Gravitational Anomalies

Levitation.

levitation

 levitation. : the act or process of levitating; especially : the rising or lifting of a person or thing by means held to be supernatural.
Of all magicians’ acts, the levitation/illusion trick is perhaps the most spellbinding and has enthralled audiences throughout the world since it was first performed. Of course, we’re all aware that it is a trick whose secrets are jealously guarded by those performing them. We know there is no supernatural intermediary  involved in the feat. After all, no one can overcome Newton’s law of universal gravitation. It is a constant that holds us to our world. Without it we would drift off into space.
It is a widely held misconception, however, that gravity is the “strongest force”. The truth is  that when matched against the electromagnetic so-called “weak force” it is easily beaten. Here are the forces in order from strongest to weakest:
  1. The strong nuclear force.
  2. The electromagnetic force.
  3. The weak nuclear force.
  4. Gravity.
Yes, a simple magnet can pick up paperclips from a desktop, thus demonstrating the relative weakness of gravity. However, for complex and diverse reasons, it can’t account for involuntary  human levitation. To the best of this author’s knowledge no serious study has ever been conducted by the scientific community into the human levitation phenomenon. More on that later.
Levitation, according to some, is a  psychokinetic phenomenon in which animals, people, and objects are lifted into the air. Lets take a look at what I reason to be one of the best historical examples of human levitation.

Joseph of Copertino (b. Giuseppe Maria Desa).

As a child, Joseph had experiences of ecstatic visions that continued throughout the remainder of his life. In 1620 he was accepted as a lay brother of the Capuchin friars, but was shortly thereafter dismissed as his continued ecstasies made him unfit for his duties.
St.-Joseph-of-Cupertino
On returning home, much to the scorn of his family, he pleaded with the Conventual friars near Copertino to serve in their stables, which he did for several years. The friars were so impressed with his devotion and the simplicity of his life that he was admitted to their Order. In 1628 he became an ordained Catholic priest and was sent to the  Shrine of the Madonna della Grazia , spending the next 15 years there.
It was during his time there that the occasions of his ecstasy began to multiply. Whilst participating at a Mass and also joining the community for the Liturgy of the Hours he began to levitate, gaining a widespread reputation of holiness. He was eventually deemed disruptive by his religious superiors and Church authorities and was confined to a small cell.
The worst was yet to come, when he was ultimately denounced to the Inquisition, as a result of which he ended up under the supervision of the Capuchin friars, where he practiced a severe asceticism for the next 35 years.
As the phenomenon of flying or levitation was widely believed to be connected with witchcraft, Joseph was denounced to the   Inquisition. At their command, he was transferred from one Franciscan friary in the region to another for observation, first to Assisi (1639–53), then briefly to Pietrarubbia and finally Fossombrone where he lived with, and under the supervision of, the Capuchin friars. There – as we have learnt – he practiced a severe  asceticism , usually eating solid food only twice a week.  In 1657 he was eventually packed off to a Conventual community, and shortly thereafter he died.

Why do I think this case may be genuine?

