From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:57:21 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:40:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Regression Hypnosis: ...?


>From: Jenny Randles<nufon@currantbun.com>
>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:17:28 +0100
>Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:50:44 -0400
>Subject: Regression Hypnosis: Should Ufology Take A Stand?

Thank you to all who have replied on UFO UpDates so far. I will
try to keep up but I have had over 100 e-mails in two days and I
do have work to do.

Please excuse any time it takes for reply.

---

>From: Mark Cashman<mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:00:10 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Regression Hypnosis: Should Ufology Take A Stand?

>I am also concerned that problems with hypnosis may be the
>reason for the current boom in abductions (Jacobs claims that
>one abductee was taken 54 times in 8 months) and claims that
>UFOs must be able to become invisible (broached by Hopkins at
>the IF conference). If so, the abduction data base may well
>being rapidly contaminated with spurious events.

Part of the reason for the BUFORA moratorium - that has now
become a ban - was to create an ad hoc experiment to see how the
decision not to use hypnosis would effect case totals. There are
far fewer British abductions coming in today than five years ago
- except those reported to the media. In fact we now hear of
only one or two per annum.

Of course other UK groups still use hypnosis so some comparisons
will be possible. I think this is a research project someone
should attempt - assessing the differences and the similarities
between groups who do use and groups who do not use regression.

---

>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:58:32 EDT
>Subject: Re: Regression Hypnosis: Should Ufology Take A Stand?
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>Once again you have selected only one example to present your
>case. Budd Hopkins has thousands. Many of which are multiple
>witness cases, as an example, the so called "Brooklyn Bridge"
>case which occured in Manhattan, not far from the Gripple Wks
>by the by.

I am not sure when I previously selected only one example. But I
cited Alan Godfrey simply because he is well known globally. He
is by no means the only witness to volunteer doubts about
hypnosis to me.

Two other well known British abductees - Ros Reynolds and Elsie
Oakensen - have made no secret of their distrust (and in Ros's
case) grave dislike for what regression did to her. I think
there is surely more disquiet amongst witnesses than ufologists
suspect.

>Ms. Randles, please answer another question, who
>among those "percieved" to be true ufologists have made
>"fortunes?"

I do not want to get into the business of naming names, but I am
surprised that it is not an accepted fact that hypnotic
regression generates the most sensational cases that in turn
produce the most lucrative stories. These inevitably attract
more money from book, TV, movie, media rights. I know this from
first hand experience as a writer.

Do not equate this point with my inferring that respected
ufologists are 'in it for the money'.

That is not my point.

My point is that hypnosis is bound - with us all - to lead to at
least a subconscious realisation that by uncovering a big case
we will get more attention for our work. That is only human
nature.

Ufology right now - certainly in the UK - has become all about
money. Huge sums are being paid and they are usually not
commensurate with the value of the work being put into the
public domain. We have lost control of our own subject to the
financiers and that is worrying because it is bound to
exacerbate the trend towards bigger and more dramatic cases.


>How many regression hypnotherapists have you spoken with? And
>how many abductees? And what of those _many_ individuals who
>have nevere picked up a book on the subject and yet share
>extraordinarily similar memory of others? What of a three yr
>old child who never heard of a UFO or alien describing events
>which are directly related to the story presented by others,
>time and again.

I trust nobody misunderstands me. I am not arguing against the
reality of an abduction phenomenon nor am I persuaded that its
solution is entirely within the realms of imagination.

Human consciousness is a key to its understanding but I think
there is new science to be learned here and I am not even averse
to the possibility that another intelligence is in contact.

Certainly there are cases that suggest this.

So I am not expressing doubts about hypnosis as a way to destroy
belief in aliens.

My concerns stem from witness responsibility and the scientific
value of the method. Moreover from how over-dependence upon it
is making us into lazy researchers.

If all we have to do to 'solve' a case (as a kidnap by grays) is
arrange a few hypnosis sessions then much needed investigation,
research and thought about what is going on disappears.

For the record, I was involved in Britain's first regression on
an abductee (20 years ago) and have since attended dozens of
sessions, working with and talking to at least ten
psychologists.

