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.

 

Abductionist Scandal

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Carol Rainy, the former spouse of ufo abduction expert/author Budd Hopkins, has been re-evaluating her involvement with his cases, and points out how each one is well, pretty much a disaster. The abduction researchers have painted themselves into a corner, and the -proof- ball is in their court. Here is the link, you decide for yourself, cuz more is coming down the pike.
www.paratopia.net...




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Bud Hopkins has done a lot of psychological damage to many people over the years. I have a video of him blatantly leading an innocent child into thinking she was abducted. As a so called 'hypnotic therapist' he should be ashamed of himself, banned from 'practice' and sued.

IRM



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I definitely intend to read the article when I'm more awake and able to give it my full attention. Until then, I'll say this: I know people who've had the abduction experience and who have never been anywhere near Budd Hopkins or any other hypnotist.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Thanks flightsuit. I have had ufo sightings and a missing time incident in 1966. I have never been on the recieving end of abductionist attention. I have said in another forum, "Now what will you experiencers do? You will do like I always have. Stuff it down deep, break out the Mad Dog 20/20, in front of your favorite TV show, and THATS ALL.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by simone50m
Thanks flightsuit. I have had ufo sightings and a missing time incident in 1966. I have never been on the recieving end of abductionist attention. I have said in another forum, "Now what will you experiencers do? You will do like I always have. Stuff it down deep, break out the Mad Dog 20/20, in front of your favorite TV show, and THATS ALL.


Well, some of us don't try to forget, and I would add that if you think you can, you are fooling yourself. But if it makes the world look better for you, why not. Most Americans do that simple technique simply to escape the simple world.

It is not news that Hopkins was very unprofessional in his efforts to bring abduction cases to market. My experience was in 1964 and I'm not through with it yet. However, I would say to give him a bit of a break. Who the Hell has stood up for us over these decades? Virtually nobody but a few writings that got interested in the taboo topic and investigated it to some extent according to their abilities. The culprits are all at the top of the list: the government and about every professional and professioinal organization you care to mentioned. We have been and will continue to be left hung out to dry. History provided multiple examples of official and unofficial coverups of a many, many sins that appalls a righteous mind. And if any youngsters reading this thinks it is merely sour grapes, they don't know what the Hell it is all about. So shut up and let the government telll you what to continue to think.
edit on 17-1-2011 by Aliensun because: On second thought, I'll let it stand.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I agree with the last poster.
Hopkins and Jacobs may have shortcomings in their techniques such as leading witnesses.
And from the very fact that an abductee is going to one of them could be seen to being led - because there's an expectation of real abduction etc.
On the other hand few people apart from John Mack have been doing this work and so these two have had the field largely to themselves. I've even heard Jacobs pleading for other therapists to get involved to try to back up his findings.
I don't know whether anybody read the story below that one on Paratopia with the professional virtually suggesting how dangerous it could be for people to be treated by unqualified hypnotists.
There is some truth in this but I don't see how you can stop authors interviewing abductees in depth and under relaxation. It could be called hypnosis but otherwise could be seen as simply a way of unwinding and telling their truths.
These revelations also have the added aspect of a woman who was once married to Hopkins.
A woman scorned?
edit on 17-1-2011 by madjourno because: missing word



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Bud Hopkins has done a lot of psychological damage to many people over the years. I have a video of him blatantly leading an innocent child into thinking she was abducted. As a so called 'hypnotic therapist' he should be ashamed of himself, banned from 'practice' and sued.

IRM


Ahhh.. What's with today? The fourth time my soul just exploded on the wall and picking the pieces away. This post and the OP's makes sense about all the fear of the abductions as these 'therapists' twist it into something fearful and market it off so people will watch the stuff, out of fear and trying to become 'aware' that there's the chance, then they take instinct actions and spew the hate and fear some more as the source that it originated from just wanted to get a few more bucks to spend on replacing the cotton towels with Egyptian cotton. It comes down the funnel like the end of all be evil just for a few extra bucks. Thanks for the input, really puts a new spin on things.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by simone50m
 
Hiya Simone, good call with this thread, I probably would have posted it too.