  1. Joseph had ecstatic visions throughout his entire life. Religious ecstasy is a type of altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness, frequently accompanied by visions and emotional  euphoria. Is it possible these interminable altered states were a prelude and/or causal factor in his acts of  levitation? We may never know. Certainly, the dissociation caused by Joseph’s practice of fasting may be a determining factor, insofar as they would lead  inexorably toward an altered state of consciousness (ASC).
  2. There is no evidence whatsoever that would suggest Joseph had the intelligence or skills to perform tricks of this magnitude. On the contrary, he was noted as being a “dullard” by all who  knew him.
  3. We have read how his life was turned upside down by his euphoric visions and gravity defying episodes, the latter of which totalled 70. Even his own family scorned him. Despite this, the phenomenon continued to dominate his life, unabated.
  4. The most overpowering proof that his levitation was genuine was when he was brought before the Inquisition. As some readers may be aware, flying or levitating was widely believed to be connected to witchcraft for which the penalty was invariably an agonising death. Why would he deliberately put himself in such an unenviable and life threatening position for the sake of a few magic/illusionist tricks?
  5. On the matter of the Inquisition, nothing could be proved against Joseph. It is conceivable that his inquisitors doubted whether it was safe to allow him – given his apparent supernatural powers – back into the community. After all they weren’t certain of their provenance, be it God or the Devil. At some point in his trial a decision seems to have been made to send this completely humble man, who was said to be embarrassed by his abilities, to the Capuchin convent where he spent the remainder of his life in strict seclusion.
I realise of course that some of my above speculations are somewhat contentious, as there is no solid evidence to support the idea that ASCs, per se, can bring about gravity defying phenomena. I do however think that they may have been the catalyst for his other alleged abilities that included mental telepathy (the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses) and Precognition (foreknowledge of an event, especially as a form of extrasensory perception) . Of course, ASCs can’t account for levitation in animals and inert objects. There must be an external force/catalyst at work.
Other cases of human levitation include:
  • Saint Francis of Assisi who is recorded as having been “suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits” (about 1.3 to 1.8 meters).
  • Girolamo Savonarola, sentenced to death, allegedly rose off the floor of his cell into midair and remained there for some time.
  • Seraphim of Sarov (1759–1833) Russian Orthodox saint had a gift to levitate over the ground for some time. This was witnessed by many educated people of his time, including the emperor Alexander I. A young paralyzed man brought into his cell saw Seraphim raised from the ground during a fervent prayer. Likewise, four Diveyevo sisters saw him walking above the grass lifted up from the air.
  • Clara Germana Cele, a young South African girl, in 1906 reportedly levitated in a rigid position. The effect was apparently only reversed by the application of Holy water, leading to the belief that it was caused by demonic possession.
  • Mariam Baouardy “little Arab” (1846-1878), a Carmelite nun, who died in Bethlehem in 1878, and frequently experienced ecstasies, was seen levitating more than once by others: for example, in the garden of the monastery during times of private prayer, when living in the Carmelite monastery at Pau, in France.
From the foregoing one might conclude that such occurrences are prevalent in those of a religious disposition. Not so. There are many levitation cases involving people from within secular communities.  In the following section we will deal with levitation from an advanced technology perspective.

UAPs and Gravity Anomalies.

220px-PurportedUFO2What is a UAP? The acronym stands for ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ and is used in conjunction with the much older term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object). The latter acronym was first employed  in 1953 by the United States Air Force (USAF) to serve as a catch-all for all flying saucer/flying disc reports. The term UFO became more widespread during the 1950s up to the present day and was first used in technical literature, then later in popular use. In popular usage the term came to be used to refer to claims of alien spacecraft and because of the public and media ridicule associated with the topic, some investigators prefer to use such terms as unidentified aerial phenomenon (or UAP).
History lesson over; lets get down to examining the gravity anomalies associated with UAPs in all their guises, the first being from an extra-terrestrial intelligence stance.
Stanton_friedmanIt is commonly accepted in the ufological community that UFOs employ some kind of anti-gravity propulsion system  to travel from point A to point B. For several decades scientists such as Stanton T Friedman, et al, have been pondering on this very subject. Given the aerodynamic capabilities employed by these craft it would seem logical that such an advanced system would be necessary.  It would be most assuredly beneficial to any UAP occupants. Without anti-gravity they wouldn’t survive the inertial effects caused by the craft’s manoeuvres; particularly the sudden right angle turns and instant accelerations/decelerations. We have all felt at one time or another the effects of inertia; when driving in a vehicle for example. If the brakes are suddenly applied the bodies at rest (passengers) within it continue a forward motion. This is inertia.
Anti-gravitational effects are frequently witnessed or experienced by those who come into contact with UAPs. Many abductees claim to have been levitated aboard UFOs via beams of light (Linda Cortile). Not only that, but the occupants of the craft themselves are often seen to levitate or float above the ground, as in the Hopkinsville encounter.
Wherever, these entities come from it would appear they have a highly advanced technology way in advance of our current understanding. In comparison, humanity is just beginning its first tentative baby steps into the phenomenon, but the controversial work being done by the likes of Canadian, John Hutchinson offers a glimmer of hope into the causal effects of the phenomenon.

Diamagnetic  Levitation.

Can humans be levitated?  Theoretically, yes they can.
220px-Frog_diamagnetic_levitationFrom empirical experimentation and observations into levitation we know that simple metals, liquids, various plants, and living creatures are diamagnetic . Like frogs, humans bodies are approximately two thirds water. Water is diamagnetic and as such is affected by magnetic fields. It is therefore feasible that a  human could be levitated. The ability to levitate does not depend on the amount of material involved, but rather the amount of energy put into it to achieve levitation. It is important to note that diamagnetic levitation is different to other forms of levitation in that it affects the gravitational force on an atomic and molecular level.
See also: http://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/diamag/magnet.pdf

 Is Gravity a Constant.?

The simple answer is no. There are regions on Earth that have a lower gravity. One such gravitational anomaly is in the Hudson Bay region, Canada. The anomaly was first discovered in 1960, when the Earth’s global gravity fields were being charted.
It is important to note at this juncture that gravity is proportional to the mass. The heavier the mass the greater the gravity. Although we think of the Earth as being spherical the truth is it actually bulges out at the Equator and flattens at the poles, due to the centrifugal force of its rotation, thus its gravity is not spread out equally. Knowing this, scientists put forward two theories to explain how the mass of the Hudson Bay region had decreased, contributing to the area’s lower gravity.

equatorial bulge

The Convection Theory.

This theory centers on a process which occurs in the Earth’s mantle. The mantle is a layer of molten rock called magma. It lies between 60 and 124 miles (100 to 200 km) below the surface of the Earth . The magma is extremely hot and constantly whirls and shifts, rises and falls, creating convection currents. Convection drags the Earth’s continental plates down, which decreases the mass in that area and thereby decreases the gravity.

The Laurentide Ice Sheet Theory.

The latest theory to account for the Hudson Bay area’s missing gravity concerns the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which covered much of present-day Canada and the northern United States. This ice sheet was almost 2 miles (3.2 km) thick in most sections, and in two areas of Hudson Bay, it was 2.3 miles (3.7 km) thick. It was also very heavy and weighed down the Earth. Over a period of 10,000 years, the Laurentide Ice Sheet melted, finally disappearing 10,000 years ago, leaving behind a deep indentation in the Earth.
The above is analogous to lightly pressing ones finger onto the surface of a springy loaf of bread. Some of it will be displaced to the sides. At the point of pressure there’s an indentation. When the finger is removed, the loaf quickly returns to its normal shape. A similar occurrence happened with the Laurentide Ice Sheet. However, the Earth isn’t returning quickly back, but is rebounding very slowly (less than half an inch per year). Meanwhile, the area around Hudson Bay has less mass because some of the Earth has been displaced to the sides by the ice sheet. Less mass equals less gravity.
As was noted earlier, anything which has mass has a gravity field and we humans are no exceptions to the rule. Of course, our gravitational fields go unnoticed by us because they are so infinitesimally small.
There appears to be no natural force in nature to account for gravity defying human levitation or even that of inert objects. Nonetheless, if we consider the work of John Hutchinson et al it would appear that anti-gravity is feasible from a technological standpoint. This of course would imply there is some intelligent intermediary at work; an advanced intelligence with the capability to alter or manipulate matter at sub-atomic levels.
Let’s take another look at the frog experiment. You will note in the video link  below that the frog is being levitated inside a 10 tesla magnetic coil using diamagnetism. To what purpose? What function does the coil serve?

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHMO_enGB688GB688&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=levitating%20frog

