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.

 

Snap Out of It - Obama is using Clinical Hypnosis on You!

page: 11
40
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SkipShipman
 


Obama didn't get america in the 9/11 mess. He didn't start two wars in close succession and neither did he cause the economic collapse of just about all financial instuitions. You can say what you like about him as your distaste of him is painfully obvious but the fact of the mattter is that all these problems occured on "president" bush's watch!

The truth really hurts don't it?! And it must be even more embarrasing having a black man beating the # out of a republican. Boy I am enjoying the show big time, just hope he don't suffer any unusual accident before January. That would suck!




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdl79
reply to post by redhatty
 


As some one who has read all 67 pages, dug deeper into Erickson, read your entire discussion with lucid I can assert that A. There is more than substantial proof in the article B. No matter how much you post of the article regarding pacing, leading, anchors or Obama's use it won't be enough C. You're being baited into a discussion in which the other end has no real intent of reading or replying to the information


That's hand waving and a sideline ad hominem. A vague attack on the character of a debater combined with "I've read .. so I know .. I am right .. and you are wrong," is basically a compound logical fallacy. Your post has no quantitive content in regards to the debate taking place.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You know Lucid. I have given an honest attempt to "play by your rules." I have already given the pages to refer to.

[edit on 10/19/08 by redhatty]


They're not Lucid's rules and you still haven't "played by them". It is up to you to formulate a succinct proposition that digests and composes the data contained in the article which you claim proves your supposition. I've read about 1/2 of the article by now and, again, I take serious issue with it. None of these examples stand up to scientific rigor. Where are the psychotherapists that corroborate the author's interpretation of hypnotic principles in case of Obama? Where is the evidence that shows a malicious intent? Where is the proof (besides the insistence of yourself and the author) that this isn't the same sort of rhetorical style and skill that's taught to professional public speakers be they lawyers, preachers, and debaters? There is a large gulf between the idea that speech making and public presentation is to a degree a manipulative practice and the proposed idea. That being, of course, that this is all a vile, calculated, Machiavellian effort to exploit psychotherapeutic principles for the wholesale manipulation of the masses. I don' think the first takes a lot of effort to prove. The second notion is not satisfactorily advanced by the first half of the article. None of your excerpts constitute proof positive which immunizes against the concerns I've raised above.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by JohnnyElohim]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohimIt is up to you to formulate a succinct proposition that digests and composes the data contained in the article which you claim proves your supposition.


What supposition? That I BELIEVE the article is spot on? Now I have to prove belief?

My willingness to discuss things is a completely different animal that your allegation that I have made a supposition.

Just as you have your beliefs about the article which I can neither prove or disprove.

Talk about logical fallacies, strawmen and ad hominem. Sheesh.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Obama master hypnotist? .. I dunno but this looked and sounded pretty sly itself.



Calling what happened to JFK an intervention?........ surface structure, deep structure.... an interesting perception none-the-less.

[edit on 10/19/2008 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 


Kinda like the "My Fellow Prisoners" line, huh?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 


Kinda like the "My Fellow Prisoners" line, huh?


Well see, just like Bush and his marvelously coincidental goof ups, we could chalk this up to senior grampa pants, having just that "a senior moment", or could it be his traumatic time held captive that caused him to say that, or are these people really looney toons who think we're all cattle?

Either way I think we could flip the coin and attach these "techniques" and "skills" to either opponent, .. after-all McCain did pause for a moment, used emphasis on certain words, touched his nose (knows) at a convenient time, or maybe he goofed up again, and that's what he does when he messes up, grabs his big nose (because he nose he's full of sh.... just like everyone else.)

edit: it to him

Like a wolf licking a blade.

[edit on 10/19/2008 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 


Maybe we could, I have not seen an article like the one in the OP on McCain speeches.

There are aspects of effective public speaking that I have no problem acknowledging. And many of them are identical to techniques of Ericksonian Hypnosis. I know that you are aware of this PuRe, I've followed your sig link


The difference comes from the amount, the stacking of techniques and the lack of any real substance in the message or deviation away from the techniques of Ericksonian Hypnosis.

