It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking Abduction Debunkers

page: 30
28
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RedCairo

I should probably say, to be fair, that for the most part I don't credit hypnosis "used generally as it is in abduction research" as assisting with memory recall, so much as assisting with *helping the individual allow themselves the recall.* Is this difference clear?

Yes it is. Thanks. Bill Birnes goes into that difference here. It is a subtle point.



I think of memory in terms of "context". So if putting someone in a state where the can recall a related memory, other memories may follow. Does that make sense?

The thing I am getting at with this other topic is that people take this substance and they see these landscapes and cities and beings in a very vivid manner. Of course its easy to write these off as hallucinations and a product of the mind, etc., but the people experiencing these things insist on their reality. As in, they see these entities as autonomous beings existing somewhere. There definitely seems like there is some overlap with the abduction phenomenon.
realitysandwich.com...


P.S. I did read Dr. John Lilly's autobiography years ago, and the "stainless steel entities" he regularly encountered under the influence of Ketamine were darkly hilarious.

Ha! Yes, I am pretty familiar with Lilly. I actually had a history professor (what is it with history professors?) that claimed to have worked with Lilly on some of his infamous tank experiments. The class lectures were all about the benefits of hallucinogens and ancient aliens!
I always wondered if that's where Piers Anthony got one of the ideas in his 'Blue Adept' series (in at least one of the books, the machines are sentient).

Just a quick add: I read through your other posts and got a better idea of where you are coming from.
edit on 27-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: RedCairo


His behavior (amounts to abusive mind control IMO) with Emma really sucks, and it suggests bad things about his personal stability at this point. However, that doesn't mean that all the information or conclusions he's got after all his years of experience are invalid, of course. I don't dismiss it all, I just regret that his current work (and not sure how far back to go on that) seems invalidated by some current lack of ... psychological stability.


I think this is an important point and what I was trying to get at earlier. His presentation consists of bullet points that summarize his data. Or more like his interpretation of his data. Jacobs is the sole source of this data that he gets and interprets from his sessions with his subjects. What Emma Woods has provided is a glimpse into how those sessions are conducted. There are 180 hours of recordings to examine which is more than a reasonable sampling. Once we see behind the scenes like this and discover that the data is bad in this one case, it is really hard to trust the rest of it. Does it invalidate all of his work? No but it certainly doesn't validate it either. It's data and we now know that some of it was fudged. Do the Emma Woods sessions get rolled up into his bullet points too?

What we have is a corrupt data set. And that is bad data regardless if parts of it "might" be good. There is just no way to tell what is good and what is bad without being able to actually look at what comprises that data. And that aint happening. Its like you reach into your egg carton and pull out a rotten egg. Sure the other eggs might be just fine but what do you do? You look at the rest of them of course! You certainly don't conclude that it was just one egg that was bad and obliviously eat the others!

So unless there is some way to inspect his work and validate it, nobody is obligated to trust it. I certainly don't and that certainly doesn't make me a debunker! It makes me someone that understands what valid data is. So do I dismiss it? No. I consider it data waiting to be validated independently by someone other than Jacobs. Which isn't happening....



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RedCairo



But I would really feel it was a genuine loss if accounts like the early Hills' were never brought forth, as a result.


an interesting example in that the initially reported experience differed from the experience reported under hypnosis and the additional factor of betty hill's dreams

and we have two different descriptions of the abductors (if we count barney's conscious description as similar to betty's dream description)

i can't see any reason to take the hypnotically assisted description as more accurate than the other

edit on 27-1-2015 by aynock because: filled out



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: RedCairo



But I would really feel it was a genuine loss if accounts like the early Hills' were never brought forth, as a result.


an interesting example in that the initially reported experience differed from the experience reported under hypnosis and the additional factor of betty hill's dreams

and we have two different descriptions of the abductors (if we count barney's conscious description as similar to betty's dream description)

i can't see any reason to take the hypnotically assisted description as more accurate than the other


I agree. Memory is slippery enough without factoring in hypnosis. In fact, memory, itself is a problem. If people taking Ketamine experience interaction with "entities" how is this different from reports of abductions? Are both experiences to be taken literally? One and not the other? Neither? Is the abduction experience really neuro-chemically induced? Can the brain produce such chemicals naturally or under duress or stimulation of some sort? Are the abductees given a substance that produces memories of entities that never existed?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

If people taking Ketamine experience interaction with "entities" how is this different from reports of abductions? Are both experiences to be taken literally? One and not the other? Neither? Is the abduction experience really neuro-chemically induced? Can the brain produce such chemicals naturally or under duress or stimulation of some sort? Are the abductees given a substance that produces memories of entities that never existed?

