In search of magnetic anomalies associated with haunt-type experiences: pulses and patterns in dual time-synchronized measurements

These data were formally analyzed in the following way. Mean averages for the variability were calculated every 15 min (bins) for both sensors for the whole 6-hr measuring period. This process corrected the data for nonstationarity and parametric analysis (3). A 2 x 6 (Sensor x Session) mixed-subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was carried out with Sensor as the between-subjects factor and Session as the within-subjects factor. This revealed a significant main effect of Sensor, F (1, 6) = 1519.1, p <.001. The overall variability measured by Sensor A (pillow area) was significantly greater than that observed for Sensor B (baseline). The analysis also revealed a significant main effect of Session, F(5, 30) = 200.760, p<.001. The sessions produced reliably different field variability over the 6-hr measuring period. The Sensor x Session interaction was also significant, F (5, 30) = 19.320, p <.001. Figure 1 shows the data plotted for both regions over the six separate 1-hr sessions. From this figure, it is clear to see the large difference between the areas covered. The error bars represent 1 standard deviation above and below each mean for that session and clearly show the distribution of measurements. From this the greater overall variability in the pillow area can also be seen. The interaction seems to be mainly due to the increase in mean variability from Session 2 to Session 6 being greater in the baseline area relative to the pillow area (40 nT vs 12 nT, respectively).

Within-Sensor Analysis

The data gathered at each sensor location were then further assessed in relation to the individual axes contributions and analyzed further by dividing the variability from one axis into the variability from the other and calculating an F-ratio (with a Bonferroni comparison correction). This was done by averaging the sample series into 1-s mean (bins) for 120 s of time (2 min) at the beginning of Session 1. For Sensor A (pillow area), the variability measurements from the separate x, y, z axes were all significantly different from each other, (all F's > 4, all p's < .01). For Sensor B, the comparison between y (north/south) and z axes (up/down) did not approach significance, (F < 1.1, p > .05). All other comparisons were significant: (F's > 14, p's < .0; see Figure 2).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Between-Sensor Analysis

Data for all three axes were then compared to their counterparts across sensors in the way described above. An F-ratio was calculated in the same way and revealed a significant difference between the variability for both the x axis and y axis from the pillow area relative to the baseline area with x, F (119, 119) = 5.30, p <.001; and y = 9.36, p <.001. The difference between the z axis on both sensors failed to reach significance, z = 1.34, p >.05. These results demonstrate that on the whole, the variability in the magnetic field measured in the pillow area was much greater and statistically distinguishable from that obtained by the baseline sensor. However, these analyses also reveal what components and directions the highest variability contributions were coming from for both areas measured. Furthermore, by decomposing the magnetic measurements across the individual directional axes here, it can be seen that the relative differences between the axes for the pillow region are far greater (i.e., more disparate) when compared to the baseline area (see Figure 2).