I would really love to see an analysis of McCain's speeches under this same "spotlight"

Edit to Add:

Just transferred edit to new post - didn't see the replies
[edit on 10/19/08 by redhatty]

[edit on 10/19/08 by redhatty]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty

Originally posted by JohnnyElohimIt is up to you to formulate a succinct proposition that digests and composes the data contained in the article which you claim proves your supposition.


What supposition? That I BELIEVE the article is spot on? Now I have to prove belief?


Heh! Nice. Your supposition seems to match the author's. You've indicated with your posts thus far that you believe the theory is correct and you have been spending a fair amount of time advocating for it. All I'm really saying is that lacking more meaty argument, it's empty cheerleading.



My willingness to discuss things is a completely different animal that your allegation that I have made a supposition.


I suppose we'll all define "willing to discuss" to our own tastes. What I'd take that to mean, however, is that you've got a cogent argument in your own words that gives us all something to chew on regarding this concept of Obama being a brilliant hypnotherapist practicing the art on a scale never before seen. Well, it's been argued that Hitler's use of phrasing, music, and other elements had that effect, but you know what I mean.



Just as you have your beliefs about the article which I can neither prove or disprove.


Well, sort of. The way these things work is I can't prove that the theory is patently untrue, but I can show that the article doesn't prove the theory. Criticism has been raised but not answered by the present proponents of theory. So far it seems the response is "the proof is in the article" when someone says "the article says a, b, and c .. but this all seems unsubstantiated to me and I'd really need some sources that bridge the gap between the author's interpretation and the plainly seen facts."



Talk about logical fallacies, strawmen and ad hominem. Sheesh.


Heh! I didn't try to argue with something you didn't actually say and I certainly didn't attack your character. Good go of it, though.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 


Maybe we could, I have not seen an article like the one in the OP on McCain speeches.

There are aspects of effective public speaking that I have no problem acknowledging. And many of them are identical to techniques of Ericksonian Hypnosis. I know that you are aware of this PuRe, I've followed your sig link


The difference comes from the amount, the stacking of techniques and the lack of any real substance in the message or deviation away from the techniques of Ericksonian Hypnosis.

I would really love to see an analysis of McCain's speeches under this same "spotlight"


I would too, I don't have the "energy" to do that, I have much more useful things to do with my time, although we are all verbal experts when it comes to certain things.. there are things we all know we can do that other people seem to really struggle with, my problem is that people are badmouthing something they don't know about (in this thread and other places) which is better oneself, .. so if Obama knows this material that is an amazing thing as EVERYONE should know this material the world would function much more smoothly, and we'd all be much more respectful of others too.... Ugh, where to start? this planet seems so screwy sometimes.

[edit on 10/19/2008 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
Heh! Nice. Your supposition seems to match the author's. You've indicated with your posts thus far that you believe the theory is correct and you have been spending a fair amount of time advocating for it. All I'm really saying is that lacking more meaty argument, it's empty cheerleading.


You are correct, there has been a lot of people who have completely discounted the article, without even reading it. Some of those same people have made challenges about the quality and substance of the article.

Because I have gone on record as saying I believe the article to be sopt on, I am willing to have an intelligent discussion regarding it. If that is cheerleading, so be it.


The way these things work is I can't prove that the theory is patently untrue, but I can show that the article doesn't prove the theory. Criticism has been raised but not answered by the present proponents of theory. So far it seems the response is "the proof is in the article" when someone says "the article says a, b, and c .. but this all seems unsubstantiated to me and I'd really need some sources that bridge the gap between the author's interpretation and the plainly seen facts."


But, I have YET to see someone state "the article says a, b, and c .. but this all seems unsubstantiated to me and I'd really need some sources that bridge the gap between the author's interpretation and the plainly seen facts."

I have seen blanket dismissing statements, with nothing to back them up. I have not seen anyone point out any portion of the article and THEN say it seems unsubstantiated - Heck there are over 100 footnotes for reference in the article that are there for the purpose of substantiation and bridging the gap.

