Budd Hopkins on the Paracast

[Rocketsauce]

Man, what a great show! I still have 30 mins to finish but to hear the paracast cover the abduction phenomena is great.

Regarding the Corso book, one of Budd's main criticisms was why wait 15 years to do research on the wreckage and why were there left over pieces all those years later etc....

Having read the book (and I could be wrong) but I seem to remember that Corso strongly implied there was an 'insider' UFO group that had top scientists etc... which neither he nor the many others in the intelligence field had any access to. So I believe Budd is wrong about this particular part of the book, in Corso's story there was a committee of special access top scientists which had the majority of the UFO research which was not something he or his army or even CIA colleagues had access to.

Also, I don't recall the wreckage of the craft being 'officially' split up among the various agencies, it seemed more like Army Intelligence was able to secure some of the scrappy leftovers and because of Russian infiltration of US intelligence every scrap that was retained outside of this inner circle was strongly guarded. I would be surprised that in the event a spacecraft crash landed that things ran as smoothly as Budd suggests There was likely a lot of running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to figure out how to handle this and during this time, there were probably competing agencies trying to get their digs on certain pieces.

While it is insane that Corso would try to take credit for saving Italy, I tend to believe much of the basics to his story is likely true, that Roswell was a non human craft which crashed and we secured the wreckage and that this technology provided us a leg up on the Russians.

I do think Corso likely spun the crap out of it to make his personal contribution seem much more than it was however. In other words, perhaps computer chips were already created and his debris had little to no influence and Corso is nothing more than a gloried bureaucrat, but one that was indeed trusted to find a way to get certain left over pieces that the Army was able to acquire into the private sector without anyone being none the wiser.

In the book Corso does imply that the actual 'technical' history/timeline of the development of the chip was possibly tweaked to better hide any Roswell influence, but that could be him trying to figure out a way to make himself seem more important.

I think Corso will be a controversial character for a long long time..........

Budd's assessment on Jim Sparks was really interesting and I think could potentially be right on. That Jim either spun his reality to alter the initial abduction experiences for him from one of pure terror to one of enlightenment. I don't blame him. It's also entirely possible Jim abductees are doing some very misleading psych testing on him as well and are making him believe stuff that isn't real.

Regarding the Military abduction stuff, I disagree with Bud and think staging abductions is something that could likely be done with the right mix of technology and mind altering techniques.

One theory I've heard frequently on the Paranormal radio network is that the black budget people do recon on those who they believe have been abducted to try and learn more about the beings agenda. So they may stage a fake abduction after a real abduction has taken place to try and learn more about the subject and the abductors. To approach someone about abductions in straightforward manner during the day would admit that the gov investigates abductions and maybe they can somehow spin the abduction experience to suit an agenda as well. I would not be surprised if Lockheed does have UFO looking craft, it would make a lot of sense because then the US military could engage in missions and if they are seen by the enemy perhaps the enemy will just think it's a UFO, not the US.

Some have suggested that the Hill's initial abduction was real, but the one in which they were shown a 'star map' was a followed up military abduction.

But really, at the end of the day, I have no fricken idea!!!!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I loved the show. Very glad they had him on. I got a kick out of Budd's response to Jim's abduction counseling for a hundred bucks an hour, or whatever it is.

 

[jritzmann]

I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous to me that the man essentially says hypnotic sessions are not putting someone in a highly suggestive state. Or, that it's difficult to lead someone.

It's absurd. And it's obvious to me that he's protecting decades of it's use, and his work/findings.

 

[Rocketsauce]

I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous to me that the man essentially says hypnotic sessions are not putting someone in a highly suggestive state. Or, that it's difficult to lead someone.

It's absurd. And it's obvious to me that he's protecting decades of it's use, and his work/findings.

What is the mainstream academic/scientific take on regression? Have there been mainstream scientific studies on it as it relates to traumatic events?

Budd definitely has years of investment in this approach, so he is biased for sure, and if he is 'licensed' in this without having gone to medical school, it seems like it would be fairly easy for anyone to get certified. I think it does set a dangerous president if any person interested in the topic can go out and get certified and start regressing potential abductees, particularly if the scientific evidence has shown that regressing can be harmful and have consequences.

At the same time, I bet there is slim pickings for finding a professional shrink who is familiar with this topic and can help someone understand the what happened to them, particularly one that takes your health insurance plan So I bet some abductees are forced to go to the back alley to get help with this stuff instead of being able to walk through the front door, so they may be inherently pushed to the fringe where their only source of hope in understanding are people like Budd.

