Tuesday 9 July 2024
Think About Regression Hypnosis
I have written as well as said on many occasions that any person conducting regressive hypnosis on a person suspected to have lost time during a UFO encounter should not be a person interested ort active in studying UFOs. The person should definitely not be a Ufologist.
The late D. Scott Rogo wrote (UFO Report – April, 1980):
"Being a parapsychologist, I am keenly aware of the fact that the hypnotic state makes a person particularly open to telepathic impressions.There is a great deal of experimental as well as anecdotal evidence to this effect. While regressing Jo, could she have picked up telepathic cues from my mind which she elaborated into false memories of a UFO abduction?"
In fact, Dr Leo Sprinkle also stated later on in his work that he feared a possible "abductee" under hypnosis may have had thoughts transferred to them from his mind during hypnotic sessions.
If -if- we assumed that Budd Hopkins was not stacking the decks and faking things or passing on things as evidence that he knew 100% were fake then it could explain his early findings. I have absolutely no doubt that at the very start he was truly investigating and trying to find out what was going on. When and where he went off the rails is a matter for debate.
A hypnotist should not have a head full of preconceived notions about UFOs and abductions because if -IF- transference of thoughts is even a possibility it could lead to many incorrect conclusions. It is a reason why I have and would exclude myself from being in on any such sessions. We have to ensure that any information recalled is a genuine recollection. Sessions where a Ufologist carries out regression hypnosis with 2-3 other Ufologists present create a massive problem if Sprinkle, Rogo et al are correct.
We are, supposedly, here to find the truth or at least clues as to what is going on in these encounters -the reason that the Hills' hypnotic regression sessions stand up so well is that Dr. Benjamin had no knowledge of UFOs and still did not believe in them after the sessions. He is, therefore, unlikely to have polluted any recall with "thought transference".
Look at it this way; there is a Ufologist in the UK who claims to have uncovered hundreds of abduction experiences each year. No one is allowed to see the evidence of this and even alleged percipient statements he re-writes in his own words 'so as to protect the witness'. Right there he has totally discredited himself and what he is doing. This person also takes a hypnotherapist with him on first meeting any witness and those witnesses must agree to undergo preliminary hypnosis at that first meeting. This is totally unethical (but then it is Ufology).
Any potential UFO witness needs to first talk to the investigator person-to-person so that they are relaxed and feel comfortable. Only then should the person be asked to recount what they can recall of their sighting. If it does seem as though there is missing time then telling them they need to be hypnotised outright is not a good idea. There are techniques that can be suggested to see whether the witness can get some recall. It should be noted that if the witness is undergoing anxiety and stress then hypnosis can be used to relieve that but not to immediately begin interrogating them.
I know I "play the same old tune" but if a witness is in fact a percipient in an onboard experience then they have had their entire world view smashed apart. A Close Encounter of the Second Kind can shatter a world view based on "its all silly flying saucer stories" so imagine what a CE3K would do. How many people involved in CE3K events do you suppose remain in contact with investigators after the initial fuss and then the book or lecture tours are out of the way? Perhaps 1-2% if I am being generous.
The percipients in the best cases have passed away and did Ufology know or report on their passing? No. Louise Smith, Elaine Thomas, Antonio Villas Boas, Jean Hingley, Val Walters -the list goes on and on. In my books I try as hard as I can to find out what happened to percipients and note their deaths -shockingly, I found much od Ufology had not even heard that the last percipient in the 1973 Pascagoula encounter, Calvin Parker, had passed away.
We have to treat people in these encounters as human beings and not cash cows. Hypnosis should not just be jumped into at a first meeting or even a second meeting and in many cases I would suggest that it is only considered if and when the person involved asks whether it is worth trying.
There are a number of cases on file that bear all the tell-tale signs of missing time experiences and in some cases there are witnesses to a UFO. I would not even suggest to them that they may have had onboard experiences and memory loss. They have gotten on with their lives and the incident is recalled as a UFO sighting and put to the back of their minds. What right do I have to open a whole can of worms that these people then have to live with as I get on with other things?
Ufologists tend to jump to hypnosis as the "best tool for the job" without considering any of the implications of its use and, yes, that has gotten me some rather angry responses from Ufologists who consider what they want far more important than the witness.
Hypnosis -think about its use.