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.
an indispensable resource in this discussion is the book ‘remembering trauma’ by professor richard mcnally, who has been good enough to speak with me and answer many of my questions throughout my research.
i agree with you that unilateral opinions and false generalizations do nobody any good, and one certainly shouldn’t simply dismiss any claim of abuse out-of-hand. just the same, we must concede what we do and don’t know about memory, the brain, and trauma, which indicate that we should approach claims of recovered memories with caution and skepticism.
The research focused on the brain's amygdala, which has previously been shown to store fear memories. However, prior studies have indicated that the amygdala does not discriminate among the different threats it holds and processes. In other words, whether you are afraid of dogs because you were once bitten by a dog or you are afraid of pizza because you once nearly choked to death eating it, all the amygdala remembers is that both of these experiences were scary. By contrast, other brain areas, such as cortex, ensures that all other aspects of these fearful events in your life are remembered.
The scientists on the Nature Neuroscience study sought to determine if there were differences in how the amygdala processes and remembers fears. To do so, they focused on a process called memory consolidation in which an experience is captured, or encoded, then stored. Once consolidation occurs, memories may be long lasting -- one experience may create memories that last a lifetime. However, whenever recalled, memories become labile -- that is, susceptible to changes.
The researchers looked at memory consolidation and reconsolidation. Memory consolidation is the neurological process we undergo to store memories after an experience. However, memory is dynamic and changes when new experiences bring to mind old memories. As a result, the act of remembering makes the memory vulnerable until it is stored again -- this process is called reconsolidation. During this period, new information may be incorporated into the old memory.
Mordecai81
reply to post by CIAGypsy
They're betting on most people being like you CIAGypsy... because you're right... there isn't someone going on (controlled) MSM exposing this stuff, proving they are at the top, going through a 4 hour powerpoint hashing out all of the details with verifiable information and evidence, renouncing their deeds and affiliation, and calling for an end to all of the intricate and long thought out plans. We won't ever see that... nope... the version we can only hope for is that at some point they make a mistake and fall on their own. There is always deniability when you have money, power, and influence.
reply to post by CIAGypsy
Do you think all who lived in Nazi Germany were well informed from the beginning of Hitler and his Nazi party that he planned on world domination and extermination of the undesirables? Absolutely not... it required several years of propaganda, deception, conditioning, indoctrinating, and manipulating to convince a majority of the nation that his way was the right way. Would that not be considered mind control? And if this illogical acceptance of ideas can't be called mind control, what would you call it?
reply to post by CIAGypsy
You admit that MK Ultra was a real thing, albeit much less sinister than the CTs say it is, but how do you know that? Are you aware that he director of the CIA during the time MK Ultra was exposed ordered the destruction of countless documents before the hearings could bring them to the light of day? FOIA was only able to release a fraction of the original documents. Explain to us why you think he would have done that? He didn't want his grandma's secret chocolate chip cookie recipe getting out to the public? What about ARTICHOKE?
Mordecai81
reply to post by CIAGypsy
Then there's the issue of your adament arguments against mind control as being "physiologically impossible". Though I think we can all agree, as well as the admission from the scientific community, that we know about as much about how the brain works as an ant knows about the laws of thermo-dynamics. That being said, it amazes me that you can so confidently denounce the possibilities of mind control.
Mordecai81
reply to post by CIAGypsy
I digress because there is endless, ENDLESS amounts of information and cases that easily defend the reality of powerful people utilizing mind control. So for you to continually nay say the mention of the possibility that there could be a clandestine group of people working together to bring about some goal of theirs through secrecy and intimidation is borderline insanity... denial of history and the rotten nature of humanity to say the least.
reply to post by CIAGypsy
I noticed in your posts that you enforce your opinion with the argument that something just doesn't make sense. I live in a world where a lot of things don't make sense, especially human behavior, but that doesn't mean that something that seems nonsensical isn't if not completely, partially based in reality.
reply to post by CIAGypsy
I also noticed you have dedicated quite a bit of time and energy into these discussions. Additionally it seems that one such as yourself who is endlessly rolling your eyes at any opinion that differs from your own would have something better to do with their time than to spend all that time slapping down other people's thoughts and ideas because they fit into your preconceived category of CT nutjob hallucinations. So indulge me... what is it you get out of this? Do you get some kind of satisfaction from targeting these CT types and getting them all stirred up by arguing endlessly with equally opinion based statements? OR is this some kind of mission field for you... like you need to save the poor little ignorant CTs from their miserable lives of questioning the official stories and believing in their silly little conspiracies? Either way, I certainly don't think you should stop... especially if it's something you enjoy. I'm just curious from a psychological standpoint.
Au contraire, mon ami.... There have been several people, outside of Svali, who have come forward claiming to be some "high ranking" mind-controlled slave (Cathy O'Brien, Leo Zagami, etc...).
Again...I go back to a previous post in this thread where I asked someone else "are you going to believe a claim, indiscriminately, just because someone makes it?" I don't "disbelieve" indiscriminately. I look at the claim objectively utilizing critical thinking to discern if it is BS or something of substance. I also research facts (through more than just the internet, btw) to see if anything can be corroborated. Again, a very rare skill these days, it seems.