IMO, the larger reoccurring patterns Bud has discovered over 3 decades using this approach as well as talking with people who were conscious during their experience is important and should not be discounted even if regression is bunk, since it appears (and I could be wrong!) there are enough people who are conscious to support many of these patterns.

So I think his work is useful in that regard and while regression may do more harm than good (I don't know???) I can't fault Budd for using a tool he genuinely believes is effective and as far as I know is not illegal. If more PhD psychiatrists took an active role in helping abductees perhaps Budd's services wouldn't be needed. But it's hard to engage the mainstream when much of the evidence seems so misleading and hard to pin down and there is no textbook on how to deal with this stuff (Yet!) .

Personally, if I was an abductee however, I would not get regressed. Ignorance is bliss!

 

[jritzmann]

What is the mainstream academic/scientific take on regression? Have there been mainstream scientific studies on it as it relates to traumatic events?

That it should only be used in very specific situations. Most of the psych community I've spoken with over the years find it's use in this topic reprehensible.

 

[Cosmic Ejaculator 1814]

I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous to me that the man essentially says hypnotic sessions are not putting someone in a highly suggestive state. Or, that it's difficult to lead someone.

It's absurd. And it's obvious to me that he's protecting decades of it's use, and his work/findings.

I agree with you and was a little disappointed that G & D didn't push him harder on that...

There was another thing I noticed that kinda surprised me - at one point, (1:53) right at the end of the show,the topic of the origin the UFO phenomenon came up.In that discussion Budd made a joke about some guy who had said that he didn't believe the occupants were extraterrestrial,because; "they didn't act like it".From what I could hear,Dave's reply was:"that's silly".

I found his response confusing,since Paracast Super Hero,Jacques Vallee,has been saying this the last 40 years...

 

[Ally]

I agree with Jeff with Bud's use of hypnotic regression. Getting the right type of help if you have been abducted is a difficult task.

I think Bud has some tunnel vision when it comes to his three decades of research. He said there he hasn't found any proof for the military type of abductions and couldn't or wouldn't grasp what David was trying to imply when David asked well how would you know the difference? IMO

 

[valiens]

Hey here's another lie you guys just caught Jim Sparks in:

His claim to fame is that he's the only abductee to have full memories sans hypnosis. Well, didn't Budd just say he regressed Jim himself???????

 

[Rocketsauce]

Hey here's another lie you guys just caught Jim Sparks in:

His claim to fame is that he's the only abductee to have full memories sans hypnosis. Well, didn't Budd just say he regressed Jim himself???????

I think he said he just worked with Jim and thought he has some real experiences, I don't remember him saying he regressed Jim, but I didn't take notes.

As I recall though, that is how Jim markets himself, the dude with the most recall. I think being the abductee with the largest rat tail would be a better angle though.

 

[taldwarf]

As you continue diving deeper into this abyss, that Cheshire Cat's grin just gets curiouser and curiouser. It was a great interview G & D, yet had holes the size of claymore mined oiltankers in it. Digging out truths from truth is....... mind boggling. Can't wait to see what/who resurfaces in future epi's?

 

[Rocketsauce]

That it should only be used in very specific situations. Most of the psych community I've spoken with over the years find it's use in this topic reprehensible.

Do you guys know in what situations regression is appropriate?

I've heard of people like Rosanne Bar and Axl Rose being told via regression they were abused as kids which I always thought was pretty sketchy, but I don't know much more than that about the effectiveness of regression and it's potential unreliability.

I am inclined to take the results of new age hobbyists who are certified with a massive grain of salt, which is probably how a lot of this stuff is done. But, if someone who is legitimately trained in this field locates trends via regression, I would give that more weight. What do people think about John Mack's work?

 

[mike]

i enjoyed the show very much, as usual the hosts were as interesting as the guest to listen to.
i actually had an odd flashback during the show, the point where Mr Hopkins was describing a country drive in the night and rounding a corner to see a craft "just there". very odd moment , i seem to recal something similar but have no references for it or the sensations that this moment contained.

Mr Hopkins wasnt as polished as ive seen him behind the lecturn, but thats what one expects from a format like this, to hear there is to be another interview was icing on the cake.

there are some issues regarding hypnosis and the ease at which it can be used to contaminate a memory, but Mr Hopkins seems obviously mindful of this.

for me its his experience in the field rather than the tool he uses.
he seems to have given the data collection process much thought, and i always enjoy hearing him and his views on the subject.

Thanks for bringing us this interview The Paracast

 

[valiens]

I think he said he just worked with Jim and thought he has some real experiences, I don't remember him saying he regressed Jim, but I didn't take notes.

