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.

 

The creation of the Abduction Phenomenon (new video) : Manhattan Abduction

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I guess I will make one more post:

I think it's despicable that anyone would inject themselves into the debate over hypnosis and Budd's research to make a name for themselves by demonizing us and invoking fake sympathy for Budd's illness with light music over a propaganda hit piece.

Budd's illness isn't the issue. "Angry ex wife" isn't the issue. "Jeff & Jer are debunkers" isn't the issue. The issue is the work. Does it stand to reason? Does it stand to science?

Why do YOU need (or want?) to "debunk" us as monsters to cover-up the real issues? That's actually sick.




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


Just like Hopkins and Meers in their deflection attempts you fail to address to main issue here - hypnotic regression. I think that's odd considering


Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

I have always been skeptical of hypnosis for several reasons such as simply faking it, false memories and such.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
No offence jritzmann, but please speak the next time only for yourself, and not as you did also for everyone here.



No offense, but if that hasn't proven the issue all around then one needs to use their mind to a better capacity. When something is self evident, I'm not speaking for others - it is self evident.

I guess I'll make an allowance for those who don't think in the future. But I always like to think people are more capable than that.
edit on 11-3-2011 by jritzmann because: spelling



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann... I don't have to reply at length that we're not attacking Budd, but rather the practices and research methods?


To what ends?

Meaning that you do acknowledge that the Alien Abduction phenomenon is a possible reality that needs to be studied from a non-biased, scientific point of view, but that Hopkins isn't really the man for it, due to lack of rigor in his methods?

Or... you have taken the mainstream position of the so called scientific community that the AA phenomenon can be a lot of things, but it can NOT be what the abductees themselves claim. Therefore, the phenomenon is a psychological/social phenomenon of some sorts, and Hopkins is but a poor soul adding to the misconceptions, that Rainey is trying to correct?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


To what ends? I would suggest reading Dr. Tyler Kokjohn's piece within the free pdf preview on our site.

Being a publicly known experiencer myself, I'd like to see hypnotic regression put into the bin where it belongs, and make the research one of including outlier data instead of burying it. The current model of abduction research has seen fit to edit data out when it doesn't fit the hypothesis already in hand. This has painted a grossly incomplete and likely inaccurate picture of the experience, and in my opinion has held this field back from any real understanding.

The experience is highly subjective and difficult to study, so a rigid study of the effects has to be taken, but not taken on by those with no psychological training whatsoever, poking around with faulty and suspect "methods", such as hypnotic regression.

There's much more, but I'm short on time today - I'll stop in later.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Very good thread, S+F 4 u
The book and case given by Bud is really intriguing!!



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


Well, I have read it actually, and I still ask the same question.

To what ends?

I understand Rainey's and Kokjohn's criticism of certain aspects of Alien Abduction research, concentrating on Hopkins' work, and more generally the so-called 'pro-abduction' side (where's the criticism of the so called skeptics' AA research?).

I hear Kokjohn's claim that "Investigators operating outside academic and medical institutions without the benefit of IRB oversight or otherwise able to dodge meaningful peer evaluations run several risks."

This only apply to Hopkins, and no to those researchers in the field who have fitting credentials (of which there are several), I suppose. You could turn Kokjohn's argument around and say that those investigators operating within the academic and medical institutions risk ridicule and destroyed careers if they - in their research - arrive at conclusions in conflict with the overall attitude towards the Alien Abduction phenomenon as mental disorders 'of some sorts', tinted by mass media influences, etc.
Do I need to recall what happened to the late Dr John E. Mack when he followed his conscience rather than the generalized opinions of the psychiatric establishment? Something similar to what happened to Ludwig Boltzmann when he proposed a theory of physics opposing the generalized concepts of physics of his time. He spent years of his life defending himself against the attacks of his contemporary colleagues, and ended up hanging himself. 20 years after his death he was widely acclaimed and considered a founder of quantum mechanics.
The scientific institution is a wonderful place, sometimes.

You could therefore perhaps claim that too much discipline (and conformity) in your approach to a phenomenon we still fail to understand the nature of is just as harmful as not enough.

To me, Budd Hopkins comes off as a sane, methodical person, and his initiatives such as the Image Recognition Test and the Roper Poll shows that - at least - he has the ambition to go about his work as scientifically as he can.

So criticize his methods by all means, in a scientific perspective it is the right way to arrive at a synthesis, but it takes little away from the credibility of his general conclusions concerning the Alien Abduction phenomenon IMO.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
So criticize his methods by all means, in a scientific perspective it is the right way to arrive at a synthesis, but it takes little away from the credibility of his general conclusions concerning the Alien Abduction phenomenon IMO.


Well, you're entitled to that - but I question anyone who says the hypnotic regression issue doesn't effect the conclusions. It does, and in multiple ways which I've already spoken about on the program with Dr. Lilienfeld. Past that point it's simply not a valid tool for recovering memory. Therefore, what has been considered solid work by some is actually based on shaky ground at best. Much research and books by not just Hopkins have been written upon the abduction meme - this is the ultimate reason for resistance to discard what doesn't pass the filter.