atomic structure
As most of us are aware all matter in the universe is made up of small particles. These particles we call atoms and they are made up of three particles: electrons, neutrons, and protons. Protons and neutrons are heavier than electrons and are to be found in the center of the atom; the nucleus.
If one places an atom, or a larger piece of matter containing billions of atoms, inside a magnetic maxresdefaultfield (the coil) the disturbed electrons create their own magnetic field in opposition to the applied magnetic field.   It is this principle which causes the frog to float as though it was in space. The opposition is akin to when we try pushing two magnets with like poles together. The two like poles are repelled and push away from each other. Is the  ‘beam’, mentioned earlier in UAP abduction cases, analogous to the coil holding the frog in suspension and stopping it from flying off laterally?
So far, we have learnt that gravity is not uniformly spread around the Earth. It is weaker in some places than others. However, these low gravity anomalies are so weak that they have no negligible effect on the physical surroundings. It is therefore highly unlikely that they are responsible for the reports of human, animal, or inanimate object levitation. This raises some disturbing questions as to their causality.
It is this author’s opinion that there could be a technologically advanced intelligence behind this phenomenon; one far superior to our own. If we, as a type 0 civilisation , have the capacity to nullify gravity to a minor extent then one can only imagine the technological breakthroughs made by much older civilisations.  The levitation of people, animals and objects in UAP cases are well documented and provide strong circumstantial  evidence in favour of  a superior intellect at work.

© David Calvert  2016

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.

Advertisements

Aliens and Hypnotic Regression.

Hypnosis and Hypnotic Regression:

A Critical Evaluation On their Use In Alien Abduction Cases

David Calvert

Background of Theory

Over one hundred and fifty years ago Franz Anton Mesmer (1733-1815), the modern father of hypnosis, attempted to raise the art of hypnotic suggestion to the level of practical science but, like many of his successors, he maintained a mystic attitude toward the problem as far as serious study of the field was concerned.

Franz Anton MesmerAs a result hypnotism acquired a bad reputation that persisted during many years and still is not completely dispelled. Its later utilisation by charlatans made the serious study of the phenomenon less reputable. Honest men were extremely wary lest their sincere interest in it brought them into disrepute.

Thankfully, under the pressure of expanding knowledge, all pressure collapses and hypnosis had found acceptance into the family of approved sciences. It has opened new vistas for research and practice. As research gains in courage and depth the theoretical and practical discoveries awaiting us are likely to transcend our best hopes. In the words of M. H. Erickson (1932), “The first and last words which can be said of hypnosis is that it is the most interesting and most profound of all psychological material …”

Throughout the pioneering days of Mesmer, J. M. Charcot (1825 – 93), Emile Couè (1857 – 1926), and Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939), controversy surrounded the use of hypnosis. Even now in the 21st Century the use of hypnotic regression in alien abduction cases is a contentious one.

First used in 1962 on the Betty and Barney Hill case, hypnotic regression is the betty and barney hilltechnique widely used in assessing abductions as the hypnotist regresses the individual back to the time of their alleged abduction. Theoretically, if the individual is genuinely regressed to the time period in question then a variety of psychological and physiological functioning should be reinstated. In other words, the subject will relive the event and display the attendant physical and psychological trauma pertaining to their original encounter.

Since the Hills’ abduction, however, it has been debated as to whether these Hill encountermemories are recalls of actual events or are the product of pseudo memories (an effect that escalates with increased pressure to recall), the product of false-memory syndrome (the influence of the hypnotist’s suggestion during the course of therapy), or fantasy proneness (the ability to hallucinate voluntarily and have imaginary experiences that are as subjectively real as non-fantasised events).

Jenny Randles, and others, are highly suspicious of hypnotic regression techniques used to extract evidence of alien abduction. Indeed, she was instrumental in arranging a moratorium for the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) that banned its use. She considers regression hypnosis as inherently dangerous.

If hypnotic memory in general is suspect, then hypnotically retrieved memory of abductions must also be suspect. This assumption, however, depends on the extent to which the experimental situation is comparable to that associated with the abduction experience. Abduction memories are characterised by dynamic, emotionally charged events that instil trauma, fear, anxiety, confusion, and anger. What is more, they are characterised by events so unusual as to be outside the range of normal human experience. However, the majority of laboratory research has used static and neutral source material.

Whilst some studies have used more relevant materials for retrieval such as stress inducing stimuli, or simulations of emotionally charged events like accidents or crimes, the results of which are entirely consistent with those using more mundane materials, they still fail to duplicate the quality of “strangeness” of abduction experiences, or the range and magnitude of emotional states associated with reported abductions.