As I recall though, that is how Jim markets himself, the dude with the most recall. I think being the abductee with the largest rat tail would be a better angle though.

Yeah maybe I'll ask Budd what "worked with" means.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous to me that the man essentially says hypnotic sessions are not putting someone in a highly suggestive state. Or, that it's difficult to lead someone.

It's absurd. And it's obvious to me that he's protecting decades of it's use, and his work/findings.

Hypnosis is a double edged sword. I personally have never used it, but it can be used to retrieve memories. It's ify though. There are controls to use. There are cases in which people have relived accurate detail that was confirmed. And, which corresponds with another hypnotized person. Now, either something psychic is going on, or, it's fleshing out details.

Budd does not, in blanket fashion protect decades of it's use. In fact, he said on the show how many people don't do a good job. Jeff, I know you have issues, but try not to cloud yourself with them. Hypnosis is a bit like fire. It can be used for good and bad.

I don't use hypnosis, because many people like you doubt it. My goal is to prove this stuff exists. That is why I don't use it with people I've dealt with. Skepticism with hypnosis is warranted. But completely dismissing it isn't. I respectfully disagree.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Just trying to go through the process of elimination Jeff. Is it possible that you detest hypnosis so much, because you fear the implications of others' testimony? In other words, since you haven't gone under, yet others have and report seeding alien babies yada yada. Is this something you have set guards up for? You fear your experiences might mirror what MANY people report. Some under hypnosis, some not. You don't want to know what is blocked I have heard. Thereby it's suspect you would naturally and readily (without resistance) accept what comes from others who have went under. A form of denial MAY be going on. This is NOT a conclusion, I am only wanting to know if you've thought of this.

 

[Poi]

Hypnosis is iffy because of decisions made by the person being hypnotized. I've been hypnotized numerous times and I always retained the ability to back out of the sessions had I felt uncomfortable. In fact, I did back once because it isn't a trance, but a state of higher awareness. That's all. I suppose there are deeper states, theta for instance, but I've never knowingly experienced it except in meditation.

The double edge to the sword, seems to me, is that anyone chosing to go to Hopkins might have already assumed he's being visited by "ufo occupants." If so, the suggestion was implanted long before Hopkins was able to hypnotize.

Still, I've never gone where I wasn't highly aware of what was happening in my mind's eye nor was I incapable of making my own decision. I was however, suggestible because I chose to be. That's the clincher, IMO.

 

[jritzmann]

Jeff, I know you have issues, but try not to cloud yourself with them. Hypnosis is a bit like fire. It can be used for good and bad.

I don't disagree with you. However in this field, bad seems to rule the roost in regard to regression.

The bottom line is, if someone is going to see Hopkins, they believe they've had an "alien" event. Cultural contamination is paramount here. The scenario of "abduction" is well within popular culture, and while it might not account for all, I'm confident it accounts for the majority in abduction regression.

Then there's a highly suggestive state, leading, and the "please the therapist" issues.

In the end, it absolutely shouldn't be used for retrieving memories of alien interaction. We're already dealing with a edge of perception event, and adding to the confusion isn't doing anyone any good.

There are other ways.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I don't disagree with you. However in this field, bad seems to rule the roost in regard to regression.

The bottom line is, if someone is going to see Hopkins, they believe they've had an "alien" event. Cultural contamination is paramount here. The scenario of "abduction" is well within popular culture, and while it might not account for all, I'm confident it accounts for the majority in abduction regression.

Then there's a highly suggestive state, leading, and the "please the therapist" issues.

In the end, it absolutely shouldn't be used for retrieving memories of alien interaction. We're already dealing with a edge of perception event, and adding to the confusion isn't doing anyone any good.

There are other ways.

I agree. I was just making a post about cultural contamination, as it applies nowadays. But now will delete it. I thought I would add it because I think you are right in not using hypnosis TODAY. Earlier on, it was a different story in my book.

I think Budd Hopkins MAY have retrieved some vaild stuff. Questioning it is great. I am not willing to dismiss it as of yet. I respect your caution with hypnosis. In the handful of people I've dealt with, I don't use it, nor did I recommend it. Some wanted to go do it, and I didn't poopoo it either. Just in essence, told them to be careful and try to get them to test their recollection. I can explain further later if needed.

 

[Experiencer7]

I can't help but be reminded of Ursula Kroeber Le Guins' novel, The Lathe of Heaven. George Orr guided by Dr. Haber.

 

[urkotic]

Nothing against Budd Hopkins, honestly, but I don't see how he can call himself a skeptic. This is just not a word that comes to mind for me when considering him and his work.