The reality of hypnotism and its link to abductions

a reply to: james1947

Actually you kind of failed on that...You never told me "why" the question was vague.

So then you must have stopped reading my short post when I gave the answer of being highly likely to not likely at all.

Which just highlights again why I said how well your level of attention is.

No, because of your obvious bias in one particular case.

what are talking about?

what case?

This thread is about Hypnotism and abduction not any specific abduction case.

I asked you based on your questioning if you did have any specific case in mind to clarify your questions.

It seems to me that One should base what they think they know on the latest, most relevant data available, but, alas, it seems that many have decided to NOT do that.

Yes I am basing my opinions of the best known knowledge of hypnotism thorough official psychological channels that have performed studies to gather evidence and knowledge about our minds react to programming and stimuli.

However It seem you don't want to discuss the thread topic but something else.

GO troll someone else with your off topic ramblings.

ETA: You stated that I must have an actual thing in mind when I asked my original question. Yes, I did have an actual thing in mind, however, I was trying to remove that "thing" from the question so as to NOT bias any responses. You however had to attempt to insert a "thing" into the question and provide some "wiggle-room" for data and confirmation bias of your own...thus; you were the wrong person to ask such a question of.

So now you say you kept it vague after saying it wasn't.

Well done

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: james1947

So then you must have stopped reading my short post when I gave the answer of being highly likely to not likely at all.

Which just highlights again why I said how well your level of attention is.

Wow! Are you seriously going to assert that you explained yourself? No son, you did not state "why" my question was vague.

Your statement of "highly likely to not likely at all." is illogical; an event like that, the creation of a memory that "seems" to "fit", is actually colored random (like 'pink' noise), meaning that it is a completely random concoction that is loosely based on how One feels at the time, and is this a RANDOM thing. That means that it MUST have the probability of any other "colored" random event. It can not have the range you seem to think it should have. Course, I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say, but, the fact remains that that wildly wide range of probability simply is incorrect, and less probable that all other random events.

"No, because of your obvious bias in one particular case."

what are talking about?

what case?

This thread is about Hypnotism and abduction not any specific abduction case.

I asked you based on your questioning if you did have any specific case in mind to clarify your questions.

I'm sorry, i guess my language was confusing...how about instead of "case" we change that to "instance"? Would that help?

No, we are not talking about any specific abduction case, but rather in the extreme "general" sense.

My question does not require "clarification", it is already as simple as it can get, and as specific as it needs to be.

Really man, it is a very simple direct question!

What is the probability of a "created memory" actually corresponding to anything the real world. And, it was all y'all that brought up the concept of a "crated memory", so...

Yes I am basing my opinions of the best known knowledge of hypnotism thorough official psychological channels that have performed studies to gather evidence and knowledge about our minds react to programming and stimuli.

However It seem you don't want to discuss the thread topic but something else.

Actually, I was wanting to discuss something that was already brought up, i.e. created memory. And, I was responding directly to YOUR statements.

So now you say you kept it vague after saying it wasn't.

That is NOT what I said, and you know it!!! Are you trying to obfuscate?

Why are you trying to make a federal case of this question?

a reply to: james1947

That is NOT what I said, and you know it!!! Are you trying to obfuscate?

No its all posted free for all to read.

How can I obfuscate when its all there to read for any one.

enjoy

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I favour Mack's good practice over Hopkins/Jacobs because he was trained to understand the need for objectivity in research.

Though I appreciate your point, I feel that it is preferable to acknowledge that subjectivity is unavoidable and recognise that every researcher contributes to each situation just by choosing to observe it and not choosing to observe other situations. That Mack’s funding was coming from a body whose primary goal was “consciousness raising” also needs to be taken into account, both in terms of choosing subjects and in how tolerant Harvard were to his methodology given then extra weight Rockefeller backing gave him. I don’t personally feel that that negates his findings just that it should be considered as a contributing factor that the bias present may have been sufficient to influence outcome.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
There's definitely a factor of self-selection in play too as subjects gravitated to certain researchers. This was compounded by Hopkins/Jacobs because they wouldn't entertain positive regressions and either dismissed them as 'screen memories' or declined to accept 'experiencers' over 'abductees.' A lot of this came out a few years ago.