Confirmative Evidence of Theory

hypnosisWhatever causal extent hypnosis plays in false experiences of alien abduction, its potential should increase as a subject’s susceptibility to hypnotic suggestion increases. However this was not borne out by Rodegehier, Goodpaster, and Blattbauer (1991) when they assessed a group of abduction experiencers for hypnotic responsiveness. The group’s ability to vividly imagine suggested scenes, the authors found, were no more susceptible to hypnotic suggestion than the general population.

Spanos, Cross, and Dubrieul, (1993), applied the Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale on their experiencer population. The scale measures three dimensions of hypnotisability: number of items to which an appropriate response is made, extent to which the subjective effects called for are experienced, and the degree to which subjects’ responses are perceived as involuntary. They concluded that their experiencer population was no different from the controls on any of these measures.

Thomas Bullard (1994), in a survey of investigators and mental health practitioners, found that “nine out of ten respondents stated that many or most of their abduction experiencer subjects are easy to hypnotise”. This position, however, is not supported by formal tests of hypnotisability. The subjects may be highly hypnotisable in sessions dedicated to exploring their abduction experiences, but they are not highly hypnotisable per se. This may not be as paradoxical as it seems. It may be, as Orne, Whitehouse, and Orne and Dinges (1996) have argued – that the combined effects or relaxation, therapist-hypnotist validation, and repetitive probing create a situation in which “Individuals can be considerably more affected by hypnotic procedures and their behaviourally anchored ratings of hypnotic ability would suggest”.

It may well be that something about the abduction experience itself makes it particularly susceptible to hypnotic procedures – hence the discrepancy between hypnosis scores and the ease in soliciting abduction accounts. Research in this area has already identified several factors that may contribute to the situation:

  •  First, hypnotic recall improves when the material to be remembered is meaningful to the individual, when the emotional, physical, and cognitive conditions of the original experience are hypnotically reinstated, and as context for the event is more highly integrated with the memory to be retrieved. These conditions are common to hypnotic regression for the abduction experience.
  • Second, research on state-dependent learning suggests that returning to the state of consciousness in which an experience originally occurred might improve recall. For example, returning to a state of alcoholic intoxication improves recall of events that transpired whilst in that original condition. If hypnosis produced a mental state that in any way resembles the state during which and abduction is originally experienced, recall for that experience could be enhanced. Indeed, some abductees have described a mental state for the remembered event that is not unlike that reported by other subjects for the experience of being hypnotised.
  • Thirdly, the literature on hypnosis has provided some evidence that information gleaned in an unconscious state (i.e. subliminally) can be retrieved hypnotically. Although this research itself is controversial, it implies that information registered outside of normal consciousness awareness may be accessed during hypnosis. Abduction experiencers often describe knowledge apparently acquired in this manner.

Thomas Bullard (1989) wrote a compelling paper in the Journal of UFO Studies in which he examined the role hypnosis might play in the recollection of supposed alien abduction. He compared abduction accounts under hypnosis and non-hypnosis to see if the hypnotic procedure brought out similarities using different hypnotists. He generated a sequence of events, which appeared common in abduction accounts and compared his accounts with them.

The sequence compared against was:

  •  Capture (Intrusion, a zone of strangeness, time-lapse …)
  • Examination (including preparation, scanning, reproductive examination)
  • Conference.
  • Tour.
  • Otherworldly journey.
  • Theophany (religious message)
  • Return
  • Aftermath (including flashbacks, burns, anxiety, insomnia …)

He also examined the role of the hypnotist to see if they followed the six criteria when examining their abductees:

  • Professional credentials
  • Lack of prior convictions
  • Allow free recall before questioning
  • Avoid leading or demanding questions
  • No one else in the room
  • Memories withheld by post-hypnotic suggestion

From the examination of the hypnotists, only one, Benjamin Simon, actually filled allbenjaminsimon six criteria. He helped Betty and Barney Hill examine their supposed abduction. Initially Simon was never convinced that the case had an ounce of reality, believing that it was a shared fantasy. Transcripts show that he tried everything to trip them up under hypnosis but never succeeded. Only one other hypnotist, Donald Klein, came close, filling five of the criteria.

From dissecting the reports of hypnosis and non-hypnosis accounts, some striking similarities emerged. On the basis of his findings in 1989, Bullard concludes that “The form and content of abduction stories seems independent of hypnosis”, In a more recent study (1994) he concludes that hypnosis is a significant factor in regard to the quantity of material “recovered”, but not in any direct way to the content. He went on to state that the alarm over hypnosis is a false alarm.