Getting all metaphorical, Hopkins and Jacobs have woven much of the fabric of the popular concept of alien abduction and it's wearing very thin in recent months. From Hopkins' complete acceptance of the Napolitano claims (letters etc), to the bold claims he attached to the Roper Poll (millions of Americans abducted), he's been blind to reason and convinced in his beliefs.

Jacobs has come through this pretty bad too. His family must be mortified by some of the phone evidence recorded by 'Emma Woods.' His requests for her unwashed underwear might be genuinely scientific, but it does raise questions. On any level, his practice has been shown to be dictated by his own beliefs and fears. Highly unethical.

Jeff and Jeremy have taken a lot of flack for publicising these issues, but I think it's constructive.

For anyone who hasn't heard the Paratopia shows that shed some light on all this...try these (right click save as) :

The Emma Woods Tapes

Emma Woods: The Interview

Attacked by Hybrids



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Great read - it addresses all the problems I have when hearing and reading about many alleged abduction cases. There will no doubt be people out there who won't like what it says, but it's time to start facing and gathering facts.

If any progress is to be made in the subject of abductions, proper scientific studies are the only way to go. Frankly, I don't even want to hear the word 'hypnosis' in an abduction case, just because of all the problems that can arise - such as suggestion, not to mention that it's impossible to tell what is a factual memory and what is a created one.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by simone50m
Carol Rainy, the former spouse of ufo abduction expert/author Budd Hopkins, has been re-evaluating her involvement with his cases, and points out how each one is well, pretty much a disaster. The abduction researchers have painted themselves into a corner, and the -proof- ball is in their court. Here is the link, you decide for yourself, cuz more is coming down the pike.
www.paratopia.net...


Is this post to ATS perhaps part of a publicity campaign to boost revenues for the pay website "Paratopia"? After all, they just did a big spam email promotion to UFO websites announcing a new partnership to develop movies for the Internet. I can't provide a link to an email but the email announced "Acclaimed Director Philippe Mora Partners with Indie Web Sensation Paratopia.net".

This is the first promotion we have received from Paratopia.

So the witch hunt resumes. I am not claiming that Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs research is by any means without faults and above criticism, but I have seen this whole campaign waged over the past year or more as being pretty fanatic in all the rhetoric.

I think it is rather sad to see a former spouse of Budd Hopkins going after him this way when he is very sick with cancer. I also think that many of the people who are latching on to this campaign are perhaps rushing to judgement when they perhaps don't know the facts.

edit on 17-1-2011 by bluestreak53 because: Correct spelling and grammer



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
Is this post to ATS perhaps part of a publicity campaign to boost revenues for the pay website "Paratopia"?


Uh, no. And if that's the best you can do, and your best response, with what's been presented - even just in the preview mag - good luck with that.



Originally posted by bluestreak53
This is the first promotion we have received from Paratopia.


Right. And I didn't post it here. At the largest board of it's kind on the internet where I've been a contributing member for years and have worked on high profile cases for the site and it's facilitators who I consider friends. I certainly could have. But I didn't. Word just gets around.


Originally posted by bluestreak53
So the witch hunt resumes. I am not claiming that Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs research is by any means without faults and above criticism, but I have seen this whole campaign waged over the past year or more as being pretty fanatic in all the rhetoric.


The "campaign" isn't a campaign, but something I've spoken about for well over a decade: that hypnosis is a faulty tool at best and potentially dangerous at worst. It's use in the field of abduction research is horrifying to me, especially after speaking to mental health professionals over the years.

Not only has it painted an inaccurate picture of the experience, but it's given rise to a belief system that has permeated the field for years. That belief system is based largely upon hypnotically recovered memories - a practice that is ridiculously flawed.

Don't believe me.Listen to Dr. Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University - an ultimately qualified doctor and educator of psychology.