I suppose much depends upon why they would have such a strong bias towards those particular subjects – whether it came from a desire to validate their own experiences (or belief system), or whether they, like Mack, may have been similarly economically bound to confirm a particular narrative, either by a paymaster or because the audience-revenues are more lucrative when doom dominates.

It would be tempting for me to lean towards Mack and Rockefeller’s more positive interpretations or choice of “experiencers” versus “abductees” but given that the outcome seems to have been a subsequent lowering of consciousness in terms of environmental matters in the US, I expect that both groups have gone to polar extremes, zoning in on one aspect and thereby ignoring the whole, subsequently failing to get the “message”.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I'm really on the fence regarding the totality of the reports. The early regressions had core themes before the subject became well known and I find them quite intriguing. There's a presumption that abductees/experiencers were pre-loaded by exposure to sci-fi and aliens in popular culture (suggestibility again) and I don't have a lot of confidence in it. No doubt it's a factor that probably increased in influence as the abduction phenomenon became widely known. Despite that, I still think we haven't really explained it all.

I think that there are any number of presumption being made depending upon the individuals or groups viewing the information available to them. I tend to agree with Harvard that it is negligent not to first ascertain if there is the possibility of an underlying physical condition that could help to explain the subject’s experiences. That Mack didn’t take that advice on board does make me doubt his interest in being as objective as possible.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Though I appreciate your point, I feel that it is preferable to acknowledge that subjectivity is unavoidable and recognise that every researcher contributes to each situation just by choosing to observe it and not choosing to observe other situations.

Yes I made the same point on the first page.

That Mack’s funding was coming from a body whose primary goal was “consciousness raising” also needs to be taken into account, both in terms of choosing subjects and in how tolerant Harvard were to his methodology given then extra weight Rockefeller backing gave him.

I haven't argued that Mack was neutral, it was that he was more neutral than either Hopkins or Jacobs. As mentioned, Mack had almost rejected science in the years before his death which signified a sea change in the way he used his critical thinking. It became the case that he was as wedded to his beliefs as Hopkins/Jacobs i.e. not neutral.

I suppose much depends upon why they would have such a strong bias towards those particular subjects – whether it came from a desire to validate their own experiences (or belief system), or whether they, like Mack, may have been similarly economically bound to confirm a particular narrative, either by a paymaster or because the audience-revenues are more lucrative when doom dominates.

It's inevitably complex and layered. There was certainly a bias in the main proponents and perhaps a social bubbling up of the key features of what came to be called the abduction phenomenon. The grey alien became a cultural beacon with similar status to Colonel Sanders and media was saturated with Area 51 and associated myths. Riding some of these waves were the abductee researchers who became 'economically bound' to their narratives as well as being in a feedback loop with their audience. Essentially they were products of their culture as well as influencers of their sub-cultures.

It would be tempting for me to lean towards Mack and Rockefeller’s more positive interpretations or choice of “experiencers” versus “abductees” but given that the outcome seems to have been a subsequent lowering of consciousness in terms of environmental matters in the US, I expect that both groups have gone to polar extremes, zoning in on one aspect and thereby ignoring the whole, subsequently failing to get the “message”.

What was the message in the first place? I'm not being glib or arsey with you, honest! There were themes, but no singular message. The range of conflicting messages from percipients points to incoherent communication (if from aliens) and lack of organisation. Or sleight of hand and misdirection.

Hopkins/Jacobs seemed to rally the mixed messages into a coherent doom-laden narrative that continues to follow a developing arc. Mack/Sprinkle did likewise and promoted a more optimistic message in line with Greenpeace activism from space missionaries. It's tempting to see them all as expressions of the political Zeitgeist isn't it?

I think that there are any number of presumption being made depending upon the individuals or groups viewing the information available to them. I tend to agree with Harvard that it is negligent not to first ascertain if there is the possibility of an underlying physical condition that could help to explain the subject’s experiences.

I agree with you again. You know how people see the world in consistent ways according to their social and political outlooks? Birds of a feather flock together. We all do it. When I read the academic papers, listened to speakers and read the books there were clear signs of subjective belief systems. I saw plenty (too many) of examples where people were confirming their own beliefs and gaining approval from their peer groups.

Psychologists, abductee researchers, skeptics, debunkers and believers have often been 'negligent' in trying to look past their own noses. I sometimes wonder why people bother asking the questions when they're 100% sure of the answers.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Although I'm not sure if a species capable of manipulating the minds of an alien species would need to wait until night time to be effective. Do they ever make mistakes and abduct someone that works nightshift?

