Ambient (Abduction) Monitoring Project

[jjflash]

[Admin Edit: Post removed per Rule 7]

[jjflash]

My apologies that my post was apparently interpreted to be in violation of rule 7 and subsequently removed. Let's try it this way:

The Ambient Monitoring Project, or AMP, was a research project designed to monitor the ambient environment of possible alien abductees during their reported abductions. Disappointingly, the project results were never released and the data has never been made available for public review. A description of the project, its equipment and methodology was written by project director Tom Deuley and published in the July, 2008, MUFON Journal:

http://documents.theblackvault.com/docu ... y_2008.pdf

I have located one of the AMP volunteers, and they would very much like to interact with other volunteers. The individual would like to discuss their experiences, thoughts and feelings about participating in the project.

If you were an AMP volunteer, please contact me, such as by using the 'private message' feature on this forum. I will then gladly exchange my contact information with you, as well as coordinate the exchange of contact information among the AMP volunteers, so that the situation may be discussed to whatever extent participants are comfortable.

[Access Denied]

Disappointingly, the project results were never released and the data has never been made available for public review.

Why is that disappointing? You make it sound like a conspiracy. There was some discussion on UFO Updates about this recently and my understanding is there’s basically no data… nothing of any significance was seen on the video.

I would imagine the participants might not want video of them sleeping plastered all over the internet. I also understand it would be a huge undertaking to go through it all and make it available… to what end?

To prove it’s evidently only in their heads?

[jjflash]

Hi, AD -

Would you please provide a source for your assertion the AMP included video footage? I would be very interested in reading further about such footage.

Thank you.

[Access Denied]

I said that was my understanding. The source was Jerome Clark...

http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/may/m06-009.shtml

I see now there was a "clarification" from Steven Kaeser...

http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/may/m07-001.shtml

And more regarding the privacy issue…

http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/may/m13-002.shtml

[tomdeuley]

This is Tom Deuley who was the technical data collector for the AMP (Ambient Monitoring Project). Two items: there was no video taken of anything in this project at anytime, and the reason the data has not been released is that it consists of approximately 4.5 Gigabits of data for each case of nothing but numbers that would be of little use to anyone who did not have the original channel breakdown, and a through understanding of the diurnal changes that occurred on some channels on a daily basis. The AMP group is still in search of a qualified statistician and the funds necessary to have the data analyzed. Without proper analysis and interpretation very wrong assumptions could be made and therefore not something that would be helpful to the overall effort.

[Access Denied]

Welcome to RU Tom and thank you for that, I see your dilemma...

Without proper analysis and interpretation very wrong assumptions could be made and therefore not something that would be helpful to the overall effort.

Agreed and if you ask me, the whole project should be left to qualified medical professionals. If it wasn’t from the very beginning, it certainly should be now, or better yet, completely redone… preferably with time-correlated video to go along with whatever environmental parameter are recorded. Not just for the obvious analytical value but also for the benefit of the participants…

Tom

[jjflash]

Hello, Tom Deuley -

Thank you for joining the discussion. I appreciate your attempts to clarify aspects of the Ambient Monitoring Project.

My name is Jack Brewer and I contacted you in 2008. At that time I inquired about information publicly available about the project, to which you informed me, among other things, that data analysis was currently underway. I appreciate your attention to my questions in the past, and I would very much appreciate you addressing the following items as your time and attention allow:

I interpret project leaders feel there was not enough data analysis completed to support any further public announcements or updates. Is that correct, and, if so, would you please comment on specifically how that chain of events took place? Who, specifically, was involved in the decision making processes, and how did they unfold? To what extent did Dr. Crunk at San Jose State work on the data analysis?

To what extent is MUFON actively attempting to recruit qualified experts to voluntarily analyze the AMP data?

Would you please explain specifically how the AMP was funded? I realize UFORC was involved, but where did the funds originate? Who, specifically, were the key people involved in coordinating this funding, and how was it accomplished?

How were the project materials, such as the monitoring boxes and volunteers' journals, retrieved from the homes of the volunteers? What was the standard method of operation for retrieving these materials? As much detail as you are willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.

The AMP volunteer I know informs me they made multiple unsuccessful attempts through the MUFON chain of command to learn more about the results of their personal involvement as an AMP research subject. They subsequently have very negative feelings about their involvement in the project. They would particularly like to learn more about any environmental changes that may or may not have been recorded during a reported entity encounter that took place in their home and while the home was being monitored. They would also appreciate obtaining a copy of their project journal, as they claim they were originally promised but never received. Would you please comment on the likelihood either might ever be accomplished? Do you have any words or suggestions for that volunteer that you think would be helpful?

What is the likelihood the AMP group would release copies of the AMP data to another group that had the resources and qualifications to conduct the analysis? What would the conditions and requirements of such an arrangement have to include? Who, specifically, should be contacted to discuss the likelihood of such an arrangement?

Thank you very much for your attention to my questions. I appreciate it a great deal.

