Your "Ufology" Is Lacking. Can You Handle the Truth (Evidence)?

page: 19
39
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

I wonder how fast you might be at ferreting out something from 30+ years ago that was firmly and accurately lodged in your memory but without adequate normal references?
edit on 8/7/2013 by BO XIAN because: addition


A) I'm at a certain age where I realize that memories from 30+ years ago are frequently not as firmly and accurately lodged as I would like to believe. Perhaps your mind is sharper than mine.

Anyhow, I found it for you. Can't get the google books link to work but it's in Sight Unseen by Budd Hopkins and Carol Rainey



Note they claim hundreds of cases but only attempt to document one, unsuccessfully. They admit they can't find medical records or doctors that will support the claims.

Personally, I wound up with a pretty low opinion of Hopkins and his hypnotic techniques after reading one of his books back in the day. I have to agree with Vallee's opinion:


Vallee: I'm not sure that what we learn under hypnotic regression is useful. Hypnosis is really a delicate technique and some of the people in our field who are using it are doing more harm than good. If the hypnotist doesn't have medical training - and most of these people have no medical training - the results may be disastrous for the witness.


Link




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


Thanks for your kind reply.

Much appreciate your work.

RE Hopkins and hypnosis:

1. I think Hopkins did a great job with what he had--i.e. no professional training. Was he human with flaws, certainly.

2. I think he worked hard to be objective and not lead the victim with any hypnosis stuff etc. How successful he was, I don't know. But I think MOST of the hypnotists in the field worked hard at not leading the witnesses/experiencers.

3. I think hypnosis CAN be tricky. I don't get into it though I was trained in it and purportedly others thought I was good at it. I don't want such a process to open anyone up to any ugly spiritual forces.

4. In terms of the "science" of hypnosis--hypnosis is indistinguishable from SUPER HYPER INTENSE FOCUS. Period.

5. I suspect the alphabet government black ops agencies and their scientists might assert otherwise, however.

6. Milton Erickson of Phoenix was the master of all time at it--direct and indirect hypnosis.

7. Getting folks to remember 'hidden' things COULD be reasonably straightforward. EVIDENTLY the subconscious treats the hypnotic session as straightforward and at face value as reality and behaves obediently accordingly in as far as the individual is able to manage.

8. IIRC, that narrative about the baby . . . was back in the day when no reputable MD wanted to be caught dead tangling with such things much at all. I PARTLY don't blame them. Still . . . why didn't some of them have some cajones and stand up and be counted. Sheesh. I wonder how many were threatened by the Men In Black sorts.

9. I guess, for me, the narratives of such things have been sooooooooooooooooo consistent across so many socioeconomic groups; educational groups; countries around the globe . . . by folks not at all interested in any publicity . . . it's not that hard for me to take them more or less at face value. That seems MORE plausible to me than a lot of fancy "pretend scientific" GROPING denial ridden explanations otherwise.

10. Given that high probability that there are several million abductees, I'D EXPECT at least a handful if not several dozen or more narratives like that one to be true.

my 2 cents.

Much appreciate your kind work and civil replies.

Oh, my friends and colleagues have called my mind "a steel trap" in terms of people and relationship memories. However, I have a dickens of a time remembering names. I can learn 30 students' names in 1-2 class sessions. And forget them all 3 weeks after the semester is over. But other things--I remember with incredible clarity even at 66+ years. It's an interesting thing for me to observe about myself.

Given the importance I've placed on some factoids of the UFO stuff, it' snot surprising that I recalled that one rather accurately as far as I went. . . . it was in a book from long ago. LOL.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
UFO is just perfect disguise for confounding today's science worshipping masses.

in fact the phenomena is the same back then as it is now, just wearing the different clothes.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

My memory of Hopkins based on the transcripts in the reading I did was that he WAS leading witnesses. That was one of the first things that made me suspicious of the abduction phenomenon, at least how it was being presented.

Hopkins was a big proponent of "screen memories." In other words, if he wasn't satisfied with a story he would define that as a screen memory implanted by the aliens and the subject would be repeatedly hypnotized and asked leading questions until he got the story that matched his narrative. This was the nineties and I was also reading about the "satanic panic" of that era and the phenomenon of false memories which seemed to be related.

IMO that is part of the reason that Hopkins was finding accounts of malicious little aliens and, for example, that other researcher you linked to (Donald Worley) is finding accounts of Nordics and Reptilians. Perhaps it's all in a Strange area that straddles reality, mind and spirit and to some extent you can find whatever you want to look for.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

My memory of Hopkins based on the transcripts in the reading I did was that he WAS leading witnesses. That was one of the first things that made me suspicious of the abduction phenomenon, at least how it was being presented.


You may well be right. For most of those years, I mostly read quickly the words of everyone but the experiencers. It was the direct quotes of the experiencers I was most interested in. And, it's been many years since I read Hopkins' stuff.



Hopkins was a big proponent of "screen memories." In other words, if he wasn't satisfied with a story he would define that as a screen memory implanted by the aliens and the subject would be repeatedly hypnotized and asked leading questions until he got the story that matched his narrative. This was the nineties and I was also reading about the "satanic panic" of that era and the phenomenon of false memories which seemed to be related.


I don't know that I 'd characterize it that way.

However, I was never a big fan of "screen memories."

And, many folks can be pushy until they are satisfied according to their biases.

Nevertheless, I do recognize that the human mind, psyche, emotional being etc. has AN ENORMOUS capacity to confabulate, distort, mangle, relabel, rationalize etc. all manner of data input and experiences.



IMO that is part of the reason that Hopkins was finding accounts of malicious little aliens and, for example, that other researcher you linked to (Donald Worley) is finding accounts of Nordics and Reptilians. Perhaps it's all in a Strange area that straddles reality, mind and spirit and to some extent you can find whatever you want to look for.


I guess I don't think that's a significant reason that perceptive people note the evil on the part of the critters. I think the critters more than earn that quite objectively all on their own.

Actually most all of the traditional "biggies" in the field have been EXTREMELY RELUCTANT to label anything the critters did as anything but benign to wonderful or at least mysterious and uncertain.

Some have been drug kicking and screaming into the realization that evil was afoot in the land . . . as well as flitting about in UFO's; via orbs etc.

Thanks for your kind and civil reply.





new topics
 
39
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join