Assuming the abductees are chipped, they most likely know what the abductee is doing at all times. However, there does seem to be an unusually high number of abduction reports which happened during the day. These seem to be the occurrences where people have missing time, because they weren't asleep they have a conscious gap in their memory, meaning it's much easier to actually become aware of the abduction, unlike those which occur while people are asleep. I still think the vast majority of abductions occur at night but the ones which happen during the day are much easier to detect and so are reported more often.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Now I'm confused.

If daytime abductions are reported more often then why would you assume that night time abductions are more common?

Perhaps daytime is the best time for hypnotism.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

If daytime abductions are reported more often then why would you assume that night time abductions are more common?

I don't know if daytime abductions are actually more common, but they are more common than I would have expected. Like I said, the missing time is a strong indicator that something weird occurred, people who are abducted while sleeping wouldn't notice any missing time because it would all feel like a dream. Something very common with abduction cases is that the abductee initially becomes aware of their situation due to missing time, however when they undergo regression they discover they've been abducted since childhood and it usually occurs late at night.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
What was the message in the first place? I'm not being glib or arsey with you, honest! There were themes, but no singular message. The range of conflicting messages from percipients points to incoherent communication (if from aliens) and lack of organisation. Or sleight of hand and misdirection.

Hopkins/Jacobs seemed to rally the mixed messages into a coherent doom-laden narrative that continues to follow a developing arc. Mack/Sprinkle did likewise and promoted a more optimistic message in line with Greenpeace activism from space missionaries. It's tempting to see them all as expressions of the political Zeitgeist isn't it?

That's why I put "message" in quotation marks, I wasn't implying that there was a single and coherent message across all participants, I was implying that the researchers hoped that there was. In both examples the researchers were selecting subjects based on their "experiences" implying that they thought there was a "message" that could lead them to a perception of an "objective" reality - perhaps? So rather than identifying and exploring the possible causes on an individualistic level, they were viewing their patients as a collective of recipients of a "message" or some such - again, perhaps?

You guys can argue forever about the validity of memories recalled via hypnotic regression, it wont get you anywhere because there's no way to verify what they say. It's completely understandable that most people would automatically assume alien abduction is one of the dumbest things they've heard of, I feel that way about most paranormal stuff. However, I cannot ignore the level of consistency in the information reported during regression sessions conducted by a range of different hypnotists, I can see why a Harvard professor would be swayed by the testimony of his patients. I also understand the fact some people will never be swayed by testimony, they need to see it themselves to believe it and that is also completely understandable, it sounds insane to suggest people are being abducted and used for some sort of genetic experiment. I can't fully believe it myself until I see it for myself.

However we have to also remember that some abductees have abduction memories that they can consciously recall without the aid of hypnosis, these memories are usually fragmented but they show us these memories are able to be drawn out without the use of hypnosis. Apart from that there are also physical side effects of abductions, a person is often physically missing at the time of their abduction, and in many cases they are abducted with other family members who report the same story. Women will often report being pregnant and then suddenly they will miscarriage and there will be no trace of the fetus left inside them, I have seen this reported a surprising number of times. Some women on ATS have even posted abduction stories talking about strange miscarriages.

For anyone interested digging deeper into this topic I recently discovered this channel which has a lot of interesting abductee testimony and some documentaries on the subject: www.youtube.com...

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

So rather than identifying and exploring the possible causes on an individualistic level, they were viewing their patients as a collective of recipients of a "message" or some such - again, perhaps?

Probably so and losing themselves amongst their respective choirs. I'm not sure how deeply you've followed ufology and its warring tribes? Around eight years or so ago the field was riven by conflicts about the reality of abductee phenomena. It looked to me like friendship groups played as great a part as any evidence. Some of the debates were caustic and there was much huffing and harumphing to be heard in the land. Harumph Sir and good day!

But yes, I think you're right. The pro-abductee researchers regarded the regression messages as something like Braille or perhaps tea leaves in upturned cups. Hopkins/Jacobs were always searching for an Enigma Machine or Rosetta Stone to unlock the messages and expose the presence.