[chrLz]

Having connection problems at the moment, and I can't get at that PDF... Is there a summary of the methodology anywhere else? But I will confess my interest is that of wondering how on earth the objectives and methodology were set up for this 'study' and how one could possibly come up with a useful and proper methodology for testing what appears to be a set of virtually untestable claims by an extremely restricted client base, selected via non-disclosed criteria... Was there a control group, baseline/comparative data, a null hypothesis, does it pass the 'falsifiable' test, etc...?

It's probably no wonder Tom is having problems finding a 'suitable' statistician/analyst...

Then again, perhaps I am being too cynical...

[Access Denied]

Jack and Chrlz, if you read Tom's article about the project in the MUFON journal linked to in the OP and the following brief presentation, I think it will answer many of your questions...

http://www.amstat.org/chapters/austin/M ... Powell.pdf

It’s actually not as bad of an idea as I initially assumed based on some of the comments I’ve read… although, given Instrumentation is what I do for a living, it should come as no surprise I do have some technical reservations with it. But that’s not really something I think anyone here should be overly concerned about… that’s something I would take up with Tom on my own if I was going to get involved with it.

As noted previously, I’m actually more concerned with the design and implementation of the overall experiment as it relates to the participants than the equipment itself which is what I would like to see discussed here in a constructive way if at all possible…

Thanks,

Tom

[chrLz]

Jack and Chrlz, if you read Tom's article about the project in the MUFON journal linked to in the OP and the following brief presentation..

Thanks AD, I have now resolved my conection difficulties and had a bit of a looksee. but...

I think it will answer many of your questions...

Surely you know by now that my questioning of stuff is *endless*! It answered a few, but raised many many more...

I have to confess that I am still a bit puzzled about what was thought could be achieved, indeed it looks a bit like there was a hope that there would be some remarkable anomalies in the data that would correspond with a subject's report of an 'experience' - in which case I'm sure eager researchers would have jumped at the chance to analyse it in more detail. I'm assuming that didn't happen (despite some reports of 'experiences'), and that might explain why there seems to have been a loss of interest.

From a methodology point of view, i have *lots* of concerns with what i have read, but without fully understanding the objectives of the project, I might be being a bit harsh.. (which has never stopped me in the past.. )

As a quick example, in the first pdf I found this:

A word about our scientific approach—a good scientific
test is conducted in a double blind fashion.

There's an *awful* lot more involved in a good scientific test..

In this study, that
would mean that one subject would be tested with a real test
unit, and one would be tested with a false test unit.

Umm, no, it doesn't. (That's more like a 'placebo'! - how on earth could you 'test' them with an empty box???) It is not how double-blind testing would apply here - eg, that *might* involve the researchers being unaware of which 'black box' data set belonged to which subject (and the collection of additional data from random people using real black boxes) Then the researcher/statistician would have to examine the 'black box' data from all the subjects looking for anomalies, without having any access to the subject's reports of possible 'experiences'. If instead they checked the subjects reports first and then went poring over their data looking for matching anomalies - then the accusation of confirmation bias could be made...
Now I'm not suggesting that sort of approach would necessarily satisfy the double blind requirement here (indeed, that req may not even be relevant to such a project - without understanding a bit more, I just don't know). But my point is that the quote above does suggest an unfamiliarity with the various tests that can (and should) be applied to any 'science' that wants to be taken seriously.

We instead opted for a separation of duties. As the data
collector, I was to never know the name or address of the
subjects. I was to only know the name of the researcher...

?? So, by choosing another type of test, one can just dismiss/replace the first one? Or just pick and choose the tests the researchers would *like* to apply? Science just doesn't work like that. That's one of the reasons why peer review is applied... (and I'm applying a bit of it now.... )

I was also rather concerned when I read the comments about how the researchers would 'know' if the box was tampered with or 'cheated'. I immediately thought of several ways one could cheat, that would almost certainly be undetectable - and it has to be acknowledged that the subjects might have a strong motivation to do so. It's not as if they didn't have a pretty good idea of what the researchers were seeking, and 'confirmation' of their claims would be in their interest..

Anyway, I'd be interested to see any 'deeper' documentation and/or discussion of the methodology and primary aims of the project.

[Access Denied]

From a methodology point of view, i have *lots* of concerns with what i have read, but without fully understanding the objectives of the project, I might be being a bit harsh.. (which has never stopped me in the past.. )

Well, given it appears the principals are either unwilling or unable to openly discuss it, I’m not sure your assessment can be considered too harsh…

Anyway, I'd be interested to see any 'deeper' documentation and/or discussion of the methodology and primary aims of the project.

Me too but in the absence of said discussion, I think we’re now free to speculate…

Seems to me the primary aim of the project was to reinforce the AAH (Alien Abduction Hypothesis) by implicitly accepting the notion that the fact that no video evidence exists that these people are actually going anywhere can be explained by some vague magical manipulations of physical reality.

Of course this approach spectacularly fails to pass the scientific credibility test because given no video was recorded, even if something had been picked up by whatever sensors they used, there’s still no evidence they actually went anywhere… ergo were abducted by space aliens.

[or anyone else for that matter... MILABS anyone?]

Consequently one might wonder what the true agenda of the folks who funded this project was…