous? Jeff- don't take too much trouble with these questions. Maybe I'll try to find Mr Chalker. Did he post here or was it added from elsewhere? Ellie

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:57 pm

Chalker's post is in this thread. I wonder if Jeff might poke around in the report and let us know where the "Asian" DNA with rare Mongoloid features or whatever figures into this. I'm still unclear if he's saying there's one racial type DNA at one part and a completely different one elsewhere. Strieber oversimplified it to the point of not being useful, I think.

Rigorous Intuition · Post by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:38 pm

Yes, the actual report is reproduced, and not Chalker's paraphrase. The rare Asian-Mongoloid DNA was found in the shaft, the Basque-Gaelic DNA in the root.

Sokolova · Post by **Sokolova** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:20 am

Thanks Jeff, any ideas about the 'Y chromosome' and its relevance? And did Chalker post here himself, or was his stuff copied on from elsewhere? Ellie

Rigorous Intuition · Post by **Rigorous Intuition** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:43 am

Yes, Bill Chalker posted in this thread several times. I hope to have an interview up on the blog with him in the near future. About the significance of the Y chromosome, I can't say off hand. I'll see what I can find about it when I have a moment.

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:43 pm

Ellie, While I won't say that Chalker's analysis is "correct", I wouldn't look for such fundamental mistakes...as I did when I asked about the hair. Perhaps the quote in question about the Y chromosome is suggesting that like the Y chromosome, Mitochondria can be useful because of polymorphisms that get introduced, as this quote explains: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> It is not just men who retain a record of their genetic ancestry. Women also carry a record of their history in their mitochondrial DNA. This DNA is found outside the cell's nucleus in the mitochondria, which produce the cell's energy. Following fertilization of an egg by a sperm, the sperm's mitochondria are discarded and only the mitochondria from the mother are retained in the new cells. Therefore, the DNA in each person's mitochondria is a unique record of his or her maternal heritage. Like the Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA can also include polymorphisms. In the same way that scientists study polymorphisms in Y chromosomes, they can use polymorphisms in mitrochondrial DNA to construct extended mother to daughter genealogical trees. <a href="http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/genetics_and_identity/background.html">www.bioethics.umn.edu/gen...round.html</a> <hr></blockquote> I simply doubt, from what I've seen in his responses, that Chalker would make such a basic mistake as that.

Sokolova · Post by **Sokolova** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:40 pm

Dreams - I'm totally not looking for mistakes, just info. I'm hoping this is really as weird as it sounds and I'm sure it's my goof, because my 'thing' was neurology not genetics, but I don't get what the 'Y chromosome' ref means, and I just wanna know! J - thanks and I'll look forward to it. I have a couple questions I could ask you to bring up in the interview, would that be okay? And maybe others with better qualifications in understanding genetics - and translating it for the rest of us! - could think of some? Ellie

rigorousintuition.ca

What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

Not many prime-time Old Hags?

Re: Not many prime-time Old Hags?

Re: Not many prime-time Old Hags?

about the hair

Re: about the hair

Re: about the hair

re: night hags

Re: about the hair

Re: about the hair

Re: about the hair

Re: about the hair

Re: about the hair

Re: about the hair

Re: What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

not wanting to find mistakes