Evaluation of Theory

Experiments have shown that hypnotically retrieved memory is often unreliable. However, the degree to which this research can be generalised to the kind of experience reported for abductions is not completely know, and some experimental evidence may actually be consistent with enhanced memory retrieval for this type of experience.

Certainly, this does not imply that investigators or mental health professionals can be casual about the use of hypnosis, or that hypnosis can be exonerated as a causal factor in abduction cases. Also, to dismiss hypnotically retrieved abduction accounts on the basis of what amounts to incomplete research is equally premature.

Simulations of the abduction experience conducted by A. H. Lawson, in which he asked hypnotised subjects to describe events associated with a suggested close encounter with a UFO, showed significant similarities between their imagined events and those of real abduction experiencers. Considered as the only direct test of the role of hypnosis in the abduction experience, sceptics widely cite this study as evidence for the dismissal of hypnotically retrieved memories. Conversely, ufologists (Bullard, 1989) have criticised it because of its methodology, conclusions, and generalisability. Each of these studies could, without doubt, benefit from tighter methodology and closer examination of the content and frequency of the generated reports. For now, however, they suggest that elements of the abduction experience are found in the imaginations of the non-experiencer population, and that consistency in abduction accounts is becoming more difficult to justify as evidence of veridicality.

To date there is no real tangible evidence to support the use of hypnotic regression in proving the veridicality of alien abduction accounts. But is it possible we have alien implantoverlooked a potentially rich field of study in this regard – that of alleged alien implants? Perhaps regression studies conducted on experiencers for the sole purpose of retrieving one or more alleged alien implants from their bodies would come some way to validating their stories. Would not the discovery, removal, and study of such implants, revealed under hypnotic regression, constitute evidence of veridicality, thereby supporting the continued use of hypnosis in alien abduction accounts?

References

Winn, Ralph B. Ph D (1956): Scientific Hypnotism. Wilshire Book Company.

Blankfort, Michael (1932): ‘Why We Don’t Know Much About Hypnosis’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

Randles, Jenny. (1997): First Contact. The X Factor, issue 29. Marshall Cavendish Ltd.

Randles, Jenny (1997): The Paranormal Researcher.The X Factor.

 Apelle, Stuart (1994 a): Hypnosis and the Accuracy of Abduction Memory: Alien Discussions: Proceedings of the Abduction Study Conference held at M. I. T. (pp. 204-208) Cambridge, Mass: North Cambridge Press.

 DePiano, Frank & Salzberg, Herman C. (1981): Hypnosis as an aid to recall of meaningful information presented under three types of arousal. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29, 383-400.

Zelig, Mark & Beidleman, William B. (1981): The Investigative Use of Hypnosis: A Word of Caution. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 29, 401-412.

 Brigham, John C., Maass, Anne, Snyder. Larry D., & Spaulding, Kevin (1982): Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42, 673-681.

Malpass, R S., & Devine, P. G. (1980): Realism and eyewitness identification research. Law and Human Behaviour, 4, 347-357.

Sanders, G. S. & Warnick, D. H., (1981): Truth and consequences: The effect of responsibility on eyewitness behaviour. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 67-79.

Rodegehier, Mark, Goodpaster, Jeff, &  Sandra Blatterbauer, (1991): Psychosocial characteristics of abductees: Results from the CUFOS Abduction Project. Journal of UFO Studies, 3, 59-90.

Spanos, Nicholas P., Cross, Patricia A., Dickson, Kirby, & Dubreuil, Susan C (1993): Close Encounters: An Examination of UFO Experiences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 624-632.

Orne, Martin T., Whitehouse, Wayne G., Orne, Emily Carota, & Dinges, David F (1996): ‘Memories’ of anomalous and traumatic autobiographical experiences: Validation and consolidation of fantasy through hypnosis. Psychological Inquiry. 7, 168-72.

Shields, Ian W., & Jane Knox,  (1986): Level of processing as a determinant of hypnotic hypermnesia Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 358-364.

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.