Just came across a fairly interesting video from one of those body language analysis channels. She analyses an old interview with Travis Walton, an alleged abductee. All the indications seem to imply he's not lying. It's pretty funny too because this debunker guy comes on and shows many more signs of deception than we can see from Travis or his friend. I'd really like to see this type of analysis done on more conspiracy videos, it's a really good idea.


EDIT: also notice how the subscriber count isn't shown on the subscribe button, the channel has been shadow banned, presumably for their analysis of politicians.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
Probably so and losing themselves amongst their respective choirs. I'm not sure how deeply you've followed ufology and its warring tribes? Around eight years or so ago the field was riven by conflicts about the reality of abductee phenomena. It looked to me like friendship groups played as great a part as any evidence. Some of the debates were caustic and there was much huffing and harumphing to be heard in the land. Harumph Sir and good day!

I haven't followed ufology at all deeply, it is more of a case of it's boundaries overlapping, and vice versa, into other subjects that I have an interest in, so it kind of follows me really. Admittedly I have an inclination to consider it a belief system, and as such I don't like to get involved too much, people often need whatever it is that they obtain from those beliefs, I don't think anyone should try and take that away without considering the consequences first. The difficulty arises in that there are clearly those who seek to profit from and exploit those beliefs for whatever reason, personal, political, economical and ideological. I have difficulty in resisting such tangled webs.

In terms of conflict, I don't think that that is such a bad thing. Should we let all the Grannies get tricked into handing over their life saving to dodgy builders, or should we educate them to protect themselves against the cowboys? It's exactly the same principle. People don't like to admit to having been "had", people like even less to being the one doing the had-ing, especially if they have used it to extort money or other benefits from it. Much of that harumph-ing, I should imagine, was an attempt at a dignified exit for one of those reasons or the other.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
But yes, I think you're right. The pro-abductee researchers regarded the regression messages as something like Braille or perhaps tea leaves in upturned cups. Hopkins/Jacobs were always searching for an Enigma Machine or Rosetta Stone to unlock the messages and expose the presence.

It is an odd one, ever since the principles of "mesmerism" became the subject of scientific scrutiny in the early 18th century (despite having existed for tens of centuries as a practice), the notion that the process of hypnotism resulted from a projection of the inner personal reality/imagination of the subject has been systematically rejected and it is only now that inroads are being built which are helping to determine that this is indeed largely the case. Our unwillingness to embrace our subjectiveness is understandable given that it requires us to disentangle ourselves from our beliefs and the things that some hold dear. Uncertainty doesn't offer the reassurances that determinism tends to, be it a future of doom or a heavenly order, we prefer to know where we're going rather than pay attention to what we are doing.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

the notion that the process of hypnotism resulted from a projection of the inner personal reality/imagination of the subject has been systematically rejected and it is only now that inroads are being built which are helping to determine that this is indeed largely the case.

It seems pretty obvious to me the experience is internally generated, it's not like the hypnotist has psychic powers which allow them to control minds. They simply trigger that experience in the person, belief is a very powerful thing, it's why the placebo effect is so powerful. For example if a suggestible person is hypnotized and told they wont feel any pain in their hand, you can stick a needle through their hand and they wont feel it, not because their hand isn't sending pain signals to the brain, but because their brain is ignoring their pain signals, the same way we may refuse to acknowledge something horrific even if it's happening right in front of us, the brain will try to filter out that event and will suppress the memory.

With respect to hypnotic regression, it's quite clear not everything they "remember" is a legitimate experience, much of it is confabulated imagery which is internally generated or a result of the hypnotist leading the patient. I believe this is especially true with respect to "past life" and "future life" experiences that some abductees report, this is usually where the "positive" aspect of the abductee phenomena comes into play, which is yet another reason I'm skeptical of the good guy alien theory, there's no good reason to believe any of these past/future life experiences are anything more than a lucid dream or that they are even linked to the abduction phenomena. Obviously this also means abduction reports could be nothing but lucid dreams, and that could be the case, but once again the consistency in their reports cannot be ignored.

Hmmm

I believe there are beings here who sliced Chimp DNA with some of their own and create us and are monitoring our progress

So this may be part of the monitoring process. Maybe they are correcting our DNA or altering it as we go

I had a dream were they showing me how their engines works once

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

once again the consistency in their reports cannot be ignored.

