The Underside of Abduction Hypnotherapy II

I began writing this article in early March but had trouble with the ending. Prompted by Regan Lee, and because of the interview with Emma Woods that aired on Paratopia yesterday, I decided to buckle down and finish it up.

If you haven't caught my post from a couple of weeks ago, The Underside of Abduction Hypnotherapy, it was a brief update regarding an episode of Partaopia in which they aired a recording of a phone dialog between Emma Woods and David Jacobs. As you might imagine, it has stirred the emotions and opinions of many people on either side of the hypnotherapy argument, causing the Paratopia forum, as well as a few others, to erupt with some pretty strong opinions - the main arguments being whether or not abduction scenarios are created during hypnosis sessions by the hypnotist (in this case, David Jacobs), either intentionally or unintentionally, and whether Jacobs acted poorly in his dealings with Ms. Woods.


I have long been skeptical of hypnosis as a reasonable tool to achieve certain results, be they memory retrieval, curbing the cigarette habit, or clucking like a chicken at a Vegas magic show. I don't think I could allow someone to put me into such an impressionable state, especially if that person is not a mental health professional (and I don't even trust those, either). There are a number of fragmented memories I would love nothing more than to retrieve in full, but the risk seems far greater than the need.

When it comes to the force-surfacing of abduction memories, I do not believe that in all cases, the practitioner is purposely trying to fuck with the patient's mind. But creating a false memory doesn't need to be intentionally performed for it to actually manifest. A passing remark, an audible thought or assumption made by the hypnotherapist -- these can all provide skeletal framework for a memory that doesn't entirely exist as an actual, physical event.

The results of guided hypnotic regression and the memories that are freed from the subconscious, I think are even less reliable than regular, "conscious" memories. That's not to say none of the stuff people are reporting, has actually happened, but I don't think it's happening as often as a lot of UFOlogists would tend to believe.

This Jacobian fiasco has me thinking more and more about non-mental health professionals handling things like hypnosis -- especially when the question of poor mental health is brought to the table. I am still mortified by the recorded session in which David Jacobs suggests to the patient (Emma) that she may be suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder -- while she is under hypnosis! What the fuck? Really? You're gonna tell someone in an extremely vulnerable and impressionable state that they have a disorder!? Some argue that that the inclusion of MPD (which is actually now called "DID", or "Dissociative Identify Disorder", if you don't want to be all antiquated about it), in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is disputable; it doesn't really matter to me in this situation. Instilling the belief that one has it, is dangerous enough. Two very close people in my life both suffer from DID and it is not something to be taken lightly.

I'm particularly aggravated when I read responses from people who have heard the tapes and say "Well, she sounds like a deeply disturbed woman". Why, because she was noticeably frustrated and in a state of disbelief over the way Jacobs was handling the call? Because she was crying over the fact that a man she put faith in as a "professional", treated her like ass for most of the conversation? I'd be frustrated and crying too, if I'd been in that situation. I think quite a few "stable" people would, as well.

Emma did put herself in the care of Jacobs. That was her choice -- and what lead her to make that decision was obviously due to something very disturbing in her life. But in the dialog that transpired between them, Emma struck me as a woman who has more or less come to her senses (if she was ever even out of them), and as far as that conversation went, didn't present herself or her argument in a way that I would qualify as 'deeply disturbed'. So, what do "normal" people consider as "deeply disturbed"? I'd love to know, because if it's something as simple as tears of frustration and heated conversation, I think a lot of us are totally fucked.

I'm not sure what Mr. Jacobs could say at this point that would have me believe he acted reasonably. I think he conducted himself poorly throughout the entire call and that he was using the power of his "professional" experience to throw her 'poor' mental health back at her; an attempt to have her believe she was acting "crazy". This woman gave the guy a number of outs with an offer to make an amicable statement explaining the termination of their working relationship. And just when you thought they'd reached an agreement, he'd bust out with a left-hook, bringing them back to square one -- like his pride would not allow him to completely submit to any fault.

As I said, I don't really have a whole lot of faith in abduction memories brought on by hypnosis. Some may very well be actual events that have transpired, but there is much that can be falsely added to a fragment of memory. The human mind is quite a fantastical thing when it wants or needs to be. So, I don't write off all hypnotic regressive results as fictional, but I do consider abduction claims based on hypnosis, as flimsy 'evidence'.