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: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:41:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:22:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Hypnotic Abuse
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:06:48 +0100

<snips>

>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.

Jenny,

I haven't much jumped into the hypnosis debate, but your
comments regarding responsible use of the technique in order to
protect witnesses struck a chord. I have heard firsthand, at
abduction conferences and the like, people meeting with friends
and saying things such as "Hey I just completed my course in
hypnosis! If you guys need anyone hypnotized, give me a call."
I've also been informed (though not verified firsthand, because
in many cases I understand it to be a tightly kept secret) that
many local abduction 'support' type groups have other abductees
who have had absolutely no training regressing other witnesses.
Again, anecdotes, but I'm not making a scientific arument here,
just hoping irreperable damage isn't being done. But if the
damage is being done, I think Budd Hopkins is probably the least
of our worries. The eager UFO buff who decides 'because Budd can
do it, I can do it, and I even had a 3 hour seminar!' may be
causing the majority of the damage.

I will stay away from the entire debate regarding regressing
children, as that really pushes me to the limit of losing it (I
refer here not to Budd Hopkins, but in general), except to say I
personally don't feel _anyone_ should be regressing children,
much less anyone who is not extremely qualified to do so.
Allowing someone (especially someone unqualified) to do this to
you is one thing, but allowing it to be done to your child.....

As others have suggested, I do not doubt that lawsuits on this
matter will be brought forth in the future.

Tim