UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 7

Re: Psychological Trauma - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:07:04 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 04:09:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma - Randle


 >Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:46:30 -0500
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 13:14:03 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 10:43:42 -0500
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma

 >>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 15:57:30 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>>>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:54:33 EST
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >>>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >><snip>

Good Morning, All -

 >>>Hello Kevin,

 >>>You write:

 >>>>The real point is the abduction researchers know what is
 >>>>happening but they fail to understand the significance. And
 >>>>that, I believe, is the point that Jim is making.

 >>>I find it amusing that Jim made his point so 'clearly' that
 >>>everybody else has to (interpret) "guess" as to what he may have
 >>>meant. I'm going to ask you the same thing as I asked
 >>>Mortelarro;

 >>>Show me the poll or the interviews with a substantial group of
 >>>either Budd, David, or John Mack's clients that substantiates
 >>>these outrageous claims that they 'uniformly' all share the
 >>>_same_ point of view as the individual researchers in question?

 >Hi Kevin, hi All,

 >Kevin opines:

 >>Actually, this is something of a red herring. I quoted from both
 >>Mack and Jacobs, making the same point that Jim had made. It was
 >>Mack who suggested that Hopkins, Jacobs, and Nyman pull from
 >>their experiencers what they want to see. Mack said it to us
 >>during a video taped interview and he said it to Bryant in his
 >>book... as I mentioned before.

 >"Pulling from their experiencers what they want to see" has to
 >do with "leading" or "suggestion" Kevin. The "Docca" claims that
 >the experiencers themselves all share the same "take" (point of
 >view) as the researchers in question. Two different subjects.
 >You are talking about a "before" situation (where someone is
 >lead in some way) and the "Docca" is talking about an "after"
 >effect (people who have adopted or share the same point of
 >view/take) on the phenom as the researchers they consulted.

 >So,

 >...are we discussing Hopkins', Jacobs', and Mack's alleged
 >'leading' of their clients, or are we discussing Mortellaro's
 >unfounded claim that they are _all_ de facto in agreement with
 >the researchers in question "points of view?"

Actually, it is the same side of the coin. If they are leading
their abductees, clients, subjects, experiencers, then we have
the first step into the allignment of them with those conducting
the research. I thought I had mentioned that CDB Bryan's
interview with Mack (page 270-71 hardback) in which Mack said,
"And there's another interesting dimension to this... which Budd
Hopkins and Dave Jacobs and I argue about all the time, which is
that I'm struck by the fact 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."

So, here is Mack saying, essentially, the same thing that Jim
has said, and that we saw in our research. Mack has said that
experiencers take on the archetypal structure of the
investigator doing the regression. He is not saying, nor am I
implying, that this is a universal, but it is an observation
that apparently has been made by Mack, Hopkins, and Jacobs and
is of enough importance that Mack has mentioned it to various
individuals.

And there are two points to be made here. One, this implies, to
some extent, leading the witness, and two, it implies that the
views of the researcher are given to the subject.

On page 25 of 'The Threat' (hardback), Jacobs discusses his
sessions with Pam, which, I think, makes the point once again.
Jacobs wrote, "I had over thirty sessions with Pam, and during
that time she has come to have a less romantic idea about what
has been happening to her. She was initially disappointed that
what she remembered under hypnosis were not the pleasant
experiences she had imagined, but she now accepts the reality of
what has been happening to her. She realized that neither
guardian angles nor the Pleiades have anything to do with her
experiences, and that she cannot manipulate time and reality."

In other words, Pam arrived at Jacobs' door believing that her
experiences were pleasant and might reflect her interaction with
what she saw as a guardian angel. After undergoing hypnosis with
Jacobs, she now realizes the threat and that the experiences
were not pleasant. She wasn't visited by New Age philosophers of
John Mack or cold, calculating scientists of Budd Hopkins, but
the alien invaders of David Jacobs... she came with one set of
beliefs and left with a different set which, matches, more
closely, the beliefs of David Jacobs.

So, through the interviews with Mack by Bryan, and by reading
Jacobs' book, we find that the researchers are agreeing with
what Jim has said here. That there is this matching of
experiencers with researchers.

 >If anyone is introducing "red Herrings" it is the Randle Fish
 >Market! The Docca and myself are debating one thing, and _you_
 >are introducing another. Fish anyone?   ;)

 >>In our research we used abductees who had been regressed by all
 >>three... and those regressed by Yvonne Smith, John Carpenter and
 >>several others including "He Who Shall Remain Nameless."

 >>But once again, if you have an argument with the observation,
 >>then please take it up with John Mack and David Jacobs as well.

 >I don't have any 'argument' with them. It is Mortellaro who is
 >making unfounded claims and insulting a large group of really
 >nice, bright, individuals with his insinuations. Now you chime
 >in with "they lead their clients." Yet neither one of you has
 >answered my simple and very straightforward question:

 >Show me the poll or study that shows that the clients of
 >Hopkins, Jacobs and Mack all share the same point of view as the
 >researchers in question.

But you see, it's not necessary to give you poll numbers when
the researchers you quote are saying the same thing. Mack has
said it and Jacobs has said it. So the studies you request can
be found in Bryan (in the chapter about Mack with the quotes on
page 270) and throughout Jacobs' THE THREAT.

 >Simple question. But try getting a straight answer around here!
 >You guys picked a bad time to mess with me. I'm in between web
 >jobs and I have a little _time_ for the List. Bring it on!
 ><screeching maniacal laughter>

 >Until I get a relevant response from _either_ of you on the
 >question at hand,

So, rather than burden you with numbers from our study, I'll
just point you at Mack and Jacobs. You could probably throw
Nyman and Hopkins into the mix since the four of them discuss
this and have differing points of view about it.

Or, another way of looking at this is that Jim has supplied you
with the specific poll numbers of his research and I have
supplied you with the studies from others. The question has been
asked and answered, more than once.


KRandle




[ Next Message | Previous 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