Donderi on UFOs

[Burnt State]

Admittedly, the interviews I've seen are very introductory. But that's to be expected in a standard newscast. He'd have an opportunity to elaborate more on a show like the Paracast. You may not find that any more "exciting" either, but personally, because he's got credentials and studies human vision and memory as it relates to evidence, I'd find that interesting. The skeptics constantly dismiss such evidence citing that it doesn't qualify as valid. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about that.

I agree on the examination of human vision and memory as it seems that the really grey area of UFO witness reporting is tied to how our physiology responds, records and reports these events. Consequently, it seems the more we learn about the limits of human sensory experience and how it is subsequently processed the better we are able to discern clues about the phenomenon itself and our place as a species on the planet.

I thought he was Don Cherry's brother.

 

[Randall]

... The term alien is a funny term. It's bandied about with routine and reckless derision in today's society. The very term "alien" smacks of some from a illegitimacy or "club outsider". I for one think "alternate" a far more reasonable and appropriate term. Especially with respect for non human intelligence as a volition or element of control.

That was a really good post. It demonstrates that we're not actually that far apart in our views. Now let's have a look at the word "alien". In this case we're using it in a more literal context, which is the idea of something foreign entering into a place it's not from. It has been used to describe foreigners from another country, organisms introduced into non-native habitats, invading bacteria or viruses into a host body, and a number of other things including never before encountered craft or beings. The word itself has been around much longer than ufology, dating back to the 14th century. It was only with the advent of progressive thinking regarding the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe that it became associated with the idea of intelligent beings from other worlds.

So in actuality, the word "alien" suggests, but does not necessitate ET, and this is perfectly fitting for ufology because it matches the historical, cultural and evidentiary circumstances. That isn't to say that I don't get what you're saying about the baggage that it carries. But that baggage is largely the result of ridicule by people who have never taken the time to go to this depth and would ridicule whatever other word you used as anyway. So why legitimize that kind of unproductive thinking? On your suggestion that the word "alternate" would work well, it's certainly not a bad choice, and under some circumstances might be just the word that's needed. But is the phrase "alternate craft" really as accurate as "alien craft" to describe what we mean in ufology?

On the issue of black projects by humans. Although they may be unfamiliar to most people, they are still a part of our global civilization. Additionally, official definitions from the USAF clearly tell us that unidentified aircraft are not to be reported as UFOs as they do not fall under the definition of UFO. Nevertheless this isn't to say that your basic thinking isn't correct. Again it's simply a matter of usage. Some of the objects in UFO reports are undoubtedly black project aircraft ( See how phrasing it that way makes it really clear ? ). We've said exactly what you want to get across without saying UFO = Secret plane.

Lastly, there are those who think that getting these points clear in one's mind isn't important because it's just a "semantic debate". However semantics is language, and language is what we use to communicate. And if we can't communicate what we mean clearly and accurately, then the result is confusion. I'm sure you can appreciate that the word UFO carries with it a history of confusion, and that such confusion has often been exploited by deniers for the purpose of ridicule and to marginalize the topic. It's time for that to end, and this is a logical solution. Attacking it is extremely difficult. It will serve you well if you adopt it, and it doesn't necessarily mean you need to change your core views. In fact, as you get used to it, you will see how helps you express them more clearly.

 

[boomerang]

I would like to read the book and would love to hear Donderi in a Paracast interview. What I have heard from Donderi thus far is sharp, articulate and well informed.

 

[Randall]

Donderi Speaking at MUFON LA​

about his work with Bud Hopkins on alien Abductions​

​

 

[boomerang]

Donderi Speaking at MUFON LA​

about his work with Bud Hopkins on alien Abductions​

​

Can't agree with all of Donderi's tenets. But looks like he is applying a methodological approach to a difficult subject. This assumes, if course, that one believes in the validity of psychology.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Jebus, he really does look like Don Cherry.

 

[Wade]

Jebus, he really does look like Don Cherry.

Unless you guys are hockey fans you can ignore Angelo's post. Go Bruins !

 

[Randall]

Jebus, he really does look like Don Cherry.

And the names even rhyme Donderi ... Don Cherry ... it's all in good fun.

 

[Wade]

Off Topic: it's been ages since I've watched a HNIC game, do they still do the three stars at the end of the game?

 

[Jimi H.]

I'd like to hear about just a couple of cases, the best cases where he doesn't rely only on eyewitness accounts. Psychologists tend to be less focused on hard evidence, more on the mental aspects. The abduction proponents lack evidence, and I think many agree that Leir's didn't quite cut it.