I had edited a post above to add this, then saw the replies in the thread, so I'll add it below:

This is a Darren Brown demonstration of changing a persons desire through Ericksonian Hypnosis/NLP

It begins with the interrupted handshake - a very powerful tool in getting past critical thinking.

How the suggestion is planted is explained at the end.



Now this demonstration was over an innocent thing, a birthday present.

If Obama has mastered this (Ericksonian Hypnosis/NLP) and is using it, can you honestly say that changing a person's desire about who they will vote for is an innocent thing?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
let me say first of all " I don't like Obama " truly I dislike the man and most things about him - but come on - do you actually believe this ? - can't really say I do but you never know I guess - if its true I hope the throw the book at him but I wouldn't hold my breath on it



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I responded to this "study" back on page 4 . . .

my post

And I'm no longer astounded there is an illogical debate going on about this . . . because with each post supporting this propaganda piece, the clear bias and hatred show. IF it will stroke the egos of the "appalled", Obama IS using these techniques. However so does every media anchor, politician, clergy and church official, effective salesman, effective managers, et. al.

This thread, as Lucid suggested, should be tagged with conjecture or simply labeled ignorant. There is no way to prove Obama's intent, first off. If he's attended Dale Carnegie training . . . he's been shown these techniques. Just not under the guise of "World Ending Manipulation". His training in law from Harvard would have shepparded this behavior, yet no one is assailing against Law Schools and their evil motives. No one, including the author, can determine if Obama is even cognizant of this behavior . . . to the point of being manipulative.

This is nothing but every Obama hater's fear and bias showing through. For the record, I don't support Obama . . . I'm writing in Ron Paul! Easily led, through suggestion, to "re-affirm" there belief in the heinousness of Obama. Just as most were led to believe in WMD's, Obama's a Terrorist, George Bush is stupid, our streets are unsafe . . . Unfortunately . . . belief in those things don't happen through hypnosis any more than Obama's support or your fear of him does. If you believe those things are possible . . . you don't truly understand what hypnosis or hypnotic trances are or what goes into it.


Some beginners who don’t know much about hypnosis are reluctant to pursue hypnosis, and difficult to hypnotize, because they worry that hypnosis will cause them to give up self-control. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hypnosis actually helps people acquire more control over their thinking, actions, and emotions. In fact, many people seek hypnosis because they are habitually engaging in some behavior that is out of control (smoking, overeating, gambling, etc.). A person with control issues will do best in hypnosis with a thorough understanding of the process in advance
source


Or since I had to read a 67 page propaganda piece . . . Read the following book The Highly Hypnotizable (link below) . . .
The Highly Hypnotizable

I would, also, like to add that this document has NO DATE or SIGNED AUTHOR to verify or question on their methods or why they feel this is unique to Obama (when it is NOT). Since mid 2007 detractors and fear mongers have been going on about how Obama is "hypnotizing the nation"

Smooth as a milk shake, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is about to hypnotize a nation and pulverize a former First Lady as he rides toward the White House on a media-powered magic carpet of adulation.
source



Barack Obama Demonstrates Ability To Hypnotize Young Voters
source


The word and notion has been put out into the zeitgeist of our collective conscious . . . and seized upon by cowardly pseudo-researchers, operating under the guise of savior and defender of you freedom. Unfortunately, you've all fallen for these same techniques and followed along towards this cultivation of fear. Your fear, ignorance, and bias are the only things that lend validity to the .pdf.

Peace.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Now this demonstration was over an innocent thing, a birthday present.

If Obama has mastered this (Ericksonian Hypnosis/NLP) and is using it, can you honestly say that changing a person's desire about who they will vote for is an innocent thing?


None of this is meant to be confrontational.
Well concerning the Derren Brown video, ... I wouldn't say any of this at all is CLINICAL, throughout this entire thread NONE of it is CLINICAL hypnosis.. NONE, .. it would be classified as COVERT Hypnosis, or Conversational Hypnosis, which is USED in Clinical hypnoTHERAPY, but has so many obvious uses that people will confuse clinical and covert or conversational hypnosis.