This is where Strassman comes in. The chemical you are looking for is dimethyltryptamine which does in fact occur naturally in our bodies. Though I am not clear to what extent and think its premature to declare that as the cause. Even so, that gets us only to a point and people still are experiencing something, drug induced or not. The circumstantial evidence is certainly stronger than it is for ET physically abducting people. So the theory is that under certain conditions, our pineal gland will dump out this stuff and cause us to see things and beings. It seems to be associated with adrenaline release like when people are dying. The chemical was actually found in the spinal fluid of dying patients and is considered the culprit for NDEs.

The scientific community is inherently conservative. At the same time, some of my theories have been put to the test; for example, the presence of D_T in the pineal gland which a group in Ann Arbor recently demonstrated. Several other theories should not be that hard to test, either, such as determining activity of endogenous D_T in non-drug highly altered states of consciousness that resemble those brought on by administration of D_T—these included near-death states, dreams, certain meditations, the “abduction” experience, and so on. - See more at: livefreelivenatural.com...




posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Hi everybody, I'm new here, but not new to the subject. I didn't read this whole thread, but from what I have read it seems you are all pretty much in agreement on the topic of hypnosis in abduction research. I'm rather reluctant to join in this conversation because I'm not looking to be argumentative, and it seems like this is a discussion between young persons, which is terrific.

That being said, I think some things have been overlooked.

These abductors, be they extraterrestrial, interdimensional, spiritual, or temporal (and they may be all of the above), these aliens have the ability to affect the conscious memory of the abductee, making them largely forget their abduction experiences. Some remember the beginning or end of the alien contact, with little or no memory of anything in between, some have forgotten their experiences in toto. Often the aliens command them to forget what happened, and order them to go to sleep.

This sounds a lot like a form of hypnosis, but at a highly advanced level. So it is not surprising that even our less advanced understanding of hypnosis seems to an effective tool for recovering memories of these events.

These beings are advanced in many significant ways; intellectually, technologically, and apparently physiologically. They utilize telepathy, the ability to read thoughts instantly, control minds and induce paralysis,and manipulate memory on at least a conscious level. Thankfully, they are not always completely effective, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Many people remember certain moments of their abduction, with more memories that surface over time, or the event comes out through recurring dreams. These unaided memories are what lead them to UFO investigators.

It is important to note that hypnotic regression has yielded a great deal of detailed information into the abduction phenomenon, and highly corroborative information at that. We should be discussing what we learned from these investigators, and it is significant, rather than complaining about their methods.

To simply complain about hypnotic regression and ignore the alarming information that hypnotic regression has uncovered about alien abductions may be a very risky thing to do. Reckless, at least.

It's like not caring that the British are coming because you feel Paul Revere took the wrong route, or stole a pair of panties on his ride.



edit on 27-1-2015 by debonkers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: debonkers
Hi everybody, I'm new here, but not new to the subject. I didn't read this whole thread, but from what I have read it seems you are all pretty much in agreement on the topic of hypnosis in abduction research. I'm rather reluctant to join in this conversation because I'm not looking to be argumentative, and it seems like this is a discussion between young persons, which is terrific.

That being said, I think some things have been overlooked.

These abductors, be they extraterrestrial, interdimensional, spiritual, or temporal (and they may be all of the above), these aliens have the ability to affect the conscious memory of the abductee, making them largely forget their abduction experiences. Some remember the beginning or end of the alien contact, with little or no memory of anything in between, some have forgotten their experiences in toto. Often the aliens command them to forget what happened, and order them to go to sleep.

This sounds a lot like a form of hypnosis, but at a highly advanced level. So it is not surprising that even our less advanced understanding of hypnosis seems to an effective tool for recovering memories of these events.

These beings are advanced in many significant ways; intellectually, technologically, and apparently physiologically. They utilize telepathy, the ability to read thoughts instantly, control minds and induce paralysis,and manipulate memory on at least a conscious level. Thankfully, they are not always completely effective, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Many people remember certain moments of their abduction, with more memories that surface over time, or the event comes out through recurring dreams. These unaided memories are what lead them to UFO investigators.

It is important to note that hypnotic regression has yielded a great deal of detailed information into the abduction phenomenon, and highly corroborative information at that. We should be discussing what we learned from these investigators, and it is significant, rather than complaining about their methods.