But what's the point right? Expertise and education in this field is routinely ignored unless it fits well with whatever the UFO interested public desires to believe. Then it's "well there it is, a PhD says it's real!" if not, that PhD is ignored or a "debunker".

Ignorance to convenience of belief. No one wants to know, unless it fits their preconceived notions.

I railed against the use of hypnosis for a long time and no one wanted to listen. So I got Dr. Lilienfeld to come on the show and discuss it. He confirmed what I'd been saying, and added much, much more none of us expected. It's frightening.

In regard to how to study the abduction phenomenon from here on out, without the use of a method saturated in false memory and cultural contamination (to name but 2 issues) this left many people wondering:

"where do we go from here?"

and the ever popular -

"does this mean all hypnotically retrieved memory about alien abduction is worthless"?

Where do we go? Somewhere else. I'm not a psychologist by any stretch, but I have investigated cases of missing time related to UFO encounters. I have found that simply taking that individual back to the place of their encounter and subsequent loss of memory, and talking to them about the event up to what they remember, often resulting in them recalling a bit more. Maybe not all of it, but certainly some. I'd lay back on that data more so than the magic memory machine hypnosis is considered to be...but isn't.

But memory is fallible when all's said and done, and there are other issues. For instance, an individual may feel that when I am investigating their case that they have to come up with something or the investigator will be disappointed.

In the end? Go with what is remembered directly.

Is all hypnotically recovered "memory" worthless? In my opinion, yes. Does this mean that we' starting from square one again in the way of abduction research? Yes it does. And if we're to conduct research that actually means something and gets at some core issues of the experience - we need to.

Needless to say this is extremely distressing to many people in this field.

With Dr. Lilienfeld's interview on the show as the start point, many people began speaking out about their negative experiences with regression hypnosis and it's inaccurate traits. Deb Kauble, known as "Kathy Davis" from "Intruders" has spoken out, the "Emma Woods" case erupted, and now Carol Rainey has written about her experiences being involved with the subject through her then husband, Budd Hopkins.

It's pretty clear at least in my opinion, that this end of field is unraveling. In my opinion we're finding out that for years the abduction experience has been ill and inaccurately painted by a faulty and potentially dangerous tool in the hands of unqualified and already convinced "researchers".

It is not easy to speak out against the work of what are perceived as "giants" or "pioneers" in this field. Ms. Rainey is yet another in a growing line of people who feel elite cliques and popular opinion be damned, they need to speak out about what they've experienced in this field. Her article is well written and well documented.

After her article is one from yet another scientist - Dr. Tyler A. Kokjohn, PhD. "Tainted, Toxic and Taboo: A Scientist's Assessment of Alien Abduction Research" His article is a well written piece on the standards and practices devoid in this form of research, and the lack of peer review before dissemination.

However, to me his most important comment is how we can empower this subject of interest and ourselves, by noting that this field's consumers of books and articles, videos, lecture tickets - play a unique part in evaluating quality of the research:

That the decision the UFO interested public makes will determine the evidential standards, and research conduct that prevails.

Let that sink in.

So, if one wants to equate this to a "promotion" device - you're coming up a little short both in argument and presentation of your own intelligence level.


edit on 17-1-2011 by jritzmann because: sentence structure correction.

edit on 17-1-2011 by jritzmann because: sentence structure correction

edit on 17-1-2011 by jritzmann because: damned spelling errors.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
JRitzmann says:
Right. And I didn't post it here. At the largest board of it's kind on the internet where I've been a contributing member for years and have worked on high profile cases for the site and it's facilitators who I consider friends. I certainly could have. But I didn't. Word just gets around.




FYI everyone this is --correct--- . I shared the info of my own accord.
edit on 17-1-2011 by simone50m because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


You raise many valid points, however, I would like to add the following.

While I agree that hypnosis may result in the "retrieval" of invalid memories, this does not in any way suggest the conclusion that "all memories retrieved by hypnosis are invalid".

