It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Mack and Sprinkle used regression hypnosis with their clients and came to believe that an alien intelligence was interacting with some humans to improve the overall, spiritual aspects of human society at large
originally posted by: Specimen
Did they touch you in anyway, like the Holy spirit touched Mary?
originally posted by: taoistguy
i think we should abduct one of them and probe them. see how they like it. they don't like it up 'em!
originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Totemic
I don't mean this next comment as a criticism or an ad-hom on you - it's an observation. Your support of Jacobs implies that you subscribe to his conclusions or choose to validate his work as it validates your experience of what is known as AP. Is that about right? If so, the validation you have found may well benefit from reappraisal. It's possible you have become entwined in confirmation bias and that your support of Jacobs is, psychologically, an argument to authority.
Why did Sprinkle and Mack attract spiritual abductees and Hopkins and Jacobs get the negative abductees? There's a strong human nature factor in there.
All that aside, I have my own beliefs and fall victim to my own confirmation biases. The AP hasn't been satisfactorily explained and there are more questions than answers. Mack, Velez, Bueche and Appelle have informed some of my thoughts as well as experience. The best I can say is that I've suspended judgement until something changes.
However, how often do we manage debates like that anywhere when it comes to subjects like UFOs and the paranormal?
Ad hominem attacks may play to the "home team" and make the attacker feel good, but they do nothing for open minded discussion and actually offer little or nothing as far as gaining supporting the person's point of view. In fact, it usually just shuts non-partisans completely off to what ever that person might have to say, even if they might have something valid to offer.
originally posted by: Totemic
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
After reading up on Jacobs vs. Emma and listening to some of the tapes, my impression is they both have serious issues and it's a conflict I would never want to step in the middle of.
Stepping back a bit, I will say that the situation does raise concerns about how research centered around abductees should occur, but I do not buy into most of the conclusions on that subject adopted by the anti-Jacaobs people.
True but I think the part you are missing is that there is still a Doctor patient relationship. Participants in actual studies should not expect behavior like this from the person conducting the study. If there were a breach of conduct, there would be someone to report it to.
Unless a researcher is a therapist and the primary goal of their interactions with abductees is to help them deal psychologically with their experiences, then abductee research and mental health services should be completely separated from each other.
I do have questions about the validity of certain forms of hypnosis. I don't see simple, light forms of hypnosis meant to relax the subject and allow them to more easily relate things that are difficult or embarrassing experiences to be particularly concerning. I think it would always be a requirement that the researcher receive formal training from reputable hypnotists, unrelated to UFO/abduction research, in what ever techniques they wish to use. However, I don't think that one needs to be a licensed therapist or professional hypnotist to work with abductees using techniques they are properly trained in.
Since these events can be traumatic and it's logical to believe that reviving memories of such things might be disturbing, I think that that possibility needs to be clearly detailed to the subject and they should be encouraged, if not absolutely required, to see a therapist who is not a researcher to deal with the psychological aspects of discovery. I think there also needs to be a clear understanding that if the researcher has real concerns about the metal health of the subject, as a result of memories recovered, or experiences discussed, that they should do no further research with that subject.
The subject should always be provided with an audio/video recording of every session, with the understanding that while the researcher can use it in their research and reference it with out revealing the identity of the subject, sans out permission, that the video/audio are the property of the subject and they may disseminate it as they see fit.
Some may think that last bit would be overly burdensome to the researcher and open them up to hoaxers looking for material with which to discredit them. However, as long as the relationship between the researcher and the subject remains entirely professional; the researcher maintains at least the air of objectivity, showing care not to taint or lead the subject by injecting their beliefs or expectations; and, at all times, sticks to hypnotic or interview protocols that are above reproach; shifting control over the recordings of each session to the subject would greatly help to alleviate the risk of "abuse" of a subject by a researcher.
Back to Jacobs, he clearly crossed a number of lines in the way he conducted himself with at least two subjects, Emma and Elizabeth. His techniques were sloppy, he abandoned any sense of professionalism and interacted with them as compatriots, confidants, commiserators and, dare I say, friends.
This doesn't invalidate the experiences of his subjects or even invalidate the entire body of his research.