Suggestible Memory

Suggestible memory is an interesting phenomenon in which the sub conscious works to make us see what we expect to see and little else, and in independent testing around 75% of people don’t actually see what is happening as they part see what is happening and their sub conscious fills in the blanks. Suggestion is often used in many ways by many organisations to manipulate the sub conscious for the benefit of someone or more often, an organisation and is a very useful and powerful weapon to promote an issue or agenda.
Let’s explain this; if 100 people are at a sporting venue watching an event such as a rugby match and they all have different views of an incident such as scoring a try, then watching them take a conversion after scoring the try, then they get the100 people together in a room, you should get the same version of events by all 100 people, but why don’t you? It only takes one person to claim the player taking the conversion miskicked the ball by catching his studs on the ground as he contacted the ball then 75 of the 100 people will also say they saw the player miskicked the ball and this is suggestible memory, even though they all saw and witnessed the same event. If the player missed the conversion kick then it becomes an excuse as the sub conscious mind says a professional rugby player should always score a conversion kick and that they never miss, already the logical mind says any player can miss a kick and the sub conscious mind says they shouldn’t miss a kick and there is a conflict between the logical and sub conscious mind and the sub conscious mind always wins.
If the conversion kick is not missed and the kicker scores we get a different scenario and if one of the 100 people suggests his miskick led to him scoring then 75 of the 100 people will say he was lucky and the conversion was only scored because of the miskick.

They are adamant they are telling the truth and will argue tooth and nail that they witnessed it as they actually believe what they are saying is the truth and nothing will dissuade them from this belief, unless they are aware of suggestible memory, and they actually saw what happened, and this is the reason eye witnesses ae actually unreliable in many instances. In many cases the sub conscious mind always defaults to the worst case scenario and this complicates matters, and it takes only one

Many organisations already know about the sub conscious mind and many actually train their staff to use it as they know by making a suggestion that they can manipulate someone into believing they saw something they didn’t see, or hadn’t actually occurred and with such odds of 3:1 for sub conscious manipulation it will, in most cases, favour them.

This was readily shown recently where researchers did a little testing using three scenarios which were all staged and actually took place in public areas with the public around, using actors.

Scenario 1 happened in a sports shop where a teenage boy picked up a bag and ran out of the shop and several people chased him after someone used suggestible memory and said “did he steal that bag” and this caused several people to chase him, including the police. Immediately someone (the stooge) said “did he steal that” which is a question and not a statement and people assumed it was a statement by assuming the worst case scenario they chased him using an assumption as suggestible memory and shouted other shoppers to stop him as he had stolen the bag and not suspected of stealing the bag.
When he was caught by the police and marched back to the shop the staff confirmed he hadn’t stolen it as they didn’t sell that particular brand and the police let him go, but where was the bag? The CCTV never actually saw where he picked it up from and he could have picked it up from 3 rails, seats, or the floor. When they looked again he appeared to shout at someone then picked the bag up and ran off, when the CCTV outside the store showed a long shot it showed shoppers, a jogger, and someone pushing a bike walking past and then this boy running out of the shop, he claimed he shouted to his older sister (the jogger) and was chasing her to catch her up.

Scenario 2 happened in a petrol station in their peak period and someone drove a sign written van up to the diesel pump and filled it with diesel, he refitted his fuel filler cap and got into the van and drove off and it was witnessed by a full forecourt and people waiting to fill up with fuel. One person (the stooge) said “he’s driven off without paying” and everyone looked around and tried to get his registration number, while someone else called the police and gave them his registration number, there were 30 people on the forecourt at the time and 30 witnesses, but the staff were actually in on this scenario. Within a couple of minutes, two police cars turned up and everyone said they witnessed this van fill up and drive off and gave the vehicles details. When the police spoke to the forecourt manager, she confirmed it was an account customer and they rang it through the till and added it to the companies fuel account as the driver waved to her and she gave him the thumbs up as she knew it was an account customer.

Scenario 3 happened in a studio due to the potential of violence and they wanted a closed scene for this staged incident and they put 100 people in a room to watch this incident, what the 100 people didn’t know was that it was a purely staged event to prove the theory of suggestible memory. People involved in this event were actually put into a cinema which had its huge screen with four huge videos and the 100 people were told it was live CCTV footage of a shop and it was a test of memory to see what happened if any incident occurred. In this instance the stooge was given three items to suggest to the witnesses.