There is much discussion on what "the hypnotic state" is. There are many who argue that it is nothing more than a state of mental relaxation. So if you accept this as a possibility, and you add the suggestion that all memories retrieved under hypnosis are invalid, then the logical conclusion would be that all memories are invalid unless they are retrieved under a state of stress. A rather ridiculous assertion.

I do agree that there has been way too much hype on hypnosis as a tool in the retrieval of "repressed memories". And I would agree that there is a danger that people will subconsciously confabulate just to "fill in the blanks" while attempting to retrieve memories in this setting.

But I also think that people are going too far when they are seeming to imply that people like Hopkins and Jacobs are doing great damage to people by getting them to relax and talk about their experiences. You must keep in mind that the whole reason people were approaching Hopkins and Jacobs is because professional psychologists tend to outright reject any possibility that any of these anomolous experiences may be based on something real.

If this discussion leads to a better approach from professionals to the study of such anomolous experiences, then this is a good thing. But I have read a lot off material arising from this discussion which strikes me as people off on some "burn the witches" campaign. And this is not a comment I am directing at your reasoned and thoughtful post.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by madjourno
These revelations also have the added aspect of a woman who was once married to Hopkins.
A woman scorned?
edit on 17-1-2011 by madjourno because: missing word


No, I believe that's called "sexism." (And I don't know if you're male or female but that is what that is either way.)

Let's please refrain from shooting the messenger with throwaway lines that don't actually answer the charges. If the message is factually accurate, that's what's important. And in this case, it is.

You don't just publish something this delicate willy-nilly. This isn't a game of "gotcha." People's reputations and identities are at stake. We've performed our due diligence. Everything she says that can be is backed up with documentation. So, for my money... now we move on with the riddle of what the enigma is.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 



Bluestreak, are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? What qualifies your opinion on hypnosis?

Here's the thing: Hypnosis is a behavior modification tool, not a memory retrieval tool. Can memory be retrieved? Probably yes, to a point--but we cannot differentiate between a memory of an actual event, a dream, an emotional reaction to a TV show, and so on. So that data is BAD. (Now add to that the fact that you're dealing with "missing time" and the unknown.)

The fact is--as the Emma Woods case illustrates--these "memories" can be and are fabricated as a co-creation between pseudo therapist and subject. (Not on purpose on her end in this example--but it happens anyway for myriad reasons.)

I believe in France it's illegal to use hypnosis to retrieve memory. It is NOT a state of relaxation. It is an altered state of consciousness in which the participant is highly suggestible--hence the CIA's early interest and intense study to make... you know... Manchurian Candidates?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
reply to post by bluestreak53
 

Bluestreak, are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? What qualifies your opinion on hypnosis?


I'm no more qualified to talk about this than any lay person on this forum. I am only forming an opinion based on the material I have read on the subject.

So are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


I do encourage you to listen to Dr. Lilienfeld's episode which I provided in my prior post. I am not a psychologist as I said, however when I don't know something about a particular discipline, I go to the people within that discipline to find out. And I don't go to unknowns. I go for the people who are actually accredited and noted in their field, with the proper level excellence in education. I don't like leaving much to chance.

From there, I let them tell me. Dr. Lilienfeld can tell you....just listen to the episode. The fact is we cannot differentiate the confabulation from what might be potential memory. This renders all the data useless for any analytical purposes - it cannot be qualified. None of it.

In addition, it is also subject to leading questions, highsuggestibility, cultural contamination, and a host of other truly disruptive elements.

Let's not forget one thing too: the altered state is prevalent in "alien" experiences. That begs the question can hypnosis access altered consciousness memory, if that's what it is? It's already a confused state, open to suggestion and all the issues I've stated here already.

Point of the story? It's junk data. But, it's junk data that has proliferated the field and colored the phenomena in a way that is not accurate. But, when you dittle with memories under hypnosis, you create memories every bit as real - and so ultimately you are changing that person. That, my friend, is terrifyingly dangerous.