Would it be an innocent thing? no.. but isn't it his job to present himself in a manner that will win him votes? he's charismatic .. so what? you can't blame everyone who is charismatic and knows verbal techniques and say they are "not-innocent" .. it's human nature to want to convey your message in a frame and manner that is appealing to the person listening; it's important, and of all things being a president you should be able to accomplish this? so by a means of logic is everyone in this thread implying we should have someone in there who just Ho-Hums along while talking with people? or someone who knows how to take charge and explain things to get a point across?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
This load of crap really takes the gold star. It seems like a fair share of you are buying into this.

WOW, Ya talk about sheep. Just because of this rag article and you believe it to be true.

My god, give me a break. You must be the biggest fools on two feet. IMO

Major LMAO at you ....ah....folks...



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Forgot to mention where this .pdf even came from . . . The Las Vegas Penny press . . . an ultra right wing, Christian dime rag, which is edited and published by people, who are no more expert than anyone on this forum.

The Penny Press

The day after it hit ATS . . . it hit Hannity's forum . . . these three places are the only place getting play . . . don't you think if there was something to this and it was verifiable . . . some legit news source would look into it?

Hannity Forum

I'm beginning to wonder if the OP and the guy who posted on Hannity's Forum is the same person . . . Afterall . . . I'm even having trouble finding it listed anywhere on the Penny Press website.

IGNORANCE: DENY IT!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
You are correct, there has been a lot of people who have completely discounted the article, without even reading it. Some of those same people have made challenges about the quality and substance of the article.


And a lot of people have been critical of specific aspects of the article after having read parts of it or the article in it's entirety. Seems they're being overlooked, though.



Because I have gone on record as saying I believe the article to be sopt on, I am willing to have an intelligent discussion regarding it. If that is cheerleading, so be it.


Fine words, but you overlooked fairly specific criticism of mine posted in a reply to one of your comments that made particular mention of aspects of the article.



But, I have YET to see someone state "the article says a, b, and c .. but this all seems unsubstantiated to me and I'd really need some sources that bridge the gap between the author's interpretation and the plainly seen facts."


A couple of pages back, I said:



More constructively, however, I'm about a 1/3rd of the way through the work. Honestly, it's rather pseudo-scholarly. For instance, the author makes mention of Obama's DNC speech and the anchor phrases of the speech. Particularly, things like "the time is now" and "I stand before you tonight". The problem is there's nothing there to explain how we get from point "A" to point "B". How is this any different from McCain repeatedly saying "My Friends" and "Who Is Barack Obama"? How is this any different from the way anyone trying to be compelling and convincing is to a degree manipulating the critical analysis of the listener? How it any sneakier? Have you ever listened to a Martin Luther King, Jr. speech? He employed many of the same techniques. He was a brilliant orator. I think it's a stretch to say it's sinister instead of effective. These people are trying to convince you of something, after all.




I have seen blanket dismissing statements, with nothing to back them up. I have not seen anyone point out any portion of the article and THEN say it seems unsubstantiated - Heck there are over 100 footnotes for reference in the article that are there for the purpose of substantiation and bridging the gap.


That's the problem. The linkage between the footnotes and sources and the claims is quite remote. The author says "Obama is clearly using technique 'A'" and sources a description of "technique A". That hardly suffices as a satisfactory linkage to show that Obama is indeed using that technique, particularly when the source is abstract and technical in nature.



I had edited a post above to add this, then saw the replies in the thread, so I'll add it below:

This is a Darren Brown demonstration of changing a persons desire through Ericksonian Hypnosis/NLP

It begins with the interrupted handshake - a very powerful tool in getting past critical thinking.

How the suggestion is planted is explained at the end.



Now this demonstration was over an innocent thing, a birthday present.


First of all, these techniques are not universally accepted in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. Observe the criticism section of the Wikipedia article on NLP. So there's some distance to bridge there, as well. There aren't experimentally verified truths, they're opinions and arguably new-agey self-help stuff.