Since the ban in l989 I have only sat in on a few sessions and
not been involved in any actual investigation

>I suspect that properly used, it
>will be and is now, one of the very few tools we have, save
>next to memory and live specimens of the little guys with the
>big eyes

I guess it comes down to how you evaluate whether data obtained
by hypnosis - even properly used - is a real tool to unlock
truth or fantasy. The evidence of psychology - at least as I
read it - is at best split and I find biased against hypnosis
being used as a way to uncover even say a 75% truth level.

So - if we accept that 25% of all abduction testimony is fantasy
then which bits do we use to construct our ongoing theories and
worldviews? Especially as these feed back into the collective
unconscious and inevitably create false data in the next
generation of abductees?

Even if some true memory is emerging - and I suspect it is, by
the way - the constant over use of hypnosis is simply diluting
the level of truth in the cases that emerge by adding in more
and more fantasy. By now I suspect the data emerging is so
contaminated that it is dangerous to make any real assumptions
from it.

>Understand that were it not for people like Budd Hopkins
>(forgive me for using this name, but I know, love and respect
>this man for his work, his ethics and his paucity of that one
>element you mentioned early on, money), but were it not for
>people like him, the field would have _little_ information

I am certainly not attacking Budd. I have known him for 16 years
and have always found him an honest, modest, unassuming man who
genuinely cares for the people he works with. I have no
knowledge of his finances (although I bet they exceed mine!).

However, being a truthful, good intentioned nice guy does not
mean that his methods are right.

It is ufology's unquestioning reliance on what I think is
dubious data that I am challenging not the integrity of one
researcher.

>Methinks this post will bring a plethora of comments, Ms.
>Randles.  Say, are we contemplating another book on the
>subject or are you just happy to see us?

It has already - which is good. And I am very glad to be here.

But don't misconstrue my motives.

You appear to think I am milking the net for ideas for a new
book. Not so.

I have just written a book on abductions but its at the printers
- so none of this could be included. I have no plans to write
another one on the subject in the foreseeable future - although
I am always writing. Its what I do. And if you seriously suspect
that I do it for the money then ask yourself this: Would you
write a book - like my most recent (on mid-air encounters -
Something in the Air) - for an advance of =A31500 ($2200) that has
not earned any more (and may well never do) as it has sold all
of 750 copies?

That book took me eight months to write. I could get more
busking in the streets. My interest in UFOs is a lifelong
passion to learn the truth.

My motive for putting this comment on the net was to spark a
debate and get people thinking about an issue I consider to be
very serious.

There does not always have to be a hidden agenda.

---

>From: Chris Rutkowski<rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
>Subject: Re: Regression Hypnosis: Should Ufology Take a Stand?
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:33:44 -0500 (CDT)

>Part of the problem might be, as you pointed out, that
>hypnosis is so widely used in ufology, it is difficult to
>back away at this point, especially by the 'experts'. There
>are those who insist they are being careful, yet some are
>certainly driven by some inherent biases and beliefs which
>are well-ingrained within them. The resistance to stop using
>regression hypnosis is (and will be) very strong and vocal, I
>believe.

Absolutely, but that does not mean those of us who feel strongly
should stop saying so - nor that those who feel it is a vital
way to research cases should not speak up. This is what free
speech and open debate is all about.

I think most who use hypnosis are sincere and do try to be
careful. That is not the point.

You can give lessons in how best to use a gun and be very
sincere in your precautions about using one but that does not
make guns an inherently good thing that we are better off for
having.

What I believe is needed is for this debate to spread to the
leading UFO groups worldwide.

In the end it is their decision in a democratic vote to do what
they think is right and I would not be upset with any group that
used regression after such an open choice.

But I do not see any sign that any of the major groups are even
aware of the BUFORA stand (BUFORA has been too busy
assassinating each other to do any promotion of its own good
work).

Nor that any group has even raised the topic - let alone put it
to a vote.

Ufology is doing hypnosis because ufology has become hypnosis.

I feel we should now be taking more time to ponder if that is
the right thing to be doing. Maybe it is. I don't think so. But
I do think we need to address the issues within the hierarchy of
the major UFO group structure.