Alien Abductions
Alien Abductions and Hypnosis
Alien Abductions and Hypnosis
TECHNIQUE OUT-OF-CONTROL UFO MAGAZINE, VOL. 4 NO.2 1989
After I first encountered the visitors, I turned to my doctor. When I realized that intelligent non-humans might be involved, I consulted a UFO investigator. He led me to Dr. Donald Klein, one of the most respected psychiatrists in the profession and also a hypnotist with many years' experience.
Since then, I have seen what I feel are abuses perpetrated by "investigators" who are really nothing more than part time, unlicensed and mental health counselors. They are carrying out their activities in an inappropriate, misguided and dangerous effort to use hypnosis to build a so-called "credible" case for UFO abduction.
Abduction research may not even be possible utilizing hypnosis; even highly trained hypnotists cannot use the technique reliably for retrieving basic factual information. Until there is a base of information gained from unhypnotized subjects, it must properly remain a therapeutic tool, not an investigative one.
The so called "abduction narrative," which has been gained primarily from hypnotically-induced recall, probably does not reflect actual experience, but rather the application of the subject's worst fears to their most enigmatic experiences.
When he first interviewed me, Dr. Klein explained why we would never uncover a final explanation through my hypnosis. This is because the regressed subject is susceptible to cues from the hypnotist, to an unknown degree. Thus, it can never be known how much even the most objective hypnotist has influenced the outcome of the regression. However, we did have my extensive conscious memories to use as a base. Often conscious memories are sketchy or even nonexistent.
Hypnosis is often cited as a means of gathering legal evidence. Strictly speaking this is not true. Information from a regressed subject is sometimes used in the context of other evidence, but it is not itself evidence. A hypnotized subject's recollection of the license number of a car is worthless as evidence unless the actual car can be found and
determined to have possibly been at the scene.
Hypnosis can be useful to gain access to the memories of someone suffering from traumatic amnesia. But only if those memories receive other, independent support do they obtain the weight of evidence.
An example: a witness sees a child run down by a car which whips around the corner and disappears. it can be established that the witness saw the back of the car, but he recalls only its color and general shape. he is hypnotized and remembers that it was a Pontiac, and the first three letters of the license number were XYZ, and the car was being driven by
a young man. The police find such a car owned by such a driver. Impact marks confirm their suspicions and the young man is arrested.
The evidence is not testimony given under hypnosis, it is the hard facts obtained as a result of that testimony.
But the regressed testimony of UFO witnesses cannot currently be confirmed by hard facts. While I have in my files dozens of cases of witnessed visitations and abductions, there are absolutely none where evidence of what took place while the witness was with the visitors can be supported in any way except by that person's own testimony or the testimony of witnesses. Hard facts remain impossible to obtain. Still, the sheer weight of the existing conscious unhypnotized testimony strongly suggest that something real is happening.
But there remains an enormous, overwhelming difficulty with trying to use hypnotized testimony as evidence of real events, even when that testimony agrees in particulars among a group of unconnected witnesses. This is especially true of testimony obtained by investigators--even professionals--whose views on UFOs are known by their subjects, because there is obviously no way to tell whether or not the subject has a hidden wish to comply with the known beliefs of the hypnotist-- a wish
that will be greatly magnified by the highly suggestible state that the subject will enter when regressed.
But hypnosis as a counseling device--that's another story. I think it has a very useful place as a therapeutic tool, as it is uniquely capable of enabling the subject to break fear-amnesia.
If anyone is to counsel people in situations as sensitive as that of a close-encounter witness, it seems essential that the counselors involved be trained, subject to confidentiality requirements and governed by a peer review process. There is a tendency among abduction researchers--largely untrained in the scientific method and unrestrained by licensing--to be less than objective in their treatment of witnesses and to summarily dismiss evidence not consistent with their previous findings.
I have come to believe that many techniques used by amateur investigators are not just suspect, but disastrous. They amount to a form of unintentional but devastatingly effective brainwashing that denies witnesses access to the truth of their experiences as they originally perceived them. I define the word "amateur" very narrowly; it means someone who has not been formally trained and who does not answer to any professional review board.
Some of what I have heard from witnesses reveals what problems can be caused by this. One witness wrote, "My fear is that if I contact you, I will be kicked out of the. . .group. She added, "I have turned to your book for comfort even though I am not supposed to read it." This sounds more like the concerns of a member of a religious organization than of someone connected with a group of witnesses to an experience as unknown as close encounter, and reflects the propensity of less-than-impartial
investigators to compel witnesses to think in compliance with their pet theories.
The "experimenter effect" is a well-known problem in behavioral science research. In his book, Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research,(Irvington Press, 1976) Dr. Robert Rosenthal states, "the expectations of the scientist are likely to affect the choice of the experimental design and procedure in such a way as to increase the likelihood that his expectation or hypothesis will be supported." But there are no experimental designs in abduction research and no controls, protocols or standards, per se. It is a matter of amateur investigators
hypnotizing people and reporting the results when they tell stories compatible with the investigators' theories.
Right now, a limited scenario of abduction appears to be in fashion among such investigators. The scenario centers around sexual activities and renders stories of women being given gynecological examinations and having their ova extracted by a form of amniocentesis. Men are having semen extracted by a painful vacuum process or are being subjected to sessions of sexual intercourse with aliens--often quite peculiar-looking ones.
I am not trying to deny that witnesses have reported terrible things in connections with their close encounters. But nothing is going to be proved one way or the other by investigators who seem driven almost to a state of hysteria by the apparent horrors their studies have unearthed.
