The truth always seems to prevail, even if it takes some time to get there. Luckily the left, along with main Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, demanded and FBI investigation into her 36-year-old accusations, which was pretty ballsy given all that Blasey Ford seemingly has to hide. Perhaps she didn’t think that certain things would be uncovered, but now she’s unravelling at the seams and so are Democrats who have fervently pushed this accusation to facilitate their doomed agenda.
Dr. Ford has allegedly been caught in a web of deceit and a research article she contributed to ten years ago has resurfaced recently. What’s particularly questionable about this material, is the subject matter that may have foreshadowed how she’s now retrieving decades-old memories to “create artificial situations,” according to professor and senior writer for The Federalist, Margot Cleveland.
Despite her extensive and impressive educational background, Dr. Ford didn’t seem to think her high profile allegations through. She must have forgotten that she co-authored a study in which participants were taught SELF-HYPNOSIS and noted hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories. But more importantly, this study also taught how to “CREATE ARTIFICAL [sic] SITUATIONS,” Cleveland said on Twitter with photo evidence of the study’s existence and Ford’s part in it, which she also wrote for The Federalist.
BREAKING: This is HUGE (waiting for permission to h/t): One of Christine Ford Blasey's research articles in 2008 included a study in which participants were TAUGHT SELF-HYPNOSIS & noted hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories "AND CREATE ARTIFICAL SITUATIONS." pic.twitter.com/11n1JVnArM
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2018
Cleveland and many other Kavanaugh supporters believe that this answers a lot of questions about what Ford is up to.
While Dr. Ford’s purpose and suspected practice of “self hypnosis to create artificial situations” has not proven to have any part in her recent allegations against Kavanaugh, it has many people wondering if there’s any connection to this case and her behavior, who are now connecting the dots, without complete proof. We are not accusing Ford of using hypnosis to create “fake” memories, but simply stating that the correlation of her research study on this specific practice, paired with this current case, is causing conservatives to question Dr. Ford more than they already were.
“Adding to the alarming retrieval of this information is that “Ford’s internet history was wiped clean before she made allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stemming from an alleged incident 36 years ago,” Big League Politics reported.
“In sum, the same woman whose allegations against Kavanaugh from 36 years ago, which depend on retrieving old memories, authored an academic paper on how to do just that via hypnosis, which is a fringe science at best,” Big League Politics concluded.
What also seems a little suspect is how quickly this surprising material she was a part of authoring was squelched by large left-wing news outlets. Within minutes of Cleveland’s sounding the alarm with the documents on Twitter, left-leaning media watchdogs, Media Matters, published a piece discrediting the claim and of course referred to it as a “conservative conspiracy theory.”
The exceptionally quick retort to Cleveland’s shocking discovery seemed very odd, to say the least. We have no idea how Media Matters was able to know that Ford was about to be exposed by her own written words in the 10-year-old study, investigate Cleveland’s findings to determine it to be false, all within minutes of her statements and evidence to back the claim up being published on social media.
However, Media Matters seemed to have swiftly pulled something off, casting immediate doubt on what Dr. Ford meant when she wrote that.
The site’s article slamming the so-called “conspiracy” casted immediate doubt on Cleveland’s assertion in the headline, based on their own claim, for anyone cross-checking what she retrieved. “Pro-Kavanaugh conspiracy theory suggests Christine Ford hypnotized herself into creating false memory of assault by Kavanaugh,” was the title and the article expounded on their own assertion of it being a “conspiracy” as follows:
An emerging smear of Christine Blasey Ford, who says that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school, suggests that Ford created a false memory of the assault while in a hypnotic state.
Margot Cleveland, a senior contributor to The Federalist, launched the conspiracy theory on Twitter, seizing on an academic article co-authored by Ford, who is a psychology professor at Palo Alto University, and 10 others that is titled, “Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy With Hypnosis, and Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial.” The conspiracy theory was later posted at The Federalist.
The implication is that Ford may have hypnotized herself and created a false memory of her account of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting her at a party when she was 15 and he was 17. This is a misreading of the article, which cites research published in 1964 by Stanley Abrams that “suggested that hypnosis could be used to improve rapport in the therapeutic relationship, assist in the retrieval of important memories, and create artificial situations that would permit the client to express ego-dystonic emotions in a safe manner.”
In terms of self-hypnosis, the article says that “participants also were taught self-hypnosis to use outside the group for relaxation and affect regulation” — not to create false memories.
Reached for comment, one of the study’s co-authors, who is being granted anonymity because of harassment and threats surrounding Ford’s decision to speak out, told Media Matters that the claims being spread about Ford and the study are “absolutely ridiculous” and “the study had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of false memories, or the creation of memories of any kind.” The co-author added that Ford was a statistical consultant on the report, not a participant in the study, and that she worked on the data after it was collected.
Note From the Editor: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website or of the owners/administrators of where this article is shared online. Claims made in this piece are based on the author's own opinion and not stated as evidence or fact.