I was familiar already with much of the material being produced by the psychological community about these subjects, and I had read many sessions from these books and articles that were supposed to prove the existence of Satanists and their wicked agenda because this or that individual had begun to experience flashbacks or bits and pieces of memories of abuse. They would then rush themselves off to a psychologist, psychiatrist, or hypnotherapist who would engage them in non-directive therapy to assist them in the recovery of both their memories and, by default, the “missing parts” of their “soul”.
I would read these accounts and see the clues scattered throughout that the emerging scenarios were, very likely, “created”. And that is not to say that the individual was creating them at all! They were more likely “manufactured” just as the scene of the “benevolent Mantids” who were “teaching the children in a loving way” in the session at the beginning of this series was manufactured. When the screen was directively “removed”, the revealed activity of Mantids eating human children was exposed.
1 It was clear that in “non-directive” therapy, this would never have occurred.
The problem was that, in the field of hypnotherapy, there had been such an outcry from skeptics in past years about the suggestibility of the client, and the purported “agendas” of the therapists, that directed therapy had fallen into disfavor. It was now all client-directed. The therapist was more a “sounding board” who merely gave gentle, non-directive suggestions that the client should give him/herself “permission” to “recover” the memory (whatever it was). In this way, it was believed that the client would “recover
their truth”. In this sense, “their truth” amounted to little more than another illusion.
The problem with this approach is twofold. In the first place, if we consider for even a moment that there is the possibility that there are beings — whether human or otherwise — who are out there engaged in mind programming efforts (and there is some considerable factual evidence to support this) then we have to consider that they would install blocks to recovery of the memories of their activities as a
first line of defense. They would very likely make these blocks or screens interactive with some installed mechanism of severe discomfort so that the subject would either avoid retrieval or be unable to retrieve such memories without serious pain or stress.
The second problem is that I have experimented with suggestibility of subjects to some considerable extent and have found that they are not as malleable as skeptics might wish us to think. Which leads, of course, to the idea of manipulation of opinion regarding directive therapy so that it falls into disrepute as a therapeutic mode, thus adding a layer of protection over such nefarious activities.
There was an experiment done some years ago by a researcher who selected a random sample of individuals who were, ostensibly,
not abductees and, under hypnosis or guided imagery techniques, led them into an alien abduction scenario. Because a significant number of them began to describe abductions in the same terms as persons who had claimed to be abductees due to some conscious representations surfacing, it was decided that this proved that the abduction complex of images was more or less archetypal and therefore, false.
It never occurred to the researchers that the non-abducted persons who described accurately the abduction process might really have been abducted, but that their abductions and programming did not have the glitches that cause others to remember or to have clues that lead them to active therapy to recover their memories.
Anyway, this experiment was taken as “proof” that the recovered memories of abductees could very well be suggested to them by literature, movies, and even the therapists. So, “directive therapy” was tossed aside in favor of just allowing the client to let his memories — whatever they might be — sort of “drift to the top”.
I can demonstrate hundreds of instances where this idea of suggestibility is false. An example would be when I say to a client under hypnosis who is describing an alien being, that I want them to tell me what kind of nose they have; is it big or little. Now, right there I have suggested that the being
must have a nose and that it is either big or little. If the client were as suggestible as is proposed, they would naturally tell me one or the other or even that it is a “medium sized nose”. But time and again, the answer would come back: “I don’t see a nose. There is a little hole or a dimple-like thing, but no nose.”
Or, I would say, “What are you smelling?” That is a direct suggestion that they must smell something. But the answer might come back “Nothing at all.” Or, if a smell
is present, they might have their attention directed to that factor and tell me that there is some sort of smell.
Another example would be when I ask the client: “How did you get out of the room? Did you go out the door or the window?” And they would respond “Neither. I sort of ‘went through the wall’.” On the other hand, if I suggest that they were “carried on a beam of light” as was the case in a different instance they had previously described, they might come back and say “Not this time. I was carried through the door.”
Over and over again I have tried these little directive suggestions to get data, and over and over again I have seen that, even with powerful direction, the client will recover whatever is there to recover with very little fabrication, if any.
