HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:35:47 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:44:23 GMT
>FROM:   Robert Sheaffer <sheaffer@netcom.com>
>
>In article <rlewis.724193757@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis) writes:
>>
>>1)  Is there any 'objective' evidence for the repression of horrific
>>memories?  I wonder about this because it seems that only certain sorts
>>of events (like ritual abuse) come up in the context of such repression
>>whereas others, such as having been in a concentration camp (which
>>surely is at least as horrific) never do. 

Memories of single, short term, unpleasant experiences apparently fade
quite rapidly.  Exposures to a pattern of painful events are
remembered more completely than are pleasant ones, and require fewer
repetitions for ingraining the memories. The ancient Lashley jumping-stand 
experiments ('30s ?) were early evidence for this.  
>
[...]
>Many therapists express a belief in "hidden memories," but the evidence
>supporting this is very thin. A new book is of interest:

All but 2-dimensional.  8^)  Psychologists have a proclivity for pointless
neologism, and "cryptoamnesia" is not only a wasted expansion of the
vocabulary but etymologically incorrect.  Amnesia is the loss of memory,
i.e. the memories are alread hidden.  At the very least, "cryptoamnesia"
is redundant.  Hiding something which is lost falls right in with
perceiving things which are below the limits of perception, the
ever-popular, self-contradictory "subliminal perception".

>>
>>2)  Assuming that there is the repression of memory (or even just that
>>we are dealing with the normal process of forgetting) is there any 
>>evidence that hypnosis can somehow help in 'retreiving' such memories.


>
>   Another book by Baker, also from Prometheus (1991):
>
>   They Call it Hypnosis
>
>   Voted "Oustanding Academic Book for 1991" - Choice
>
>   In this definitive study Baker traces the history and current status
>   of the hypnotic concept, explaining what hypnosis is and is not, 
>   what it can and cannot accomplish, as well as its uses, misuses, and
>   abuses.
>
>   313 pages - ISBN 0-87975-576-8  $23.93.
>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>  

The (Great, Amazing, Fantastic?) Kreskin once claimed that hypnosis
doesn't even exist.  Does Dr. Baker reach a similar conclusion?

-jim tims

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:29:31 GMT

In article <723869794.AA08733@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
}Tuesday December 01 1992, James Meritt writes to All:
}
}JM> That's nice.  Do you think that God thought in Arabic, King James's
}JM> English, or any other mortal tongue?  And if not, wouldn't ANYTHING
}JM> that is codefied suffer the same "change and loss of meaning"?
}
}Obviously the Divine Language is Hebrew. This can be easily demonstrated by the
}fact that Adam spoke it before languages were divided, as recorded in the
}Bible. I have no doubt that this argument will immediately win hearts and minds
}in this newsgroup.

No, that is Adam's language (hack hack hack).  What did God think in before
Adam?  You know - what was "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" expressed as?
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Info wanted on Halton Arp
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:57:15 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <724619106.AA00810@contrast.wlink.nl>, qsi@contrast.wlink.nl (Peter Kocourek) writes:
>In a recent discussion, someone mentioned to me a certain guy named Halton
>Arp, who supposedly has "disproven the Big Bang" theory, by showing that
>there are flows of matter between quasars and galaxies, with the
>implication that the quasars aren't as far away as thought.

He's shown no such thing.  What he HAS done is sorted through a lot of
astronomical images involving quasars and found a few instances where the
quasar and a relatively nearby galaxy are almost in line of sight, and in which 
there is some sort of nebulous material that happens to enclose both the galaxy
and the quasar IN THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL PROJECTION.

From this, he reached the conclusion you stated above, and decided that he
needed time on some four-meter scopes to decide things.  Of course, observing
time on four-meter scopes is rather scarce, so the groups that schedule such
time require that one demonstrate that your project is worth pursuing. 
Apparently Arp did not do that to the satisfaction of the groups that schedule
time on such scopes.  If I recall correctly, what they demanded was that, before
being given time on the scopes, he do a statistical analysis to show that the
stuff he's got photographs of can't be explained by chance.