To simply complain about hypnotic regression and ignore the alarming information that hypnotic regression has uncovered about alien abductions may be a very risky thing to do. Reckless, at least.

It's like not caring that the British are coming because you feel Paul Revere took the wrong route, or stole a pair of panties on his ride.




Actually, we don't know for certain that there are any "entities" involved. You are ascribing attributes and behaviors to beings that may not even exist.

More about memory than fragmentation may be part of the problem. Memory tests have shown memory to very unreliable. Memories that may be false recalled under hypnosis are no help at all. That simply adds another layer to the problem of memories being unreliable.

A discussion among young persons? On what is that assumption based?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine



This sounds a lot like a form of hypnosis, but at a highly advanced level. So it is not surprising that even our less advanced understanding of hypnosis seems to an effective tool for recovering memories of these events.


if the abductees have been subject to an advanced form of mind control how can we be sure that the hypnotist is not recovering implanted memories?

memories that may be totally misleading



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: Tangerine



This sounds a lot like a form of hypnosis, but at a highly advanced level. So it is not surprising that even our less advanced understanding of hypnosis seems to an effective tool for recovering memories of these events.


if the abductees have been subject to an advanced form of mind control how can we be sure that the hypnotist is not recovering implanted memories?

memories that may be totally misleading


We can't be sure. Even without implanted memories, memory is not reliable. That's the point. Witnesses memories can not be accepted as reliable.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:16 AM
link   
But they're all we've got. So there we are again. LOL

Zeta: you know, Jacobs didn't used to seem like a lunatic, and his current bizarre "insertion" and the alleged logic behind it to me falls in the category not of standard OP but of someone who is a lunatic's standard OP. For this reason I tend to think that the further back in time we go, likely the more credible (to whatever degree he and/or his work are) his stuff is, getting less so as we near the obviously-something-is-wrong-now period. I don't think I can dismiss decades of work because he recently did something that blows me away and makes me discredit his current behavior. It makes me more wary but it doesn't make me disregard all his history.

Regarding data: my biggest gripe in science in every field (and he is clearly not a scientist) is the refusal to share the raw data even in formal papers most of the time. I don't care what a nutrition paper says, if seeing the raw data would tell me that mice (not designed for fats) eating trans-fats, soy and gmo wheat die sooner, hence the assumption that humans eating beef is bad hits 85 million media outlets as 'news' because funded-research is merely the new vastly better advertising. The lack of data sharing is just deadly in every field because the devil's in the details as the saying goes.

I would definitely like to see a great deal more data leading to "why" -- or perhaps "here are at least half a dozen examples in context" -- he makes for every bullet point. But then I tell myself that to be fair, the man has published multiple books I think (I've only read one) and probably a lot of those 'examples' are in the books.

In my 'four likely competing sources' mentioned earlier I forgot one. We have to add black ops F-ing with people experimentally just to see what they do, how they react, and how much they can fork the UFOlogy field down the road perhaps (humor. Sort of). I guess that makes five then...

RC



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
This is where Strassman comes in. The chemical you are looking for is dimethyltryptamine which does in fact occur naturally in our bodies.

Based on many of my (not-alien) experiences over the years, where I have felt 'aware' of what was going on, how it was working and so on, I have a theory (not solid but workable for me) that it's really all frequency.

Imagine, as a visual model, a thousand 'layers' and each layer is a world. And there are layers within the layers, too. Our layer is actually a bit thick compared to many.

Our attention 'moves' -- to another frequency bandwidth, which for us is another world -- a dream, an alternate reality, the alien den. Some drugs, or focii, and let's drag in Persinger's electrodes, might trigger the human nervous system to basically put our attention "right -there-" and '-there-' happens to be the place where the alligator gods live or whatever (old Casteneda ref).

So what I am suggesting is that the universe is a mess of frequency, that reality is a matter of 'congregating' frequency you might say, that there are tons of layers of frequencies which are whole experiential worlds, that humans (actually and a cat I used to have in one case, ha) find themselves 'in' a given reality based on where our 'attention' is, and that attention is focused based on something in the nervous system. And the nervous system can be sparked by technology including tools 'other identities' might use on us, or including endogenous body-made drugs, or lab drugs, or lab electrodes, and so on.

Which is to say I am suggesting that all the other worlds are equally real to ours, and that this can be done intentionally. On others' parts concerning us, as well as by us. Except we're too new to it to have a clue yet.

That's too woo for this thread though. Just mentioning it since you brought up the biochemical thing.

RC



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: RedCairo

I admit that I first heard of Jacobs only a few years ago when this story was hot. It may very well be the case that his earlier works were much less "tainted". I don't think it detracts from the discussion as long as we can agree (and we do) that he needs his butt kicked. But yes, I have a skewed impression of Jacobs but I don't think anyone is obligated to accept any if his work in light of the situation. I also think its OK to draw from his earlier work if you have a different impression.

Am I biased about Jacobs work? Yes, absolutely. I admit I am a bit emotionally involved and relate to Emma Woods on a very real level. The story gets me very worked up. So instead of looking for any merit in his presentation, I am instead preoccupied with stringing him up by his nuts. Integrity is imperative especially when working with human subjects. So it does suck for people that want to get behind his work. If anything comes from this, its that higher standards need to be ensured by the people doing this type of work.

The data thing is problematic. But in standard research, isn't there someone overseeing methodology and enforcing standards? Are they refusing to share the raw data or are they just not required to share it? if there were some issues with the data that came to light, wouldn't an investigation be warranted? I'm asking because I don't know. I have been out of the research loop for 20 years and was only minimally involved.

Yes, the stuff that gets hyped in the media is probably worse. You are spot on with your example. The research itself may be valid but by the time it reaches us, it has probably been badly misinterpreted. Or it could be just poor research in the first place funded by whoever to promote whatever version of the truth they want. The real problem is when the bad information sticks in the public mind which in turn is reinforced by commercialism and mainstream science and taught in schools. Its an industry. Pharmaceuticals come to mind. Which is driven by corporations.
edit on 28-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
i haven't read all of your messages as your conversation is pretty in-depth, but I wonder what you think about the betty & barney hill case.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
also you seem to ignore the physical evidence, or reports thereof. You can say to me that I should provide you tangible evidence , and I will answer that I can't because it's either gone a few minutes later, or cannot be correlated with a specific event. I have evidence, but the means of communication and the time delay are key factors in preventing me from doing so. I know, you don't, but I can't "prove" it to you.

The reality is, "to know" is a certain feeling. Believing is something different. Your discussion about hypnosis is interesting but it will lead nowhere as everyone has to make a decision. You either "know", "believe", or you don't. The positivistic analytical mind is small and will always reduce things to their components. It is a direct result of the belief (!), that a thing is exactly 100% of its physical components.

If you're interested in a subject, you should get your own experience. Try lucid dreaming, it can be learned. Then after you first real lucid dream, let's talk again about statements like "it's only a dream" or "dreams are not real".

You can argue till the end of time about my previous sentence, you just don't know what you're talking about if you have never experienced it.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RedCairo

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
This is where Strassman comes in. The chemical you are looking for is dimethyltryptamine which does in fact occur naturally in our bodies.

Based on many of my (not-alien) experiences over the years, where I have felt 'aware' of what was going on, how it was working and so on, I have a theory (not solid but workable for me) that it's really all frequency.

Imagine, as a visual model, a thousand 'layers' and each layer is a world. And there are layers within the layers, too. Our layer is actually a bit thick compared to many.

Our attention 'moves' -- to another frequency bandwidth, which for us is another world -- a dream, an alternate reality, the alien den. Some drugs, or focii, and let's drag in Persinger's electrodes, might trigger the human nervous system to basically put our attention "right -there-" and '-there-' happens to be the place where the alligator gods live or whatever (old Casteneda ref).

So what I am suggesting is that the universe is a mess of frequency, that reality is a matter of 'congregating' frequency you might say, that there are tons of layers of frequencies which are whole experiential worlds, that humans (actually and a cat I used to have in one case, ha) find themselves 'in' a given reality based on where our 'attention' is, and that attention is focused based on something in the nervous system. And the nervous system can be sparked by technology including tools 'other identities' might use on us, or including endogenous body-made drugs, or lab drugs, or lab electrodes, and so on.

Which is to say I am suggesting that all the other worlds are equally real to ours, and that this can be done intentionally. On others' parts concerning us, as well as by us. Except we're too new to it to have a clue yet.

That's too woo for this thread though. Just mentioning it since you brought up the biochemical thing.

RC


No, it's not too woo for this thread. It's exactly the sort of thing we should be discussing to get out of the ET wagon wheel rut.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raufu
also you seem to ignore the physical evidence, or reports thereof. You can say to me that I should provide you tangible evidence , and I will answer that I can't because it's either gone a few minutes later, or cannot be correlated with a specific event. I have evidence, but the means of communication and the time delay are key factors in preventing me from doing so. I know, you don't, but I can't "prove" it to you.

The reality is, "to know" is a certain feeling. Believing is something different. Your discussion about hypnosis is interesting but it will lead nowhere as everyone has to make a decision. You either "know", "believe", or you don't. The positivistic analytical mind is small and will always reduce things to their components. It is a direct result of the belief (!), that a thing is exactly 100% of its physical components.

If you're interested in a subject, you should get your own experience. Try lucid dreaming, it can be learned. Then after you first real lucid dream, let's talk again about statements like "it's only a dream" or "dreams are not real".

You can argue till the end of time about my previous sentence, you just don't know what you're talking about if you have never experienced it.


What, exactly, are dreams?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raufu

If you're interested in a subject, you should get your own experience. Try lucid dreaming, it can be learned. Then after you first real lucid dream, let's talk again about statements like "it's only a dream" or "dreams are not real".

You can argue till the end of time about my previous sentence, you just don't know what you're talking about if you have never experienced it.


The argument is that one may not know what they're talking about in some sense even if they have experienced "it". "It" may not be that which they interpret it to be.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I've always wondered that too , how many Aliens populate the multiverse , maybe if , there was a way of tapping into a method of multi/directional universal travel *phasing into the frequency's*, maybe we could all get to the same universe, where aliens know how to get underwear on the correct way around


funbox



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Raufu

If you're interested in a subject, you should get your own experience. Try lucid dreaming, it can be learned. Then after you first real lucid dream, let's talk again about statements like "it's only a dream" or "dreams are not real".

You can argue till the end of time about my previous sentence, you just don't know what you're talking about if you have never experienced it.

Well I have certainly experienced lucid dreaming but even normal dreams are profound. We can apply the same sentiment to a wide variety of subjective experiences. So I am not sure where you are going with this. There are plenty of people that experience lucid dreaming that would have a purely psychological way to account for them. Personally, I like to keep the alternate explanations window open. It keeps just enough mystery in my life to keep me interested.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers
Hi everybody, I'm new here, but not new to the subject. I didn't read this whole thread, but from what I have read it seems you are all pretty much in agreement on the topic of hypnosis in abduction research. I'm rather reluctant to join in this conversation because I'm not looking to be argumentative, and it seems like this is a discussion between young persons, which is terrific.

That being said, I think some things have been overlooked.

These abductors, be they extraterrestrial, interdimensional, spiritual, or temporal (and they may be all of the above), these aliens have the ability to affect the conscious memory of the abductee, making them largely forget their abduction experiences. Some remember the beginning or end of the alien contact, with little or no memory of anything in between, some have forgotten their experiences in toto. Often the aliens command them to forget what happened, and order them to go to sleep.

This sounds a lot like a form of hypnosis, but at a highly advanced level. So it is not surprising that even our less advanced understanding of hypnosis seems to an effective tool for recovering memories of these events.

These beings are advanced in many significant ways; intellectually, technologically, and apparently physiologically. They utilize telepathy, the ability to read thoughts instantly, control minds and induce paralysis,and manipulate memory on at least a conscious level. Thankfully, they are not always completely effective, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Many people remember certain moments of their abduction, with more memories that surface over time, or the event comes out through recurring dreams. These unaided memories are what lead them to UFO investigators.

It is important to note that hypnotic regression has yielded a great deal of detailed information into the abduction phenomenon, and highly corroborative information at that. We should be discussing what we learned from these investigators, and it is significant, rather than complaining about their methods.

To simply complain about hypnotic regression and ignore the alarming information that hypnotic regression has uncovered about alien abductions may be a very risky thing to do. Reckless, at least.

It's like not caring that the British are coming because you feel Paul Revere took the wrong route, or stole a pair of panties on his ride.




Actually, we don't know for certain that there are any "entities" involved. You are ascribing attributes and behaviors to beings that may not even exist.

More about memory than fragmentation may be part of the problem. Memory tests have shown memory to very unreliable. Memories that may be false recalled under hypnosis are no help at all. That simply adds another layer to the problem of memories being unreliable.

A discussion among young persons? On what is that assumption based?


Who is "we"? Some know, some don't.

Young persons? I base that assumption simply on the available evidence, the level of discussion and knowledge of the subject. If I'm mistaken, well...




top topics



 
28
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join