Budd Hopkins on the Paracast

[Rocketsauce]

Originally Posted by jritzmann

That it should only be used in very specific situations. Most of the psych community I've spoken with over the years find it's use in this topic reprehensible.

Do you guys know in what situations regression is appropriate?

I've heard of people like Rosanne Bar and Axl Rose being told via regression they were abused as kids which I always thought was pretty sketchy, but I don't know much more than that about the effectiveness of regression and it's potential unreliability.

I am inclined to take the results of new age hobbyists who are certified with a massive grain of salt, which is probably how a lot of this stuff is done. But, if someone who is legitimately trained in this field locates trends via regression, I would give that more weight. What do people think about John Mack's work?

[mike]

i enjoyed the show very much, as usual the hosts were as interesting as the guest to listen to.
i actually had an odd flashback during the show, the point where Mr Hopkins was describing a country drive in the night and rounding a corner to see a craft "just there". very odd moment , i seem to recal something similar but have no references for it or the sensations that this moment contained.

Mr Hopkins wasnt as polished as ive seen him behind the lecturn, but thats what one expects from a format like this, to hear there is to be another interview was icing on the cake.

there are some issues regarding hypnosis and the ease at which it can be used to contaminate a memory, but Mr Hopkins seems obviously mindful of this.

for me its his experience in the field rather than the tool he uses.
he seems to have given the data collection process much thought, and i always enjoy hearing him and his views on the subject.

Thanks for bringing us this interview The Paracast

[valiens]

Originally Posted by Rocketsauce

I think he said he just worked with Jim and thought he has some real experiences, I don't remember him saying he regressed Jim, but I didn't take notes.

As I recall though, that is how Jim markets himself, the dude with the most recall. I think being the abductee with the largest rat tail would be a better angle though.

Yeah maybe I'll ask Budd what "worked with" means.

[Aaron LeClair]

Originally Posted by jritzmann

I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous to me that the man essentially says hypnotic sessions are not putting someone in a highly suggestive state. Or, that it's difficult to lead someone.

It's absurd. And it's obvious to me that he's protecting decades of it's use, and his work/findings.

Hypnosis is a double edged sword. I personally have never used it, but it can be used to retrieve memories. It's ify though. There are controls to use. There are cases in which people have relived accurate detail that was confirmed. And, which corresponds with another hypnotized person. Now, either something psychic is going on, or, it's fleshing out details.

Budd does not, in blanket fashion protect decades of it's use. In fact, he said on the show how many people don't do a good job. Jeff, I know you have issues, but try not to cloud yourself with them. Hypnosis is a bit like fire. It can be used for good and bad.

I don't use hypnosis, because many people like you doubt it. My goal is to prove this stuff exists. That is why I don't use it with people I've dealt with. Skepticism with hypnosis is warranted. But completely dismissing it isn't. I respectfully disagree.

[Aaron LeClair]

Just trying to go through the process of elimination Jeff. Is it possible that you detest hypnosis so much, because you fear the implications of others' testimony? In other words, since you haven't gone under, yet others have and report seeding alien babies yada yada. Is this something you have set guards up for? You fear your experiences might mirror what MANY people report. Some under hypnosis, some not. You don't want to know what is blocked I have heard. Thereby it's suspect you would naturally and readily (without resistance) accept what comes from others who have went under. A form of denial MAY be going on. This is NOT a conclusion, I am only wanting to know if you've thought of this.

[Poi]

Hypnosis is iffy because of decisions made by the person being hypnotized. I've been hypnotized numerous times and I always retained the ability to back out of the sessions had I felt uncomfortable. In fact, I did back once because it isn't a trance, but a state of higher awareness. That's all. I suppose there are deeper states, theta for instance, but I've never knowingly experienced it except in meditation.

The double edge to the sword, seems to me, is that anyone chosing to go to Hopkins might have already assumed he's being visited by "ufo occupants." If so, the suggestion was implanted long before Hopkins was able to hypnotize.

Still, I've never gone where I wasn't highly aware of what was happening in my mind's eye nor was I incapable of making my own decision. I was however, suggestible because I chose to be. That's the clincher, IMO.

[jritzmann]

Originally Posted by Aaron LeClair

Jeff, I know you have issues, but try not to cloud yourself with them. Hypnosis is a bit like fire. It can be used for good and bad.

I don't disagree with you. However in this field, bad seems to rule the roost in regard to regression.

The bottom line is, if someone is going to see Hopkins, they believe they've had an "alien" event. Cultural contamination is paramount here. The scenario of "abduction" is well within popular culture, and while it might not account for all, I'm confident it accounts for the majority in abduction regression.

Then there's a highly suggestive state, leading, and the "please the therapist" issues.

In the end, it absolutely shouldn't be used for retrieving memories of alien interaction. We're already dealing with a edge of perception event, and adding to the confusion isn't doing anyone any good.

There are other ways.

[Aaron LeClair]

Originally Posted by jritzmann

I don't disagree with you. However in this field, bad seems to rule the roost in regard to regression.

The bottom line is, if someone is going to see Hopkins, they believe they've had an "alien" event. Cultural contamination is paramount here. The scenario of "abduction" is well within popular culture, and while it might not account for all, I'm confident it accounts for the majority in abduction regression.

Then there's a highly suggestive state, leading, and the "please the therapist" issues.

In the end, it absolutely shouldn't be used for retrieving memories of alien interaction. We're already dealing with a edge of perception event, and adding to the confusion isn't doing anyone any good.

There are other ways.

I agree. I was just making a post about cultural contamination, as it applies nowadays. But now will delete it. I thought I would add it because I think you are right in not using hypnosis TODAY. Earlier on, it was a different story in my book.

I think Budd Hopkins MAY have retrieved some vaild stuff. Questioning it is great. I am not willing to dismiss it as of yet. I respect your caution with hypnosis. In the handful of people I've dealt with, I don't use it, nor did I recommend it. Some wanted to go do it, and I didn't poopoo it either. Just in essence, told them to be careful and try to get them to test their recollection. I can explain further later if needed.

[Experiencer7]

I can't help but be reminded of Ursula Kroeber Le Guins' novel, The Lathe of Heaven. George Orr guided by Dr. Haber.

[urkotic]

Nothing against Budd Hopkins, honestly, but I don't see how he can call himself a skeptic. This is just not a word that comes to mind for me when considering him and his work.