Hypnotism: A bad rap?
Copyright 2020, InterAmerica, Inc.
Our pal Claude Falkstrom detests hypnotism, when he should actually be considering it as a tool to determine UFO clues
I keep stressing that back in my psychologically-oriented days, hypnotism was eschewed, openly, by everyone in psychoanalytic circles and they were joined by other psychologies which always belabored the use of that art by psychiatrists and others in the fields of psychology or medicine.
But, privately, hypnotism was still employed on occasion and still is.
It is an art, but has scientific merit:
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/06/24/the-science-of-hypnosis/
The problem with hypnosis and Claude’s anti-fixation on it derives from the mis-use of the practice by ufologists, serious and otherwise: Bud Hopkins comes to mind.
Yes, we all understand that memories derived from a hypnotic session are tainted or warped by a confluence of memories in the unconscious mind, with exacerbation by inadvertent subliminal input from hypnotists.
This is what skeptics of hypnosis and the materials dredged up by it bespeak, unknowing that a skilled and objective hypnotist – an academically trained practitioner of Mesmer’s process – can derive hidden truths found among the detritus pouring forth from the semi-conscious and unconscious mind of a hypnotized individual, even one with psychopathic proclivities:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-the-science-behin_b_7505012
A trained psychiatrist (or other medical professional) can separate the traumatic memories from the alleged kidnapping memories, if the psychiatrist is treating a patient of his or hers, who has provided remembered scenarios from their past previously.
But even without a past history account that a hypnotist is privy to, past memories can be deciphered from its hypnotic presentation, as those past memories will have a patina of reality about them – hints of neurotic and non-neurotic credulity can and do prevail.
The hypnotist then will zero in on those hypnotic indulgences that smack of a real event or false memory by the very nature of the remembered offering; the taped response of Barney Hill is an example.
His fearful stress under hypnosis tells a tale of an actual event, one that doesn’t seem likened to a past non-kidnapping by alien episode of some kind.
Even an impressed memory of a book-reading or movie or television show would not evoke such a response, Thus the hypnotist (or psychiatrist – in this case) can and should follow-up with other sessions digging at the awful memory/recall, if the patient can withstand more probing. Something truly untoward happened and the hypnotist should pursue it, if possible.
Barney Hill’s psychiatrist (Benjamin Simon) didn’t follow up apparently, having ordained that the episode was not real but a suggested event impressed upon Barney Hill by an outside action.
Simon concluding “that the case was a singular psychological aberration.” [Wikipedia]
Yet, Barney’s actual fear during the hypnotic recall would cause any reputable doctor or psychiatrist to take a step back and dig deeper into the cause of that tremendous fearful outburst of Barney Hill. Listen to the session tape:
Barney Hill’s hypnotic response is an actual traumatic memory, not a contrived event culled from a mixture of false memories of UFO abductions by way of entertainment media.
Skeptics of hypnosis are befouled by hysterical reactions and poorly maintained sessions by rank amateurs.
Evaluating an hypnotic session, forensically, can provide clues to what a UFO witness or “experiencer” actually endured. The analysis has to be rigid and unbiased, and untainted by input, accidentally injected into a session.
Hypnosis, misused by flagrant insertions of bias and careless amateurism, has caused its abandonment as a valid tool for finding truths and facts within the minds of credible UFO witnesses, even those who think they’ve been abducted by alien beings.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Saturday, August 29, 2020
|
2 comments
