Yes, words are easy to say. But they don't have to reflect reality, and they don't have to have any content.
I have no hatred for skeptics, and in my opinion you give yourself way too much credit by considering yourself one. You don't provide information, you just use debate tactics.
In the interest of correcting your false information, here is one relevant quote from the article I cited, which you claim describes a FAILURE:
---
"As the patrolmen moved along in the four-stage test, their ability to recall events improved surprisingly. Dr. Gerber and Dr. Levendula compared the two written reports so there would be no chance of a mix-up, the one before hypnosis had been written on white paper, the other, after hypnosis, on blue paper. The doctors found that the results were remarkable.
Before he was hypnotized, Patrolman Foster Lockhart wrote that the weapon “looked like a screwdriver.” But after hypnosis, he remembered that the instrument had a red handle,”which was correct. He also was able to recall another important fact that he hadn’t before,” there was a faint scar on the blonde’s upper lip. He now remembered, too, that when she collapsed, “she put her head on the arm of the sofa.” That was right.
Patrolman Anthony R. Lutz, in his first try, said the crime was committed with an “unknown instrument.” However, when he awoke from hypnosis, he wrote: “The dark-haired girl pulled from her purse an object that looked like it was rounded on the end and circular throughout, because the cap which fits over the end of the wooden handle appeared to be round. I did not see the blade, but I caught a reflection of light, which leads me to believe that it was either highly polished, or plated. This object looked like it was about seven inches in overall length.” A pretty good description."
---
So you say I don't think rationally. Maybe I don't, so here's your opportunity to prove it rather than just making baseless claims.
To support the argument that a process *can fail* to create certain results, all you have to do is provide examples where this process has failed.
The ONLY information you've provided supports the above argument, and I don't disagree with it. I'm not disagreeing that hypnosis can fail to recover buried memories.
But to support the argument that a process *cannot under any circumstances* create certain results, you must go a little further. You must also explain the mechanics of how and why. You have not done this at any point.
All you're doing in the case of hypnosis is citing experiments where the recovery of memories has failed.
There are MANY reasons that an experiment can fail to produce a certain result, which is why the failure alone cannot prove that a process *cannot* produce that result.
On the other hand, to prove that a process *can* produce a result, all you have to do is produce the result from that process. I've provided many examples of this.
I've not argued that the process will always produce the desired result, just that it can.
Spelling everything out for you is pretty ridiculous, but I'm pressing because perhaps I'm wrong and you actually have some information that I don't have. Seems kinda absurd at this point that you wouldn't have shown it, though.
So please, if you have information that actually supports your argument that hypnosis CANNOT recover buried memories, please present it. If you're unable to support this argument, then we have nothing to argue about and let's please go on to another topic.