>He even is
>supposed to have "photographs" proving this. It would seem to me, without
>knowing anything further about this, that this is just a misinterpretation
>of optically close objects.

That's one explanation, and Arp hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, given any
strong argument that rules out that possibility.

>Does anyone know more about (the refutation of) Halton Arp's theories?

As far as I know (and please note my sig), Arp hasn't made a persuasive enough
argument for his claim to get any other scientists to take it seriously enough
to refute it.  Basically, a first cut at refutation would entail doing the
survey of pictures of quasars, and the statistical analysis that Arp should
have done himself.  If Arp's not willing to do that, why should anybody do his
work for him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why Not NT Scholars? [was _The First Coming_ by T. Sheenan]
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:47:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <GERRY.92Dec11104022@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>
>You never did reply to my (very) short note about _The First Coming_
>by Sheenan.  Anyway, he would disagree with you here.  He claimed that
>the resurrection was ONLY in Simon Peter's mind, and that whether hte
>body was there or not is comletely immaterial.  Since you have almost
>certainly read his book, how do you respond to his theory?

Sorry to disappoint you, but actually I did *not* see this book
yet. So I can't really say anything about his argument.
I'm afraid I don't see how the alleged resurrection could be
"only" in one individual's mind, and if so, WHICH individual?

To make any sense of the resurrection story, the accounts must be placed in
the order THEY WERE WRITTEN, rather than in the rather arbitrary NT order.
This makes Paul's account the earliest. Paul basically said, "I had a
vision in the desert!" and actually I *might* perhaps be willing to
agree that he did. The oldest gospel originally contained no post-
resurrection appearances. Gradually, these accounts got more specific,
and more tangible, as time passed. So, what I think happened was (and
perhaps I should apologize for using this example!): the very first
"visions" of Jesus were like the contemporary claims "I saw Elvis!" As
time passed, and the lack of real evidence was criticised, new
scriptural passages were written to "provide" the evidence that was
previously lacking. 

As for the claim that someone "moved the body," the matter comes up in *so
many* independent sources that I am inclined to think that this may
have actually happened. Remember that the period of Jesus' "temporary
death" is supposed to be only from the START of the Sabbath (sundown
on Friday) until the sunrise following its end (Sunday morning). 
This in essence placed a "blackout" on the period when Jesus' grave might
have been visited. But if somebody didn't CARE about the Sabbath,
and went out and dragged the body away, well, there wouldn't be anyone
else out wandering about to see this. They'd all be either at home,
or at services. So there'd be a big surprise on the day after the
Sabbath!


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Why is it up in both directions?? (Was Re: Up is up)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:38:34 GMT

In article <595@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes...
>In article <1992Dec6.214338.23434@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>>If you were _just_ west of Denver on I-70-- say, the roadcut thru the
>>hogback-- then what you were probably seeing was the concavity of the
>>path of the highway.  If a highway is level or shallowly sloped at 
> 
>	Another possibility occurs to me. In the original post, the 
>person mentioned noticing this phenomenon in the mirror.

Oops!  I'm the original poster, and I didn't mean to say that it
was only effective via the rear-view mirror.

It was also true when turning around and looking through the rear
window.


Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Date: 18 Dec 92 10:56:41 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <BzD93F.Jur@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
#
#In situations with strong "demand characteristics", that is where there
#is a definite social goal that is important, the recollection process
#may be highly influenced by this goal.  Incompetent hypnotists
#may produce false recollections by feeding the subject hints about
#the "right answer", which can strongly influence the reconstruction
#of memories.  The really bad news is that once such a recollection
#has been constructed, it often cannot be distinguished from a real
#memory by the person.  Thus, cloddy hypnotists can not only lead
#the subject's answer, they can actually create false memories.
#This is, in fact, what Budd Hopkins and co-workers are doing to 
#their abduction victims.

