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.