Ufology: Live at Budokan

It is often said that within ufology, the internal dialog is often more about it’s players than the phenomenon itself. While this is probably true in many fields of interest, it seems to glare more harshly in ufology.

In fact, ufology feels so propelled by the celebrity aspect, that it makes one wonder if there is really a true and deep interest in the subject by certain names, or if it’s a vessel for mediocre fame by those who might not otherwise gain notoriety. Big in Japan.

Hey, it worked for Cheap Trick.

In the case of abduction research and hypnotic regression, names like Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs are reminiscent to some of old-Hollywood royalty: even if they’re bad actors, they still get the headlines. And like Hollywood, interest is more often placed on the people themselves than the details of their work. Fans tend to cling to the legendary status of the figures they admire and adore, simply because of headlines, causing them to brush away criticism of their work, citing blasphemy.

And that’s probably some of what we are seeing in the case against hypnotic regression, the validity of such, and the methods of some researchers involved: An unwillingness by it’s followers to rip down the posters of the icons they cherished, and tear their fandom asunder. But there comes a time in every one's life when it’s time to rethink their commitments, and for supporters of researchers like Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs, perhaps that time is now.

I’m sure a lot of people are tired of the names Emma Woods, David Jacobs, Carol Rainey and Budd Hopkins, and are loathe to read another piece about the pitfalls of hypnosis and it’s reliability in retrieving lost or buried memories. As someone deeply interested in the abduction phenomenon, and an editor for The Journal for Abduction-Encounter Research (JAR), I feel compelled to continue addressing it.

Slow news day? No, not at all. This topic is important. Not only because of the possible damage done by hypnosis to ‘abductees,’ but because it means that the entire backbone of the abduction hypothesis could be completely out of alignment. Everything you thought you knew... well, it might just be totally wrong.

I do have sympathy for abductees who have placed their faith in things like the alien hybridization program, because questioning hypnosis questions the result of hypnosis. Those who have spent years believing they have had certain experiences would surely have a difficult time considering those experiences may not have existed at all -- or at least occurred anything like they thought or were led to believe.

If you have an experience that is based purely on so-called retrieved memories, the reliability of those memories is often at the mercy of the regression hypnotist and what an individual might think have happened to them, which in many cases could be based on pop culture and their own research and interest in ufology and abduction.

As Kevin Randle put it in his recent piece 'A Response to Budd Hopkins:'

"If these people, and their clients, aren't already "programmed" to believe in an abduction, then why search out Hopkins for assistance? Wouldn't anyone versed in hypnosis be able to help them learn what happened during this supposed missing time? Aren't each of them "primed" for an abduction, just as those who go to a reincarnation specialist are "primed" for learning about a past life."

An excellent point -- one that is pretty fucking obvious, but needed to be said. If abductions are happening as frequently as some believe, or happening at all, shouldn’t the same results come from non-biased therapists and hypnosis specialists?

Of course, there are people who don’t fit the above profile, who had no interest in or knowledge of alien abduction, but have been lead to that conclusion anyway, such as the often over-cited Betty and Barney Hill Case. That case came out 50 years ago though, and since then, even those without an interest in little bald men and UFOs know something about the classic abduction experience, thanks to television and film. So, for scenarios happening in years after the Hill case, it could be argued that anyone with a television or plug into to society could be influenced by such stories -- which is just about damn near everyone in America and Europe.

Kevin also mentions a concern that the late John Mack had, using a quote from the book Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind by C.D.B. Bryan, in which Mack states:

"And there’s another dimension to this, which Budd Hopkins and Dave Jacobs and I argue about all the time which is I’m struck by the fact that there seems to be a kind of matching of the investigator with the experiencer. So what may be the archetypal structure of an abduction to Dave Jacobs may not be the uniform experience of, say, Joe Nyman or John Mack or someone else. And the experiencers seem to pick out the investigator who will fit their experience."

It makes a lot of sense. People who have suspected alien abduction in their own lives and have worked with Hopkins and Jacobs, searched them out for a reason: Because they suspected their experiences were alien in nature. Which means they already had a profile for such events in their head and knew that these two researchers dealt with alien abduction. This, of course, is arguably a big set-up for the results that would follow a hypnotic regression. And yes, it is possible that someone who felt they had an experience, and initially had not linked it to alien abduction, but confided in someone who referred them to Hopkins and Jacobs. Still, even in this situation, the referrer undoubtedly informed the possible experiencer that their abduction might be something non-terrestrial in nature, which would in turn support the idea that going into a hypnosis session with the idea you might have been abducted, could color the actual retrieved experience so that it fits the established scenario and imagery.

And yet, the question of whether alien abductions are actually happening, or happening as abundantly as interested parties suggest, isn’t the only or even the largest problem here. The other problem(s) are the practises of these regression ‘therapists’ and the trust placed on non-mental health professionals to perform hypnosis, and the taking of their word and recommendations as the advice of a mental health practitioner, which (and we should all know this by now) Jacobs and Hopkins are not.

If you haven’t already read Carol Rainey’s article The Priests of High Strangeness in the preview edition of Paratopia Magazine, please do so. It is an interesting, often disturbing, and well-written piece on her experience working with Budd Hopkins. Supporters of Hopkins were quick to jump to his defense, accusing of Ms. Rainey of attacking him out of bitterness (they are divorced), and therefore disregarded the piece and dismissed the content of her article. This was to be expected, but if you do read the article and all you get out of it is the angry offensive of a jilted ex-wife, you’re reading it wrong.

There was no way in which Carol could have written her piece without the immediate assumption that she was trying to hurt Hopkins. Not with the knowledge they were married and divorced hanging over it. Any criticism she had about his work and ethics, no matter how she approached it, would have received the same accusations -- and that is truly a shame.

Budd has since written his own retort to Rainey, Deconstructing The Debunkers: A Response, defending himself and doing what others have accused Rainey of doing -- attacking and smearing one's name. The article can be found here.

UFO Magazine will be publishing Hopkins' rebuttal to the issue #154 article written by Jeremy Vaeni, as well as the article written by Alfred Lehmberg, in the upcoming issue.

After reading Budd’s Deconstructing The Debunkers: A Response, browse on over to Kevin Randle’s A Different Perspective and read his piece, A Response to Budd Hopkins. It’s quite good.

Edit: Clarification on a Statement