I submit that in many cases "multiple personalities" are also
created this way. 

JWN

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Hoagland?  What's the deal?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:49:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

Most of the stuff I can find on Hoagland and the 'face on Mars' is over 2
years old.  Has any new light been brought to bear on this subject?  Is he
still an issue?

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Boxer.
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Ball lightning? (is there such a thing?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:39:44 GMT

In article <6737@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.184414.25344@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> pepke@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>>I have seen speculation that "ball lightning" is made of little balls of 
>>plasma that bounce around until they run out of heat.  It seems plausible. 
>
>No.  The color in the descriptions of ball lightning doesn't fit the
>plasma theory.  A plasma should be really HOT. 
>Also, a blob of hot gas would rise, and it has struck me that most descriptions
>of ball lightning indicate that the thing (?) must be heavier than air. It 
>either floats or it comes down, or it moves erratically across the ground.

You are right. The descriptions of ball lightning do *not* seem to
match "plasma balls". Unfortunately, they *do* seem in many cases to
match "after-images" of bright flashes.

I'm sorry. I'd like to believe in them, too......


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
From: crew@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What is qat? 
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:57:31 -0600
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Dec11.181114.1@stsci.edu>, hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
> Info please! 
> 
> Reports on the operation in Somalia mention a plant chewed by many 
> Somalias called 'qat', usually described (as in today's Washington Post) 
> as "a mildly narcotic leaf" used "as a stimulant".  A speaker on a TV 
> news also recently described it as "a narcotic, a stimulant".  
> ... 
> My question is on the use of the two words "narcotic" and "stimulant". 
> How can something that stimulates be considered a narcotic which 
> presumably indicates narcosis, numbness, stupor or sleep.  Seems to 
> me to be incompatible. 
> 
> I've heard the word narcotic abused this way by the crime industry - as 
> in "Cocaine is a narcotic!", but it seems so wrong.   So, are there some 
> medical, pharmological, or chemical classification reasons this word is 
> being used for stimulants (Uppers are Downers?), or has it (as I suspect) 
> been deliberately misused as a loaded word for political purposes for so 
> long that it has become accepted usage?  
> 
> Any experts on this?  
> 
> Thank you,  WHH 
> 

The Federal government encourages this misuse of the word narcotic with its
ridiculous classification of drugs into different "schedules," according to
their accepted medical use and "abuse potential." State laws will frequently
refer to a drug as a "narcotic" because it is classified as "Schedule I," which
includes opiates and opiate derivatives (the drugs you usually think of as
narcotics); but Schedule I also includes marijuana, LSD, and PCP.
Qat is a flowering evergreen shrub; the shoots and
the leaves contain an amphetamine-like substance.  Chewing a mouthful of the
leaves and then swallowing them apparently has about the same stimulant effect
as a really strong cup or two of coffee.  Firsthand reports indicate that it
has a bitter, astringent taste.  By the way, it's classified as a Schedule IV
controlled substance, along with the painkiller Darvon and minor tranquilizers
like diazepam (Valium).  For a good reference on all this, see James Inciardi,
The War on Drugs II (Mayfield 1992).
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
Date: 18 Dec 92 09:56:58
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
	<1992Dec14.034645.791@hfsi.uucp> <1992Dec15.002757.14586@netcom.com>
	<1992Dec17.180435.17980@hfsi.uucp>
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: ata@hfsi.uucp's message of 17 Dec 92 18:04:35 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:

   If an author "copies" one account from another changing a few
   particulars as you characterize the Gospels (I think this is an
   unfair characterization, it is more accurate to say that they were
   based off of a common source) ...

Then it's safe to say that you don't understand the issue at hand.

The authors of the various synoptic Gospels _aren't_ simply telling
the same the story.  They are by and large, in detail, using the _same
words_.  Moreover, where they vary from each other --including the
introduction and exclusion of specific materials-- it is done in a
consistent and clear manner.

There is _no_ sign that these Gospels are the result of random,
independent creation.

