Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:06:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:12:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:23:17 +0100

>>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse [was: Re: Budd Hopkins]
>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:26:28 +0100

>>No group in Northern England sanctions is as far as I can tell
>>and this has been in force for many years - which is perhaps
>>why we don't have as many 'alien abductions' over here...?

>Hi All,

>Regarding the above I wonder if this is the case for most
>Southern UFO Research groups? be interesting to find out.

>So here is the question: If you are a member of a Southern UFO
>Research team do you use the methods of hypnotic regression when
>dealing with alleged Alien abductees?

>Roy..


Hi,

I should clarify the position regarding hypnosis in the UK. It
was not uncommon between l978 (first use) and l988 and I was
involved in around 20 cases first hand. The decision to issue a
moritorium on its use followed restrictions that at first did
not in any sense ban its use. These were introduced in our l982
Code of Practice. The code was agreed between many UK groups
(certainly a few from the south - eg SCUFORI in Swindon). This
ensured that hypnosis could only be done by a medically
qualified practicioner to protect the witness. There was already
a trend of 'DIY' hypnosis by ufo investigators learnt by
watching doctors and employed to save money. This offered no
security to the witness, hence the code.

When we set up the code I tried to persuade as many groups as
possible to adopt it. I published it in my book 'Science and the
UFOs' in l985 (ironically the one that triggered the Streieber
abduction memory that has probably done more than any case to
boost the use of regression - maybe someone was trying to tell
me something with that one!) A large number of groups did adopt
this code - not just BUFORA, but MUFORA (now NARO). SCUFORI,
ASSAP, etc.

The code was useful but hypnosis continued. Then came the
debacle with an epileptic witness in a none BUFORA case that did
not follow the code. This, plus growing doubts over hyposis as
useful tesimony, led to the voluntarily decision for a five year
hiatus taken not by BUFORA council by autonomously by the team
of investigators that I then supervised. We made the inforned
choice ourselves after a proper and frank debate. We agreed to
abide by the majority vote (although i recall only one or two
voted no). The moritorium was a unilateral BUFORA plan. So far
as I know  even groups who supported the code did not adhere to
the ban. NARO - for instance - still uses hypnosis through a
fully qualified clinical psychologist (Dr Moyshe Kalman) and I
have sat in on some of that work post the moritarium myself - as
recently as l996 in fact. But I have not personally initiated
nor recommended to any witness that this process be adopted in
their case. Indeed I always advise against.

The BUFORA moratorium was renewed as a permanent ban after I
left as Director of Investigations. The belief in it has grown
since l988, not lessened, through awareness of false memory
syndrome, fantasy prone personality research, SRA and the like.
But I still think far less groups - even in the UK - have an
outright ban like BUFORAs as opposed to a sensible restrictive
and medically supervised approach.

Personally, I dont think hypnosis works, but I am not actually
opposed to its use provided the witness goes into it fully
informed and at their own conscious insistence (not through
agreeing with the subconscious desire of a UFO investigator to
try to come up with the next big case).  Also provided the code
is strictly adhered to and the regression is conducted by a
medical doctor who monitors the percipient for blood pressure,
etc , at all times. I think it is useful to have comparative
data between hypno and non hypno cases.

However, I feel that Britain is really taking a stand against
indiscriminate use of regression in some other parts of the
world - where, to generalise, young people can without any
breech of rules be regressed by non medically qualified people.
That, in my view, is wholly inappropriate for this subject and
if it needed BUFORA (as we did) to possibly over-react through
an outright ban and send a message out. It was worth doing. I am
merely sad, that in the usual muddle of BUFORA, nothing like
enough was ever done to make the world aware of our moritorium
or why we were taking these decisive steps. As a result it has
been an empty gesture to some extent. But I am very glad we made
it even so. Because we showed that what counts in a case is the
welfare of the witness above all else. Too often ufologists
selfishly judge the need for hypnosis on their desire to get a
good story out - even if they dont realise they are doing this.
Self regulation through a code of practice seems like a 'nanny
state' thing as people have told me. But it is better than a
free for all. It shows witnesses, science and the public that we
are thinking about our responsibilities so I remain 100%
committed to the code of practice and urge all those groups out
there (probably 90% of UK groups and 99% of world groups) who
have not signed up - or in many cases dont even know such a
thing exists - to consider taking the plunge. At the moment
BUFORA and a few others are a drop in the bucket. One day the
bucket will fall apart.

The experience of a certain ufologist and his (sorry - I mean
not his) abduction (sorry  - I mean not an abduction) on a US
road only emphasises the point. (I am being deliberately obscure
here as names are unimportant and I've been asked not to repeat
them). What matters is that this mans experience involved no
UFO, no aliens, just a possible missing time and the hypnosis
created a deeper memory (or in my view here most likely a
fantasy). Even the witness (sorry - not the witness) now seems
to feel the hypnosis did not uncover an abduction. He has the
background and can judge this tough issue. Most people pressured
(often subtly) into this process of revealing a hidden memory
cannot and are left with a legacy of confusion. Thats why those
who have been through it like this (non witness) or myself (see
my book Star Children) have an obligation to speak up for the
good of others. But its his choice and he has chosen no.

I have seen several cases where a non existent time lapse was
assumed, regression applied and a memory unravelled that cannot
be real because there was never a time lapse to start with.
There is the infamous UK case of a woman who video filmed a
weather balloon. NARO investigated immediately as that woman
called me within hours of her sighting via Jodrell Bank. Our
case investigation was objective and I think showed very clearly
what this woman saw that day. There was no hint of a time lapse.
Later another UFOlogist and she retraced the case, decided there
was now a time lapse and regressed her. Do we here see the start
of an abduction memory emerging via a case which in my view
cannot be an abduction since there was never a UFO present, just
a balloon? It is a tricky matter but a far from unimportant one.

To be sure these issues are complex and hardly simple choices.
But it is surely obvious that there are enough good reasons to
be wary of the value of hypnosis if not enough to do what BUFORA
has done and take a brave stand against it.

Best wishes,