After reviewing much of the material I have gathered regarding abductions and hypnosis I have noticed a blatant disregard by those in the field of abduction investigation of
the credible research calling into question its dubious reality.
In case after case I have found convictions based upon "repressed memory revealed through hypnosis" being overturned, accusations of child abuse based in the same being shown to be fabricated, various hypnotherapists and psychologists using RM in their work being sued or having licenses revoked for improper conduct, and top notch institutions denying its use due to severe unreliability and a lack of scientific supporting evidence for
the theory of repressed memory.
In her book "The myth of Repressed Memory" Elizabeth Loftus describes her role in the trial of George Franklin. In this trial Franklin was accused by his daughter of sexually assaulting and murdering her friend when she was a child after having "recalled" the event 20 years later under hypnosis. Despite Loftus' testimony describing the severe flaws in the theory of RM and the proven possibilty of leading a person to form false memories he was convicted. Some years later he was set free.
Why? It was shown that her testimony was not credible due to being her memory of the incident having been induced through hypnosis.
In another court case the rulings made within it are very telling. Dr. Mumenansky, a St. Paul psychiatrist who employed a controversial treatment known as "recovered memory therapy" found herself before a court facing charges of malpractice. Seems she led a patient "Elizabeth Carlson" to confabulate memories which caused her family severe harm. She also faced and lost to similar charges brought about in another case by "Vynnette Hamanne". What was the courts presiding judge's ruling who happens to be one of the most highly regarded in his state in this instance? Here it is verbatim. "that the theory that humans are capable of "repressing" or "dissociating" memories of numerous traumas in childhood
is not a credible scientific theory and thus could not be presented to the jury."
President of the National Association for Consumer Protection in Mental Health Practices, Dr. Barden - who also serves on the Minnesota State Board of Psychology - issued the following statement:
"These cases demonstrate that therapists must obey the informed consent laws or face serious legal consequences. Bogus theories such as "repression" and unproven treatments for junk science illnesses such as "multiple personality disorder" may not be used on American citizens until they have been proven safe and effective by reliable scientific research. Millions of dollars of taxpayers money are wasted every year on these experimental and potentially dangerous forms of mental health treatment and it is time for such unethical practices to cease. Until the professional associations and licensing boards stop these dangerous practices, victims of quack psychotherapies will continue to turn to the courts for justice."
And in yet another case we have Kathleen King Goodfriend. A psychotherapist who despite DNA evidence to the contrary managed to convince an 8 year old girl her father molested her. Of course, her license is history and the courts ruled against her.
Still more experts in the field of psychology have made it very clear they consider RM to be nothing more than junk science.
Such as Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist at UC-Berkeley.
"The recovered memory epidemic is the psychological-psychiatric quackery of the 20th century," Ofshe said.
Another, Dr. John McGrath, AMA delegate from the American Psychiatric Association, said that in trying to enhance a person's memory a psychotherapist faces the danger of implanting false memories.
"We are not aware of what the "techniques' of "memory enhancement' are," McGrath said. "There are no standards. There are no procedures."
Here is another small tidbit regarding RM and the findings of various other states courts regarding it. "numerous memory and trauma experts testified that over a century of research supports the notion that human beings remember trauma and are, in fact, haunted b vivid memories of war, sexual abuse, rape, car accidents, and other forms of trauma. The notion that many people somehow "block out" or "repress" of "dissociate" the memories of such experiences is simply not supported by credible scientific evidence. The idea that therapists can help patients "recover" such "repressed" memories is simply junk science, said the experts. Relying on this large and growing body of scientific evidence, courts in a number of states (Hungerford in New Hampshire; Maskell in Maryland; Engstrom in California; Hamanne in Minnesota; Carlson in Minnesota) have ruled that the theory of "repression" is a junk science notion that may not be used to mislead or confuse juries."
So if repressed memory has been proven beyond doubt to be a highly suspect theory with no supporting evidence for it being a credible scientific reality then why is it used so much in alien abduction claims? I believe its very flaws to be why it is so attractive to those in the field of abduction research. Through a
careful implanting of suggestion and a subsequent leading of the subject to a preconcieved conclusion of alien abduction these "researchers" validate their personal beliefs and perpetuate a myth which provides quite a sizeable income.
In another instance I found still more damning information regarding RM and its application.
Britains Royal College of Psychiatrists has ruled that "there is no evidence that recovered memory techniques can reveal memory of real events or accurately elaborate factual information about past experiences."
Those who attempt to continue employing RM in their professions in Britain face being brought up on charges of malpractice and misconduct. Why so stern a stance by Britains heads of psychiatry regarding RM? Because of the damage its use has caused and the huge possibilty for it to escalate further if its use were allowed to continue.
The American AMA has reached similar conclusions.
"The use of recovered memories is fraught with problems of potential misapplication," their policy statement says.
Also, "Few cases in which adults make accusations of childhood sexual abuse based on recovered memories can be proved or disproved," the policy says. "It is not yet known how to distinguish true memories from imagined events in these cases."
It seems there are quite a few valid concerns regarding RM. Hell, even in the most gentle of criticisms it seems a serious concern over the possibility of innocently implanting false memories through hypnosis and RM is expressed. What about those in the field of alien abduction research? Are they so consumate in their endeavours that they would not fall into the pitfalls even innocently? I doubt it. Funny, but I haven't found any of the top names in alien abduction research mentioned anywhere in any of the literature regarding these actions and court cases. Interesting considering they bill themselves as experts. One would think they should figure prominently in these cases due to their heavy use of RM therapy. I believe this is an indicator of just how highly regarded they are by the psychiatric profession as a whole and their disregard for what is accepted methodology within it.
But here we are, seeing Hopkins, Strieber, Carpenter and others employing repressed memory therapy to support abduction claims almost religiously. I thought these guys were supposed to be experts? Don't they stay current on the latest developments regarding their tools of the trade? If they do then why ignore all the information and professional conclusions made by their peers and profession regarding the myth of repressed memory?
In my opinion it is because they know all too well that without it their claims will fall flat and their books just wont sell.