With the alleged Illuminati conspiracy, we are talking about that same process happening over many centuries. It flies in the face of reason that any instigator of a conspiracy would "plan" it to happen over so many generations. Yeah...I'm gonna plan to have my future ancestors take over the world in 300 years from now. Do you see the ridiculousness of that idea?
Guess you have never worked with Classified projects from this response... This kind of behavior, while reprehensible to the public, is not abnormal. They do the same thing when certain politicians buy hookers and drugs.
That being said, I already said that MK Ultra DID exist... Same goes for Artichoke, Paperclip, and a lot of other classified projects... But just because they existed does NOT mean they were effective or efficient on a mass level. Perhaps you need to go back to my previous post where I talk about repeatability in science, as well as the explanation about WHY they could not reach repeatability with these projects?
I've already addressed these points in multiple posts. I've explained why it is physiologically impossible, along with supporting information. I've also explained that the brain is the least understood organ in the entire body....which is exactly why "mind control" from the perspective of a Manchurian Candidate is NOT possible with current technology.
Now, to be clear....let's define the type of "mind control" that I am talking about. When I saw "Mind Control" in this thread or elsewhere....I am referring to an individual involuntarily committing any action for which they may or may not have any memory of committing.
I am NOT referring to "mind control" which relies upon conscious or subconscious "persuasion" of which there is massive proven science and industries built upon. With "persuasion," the individual still maintains control of choice/free will.
I have provided clear points and supporting documentation about why the claims of Svali and others "don't make sense." In general, I think most human behavior generally makes sense...at least to me. Most people, when fully analyzed, are very predictable. Notice I say "most people"???
Rather hypocritical of you, don't you think?
I spend time in these discussions for several reasons. I find it disturbing the amount of people who would so willingly and gullibly swallow these theories without any critical thinking or objective review of facts. Often their feelings are driven by a salacious imagination (thank you Hollywood), class envy (Damn those Rothschilds...), or the temptation to deflect any kind of personal accountability for their lives ("elitists keeping the man down). Even worse, they feed the delusions (to the great potential detriment) of those poor people who truly think they are "mind controlled slaves." Do you understand the great personal anguish and fear of those people who feel they have to constantly watch over their shoulders for the rest of their entire lives? Even when they claim to be "free," (such as Svali), they are still not "free." There is forever a hypervigilence that haunts them.... Why feed that atmosphere which is clearly damaging to the individual? Better to help people by showing them reality that this type of "technology" is not possible (which I've routinely documented) and that this type of conspiracy is highly unlikely.
Mordecai81
reply to post by CIAGypsy
Um... the people you listed aren't the folks I was referring to. I was referring to those who would be at the top of this grand scheme (assuming it exists). I thought I made that obvious.
Mordecai81
reply to post by CIAGypsy
Do you actually read the things you type before you post them? Your instruction is to go back and look at your previous post... I did... didn't see anything that was any more substantial or backed by facts than anything anyone else has said. I saw one link to a science daily article that really had nothing to do with the subject at hand... trauma based mind control. It was discussing memory consolidation and reconsolidation during protein synthesis, and the only part that talked anything about trauma was this: "Because addressing memory-related afflictions, such at PTSD, depends on first understanding the nature of memory formation and the playback of those memories, finding remedies may prove even more challenging than is currently recognized." What does that have to do with this topic??? All they're saying is it's going to be a challenge to find remedies. Please enlighten me if I'm missing something.
...
Supporting information? A link to sciencedaily.com that has nothing to do with mind control or it's viability. And again with the bizarre leaps of logic... brain is least understood organ = mind control not possible. WOW! So you're making an assertion that something absolutely positively is not possible right after saying the object that is the focus of the topic in question is the LEAST UNDERSTOOD organ? Do you realize how contradictory that is?
Controversy surrounding repressed memory -- sometimes referred to as the "memory wars" -- came to a head in the 1990s. While some believed that traumatic memories could be repressed for years only to be recovered later in therapy, others questioned the concept, noting that lack of scientific evidence in support of repressed memory.
But, there was still a clear gap between clinicians and researchers: Roughly 60-80% of clinicians, psychoanalysts, and therapists surveyed agreed to some extent that traumatic memories are often repressed and can be retrieved in therapy, compared to less than 30% of research-oriented psychologists.
Additional data revealed that belief in repressed memory is still prevalent among the general public.
This marked divide, with researchers on the one hand and clinicians and the public on the other, is worrying because of the implications it has for clinical practice and for the judicial system:
"Therapists who believe that traumatic memories can be repressed may develop treatment plans that differ dramatically from those developed by practitioners who do not hold this belief. In the courtroom, beliefs about memory often determine whether repressed-memory testimony is admitted into evidence," the researchers write.
- Lawrence Patihis et al. Are the “Memory Wars” Over? A Scientist-Practitioner Gap in Beliefs About Repressed Memory. Psychological Science, December 2013