"Abductions" DO NOT exist :scientists should fight this crap,like Carl Sagan did

MutantMan mutantman at att.net
Mon Apr 27 13:00:00 EST 1998


then how do i explain the 1990 abduction of my cat which was taken from me
by a ufo from my own backyard and was never to be seen again

--

I guess the average T.V. viewer is that dumb
I make no exceptions
All hail conan our dark lord and master
twitchb at worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<6i2d1k$rvd at bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>"Etherman" <etherman at mdc.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>twitchb at worldnet.att.net wrote in message
>><6hqtfo$j3c at bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>"Etherman" <etherman at mdc.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>twitchb at worldnet.att.net wrote in message
>>>><6hl4lr$epq at bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>
>>>>>Most of the people had been subjected to hypnosis.  A study
>>>>>commission by the Royal College of Psychiatrists published
>>>>>in the April edition of the British Journal of Psychiatry
>>>>>states that "any memory recovered through hynopsis, dream
>>>>>interpretation, or regression therapy is almost certainly
>>>>>wrong."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
>>>
>>>Would you please post some evidence that the study is
>>>incorrect?
>>
>>Could you please provide some evidence that the study is
>>correct?
>
>How about the fact that it agrees with virtually all of the
>other studies in this field?
>
>How about the fact that it was published in a referred
>journal?  Not a guarantee of correctness but a guarantee
>that they followed good procedure in the study.
>
>>
>>>>Even a
>>>>casual perusal of psychological journals demonstrates
>>>>that hypnosis can, in some circumstances, improve
>>>>memory.
>>>
>>>This is nothing more than a claim with no evidence provided.
>>
>>
>>I've posted references in the past.  Why should I believe you'll
>>look them up this time?
>
>I have never seen you post any references.  I check most of
>your articles, too.
>>
>>>>Even when it is detrimental it's a stretch
>>>>to say that the memories are almost certainly wrong
>>>>(unless by wrong they mean <100% accurate).
>>>>
>>>A UFO believer made an experiment with a physician with
>>>clinical experience in hypnosis.  They hypnotized subjects
>>>who had never claimed to be abducted and asked them to
>>>imagine that they had been abducted.
>>
>>
>>What exactly do you mean by UFO believer? Lawson does
>>not believe that people are being abducted by space aliens.
>>AFAIK he never believe that UFO were spaceships.
>
>AFAIK?
>
>Then you make the statement?
>
>>
>>>He found out that these imaginary abductees stories "showed
>>>no substantive differences" between them and the stories of
>>>supposed abductess.
>>>
>>>"one should be cautious about the results from hypnotic
>>>regression in UFO investigations.  A witness can lie..
>>>witnesses can subtly confuse their own fantasies with
>>>reality - without either the witness or the hypnotist being
>>>aware."
>>>
>>>(What can we learn from Hypnosis of Imaginary Abductees by
>>>Alvin H. Lawson)
>>
>>
>>I agree that his results should be looked at.  But he believes
>>the ultimate origin of abductions is from birth trauma, not
>>confusing fantasy with reality.
>
>True.
>>
>>>Doctor Martin Orne, past president of the International
>>>Society of Experimental Hypnosis, published a paper in the
>>>International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
>>>
>>>The paper is entitled THE USE AND MISUSE OF HYPNOSIS IN
>>>COURT.
>>>
>>>"it is possible for an individual to feign hypnosis and
>>>deceive even highly experienced hypnotists... Further, it is
>>>possible for even deeply hypnotized subjects to willfully
>>>lie."
>>>
>>>"We should keep in mind that psychologists and psychiatrists
>>>are not particularly adept at recognizing deception... the
>>>average hotel credit manager is considerably more adept at
>>>recognizing deception than we are."
>>
>>
>>Who's talking about using it in court?
>>
>If it isn't even good enough for use in a court, where they
>have in the past allowed all sorts of pseudo-science, why
>should we pay any attention to it?
>
>>
>>>(John Mack certainly proved him right here!)
>>
>>
>>Why because one person in his study may have been lying?
>>She said she fabricated her story, but how do we know
>>she was being honest about lying?
>
>Since she told people ahead of time...
>>
>>>"If the hypnotist has beliefs about what actually occurred,
>>>it is exceedingly difficult for him to prevent himself from
>>>inadvertently guiding the subject's recall so that he (the
>>>subject) will eventually "remember" what he, the hypnotist,
>>>believes actually happened."
>>
>>
>>This is simplistic at best.  There are many factors that
>>determine the accuracy of hypnotic recall.
>>
>It doesn't state that all memories are from this.  Merely
>that because of inadvertent guiding takes place and corrupts
>the final result.
>
>Do Hopkins and Mack have beliefs in this area?
>
>
>Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
>our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
>alter the state of facts and evidence.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list