What about a debate between Donderi and an openminded but abduction-critical psychologist (easy for me to propose, of course..)? Or two psych's discussing the same case in two different programs? Without a professional with another angle, it's hard know what to think. I think these abduction proponents get off a little easy, if they aren't challenged more or less directly by other professionals, and don't have hard evidence.
The topic is so disturbing that it seems most responsible to give similar airtime to professional critique. I'm confident that professionals who've dealt with sleep paralysis and out-of-body experiences could make the discussion interesting, and it would illuminate where the true professionals disagree exactly, when interpreting the source of the same specific events. Like a panel.
In my opinion, there are other explanations that are undeniably at work in these matters, the problem is only if the non-alien explanations account for 100% of the cases. A professional open discussion would be good. If he's got a case, he can defend himself.

Just my 2 cents..

 

[Randall]

I'd like to hear about just a couple of cases, the best cases where he doesn't rely only on eyewitness accounts. Psychologists tend to be less focused on hard evidence, more on the mental aspects.

Though I've never checked his credentials, Donderi says he's a genuine psychologist and memory expert who has been a professor at an accredited university. Assuming this is true, he would be qualified to assess of the accuracy of eyewitness accounts based on principles of academic study rather than mere personal opinion. Contrary to the tactics of many skeptics, firsthand experience and memory is not considered either hearsay nor anecdotal evidence. There are also well established scientific principles that define our sensory perception and memory. Therefore information of that type set down in report form from a firsthand witness of known reliability qualifies as evidence, and in some cases may carry more weight than material evidence.

The abduction proponents lack evidence, and I think many agree that Leir's didn't quite cut it.

It doesn't lack evidence so much as it lacks sufficient compelling evidence for most people. I think it's reasonable to believe something is going on, but exactly what that is I can't say with any certainty, and I'm even less certain when it comes to individual cases. For example when it comes to standard UFO sightings, I think it's reasonable to believe the accounts relayed via Ruppelt, Hynek and Keyhoe, and particular those relayed by pilots, and even more compelling, those relayed by military pilots. We don't seem to have any comparable evidence for alien abduction that I know of. Yet I at the same time I find it unreasonable not to believe that strange things happen to some people, particularly episodes of missing time in connected with a UFO sightings.

What about a debate between Donderi and an openminded but abduction-critical psychologist (easy for me to propose, of course..)? Or two psych's discussing the same case in two different programs? Without a professional with another angle, it's hard know what to think. I think these abduction proponents get off a little easy, if they aren't challenged more or less directly by other professionals, and don't have hard evidence.
The topic is so disturbing that it seems most responsible to give similar airtime to professional critique. I'm confident that professionals who've dealt with sleep paralysis and out-of-body experiences could make the discussion interesting, and it would illuminate where the true professionals disagree exactly, when interpreting the source of the same specific events. Like a panel. In my opinion, there are other explanations that are undeniably at work in these matters, the problem is only if the non-alien explanations account for 100% of the cases. A professional open discussion would be good. If he's got a case, he can defend himself.

Yes, it would make a very good panel discussion. Good post Jimi .

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Donderi was a professor at McGill University.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Contrary to the tactics of many skeptics, firsthand experience and memory is not considered either hearsay onr anecdotal evidence. There are also well established scientific principles that define our sensory perception and memory. Therefore information of that type set down in report form from a firsthand witness of known reliability qualifies as evidence, and in some cases may carry more weight than material evidence.
.

Oh my, this is off the charts. It's VERY rare that I am at a loss for words, but you got me stumped this time. I don't even know where to start!

 

[Jeff Davis]

I thought he was Don Cherry's brother.

The first time I saw his picture when Ufology posted it I immediately thought of Festus from Gunsmoke. He needs one of them hats though.

 

[Randall]

Oh my, this is off the charts. It's VERY rare that I am at a loss for words, but you got me stumped this time. I don't even know where to start!

Well ... your quote helped me notice my typo. So I fixed it. That was a good start and you didn't even have to say much of anything !

 

[Jimi H.]

..
Yes, it would make a very good panel discussion. Good post Jimi .

Well thanks, though obviously it betrays my general scepticism about the abduction reports, and scepticism towards relying on eyewitness accounts, even if a psychologist feels he is profesionally qualified to assess the witnessess. Different psychologists reach different conclusions, lie detector tests are typically not enough to convict anyone etc., so it isn't really an exact science.