After a minute two robbers entered the store and said “give us your money and fags you Paki bastard” and they both wore one piece black cotton tops, jeans, and balaclavas over their faces. As they robbed him he tried to defend himself and one of them punched him in the side of the head and the other put the cigarettes into a black dustbin liner, the shopkeeper fell behind the counter and as he got up he has a red substance on the side of his head where he had been punched.
The stooge made a call to the Police (staged) on his mobile phone and after the call ended he spoke with everyone while they waited for the Police to arrive, what they didn’t know was that the fake police were all researchers researching suggestible memory.
In this 5 minutes the stooge made his first suggestion and said he didn’t think a punch to the head would cause the shopkeeper to bleed and he thought one of the robbers had a hammer with the shaft tucked up his sleeve, his second suggestion was that the robbers were wearing leather jackets, and his third suggestion was that he thought he saw a motorbike through the window and the robbers made their getaway on it.

When the fake police arrived and took statements, only 2 people actually gave a true account of what happened in accurate detail, 88 said the robbers were wearing leather jackets, and 79 said the robbers hit the shopkeeper in the head with a hammer and nobody said the robbers called the shopkeeper a Paki bastard.

After reading through the results the fake police returned and told the 100 witnesses that it was a fake robbery and only 2 of them had actually been accurate in what they stated they saw, they replayed the entire incident again and everyone realised their mistakes. There were no windows, so no motorbike, no leather jackets, and no hammer.
What do these three staged incidents tell us? That suggestible memory works and it works well if applied correctly, and that the human brain fills in blank spaces with what they perceive to be correct, and that by suggesting the robbers wore leather jackets they could convince people that the robbers made their getaway on a motorcycle as motorcyclists generally wear leathers.

Suggestible memory is cleverly used in many ways and one of the best examples is by the police who train their operators to use suggestible memory techniques to either get an instant response or to get no response and it works very simple, and it begins with the telephone call and they run through a range of questions based upon the current agenda.

You see two men in a fist fight and ring the police to report it and they automatically hear the word fight and jump straight to suggestible memory techniques and ask questions such as “are either of them using weapons” and you reply no, “do you think there may be a weapon involved” and you reply no. You may take a different view and give the answer of yes it is possible that a weapon is involved because there is the possibility of one of them picking something up and using it as a weapon; and already they are using suggestibility to persuade you that something is happening that isn’t. This is where the realities hit home as the operator logs this as a fight with possible weapons involved and this triggers the police listening to the radio message into assuming there is a knife involved because they heard the words fight, weapon, and the current agenda is focused upon knife crime. This also triggers a priority response and you get 6 police cars turn up and they are all in an aggressive and hostile mood, ready to tackle someone with a knife and they use excessive violence in an incident where non is needed. If a complaint is made then it gives them plausible deniability as they simply say they were responding to an incident in which a weapon was potentially being used (not suspected weapon) and they needed to respond with such violence to protect the public and themselves from injury and a gullible public accept it and side with the police, also a court will side with the police, and if this is fully investigated they merely say a member of the public reported a fight with suspected weapons involved. More plausible deniability and blaming the public for their own police actions.


Suggestible memory works in other ways and this involves a major incident which attracts the mainstream media to all show the same footage of an incident, repeatedly, on several occasions on the same day or for weeks and even months after the incident, but why? Because this triggers a response by suggestion and uses the multiple showings of an incident to trigger the sub conscious mind of all those watching an incident on television to fill in the blanks of what they didn’t see and claim it was what they did see. News is currently very fast and news outlets break all records to be the first to break the story, but they generally use the same footage from the same source for their news reports; and this is for good reason, suggestibility; and while you see the news report it is presented in a way which leaves you with lots of blanks to fill in. If you repeat this news story to multiple people then you give your version of the event you saw on TV but you also fill in the numerous blanks in the story with your opinions of what you think you saw; now multiply this by hundreds of thousands of people who watched the same incident and you have hundreds of thousands of people watching exactly the same incident and giving hundreds of thousands of versions of the one event.

We can take this further, if television or cinema advertisements come on we now see all manner of people shown in them; if we look at the total number of black and half cast people in the UK, they are officially less than 10% of the population, but many adverts are now following and promoting the equality agenda and this shows in their adverts. In many PC adverts we may start off with someone white followed by someone black and they are pretty equal in numbers and if the official figures are to be believed then there should only be one black face to ten white faces to be correctly representative of the population in any advert which promotes a product to all people within the UK. Some products may appeal mainly to black people of Afro Caribbean descent and in such adverts people would expect to see mainly black faces, similarly, if a female sanitary product is advertised then people would expect only women in the advert as they are the users and target market for these products, not men.
Where reasonable representation is not used then it is clearly promotion of an agenda by using suggestibility and nothing more.

On a very Related Note,
A Book review of
"Trance Formations"
Look for most recent comments below the Video for a Free Archive download of a Book that explains Neuro Linguistic Programming and much more,