I'm struggling to follow your logic. You appear to take the negative accounts from regressions as real and the rest as 'confabulated imagery which is internally generated or a result of the hypnotist leading the patient.' It's as if I can tap on Hopkins' coffin lid and he'll knock right back. Budd? Is that you?

Joking aside, it's tempting to favour Hopkins/Jacobs narrative and take it at face value. What I would ask though is this: what gives these two unqualified individuals more credibility than the academic and legal consensus that hypnosis is not a reliable tool of investigation?

Neither of them had any formal training or qualifications in psychology (or law) and weren't qualified to practice hypnotic regressions. Jacobs went so far as to 'diagnose' his clientèle with psychiatric conditions and recommend treatments. I'm not going to drag up the 'Emma' situation, but boy oh boy did Jacobs lose his way.

I'm not qualified to diagnose either although there are surely traits of clinical narcissism!? Picture this. A history prof promotes himself to psychiatric doctor and saviour of humanity against an evil only he and select friends can see. Yikes!

a reply to: Kandinsky

I'm struggling to follow your logic. You appear to take the negative accounts from regressions as real and the rest as 'confabulated imagery which is internally generated or a result of the hypnotist leading the patient.'

No, I'm pointing out the fact that virtually all abduction accounts have a negative aspect, even the ones which have a lot of positive stuff, and how these feelings of love are highly suspicious because they are often used to make the abductee feel comfortable. The simple fact is, assuming we're dealing with something physical, the abductors are violating the rights of human beings and they are remaining hidden while they do it, there's basically no way you can sugar coat that and present it as something we shouldn't be concerned about.

The so called past/future life experiences are usually not even part of the abduction experience, some hypnotists will entertain the idea they have the ability to use regression as a way to let people experience these past/future lives and they will lead the patient so that they enter a lucid dream type state, they tell the person to imagine themselves at some other moment in time, etc. Abduction regression, at least when performed by a professional, will usually start with a real moment in time where the patient noticed something weird, like they saw a UFO or felt like some time was missing, and the hypnotist will intentionally ask questions meant to lead them away from the expected answers, yet they resist this leading and produce the expected answers anyway.

what gives these two unqualified individuals more credibility than the academic and legal consensus that hypnosis is not a reliable tool of investigation?

I agree it's not really a reliable tool when it comes to legal investigations, there's just too much room for error and people being falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit. Like I said, until I see an alien for myself I cannot believe the stories abductees tell us, however I do acknowledge the fact most of them appear to be conveying experiences which they genuinely believe did occur and they don't always require hypnotism in order to recall these experiences. I also acknowledge the fact that popular culture could explain why they often report such similar things, which is one reason I try to stick to older cases, but without having done a great deal of research into the abduction phenomena I don't see how they can produce all the little details or how they could maintain so much consistency if it's all a dream, it's very embarrassing to say you had sperm or eggs taken and yet the overwhelming majority of abductees report exactly that under regression. I'm simply willing to acknowledge the possibility that what these people are reporting is based in some truth rather than assume it's all just their imagination and nothing they say has any relevance.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Something is here I k ow it for a fact those who deny it due to not having experienced it themselves have to be willing to ignore the other people who have had experienced ...

I know some people who have myself as well as the orb encounter I had was had with 4 or 5 other people

We all saw it and had the weird experiences its undeniable that something is here doing this

U think DB is a debunker, he is not, i thank him for his book tricks of the mind, i learned how to have a "photographic memory" from that book and went onto Uni to complete my degree on psychology with his help. Great book.
But here's the thing he's hiding the fact he uses real magick and that he is in contact with voices in his own head, call them familiars or the shadow persona, or whatever but i know he is, u can even see him talking to himself when he's doing his stuff, the front cover of said book has a daemon whispering in his ear, the guy is very knowledgeable but never mentions magick, why?
Probably the same reason Jung called astral projection, active imagination. .. To protect their image.

a reply to: toysforadults

I love your open mind and i have toyed with that idea amongst others, right now i feel that all phenomenon is possibly causedby the earth and her plants. It makes sense when you think about it.
And i mean really think about it, plants have built our brain chemistry and bodies as a whole, our dna was constructed by the earth, the Gaia, the great mother Isis, Artemis, Blessed Mary, Astarte etc etc. Mushrooms of magi variety to MJ and everything inbetween are conscious and have been evolving longer than us in this current state, we could be the children of the earth who is our God, i love her.