One is, of course, free not to accept the standard model of how the
Synoptic Gospels achieved there current state.  However, one is _not_
free to completely ignore the data.

The current state of the text of these Gospels has certain specific
and well-defined characteristics.  And claiming that the Gospels were
written by seperate authors working in complete independence and
isolation doesn't come close to explaining those characteristics.

N
From: delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:52:27 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: darkwing.uoregon.edu

In article <DLB.92Dec18172154@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:

>I actually don't think there has been a comparative study.  Enhanced
>suggestibility is certainly a characteristic of hypnosis; however, it
>is certainly NOT unique to hypnosis.
>
>Check out some of the recent work on eye-witness testimony in legal
>mags.  I can't give the exact reference --- Mama is a lawyer, and I
>read it when I go over there.  Some of the psychological journals have
>undoubtedly duplicated this, as the law articles gave references to
>them.

A lot of the seminal work in this area is by Elizabeth Loftus, a
psychologist at the University of Washington; she has a book,
_Eyewitness Testimony_, which is several years old, and I think at least
one more since.  Her general conclusions are just what you are
suggesting, i.e. that memory is quite unreliable and very susceptible to
alteration or reconstruction in the course of questioning or discussion.
(I don't know if she discusses hypnosis anywhere).
-- 
Scott DeLancey			delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403, USA
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hollow Earth
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:36:28 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

I'm sort of an amateur 'expert' on Hollow Earth theories.  If anyone is
interested, I can post my anotated list of Hollow Earth Classics.

In article <1go4erINNik@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1g8sl0INNi60@pith.uoregon.edu>, adams@bright.uoregon.edu (Jeff Adams) writes:
>>2. We all know that the center of gravity of a hollow earth would
>>still be the center of the sphere.  How does he think people stay on
>>the inside of the shell?
>
One Hollow Earth book held the view that there is not a 'center of gravity',
but that the 'center' was within the shell fo the Hollow earth at an equal
distance from the surface.  Thus if you were  on the outer surface or the inner
surface or passing thru the polar holes, gravity never changeed.

>
>>3. Is there light inside the earth, according to the claims?
>>
Depends on who's making the claim.  Early books held that light in the center
came from sunlight passing thru the polar openings or from forest fires,
later proponets claimed a miniture sun in the center.  Such a sun is impossible,
but that doesn't stop such people.

>>4. Does he try to explain away things like satellite photos, research
>>stations in Antarctica, the weight of the earth, seismic waves, etc.,
>>or does he claim they are all governmental misinformation, or what?
>
>If the book was published in the (early) '60s, it's unlikely that he'd try to
>explain away satellite photos.

Actually some have tried to use satellite photos to PROVE a hollow Earth.
Ray Palmer of _Fate_ magazine published a satelitle photo set that had a 
large dark spot at the pole.  His claim was that the dark spot was the 
Polar Opening.  Others have tried to claim the reflecction from the polar
caps of Mars was really light from Mars interior sun and that the Ring Nebulae
was proof that all planets form as hollow shells around a star.


-- 
<< Michael Rogero Brown                      | Disclaimer: I speak     >>
<< CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ |  only for myself.       >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu        | All my opinions are     >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                    |  that: mine & opinions. >>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Unidentified Flaming Objects -- ball lightning?
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:50:36 GMT

In article <Bz3KL2.LCu@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>Quoting p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) in article <2933004560.1.p00168@psilink.com>:
>>
>>I have seen ball lightning. (Do I hear skeptical snickering?)  
>
>Being skeptical of everything that isn't already well understood gives
>ammunition to pseudoscientists and mystics, because you end up being
>wrong quite a lot.

I'm really surprised that the field seems to be ignored as much as
it is. Even if it isn't useful it would still be a very interesting
thing to study. 

Of course it might be useful if it is indeed possible to make aself
supporting systems capable of storing large amounts of energy out
of plain air.

Ball lightning powered cars :-)

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .