UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12

Re: ETH &c

From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King]
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:32:40 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:56:58 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH &c

Joy to the list and all its boys and girls:

>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:22:56 -0500
>Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:49:56 -0500
>Subject: Re: ETH &c

>Jeff, would you care to provide transcripts of Budd's sessions
>with abductees, in which you can show us how he leads them?

Here's a couple that are immediately to hand:

>From Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (pp.344-45&347)
Hopkins is hypnotizing "Alice" to discuss an incident they have
touched on before:

"You're driving along, and various things happen on this trip,"
Budd tells her. "There are various interruptions, things that
were unexpected. We know at one point there's a police officer.
So there are some things that happened."
"As you drive along, everything looks kind of typical, but maybe
at some point you notice that something seems a little different.
 See if you notice anything different.  It could be any number of
"One," Budd says.  "You're driving along...something's going to
interrupt the monotony...Two, right on the edge now...three!"
There is silence, and then Alice whispers, "It's like a crown of
"Your body remembers exactly what it felt," Budd says gently.
"You're lying there, and you're cold, and you don't have anything
on.  This is what we're going to do.  We're going to start with
your feet and we're going to move up from your feet and we're
going to move up from your feet systematically through your whole
body and see what your body's memories are. ... Starting with
your feet.  What do your feet feel?
Concentrate your attention down there; let's see if your feet
feel different in anyway.  If they feel any of those things or if
the feel normal."
Budd gradually focuses Alice's attention away from her feet to
her ankles, to her calves, her knees, her thighs.

There is also this session with "Nicole" described in Schnabel's
Dark White (p. 240-41):
"Nicole came back and Budd suggested that she go through these
[black & white] pictures of various people and tell him which
ones looked more like the man in the blue striped pyjamas and
which ones looked less like him.  That way we would have a better
idea of what he really did look like.  It was the same sort of
thing the police did when they were trying to sketch a suspect.
Nicole apparently didn't recognize any of the men - not Perez de
Cuellar, not even Michael Caine - and Budd didn't tell her who
they were.  She went through the pile, and for most of them she
said no, he didn't look like that, but for three of them, Phil
Gramm, Lloyd Bentsen, and Jimmy Hoffa - she  said yes, he did
look sort of like that.  Perez de Cuellar languished in the No

Budd wasn't going to give up so easily, however.  He took the
best six photos, in which group Perez de Cuellar was included,
and ran them by her again, for each one covering up this or that
part, or asking her to suggest changes to make him more like the
man in the blue striped pyjamas.  Nicole looked at the six photos
again, but she still liked Bentsen and Gramm and Hoffa.  Perez de
Cuellar was too chubby, too florid-faced.  However, Nicole did
like Perez de Cuellar's hair, and his eyebrows.  In fact, the
more she looked at Perez de Cuellar's photograph, the more she
liked it.  Eventually, after several more rounds of evaluation
and re-evaluation, it came down to Perez de Cuellar and Lloyd
Bentsen.  Budd asked Nicole to score each one's resemblance to
the man in the blue striped pyjamas on a scale of 0- 10.  She
gave Perez de Cuellar an 8, and Bentsen only a 7.  Then Budd took
out a color photograph of Perez de Cuellar which has appeared in
Vanity Fair.  It was a frontal shot which reduced his apparent
Now Perez de Cuellar rated a 10.

Budd had won.

Both sessions show Hopkins using leading techniques, especially
the Nicole session where it achieves Hopkins', presumably,
desired end - Perez de Cuellar's picture goes from the discard
pile to the one showing the man in the blue striped pajamas.

The Alice session also shows leading techniques, though more
subtle than the Nicole incident.  The questions Hopkins asks
provide pressure to confabulate.  Notice the way they are worded
"there are some things that happened," "something's going to
interrupt the monotony," "your body remembers exactly what it
felt."  The questions suggest their own right answer, and it's
not it's a boring drive, nothing happened and I don't feel squat.
 In other words, leading questions.  Maybe something indeed did
happen, but the detailed questioning that assumes something
happened clouds the picture.

You may protest that these are not blatantly leading questions,
such as everyone's favorite what color is the alien's hair, but
that is actually the point.  Researchers in hypnosis have found
that subtly leading questions, those that press for more and more
detail, are perhaps the most dangerous when hypnotic, or other
socially constructed suggestive situations, are involved -
precisely because the subject will not notice the leading
character and will not be as likely to "reality test" the
response.  The pressing question, on the other hand, leads the
subject to dig up more and more detail to please the hypnotist,
heightening the risk of confabulation, and thus confabulation in
the direction the investigator is going.

For those interested, Nicholas Spanos' Multiple Personalities &
False Memories, is a relatively easy to access, detailed
discussion of the above problems.   I'd also suggest Elizabeth
Loftus' book on Eyewitness Testimony, which includes a
description of a study in which significantly more false positive
responses (in a non-hypnotic setting) were obtained by changing a
question from "Did you see *a* ...," to "Did you see *the* ..." -
a subtle example of leading indeed.

>Your move.

>Greg Sandow

I believe I've answered the point, and even managed to remain
polite. And if you disagree with me about what is and is not
leading, fine. I'll freely admit there is no hard and fast rule,
and I won't assume you're ignorant or "out to lunch" just because
you disagree with me on where to draw the line. (Well ... on
second thought, if you don't see at least some leading in the
Nicole session...)

The important point is that scientists doing research into
hypnosis and memory reconstruction have found serious problems
with the techniques that are being utilized by abduction
researchers.  They will, therefore, be leery of what is produced
using those techniques, and will shy away from getting involved
in the investigation.  My argument is simple, eliminate the
problematic elements, and what's left is more likely (though not
inevitably) to attract serious attention.


Search for other documents from or mentioning: boroimhe | gsandow

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com