Another correspondent of mine wrote, "When I drew a picture of the object they [the abductors] wanted to put on the inside of my thigh, (the investigator) seemed to be disappointed because it didn't match any design or shape he had seen before."
At this stage of investigation on this enigma, such a stance by an investigator is clearly very immature and not reflective of a properly objective outlook. A good researcher must maintain a stance of absolute objectivity about the matter under study. And he or she must not be to quick to seek for the results when in fact, little is known.
When the free narratives are examined, it quickly becomes obvious that the witness experience is vastly complicated and full of unknowns. The scenario mentioned above, with its general focus on the reproductive and genetic details found in some abduction accounts, may also be a premature reference point for investigators. Of the 690 narratives sent to me by Communion and Transformation readers, only a few appear to support these present theories of abduction. The vast majority instead describe the perceptions and experiences far stranger than any reported
by mainstream abduction researchers. But they are not simply unconscious processes; many of them involve multiple witnesses. In fact, just under half of our narratives mention some sort of independent witness at the outset of the encounter. Many of these witnesses have been contacted and their stories corroborated.
Some abduction narrative examples that suggest major overlooked unknowns: "I knew they were aliens because they had flowers and plants growing out of their heads. When they would bend over, I felt the dirt from the tops of their heads falling on me."
"They showed me arms and legs (of their type) growing out of big aluminum pots."
"All of a sudden the little man turned into a bird of paradise"
'They wanted me to marry a big bug."
These strange but repeated themes certainly do not suggest a study by a coldly objective group of alien scientists. They suggest that we have a lot of questions still to answer.
When I wrote Transformation, I was religious about including every bizarre detail, no matter how crazy it made me look and how much ammunition it gave my detractors. Why? Because we do not know what is true, and until we do we must not edit testimony or it becomes absolutely worthless, even as an aid in developing effective therapeutic strategies.
The point of publishing witness testimony is not to make it seem credible and believable, but to expose it as it really is. Unless we do this we have no chance at all of getting at the truth.
Since I wrote Communion, I have received over 7,000 letters thousands of which contain extensive narratives of experience. The highest incoming volume has been recorded in the three months after my new book Transformation appeared. The high strangeness of many of the episodes recorded in that book opened a floodgate of response. This happened because my testimony was closer than ever before to what witnesses are actually perceiving.
Because of the high level strangeness of the witnesses' actual material and their pervasive fear of ridicule, the UFO community must create an atmosphere of absolute openness to all reports, and not edit narratives prematurely. Witnesses must not be made to fear rejection or actually be dismissed from support groups because of the strangeness of their reports. Another witness complains of an investigator, "He and his
associates make no secret they think I'm prime material for the looney lounge." This individual also claims that she was dismissed from her "abductee" group for her beliefs and ideas.
The reason that this kind of thing happens is that investigators are looking very hard for consistent groups of facts, while witnesses are looking for support and counseling. There are two very different objectives and do not mix.
A woman recently called a well known investigator to report an experience and ask if she should be hypnotized. When she tried to tell the story, the investigator kept interrupting her to ask if she had been given a gynecological examination by the aliens. Finally she gave up, realizing that this was the only thing he cared about.
We have under 50 narratives on file which report gynecological examination by aliens, although many correspondents report their interest in observing or manipulating their sexual organs. Among unhypnotized correspondents, only one even mentioned a needle entering the abdomen for an apparent amniocentesis. More often, witnesses report examinations of their heads.
Are researchers interested in alien examination of sexual organs because this is actually a central feature of the encounter experience, or because sexual organs are a central concern of human beings?
It would seem that nobody except a professionally trained hypnotist--preferably one with the credentials and ethical considerations of a mental health professional--should hypnotize any UFO witness fro any reason, and then only for therapeutic purposes. Both free and regressed narratives should be interpreted by behavioral psychologists and other professionals skilled in the process.
Present theories about the nature and content of the experience should be called into most rigorous question and the community should open its mind to high-level strangeness.
Close encounter witnesses are often a deeply troubled and vulnerable group of people. They live, many of them, with bizarre memories that they must keep secret. Every night, they must face their questions and their fears. And they must do this alone.
If counseling is to be offered by non-professionals then the UFO community should create a contract including a confidentiality requirement to be signed by the counselor involved, and counselors should accept the legal liability that such a contract would imply.
Lest it be assumed that investigators already adhere to high standards of confidentiality, I would like to point out some recent lapses. In a magazine article, an investigator mentioned the true name of a witness, and offered sufficient details of her testimony for her to be immediately recognizable among her personal friends, and among her
acquaintances in the UFO community. He then stated his objectives to her "religious" interpretation of her experiences.
She was deeply hurt by this and her standing among her peers was damaged by the fact that the highly-respected investigator had disclosed a negative opinion of her.
One of the witnesses mentioned in a recent book wrote to me that "(The investigator) was present as a guest and observer at a hypnosis regression" of the witness, "and she was asked not to reveal any of the findings. Our experience has never been published until a couple of months ago. it was done behind our backs. . . .(this investigator) has made us look like fools and left us open for public ridicule." The fact that this witness had reported her experience verbally before a meeting of UFO investigators by no means justified its being made public without
her permission.
Close-encounter witnesses should be offered the same level of confidentiality by the UFO community that mental health professionals offer their patients and that behavioral scientists assure their research subjects. Their narratives are one of the community's most precious resources. It must not be abused, and the witnesses courageous enough to bring forward their stories must be treated with the greatest respect.
If otherwise, this resource will be lost.