To add: We've made it clear on the show that we're fairly done with this section of the discussion and are moving forward. However if anyone has any sort of issue or debate upon this facet of the discussion, we have an open door policy for you to come on the show and debate your point. There have been a few dissenting views, but as of yet none have had the conviction of their conclusions enough to actually come on.
edit on 31-3-2011 by jritzmann because: added content.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Heliocentric
So criticize his methods by all means, in a scientific perspective it is the right way to arrive at a synthesis, but it takes little away from the credibility of his general conclusions concerning the Alien Abduction phenomenon IMO.


Well, you're entitled to that - but I question anyone who says the hypnotic regression issue doesn't effect the conclusions. It does, and in multiple ways which I've already spoken about on the program with Dr. Lilienfeld. Past that point it's simply not a valid tool for recovering memory. Therefore, what has been considered solid work by some is actually based on shaky ground at best. Much research and books by not just Hopkins have been written upon the abduction meme - this is the ultimate reason for resistance to discard what doesn't pass the filter.


That is your opinion and I respect that. The value of Recovered Memory Therapy in hypnotherapy has been hotly debated over the last years and will no doubt continue to be so in the future. However, the opinion of one MD and one documentary will hardly flip the scale one way or another, and there exists numerous (US) legal cases in which individuals whose claim to have recovered a repressed memory has been accepted by a court.

Nevertheless, hypnotherapy is but one aspect of Budd Hopkins' work, and even if RMT is (and should be) under evaluation as a valid therapeutic method, it doesn't necessarily take a whole lot away from his conclusions of what the Abduction phenomenon is. I mean, some of the abductees have cognitive memories of what they (with Hopkins and others) consider to be real life events. These memories correspond in nature with the memories recovered during RMT, and this is one of the strangest aspects of the Alien Abduction phenomenon, that all over the world, in all cultures and societies, AA research provide a very similar picture of the traumatic events the victims pretend to have gone through.

The explanation that these traumas are media induced is simplistic and unscientific. We have now, since 2009, something that mass media (in the US) has named the 'Avatar Syndrome', a minor state of depression in which the subject expresses a longing for that beautiful and perfect (but virtual) world of Pandora and its inhabitants. Psychiatry already do experience the effects of virtual realities in video games, etc, an no doubt this would all express itself in the Alien Abduction phenomenon if it was simply induced by components of contemporary culture. Strangely, it seems not to be the case.

To return to the subject of this thread, the Manhattan Abduction incident, there are also independent witnesses to the events Hopkins presented (which Rainey has tried to discredit). That should of course not be the case, if the AA phenomenon was but fabulations of the mind.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


There is no debate over the notion of high suggestibility in hypnotic sessions. Add cultural contamination to that (and thats only one of many issues) and you've got all the makings of confabulated accounts of alien abduction.

Someone feels they have been "abducted", and is well aware of the typical scenario. They seek out a Jacobs or a Hopkins - and what do you suppose they "recall" - that's right, exactly what the scenario dictates. The very fact that they seek out a UFO researcher says enough about what their inner thoughts are, add a highly suggestible state to that, now add a "please the therapist" aspect, then a leading question(s), then that hypnosis is primarily a behavior modification tool...

...and you see where this goes. If anyone has any doubt of this, look to the different researchers and what their subjects recall - look at it from one researcher to another. Tell me what you find, based upon the researcher.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


There is no debate over the notion of high suggestibility in hypnotic sessions. Add cultural contamination to that (and thats only one of many issues) and you've got all the makings of confabulated accounts of alien abduction.

Someone feels they have been "abducted", and is well aware of the typical scenario. They seek out a Jacobs or a Hopkins - and what do you suppose they "recall" - that's right, exactly what the scenario dictates. The very fact that they seek out a UFO researcher says enough about what their inner thoughts are, add a highly suggestible state to that, now add a "please the therapist" aspect, then a leading question(s), then that hypnosis is primarily a behavior modification tool...

...and you see where this goes. If anyone has any doubt of this, look to the different researchers and what their subjects recall - look at it from one researcher to another. Tell me what you find, based upon the researcher.


That's about as succint as it gets.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Excellent video showing some excellent detective work by Ms Rainey. I'll be watching for the rest of the documentary



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


There is no debate over the notion of high suggestibility in hypnotic sessions. Add cultural contamination to that (and thats only one of many issues) and you've got all the makings of confabulated accounts of alien abduction.

Someone feels they have been "abducted", and is well aware of the typical scenario. They seek out a Jacobs or a Hopkins - and what do you suppose they "recall" - that's right, exactly what the scenario dictates. The very fact that they seek out a UFO researcher says enough about what their inner thoughts are, add a highly suggestible state to that, now add a "please the therapist" aspect, then a leading question(s), then that hypnosis is primarily a behavior modification tool...

...and you see where this goes. If anyone has any doubt of this, look to the different researchers and what their subjects recall - look at it from one researcher to another. Tell me what you find, based upon the researcher.



Well, thank you at least for laying out your agenda.