If Obama has mastered this (Ericksonian Hypnosis/NLP) and is using it, can you honestly say that changing a person's desire about who they will vote for is an innocent thing?


Even accepting that, NLP isn't like the cliched example of hypnosis. These techniques don't purport to change people's opinions "like magic". They're techniques for communication and persuasion which I expect are widely utilized.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by JohnnyElohim]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Good post.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
Fine words, but you overlooked fairly specific criticism of mine posted in a reply to one of your comments that made particular mention of aspects of the article.

More constructively, however, I'm about a 1/3rd of the way through the work. Honestly, it's rather pseudo-scholarly. For instance, the author makes mention of Obama's DNC speech and the anchor phrases of the speech. Particularly, things like "the time is now" and "I stand before you tonight". The problem is there's nothing there to explain how we get from point "A" to point "B". How is this any different from McCain repeatedly saying "My Friends" and "Who Is Barack Obama"? How is this any different from the way anyone trying to be compelling and convincing is to a degree manipulating the critical analysis of the listener? How it any sneakier? Have you ever listened to a Martin Luther King, Jr. speech? He employed many of the same techniques. He was a brilliant orator. I think it's a stretch to say it's sinister instead of effective. These people are trying to convince you of something, after all.


Sorry, I did miss that. And point 1, it is not anchoring phrases being referred to it is pacing and leading being referred to in the examples of "the time is now" and "I stand before you tonight"

While McCain's use of "My Friends" could also be a pacing and leading, "Who is Barack Obama?" could not. The method of pacing is to constantly give the subject "truth" statements. Asking "Who is Barack Obama?" reverts the mind back to critical thinking. Pacing and leading is designed to turn off or bypass critical thinking.

Yes effective public speakers use many of the same techniques that are used in Ericksonian Hypnosis/NLP. The difference is, they also present you with information or questions that brings your mind back to critical thinking.

Barack Obama's speeches (at least the ones footnoted in the article) do not. They just apply layer upon layer of NLP techniques with nothing to trigger the listener back to critical thinking.

I don't deny for one moment that it is effective, in fact I completely agree, it is amazingly effective.


That's the problem. The linkage between the footnotes and sources and the claims is quite remote. The author says "Obama is clearly using technique 'A'" and sources a description of "technique A". That hardly suffices as a satisfactory linkage to show that Obama is indeed using that technique, particularly when the source is abstract and technical in nature.


But if you continue on, the author, after discussing the different techniques, and citing source in footnote, presents a video clip that you can view, with the information previously presented. The reader is then left to make up their own mind.

No one ever said we all have to agree



Even accepting that, NLP isn't like the cliched example of hypnosis. These techniques don't purport to change people's opinions "like magic". They're techniques for communication and persuasion which I expect are widely utilized.


Yes these techniques are used for communication and persuasion, salesmen have training course, as do many other professionals, I don't dispute that. Again, the difference lies in this: Does the person using the techniques ever present a statement or question that reverts the listener back to critical thinking, or do they simply layer the different techniques on top of one another and never bring the listener back to critical thinking. By not returning the listener back to critical thinking, it can be argued that the intended purpose is, in fact, hypnosis of the subject.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Since Obama has been at the corrupt hands of the Ch.Il. mafia I believe he is the one under deep hypnotic influnce and trained to cast the hypnotic spell on the american people.This man has not one iota of any experince in anything! Where did he get the money to attend school? Why can't we see his school transcripts? Why do we not know his citizenship? How about his "just" a neighbour who gives 60mil for six years whom he hardly knows funding a certan project that Obama was in charge of and is an admitted terrorist? How did he finance a 1.6 mil home;that another so called aquaintance has been covicted of racketiering and other charges? How about a membership of 20 years in a church he just can not recall what the rev. spoke about? How about his admitted drug use,his missing years at school,Larry Sinclair,and his grandma who is either a shamed,or has been bound and duct taped into silence.I am not refernceing the proud granny who proudly reports she whitnessed the "chosen" ones birth in Kenya! For heavens sake......wake up Obama people!
This message is endorsed by a true american



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join