And if we treat witnesses with scepticism in UFO cases, in comparison, the courts have a crime to solve, so something happened. Someone was hurt, or someone's bank account just got unexpectedly lighter, or something like that. 'Abductees' can rarely point to anything happening in the first place, and therein lies the problem. They don't put up cameras in their bedroom etc. So, I don't know if something is technically evidence if we can't confirm that anything happened, if we don't have a case?

Now, if there are other more substantial reports to back it up (multiple seperate witnesses, radar, ATC or police radio etc), that somehow document strange things, then it's more interesting - like any other case with evidence and some forms of documentation. The abduction account is not terribly interesting in itself, I think, if other more tangible documentation exists. Unless all the various reports point directly at someone's house or something, eeek Because, I would expect some 'abductees' to piggyback on publically known events. I can't prove that, but I'd expect it, even if they do it unconsciously. A professional could perhaps answer yes or no to that.

Of course, there are the implantation stories, and pictures of physical scars, and bits of metal, but I do have a hard time believing that one single of these many implants haven't been brought to a civilian lab or at least written about in some medical journals, where a doctor innocently asks: 'what is this', and where the implant gets identified as something odd.

The 'MIB' is not good enough an explanation for me for the lack of evidence. These guys just can't know everything and be everywhere, I don't buy it, that's paranoia imo. So, to sum up, with all the stories, the odds are that one or two genuine implants would have been located and investigated by credible civilians, completely irregardless and perhaps ignorant of UFO stories, because most doctors are relatively professionally up-to-date, and often have research interests on the side, and often also other natural scientific interests.

So yea, to specify, I would definitely find the insights of a professional in the field of sleep psychology (preferably with interests in out-of-body experiences and hallucinogenics, including prescription drugs side-effects) interesting, including a discussion of the same case as one of the proponents of actual alien abductions.

Again, my 2 cents, I realize the Paracast is in essence about giving the para-normal angle most of the attention, and what we are all mainly here for, besides the general chatter.

 

[Randall]

Well thanks, though obviously it betrays my general scepticism about the abduction reports, and scepticism towards relying on eyewitness accounts, even if a psychologist feels he is profesionally qualified to assess the witnessess. Different psychologists reach different conclusions, lie detector tests are typically not enough to convict anyone etc., so it isn't really an exact science ...

Hey ... you'll get no argument from me. At USI I suggested an update to the SVP confidence rating system proposed by Vallee that takes memory ( M ) into account. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the basic SVP version, if not you can read more about it here. Essentially the lower the number, the lower the rating.

S = Source Reliability
V = Site Visit
P = Probability of Conventional Explanation
M = Mnemonic Rating ( Memory )

Mnemonic Rating ( The higher the better ):

0 - Experienced in an altered state - no correlation.
1 - Experienced in an altered state - minimal correlation.
2 - Assisted recall ( hypnosis ) with fair correlation.
3 - Conscious experience & recall of an event more than 5 years old.
4 - Clear conscious experience & recall of a recent event.

It would be interesting to hear Donderi's comments on the above.

Margins of Error

When you say psychology isn't an exact science, I fully agree, but I also preface that by saying that such a statement implies that other kinds of science are, when in fact they're not. I've been trying to get this across to the evangelical science types for ( it seems like forever ). Unless one is dealing with principles of pure logic ( math ), there is always going to be a margin of error, and sometimes that margin can be quite large.

For example consider the margins of error that occur in meteorology, astronomy, cosmology, and geology. Examples in the order of millions or billions of years, millions of miles, numbers of degrees in temperature or precipitation and so on. So the question becomes, how do we determine margins of error and at what point do we consider the margin of error acceptable enough to draw a reasonable conclusion? The answers to these questions are worked out by the various experts in their respective fields based on statistical probabilities. One of the most common methods is to establish a null hypothesis and determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to falsify it.

Logically, because this methodology is largely unbiased, when the statistical probabilities favor a given hypothesis, it should be granted the same weight as any other evidence obtained by similar means in any other field. In this sense, an expert such as Donderi can draw probable conclusions that rival the accuracy of those in other fields. This doesn't necessarily prove anything other than the hypothesis is reasonable to believe. Tangible evidence still outweighs probability. For example a geologist can estimate the likelihood of there being oil at a certain location, and it may even be a "virtual certainty", but the proof is still whether or not the bit strikes oil.