That's a big problem. Never mind that people are performing this for "research" who are not psychologically trained whatsoever. There's the other big issue.

It's unconceivable to me, not to address this very profound problem with this sort of research - especially with it's deep impacts on the field.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
reply to post by bluestreak53
 

Bluestreak, are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? What qualifies your opinion on hypnosis?


I'm no more qualified to talk about this than any lay person on this forum. I am only forming an opinion based on the material I have read on the subject.

So are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist?


No, But I've talked to them and done some research. Jeff very clearly gave you the professional opinion of someone qualified to have one. And I'm sorry that this sounds as mean as it does but that's just the way typing comes across sometimes--My point is, there's a chasm of difference between your opinion (and my opinion) and Dr. Lilienfeld's. And any such professional opinion--including hypnotherapists themselves--I've read from the past 15 years speaks to the fact that hypnotherapy is the wrong tool for memory retrieval.

In other words, it's not enough to say, "Well I still think it's okay to use hypnosis...."

Is it any different than saying, "Well, I still think 2+2 = 7."

It's not as though the jury is still out on this. It's that the fact of the verdict, based on years of new study, hasn't spread to U.S. ufology.

And again I want to stress, I'm not trying to be mean or confrontational. I just think we have to be careful with what goes into an opinion in matters of the mind that go beyond either of our pay grade. (Or certainly my pay grade!)
edit on 17-1-2011 by Jeremy_Vaeni because: stressing a point



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
You must keep in mind that the whole reason people were approaching Hopkins and Jacobs is because professional psychologists tend to outright reject any possibility that any of these anomolous experiences may be based on something real.


I disagree. They go to people like UFO researchers because they think they've been abducted. Guess what they recall under hypnosis.

Being abducted.

And, it's worth noting that per researcher, the flavor is different - one will give you hybrids taking over the world, another will present to you enlightenment driven aliens, and another a breeding program for a dying ET race.

It all depends on who you listen to. But, it's all derived from a flawed tool and perceived prior notions, hopes, or nightmares of the researcher.

Seriously, you don't have to listen to me, go look for yourself. Listen to Lilienfeld, read Rainey's article, Dr. Kokjohn's piece, and go look for yourself. I'm so wholly confident if you don't want to deceive yourself with what you want to be, you'll see what is.

And that leads you to really getting serious about what we're dealing with as far as the phenomenon. We'll have to configure to the best of all our abilities, and what ever professionals we can gather, the best way to study this.

To continue to proliferate or rely, or base conjecture upon on data we know isn't reliable is spinning wheels. No one wants that - we want some damned answers, or better directions.

Right?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by simone50m
 


If I'm known for anything on this and every other UFO forum, it's that I've always been critical of Budd Hopkins and his getting involved with alleged alien abductions and using hypnosis to get the questionable information that resulted in his book "MISSING TIME". I wrote an extensive review of that book in 1988 and because it was such a negative review, using my knowledge of hypnosis, that I felt I shouldn't submit it for publication. It is one of the things that I've regretted most. He has, of course, benefitted from his dubious activities and if he had remained just a painter, the industry of alien abductions might not have become as ingrained as it has. He had no business getting involved in something he wasn't experienced to deal with. You just don't mess with a person's mind, especially mentally emotional people who can't separate reality from fantasy.

Hopkins did not receive proper training in hypnosis and if had been "smarter" he would have used a clinical hypnotist. But then, because the clinical hypnotist would have used proper procedures the hypnotist would have gotten a different story that would not have passed scrutiny for the reality of alleged alien abductions.

From the book, a person experienced in hypnosis would have immediately seen that Hopkins asked leading questions, a no-no. Once you start feeding answers to the questions it's very easy to agree with the hypnotist instead of getting an honest answer.

The same thing about David Jacobs and every other "researcher" into alleged alien abductions that employed hypnosis. No ethical hypnotist could have gotten results favoring alien abductions as real events. Especially an Ericksonian hypnotist.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join