The Alien Abduction phenomenon is all about people with vivid imagination, who take their funny dreams saturated by pop-culture so seriously that they go to a 'UFO researcher' who tells them that what they dreamt was true. Then throw in some sleep paralysis and mental disorders to explain some of the stranger cases, and you have it all wrapped up. Is that it?

If so, this debate lost its interest, since it regressed to vain efforts of proving preconceived opinions. Me too I've read Susan Clancy, and her recipe book of Alien Abduction explanations. It doesn't explain a fraction of the better documented AA cases, and if you're as well-read on AA research as you appear to be, then you know it.

As you observed, there is difference in interpretation of the Alien Abduction phenomenon between different 'UFO researchers'. Which proves what, that it's all subjective and therefore false? You know, there is difference in interpretation between experts in all scientific disciplines. If you ask three physicists like Stephen Hawkins, Martin Rees and Michio Kaku on how they think the Universe is made up, you will have three different answers, sometimes contradictory. The reason why there are different possible scenarios is because in Cosmology there are still more questions than answers, like with the AA phenomenon.

Still, in true scientific spirit, they would not close the door on alternative theories, simply because they thought it too 'way out there'.

That now famous Niels Bohr comment on Wolfgang Pauli's radical theory of atomic particles comes to mind;
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.





edit on 6-4-2011 by Heliocentric because: Don't tell me how difficult the way The bird's path, winding far Is right before you.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


There is no "agenda" here but that's certainly the best way to dismiss the obvious: say I have an "agenda". The only agenda I have as a lifelong experiencer is to get at the issue without preconceived notions and polluted nonsense from faulty, highly suspect methods and the need for the capital generating machine of UFOlogy.

You can hold on to the standard scenario of AA as much as you want, based upon all the faulty data or you can explore the far more interesting options of non-locality and external beings or intelligences.

One holds interest and a genuine enigma. The other is wish fulfillment. One is a dead end, and the other deeper and more bizarre than any of us have ever been told about in the mass communication of this field.

The question always comes down to this: Do you actually care about valid data or don't you. Do you care enough about the issue to examine it critically or do you just want the reader's digest version.

We all determine the worth of research done in this field. We can either step up or continue to be fed the same old nonsense. Meanwhile, this phenomenon continues unabated.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


There is no "agenda" here but that's certainly the best way to dismiss the obvious: say I have an "agenda". The only agenda I have as a lifelong experiencer is to get at the issue without preconceived notions and polluted nonsense from faulty, highly suspect methods and the need for the capital generating machine of UFOlogy.


There you go, there's your agenda. Debunking the polluted nonsense of ufology. I couldn't have said it better myself.

You know, you find a little bit of polluted nonsense in every camp, and sometimes a grain of truth in the most outlandish claims.
You may consider yourself as an objective truth seeker, but it may not look that way to someone who takes a step back and looks at what you're saying with a different set of values. Everything is relative.


Originally posted by jritzmann
You can hold on to the standard scenario of AA as much as you want, based upon all the faulty data or you can explore the far more interesting options of non-locality and external beings or intelligences.


As to "faulty data", I believe that is not something you can generalize about, but must consider individually in each case.

You make it very easy for yourself when you claim that all you need to do is to look objectively at something, and surely you will debunk the 'faulty data'.

I believe the Condon report is up to date the most skeptic (and least scientific) report ever made on the UFO phenomenon, and still there's a minimum (probably higher) 2% of cases that could not be explained. I believe no so called scientific investigation of UFOs has escaped that higher or lower percentage of cases that there is no rational explanation for.
If we were dealing with physics, a 2% anomaly that continuously reappeared in experiments would merit further scientific study.

But not in UFOlogy or AA research, there you can simply ignore it, or pretend like there surely is a rational explanation, somewhere.

So my point is this, I believe - based on my own studies of AA research - that there are cases that neither you, psychiatry or medicine can account for, even if you can come up with generalized explanations (that may be valid or not) for a great number of them, and debunk some that are false.

As to the "standard scenario of AA", I don't know if they're caused by leprechauns, smurfs, some sort of inter-dimensional intelligence, aliens or something else, I have no data that can convincingly indicate one or the other. But I do have data - which I do not consider faulty - based on the work of researchers such as John Mack, Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs, that the phenomenon is really taking place, not in dreams but in real life, and it is taking place the way the victims of it say it is taking place, not the way mainstream psychiatry rationalizes it. That is my agenda, if you wish.

Now, I know I will not be able to get through to you, since you've invested your professional career in it, but I hope I can encourage some of the puzzled people out there to 'dig in' and study it all up close. Not with the objective to debunk it, or to reinforce their faith, but simply to learn more.

Time will eventually shed more light on this phenomenon, and probably also lead to more questions.
edit on 7-4-2011 by Heliocentric because: Sunlight making the snow melt. The grass is really, really dry. No hard snow storm today



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
But I do have data - which I do not consider faulty - based on the work of researchers such as John Mack, Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs, that the phenomenon is really taking place, not in dreams but in real life, and it is taking place the way the victims of it say it is taking place, not the way mainstream psychiatry rationalizes it. That is my agenda, if you wish.


Well then, there's not much I can do to help you then, so I'll table this and move on. I'm not interested in discussion of ideologies already well entrenched with some people.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join