When it comes to memory, we're not dealing entirely in probability and we're not dealing entirely in tangibility. We're dealing in the realm of both. The stimulus response is a tangible material biological reaction to various physically measurable phenomena such as photons, pressure waves, airborne chemicals and physical contact. These parameters are fairly well understood by science today, well enough for example to create lenses to correct vision. The information provided by our senses is then stored in memory where it can be retrieved.

So in the case of memory, absence of material evidence isn't evidence that there was no material evidence. In fact our day to day experience shows that memory of an event is very strong evidence that a real event involving physical materials did indeed occur, and assuming we're not dealing with an outright hoax, the accuracy of information about that event can be determined within a margin of error that is often small enough to draw general conclusions with near certainty.

 

[Jimi H.]

At USI I suggested an update to the SVP confidence rating system proposed by Vallee that takes memory ( M ) into account.

Cool, but in the end it's systematic speculation. The best kind of speculation, but it still won't really qualify as evidence, to me, not that you're saying it does to you.

When you say psychology isn't an exact science, I fully agree, but I also preface that by saying that such a statement implies that other kinds of science are, when in fact they're not.

I'm not sure I agree there, for instance, take Roger Leir's alien implants: If they check out to be the same minerals as certain meteorites, that's exact enough for me. What is not exact about that, in your opinion? (Of course, Leir has only proved that 'aliens' seem to make implants of raw rock. Or that hoaxers do..)

I've been trying to get this across to the evangelical science types for ( it seems like forever )...

You can't, if you don't use the accepted definitions of 'exact' science, and don't acknowledge physics and chemistry as exact sciences (they are most likely not complete, but they are exact, in a mathematical sense). Only at the quantum level will I agree they aren't, but scientists are totally aware of that, scientists brought it up, you know. That doesn't seem very evangelical to me!

For example consider the margins of error that occur in meteorology, astronomy, cosmology, and geology.

The physics and chemistry behind those sciences are exact, but there's a chaotic element to e.g. meteorology, so its working method is creating models, those are obviously not exact, but that is not because of the physics and chemistry, that's because of the unpredictability and complexity of components and dynamics involved. E.g. you can't predict the efx of a sunstorm before you know it's even there.

It is a common misunderstanding that mathematics is an exact science, it's not a natural science to begin with. It's a language of symbols which allows us to calculate a multitude of things. The reason it works, is because the physics are the same everywhere in the known universe. Math just measures the predictable dimensions and velocities of matter (and theoretical math can deal with abstract dimensions etc). Traditionally, math resided with philosophy, but since it's such an important practical and theoretical tool to the other sciences, it has come to be perceived as a part of the natural sciences.

 

[boomerang]

Psychology is a "fuzzy" science, but it does use basic tools of science in an almost hopeless attempt to categorize and quantify complex human behaviors. Like statistics, it can be readily misused. So any good psychologist is inherently skeptical. Its at its best when it correlates human behaviors with measured physiological mechanisms.

It is probably at its second best when it looks at behavioral questions tangentially. An example of this is the MMPI, a long used True-False questionnaire designed to reveal personality traits based on answers to many seemingly unrelated questions. Patterns of answers are standardized and compared in such a way that combinations of them are revealing. This seems to be the kind of thing for which Donderi is aiming. It can never be exact, but it might be meaningul in attempting to tease out reports of abductions--whatever they may or may not be--from other behavior patterns. Any honest attempt at investigating abductions by study of abductees can only tell us whether he or she has subjectively experienced something unique. Barring measured physiological changes or extraneous evidence, it cannot begin to tell us what that 'something' is.

Ugh ! I'm flashing back to term papers padded with verbiage for a grade. I've probably made a mess of understanding and explaining this. but I think Donderi's behavioral and statistical approach may have merit and easily beats hypnosis. I personally have a poor opinion of so-called regression hypnosis for purposes of memory recall. I would also be interested to hear his take on this.

 

[Wade]

even though jimi was just using it as a figure of speech, I would say psychology isn't technicaliy a science at all. the other fields at least have a situation where the results are duplicated over and over...which I guess is a defining factor in what is and isn't science...1+1 will always equal 2 , mixing acid and bases will get you kicked out of science class and whenever the moon crosses in front of the sun you will get an eclipse of some kind.

psychology (my opinion, as I'm not trained in it) for the most part is still speculation , as is any diagnosis when it comes to the human mind, especially one that is not opetating on all cylinders. a person might exhibit the classic symptoms of a certain condition and may have some predictable reactions, but is ultimately a bit of a wild card when trying to determine what the end result could be .a rational mind is usually more predictable and therefore would come closer to being an exact science.