From: spani@mprgate.mpr.ca (Leonard Spani)
Subject: Re: Contact Notes
Followup-To: alt.alien.visitors
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 23:41:04 GMT

In article <724656336.AA02409@csource.oz.au>, Jim.Atwell@f851.n800.z3.fidonet.org (Jim Atwell) writes:
|> In a message to All <07 Dec 92 15:47> Gvb@Acd4.Acd.Com wrote:
!> 
!>  Gv> Although I agree with him on most of his comments, Vallee has 
|>  Gv> trouble with the abduction scenarios put forth by Budd 
|>  Gv> Hopkins, DMJ and Fowler. He has trouble admitting that the
|>  Gv> overwhelming number of abduction experiences proves anything. 
|>  Gv> think this is mostly due to his lack of experience in this
|>  Gv> area. He goes after bigger fish like MJ12, Roswell and the 
|>  Gv> like. Although I am not sure we should take the abductions at 
|>  Gv> FULL face value, they are definately not due to hypnotic 
|>  Gv> leading or psychotic ramblings. Some may be but most aren't.
|> 
|> Hello Gregg,
|> 
|> Have you read "Secret Life" by David M Jacobs?
|> 
|> It is _FULL_ of leading questions used under hypnosis. Page after 
|> page after page of questions begging for a given answer. I was 
|> quite supprised by the lack of _science_ from a man with a Ph.D. 


The leading questions used by Jacobs really bothered me while I was
reading "Secret Life" until later (near the end) when he explained 
his methodology. Initially, he is extremely careful to avoid leading
questions in the first and early hypnosis sessions. This allows him
to get an idea of the quality of the persons hypnotic recall and 
test whether the person is overly-suggestable. People with dubious
claims and over-suggestable subjects are pruned out. (This "data-stacking" 
also kind-of bothers me but that is another story.)

For subjects that appear to be recalling a genuine event (tm) without
confabulation, the questions given under hypnosis will naturaly become
more and more specific as the amount of data increases from session 
to session. For example, if one of his subjects has talked about a memory 
of an "alien" coming into her bedroom on a specific night during several
(non-leading) hypnosis sessions, it is near impossible for the doctor
to ask more questions about the event without referencing previous 
"testimony". It would also be real annoying if he prefixed each question
with "In you previous testimony of such-and-such-a-date, you mentioned a ..."

I was pretty steamed at Jacobs for not mentioning that until near the
end of the book (when he discusses methodology) rather than up front.
It would have made a big difference if I had known that a given
hypnosis transcript was from a subject's initial hypnotic session or from
the subject's 30th session.


|> 
|> Also bear in mind, although there is a huge quantity of abduction 
|> stories, probably 95% are coming from just a few "researchers".
|> These "researchers" make wild claims which they refuse to back up 
|> with evidence. This leads to the only reasonable conclusion being 
|> that there _is_ no evidence.


There are very few abduction researchers around. It isn't too suprising 
that they get a lot of "referrals". Yes some make wild claims without any
evidence to back them up; just ignore 'em. The only evidence around is
mainly personal testimony of which only about 20-30% is obtained without
hypnosis. I'll admit that there is nothing conclusive, but I still think 
the search for something conclusive should continue.


|> 
|> _If_ there is anything to the abduction phenomena, I feel that we 
|> will eventually find (after TRUE scientific research) that, like 
|> the UFO phenomena, there will be a huge (poss. 90%) _noise_ 
|> component, comprising of systematic (although possibly 
|> unintentional) leading of hypnotic subjects, phsych problems, and 
|> other causes.

Probably ~95%.

It is pretty hard to do scientific research in a subject that scientists
won't touch with a 100 foot pole. Most of the "research" is done by
amateurs who often fall victim to making wild claims that can't be backed up.


As far as Jacobs is concerned, I think he has done a good job with his 
research (book organization aside ;^)


Leonard. 



|> 
|> Good luck with your ongoing research, and keep us all informed.
|> 
|> Regards,
|>           Jim Atwell          |  UFO Research (SA) Inc.
|>                               |  PO Box 281
|>           Fidonet             |  Blair Athol SA 5084
|>           3:800/851           |  Australia
|> 
|> 
|> ___
|>  * CRR QWK 1.40 *
|> 
|>  * Origin: Biz-Nice! S.Oz Business BBS! 4 Lines 08-269 7029/7809 (3:800/851)
|> 

-- 
***********************************************************************
| Leonard E. Spani      |       //!?\\         | (disclaimer-p)       |
| spani@mprgate.mpr.ca  |       \\?!//         | t                    |
*****************-<( "everybody thinks I'm paranoid" )>-***************
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors