Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
What about John Mack?
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Further discussion of Hypnosis goes here
- Thread starter Schuyler
- Start date
Free episodes:
Tom From Hong Kong
Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Hotkafka,
I have a genuine question for you, as a trained professional: both David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins discuss their extensive "apprenticeship" periods working with qualified psychiatrists and hypnotists prior to setting off and doing hypnosis on their own. In many professions (such as mine), you frankly learn very little during your formal education that directly impacts your job performance, but rather the bulk of the learning is during one's apprenticeship or training period under more experienced practitioners. Aren't critics overplaying the fact that Jacobs and Hopkins don't have any formal education in the field of psychiatry?
Thanks for your views in advance.
Tom
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
I'd be interested to know just how many formally trained psychiatrists, psychotherapists and other social scientists signed off on Scientology.
I recently listened to Yvonne Smith being interviewed about her work with people experiencing abductions. She is a qualified hypnotherapist working in California. Due to her work she is using hypnosis for many issues and she charges for her time (as is of course her right as a trained professional) She admitted that her work has led her to conclude (reluctantly) that the hybird program is a big part of whatever is going on with these abductions. Much criticism of abduction researchers (excluding Mack) stems from their lack of formal training in hypnosis. Well here we have a chance to hear someone with a formal training in that field and I think she would make an excellent guest.
Tom From Hong Kong
Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Keiko,
You raise a very good point, which is while Hopkins and Jacobs are often assailed for their lack of professional qualifications, you do have a number of qualified hypnotherapists who have reached very similar conclusions as they have (Mack, Smith, Carpenter). I agree someone like Yvonne Smith would be a great guest, more so than having David Childress back on for a second show.
Tom From Hong Kong
ArchieBedford
Partly experienced
Gene, you had John Carpenter as a guest a few months ago, talking mainly about his research into the work of the late Leonard Stringfield. He was a real interesting guest. Many may be unaware of Carpenter's unimpeachable credentials as a qualified mental healthcare professional and accredited hypnotherapist, or that he has worked with many abductees in Missouri over the years and uncovered pretty much the same memories and narratives as does every other researcher in this field around the world, because he doesn't publish his data (perhaps understandably, considering the brickbats those who do are forced to endure from the ignorant).
How about inviting John and Yvonne on together as a pair of guests? She also comes over as an interesting and intelligent interview subject - though she does say she has no interest in arguing with debunkers of her research unless they have done some work themselves and speak from knowledge. I don't know if these two ever compare notes (it seems most abduction researchers don't do this enough) but everywhere they all seem to hear the same stuff, including hybrid interactions. It might make for an interesting episode.
Certainly a possibility to consider. Thanks.
Gary Haden made a blog post on February 25 titled, They’re On to Me: The MPD Game from Hello to Goodbye, and may be viewed at:
http://speculativerealms.blogspot.com/20....m-hello-to.html
An excerpt:
http://speculativerealms.blogspot.com/20....m-hello-to.html
An excerpt:
The issue of consent strikes at the heart of the Emma Woods Case. There are aspects to consent that rarely, if ever, enter into a conversation between believers in alien abduction hypnosis. Issues such as “capacity," “competence," “informed consent," and “impairment” [...] never seep into such conversations because faith in extraterrestrials is a mystical tradition that can, if it rots to the level of fundamentalism, destroy a person’s ability to think.
I have listened to the entire unedited recording of the 29th Hypnosis Session. This post covers all material related to the Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) Game Mr. Jacobs allegedly played with Miss Woods to evade pursuit of his person by alien beings. Material related to Miss Woods’ experiences is not dealt with. That task should be the occupation of individuals who have faith in the existence of the extraterrestrials in question and I do not possess faith in nor will I aide in advertising the existence of said beings. Such work is irresponsible.
Faith in extraterrestrials directly contributed to Miss Woods’ violation.
In the 29th Hypnosis Session Jacobs conducted with Emma Woods, at the beginning of the recording which Emma Woods obtained from David Jacobs, he broaches the infamous subject of the threatening instant messages he received from Elizabeth Smith’s computer.
To restate, the source of these instant messages were (supposedly) “transgenic” alien human hybrids.
After discussing the incident with Emma Woods, he stated that as long as the aliens believed Elizabeth Smith had multiple personality disorder, everything would be ok.
David Jacobs decided on a course of action and took it, without consulting Miss Woods, informing her of the dangers of his actions, or consulting her outside of the context of the conduct of a hypnosis session. If such conversations took place, the onus is on Mr. Jacobs to prove it.
What follows is an unedited version of the posthypnotic suggestion. It contains no specific triggering information that the suggestion is part of a game. Its one specific trigger—when people ask Emma Woods about her contact with him—is so general a suggestion as to constitute blanket applicability. The suggestion does not say, for instance: “When aliens ask you about our work together tell them you have multiple personality disorder.”
The suggestion states that when PEOPLE ask you about our work together tell them you have multiple personality disorder.
I have listened to the entire unedited recording of the 29th Hypnosis Session. This post covers all material related to the Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) Game Mr. Jacobs allegedly played with Miss Woods to evade pursuit of his person by alien beings. Material related to Miss Woods’ experiences is not dealt with. That task should be the occupation of individuals who have faith in the existence of the extraterrestrials in question and I do not possess faith in nor will I aide in advertising the existence of said beings. Such work is irresponsible.
Faith in extraterrestrials directly contributed to Miss Woods’ violation.
In the 29th Hypnosis Session Jacobs conducted with Emma Woods, at the beginning of the recording which Emma Woods obtained from David Jacobs, he broaches the infamous subject of the threatening instant messages he received from Elizabeth Smith’s computer.
To restate, the source of these instant messages were (supposedly) “transgenic” alien human hybrids.
After discussing the incident with Emma Woods, he stated that as long as the aliens believed Elizabeth Smith had multiple personality disorder, everything would be ok.
David Jacobs decided on a course of action and took it, without consulting Miss Woods, informing her of the dangers of his actions, or consulting her outside of the context of the conduct of a hypnosis session. If such conversations took place, the onus is on Mr. Jacobs to prove it.
What follows is an unedited version of the posthypnotic suggestion. It contains no specific triggering information that the suggestion is part of a game. Its one specific trigger—when people ask Emma Woods about her contact with him—is so general a suggestion as to constitute blanket applicability. The suggestion does not say, for instance: “When aliens ask you about our work together tell them you have multiple personality disorder.”
The suggestion states that when PEOPLE ask you about our work together tell them you have multiple personality disorder.
Sean Elifritz
Administrator
This Gary Haden character keeps getting mentioned all over the place lately. Seems that you can reach celebrity status in the UFO field these days by having internet access and going on and on about Emma Woods. I've been to his blog and it didn't take me long to roll my eyes and get out of there. The guy's tone is off the charts. Any point he tries to get across is lost amid the hysterical nature of his delivery. I don't know what it is about Woods supporters but they sure are a raucous crowd, personal insults and foam-at-the-mouth tirades being their favorite methods of expressing themselves. Not long ago he went batshit-bonkers-insane on Nick Redfern and he didn't even know what he was talking about.
On a side note Carol Rainey has posted a video about the Cortile case. I've always thought that case was a hoax so "yawn" as far as I'm concerned. But I guess the real point is to make Budd Hopkins look bad. Seems to me that if she really wants to do that she should have a look at the Ed Walters case as well. Ed made a fool of Hopkins, Bruce Maccabee, Jerome Clark (Clark argues for the reality of Walters' claims in his UFO Encyclopedia), and a whole lot of other UFO personalities imo. But anyway, Budd's been at this for what, 40 years? Of course in all that time some people have managed to trick him. He wouldn't be human otherwise.:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D4hQrcDbUpWM[/video]
Just a few comments:
I gave up on this Haden character, or whoever he is, when he kept lying about my position on the issue.
I stopped paying any attention to Rainey when she wrote me a pair of hate messages. I told her to buzz off. But I do question her ethics in waiting until Budd Hopkins was seriously ill to start her smear campaign. If she felt she had a real case, she could have made it years ago, when Hopkins was in a better position to respond.
Without giving a final verdict on Gulf Breeze, don't forget that there were many sightings that didn't involve Ed Walters. It's not one case, but many.
I gave up on this Haden character, or whoever he is, when he kept lying about my position on the issue.
I stopped paying any attention to Rainey when she wrote me a pair of hate messages. I told her to buzz off. But I do question her ethics in waiting until Budd Hopkins was seriously ill to start her smear campaign. If she felt she had a real case, she could have made it years ago, when Hopkins was in a better position to respond.
Without giving a final verdict on Gulf Breeze, don't forget that there were many sightings that didn't involve Ed Walters. It's not one case, but many.
ArchieBedford
Partly experienced
A couple of months ago, Haden sent me a PM on these very forums the content of which was so offensive, obscene and disgusting it read like it was written by an uncouth, immature 12-year old who was the result of seriously bad parenting.
What is it with these people that they seem unable to exercise common civility, and can't help but expose themselves to be ignorant, ranting and juvenile assholes?
No doubt it will all end in tears, as they eventually tear each other apart with the same vindictiveness and hate they now so liberally pour onto others.
It seems to me that the most relevant subject matter is the credibility or lack thereof of regressive hypnosis (RH) as a memory retrieval tool and the responsibility of researchers (that use RH) to make their subjects thoroughly aware of its infallibilities and potential emotional and psychological consequences. I therefore think what matters most is the validity of what is presented for consideration by individuals such as Woods, Rainey and Haden, not whether or not we personally choose to like them, whether or not we personally choose to want to believe them, whether or not any of them have ever been mean to us or similar such issues. Such personal issues have little to nothing to do with the primary subject matter: The lack of credibility of RH as a memory retrieval tool, the abuses that are taking place during its clumsy, unprofessional application and the lies and half truths that are being fed to the UFO community.
Where am I wrong?
Where am I wrong?
It's not really about you being right or wrong. You have your opinion and others have theirs. We can debate it but I'm getting tired of this incessant preachy diatribe from ufo bloggers and self appointed guardians of 'truth' (that's not a personal accusation as I don't know you or your work but there just seems to be alot on this theme lately and it's getting tiresome.) RH is controversial, sure. Personally, I think it was quite an obvious tool to use as the phenomena became apparent. It's been used by many qualified professionals and alot of people think it has value despite the inherent dangers of contamination and confabulation. In time it may prove to have been inadequate as a tool but hey people had to start somewhere. No one knows what this abduction situation is yet so how can we really judge what's effective and what is not?
Anyway who is this UFO community? Why are they allowing themselves to be 'fed'? Do you mean me or the other posters on these forms? Cause the cap don't fit...we do our own research.
Many abduction reseachers are decent people doing their best and they're only there because people keep having weird experiences and feel the need to talk to someone about them. If someone wants to try RH that's their prerogative.
ArchieBedford
Partly experienced
The possile motivation of an individual persistently attacking someone by manufacturing evidence to discredit them as a person is, surely, highly relevant to whether or not we should take seriously what they say. Persistent rudeness and abuse whilst pushing a single-issue obsessive agenda targeting a particular person must surely reflect on the character, motives and methods of such accusers. You have to view anything they say or claim in this light and subject it to the greatest possible scrutiny through the prism of skepticism, surely. To not do so would be irredeemably naive.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is of course a given, as Keiko suggested, that it is entirely the personal choice of any self-described abductee to participate in regressive hypnosis. That stated, I present the following for consideration:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The American Medical Association issued a firm and clear notice it does not endorse hypnosis, regressive or otherwise, for any purpose (https://www.asch.net/Public/AMANotice/tabid/277/Default.aspx). The notice further states individuals teaching and practicing hypnosis have a responsibility to accurately represent said AMA stance, or at the least not misrepresent the AMA stance and known facts regarding hypnosis. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The directive is not being followed by self-described abduction researchers who promote the use of regressive hypnosis. All one has to do to be aware this is the case is attend a few public events, such as MUFON meetings or speaking engagements featuring such self-described researchers. Their lack of presenting fair and unbiased perspectives on hypnosis is equally apparent in their published literature. I respectfully encourage consideration that anyone who does not attend public events and has not directly interacted with abductees and hypnotists is poorly qualified to competently comment on the evolving state of affairs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The fact of the matter is the current Western professional mental health community does not recognize regressive hypnosis as an effectively accurate memory retrieval tool and identifies it as subject to a great deal of error. So while everyone is indeed entitled to educate themselves on the subject and proceed at their own risk, they are commonly being misinformed by individuals and organizations that should be in a position to speak competently on the topic yet are not. I will offer an example.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If a rational and intelligent individual experienced events leading them to suspect they may have been involved in alien abduction, a reasonable choice would be to contact an organization promoting itself as dedicated to scientific study of UFOs, ala MUFON. Operative word there being 'scientific.' However, if after contacting MUFON, the individual is then referred to a hypnotist, subjected to regressive hypnosis and encouraged to sit in meetings where people discuss any number of topics as factual that in reality have not yet been so much as confirmed to exist, the individual has been blatantly and negligently misled. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The individual was never given the opportunity to review the facts and make an informed decision prior to being coerced and peer pressured into forming beliefs about their experiences. All of which would have been okay if the individual willingly contacted fringe elements in the first place, as opposed to being under the impression they were contacting a scientific research organization. Such situations are regularly taking place and have been for decades.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I present for consideration that the same scenario applies to an individual who would contact a man holding a PhD and employed at a major American university. Such people should be trustworthy of presenting information in unbiased and complete manners, but they clearly are not. What little of their work has been made available for competent peer review is very telling, which is, no doubt, why peer review is so frequently, blatantly and negligently avoided:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/UFO.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Perhaps most importantly of all, such negligent 'researchers' were the trend setters. They are indeed entitled to believe anything they may choose. They are equally entitled to publish any beliefs they may form. They are not, however, entitled to prematurely present said beliefs as facts, indirectly influencing masses of other 'researchers' to spend a few nights at a hypnosis class, pass a simple test and do same. Unfortunately, that is just what happened, in spite of such people having no right to muddy the waters to such detrimental extents as has taken place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Did regressive hypnosis deserve a fair shot? Maybe. I suppose a reasonable argument could be made on its behalf. I would even go as far as to say its supporters were well intentioned in many circumstances, as Keiko suggested. That does not change the fact, however, that we are now a few years older and wiser, and it is time to, at the least, encourage regressive hypnosis practitioners to make prospective clients fully aware of the AMA stance, potential inaccuracies and potential emotional damage prior to proceeding. Again, I respectfully suggest that if individuals do not have first hand experience with such issues, they are poorly equipped to comment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Archie Bedford apparently wants it taken into consideration that an individual's rationality, or lack thereof, should weigh heavily into assigning value to their statements. I of course agree. I also enthusiastically agree, as Archie wrote, that “you have to view anything they say or claim in this light and subject it to the greatest possible scrutiny through the prism of skepticism, surely.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That was indeed my point, Archie. What people say or choose to believe is beside the point as compared to what they back up with fact; established, peer reviewed fact. If supporters and practitioners of regressive hypnosis would present such factual evidence, everything else would be irrelevant. But they do not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]They do not, in spite of the plethora of opportunities that the intelligent observer has now noticed. Claims of alien-hybrids mating with humans, being trained to blend into society by shopping at 24-hour Wal-Marts and sending electronic messages from specific, easily located computers. My, what opportunities for DNA samples... Forthcoming soon?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The American Medical Association issued a firm and clear notice it does not endorse hypnosis, regressive or otherwise, for any purpose (https://www.asch.net/Public/AMANotice/tabid/277/Default.aspx). The notice further states individuals teaching and practicing hypnosis have a responsibility to accurately represent said AMA stance, or at the least not misrepresent the AMA stance and known facts regarding hypnosis. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The directive is not being followed by self-described abduction researchers who promote the use of regressive hypnosis. All one has to do to be aware this is the case is attend a few public events, such as MUFON meetings or speaking engagements featuring such self-described researchers. Their lack of presenting fair and unbiased perspectives on hypnosis is equally apparent in their published literature. I respectfully encourage consideration that anyone who does not attend public events and has not directly interacted with abductees and hypnotists is poorly qualified to competently comment on the evolving state of affairs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The fact of the matter is the current Western professional mental health community does not recognize regressive hypnosis as an effectively accurate memory retrieval tool and identifies it as subject to a great deal of error. So while everyone is indeed entitled to educate themselves on the subject and proceed at their own risk, they are commonly being misinformed by individuals and organizations that should be in a position to speak competently on the topic yet are not. I will offer an example.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If a rational and intelligent individual experienced events leading them to suspect they may have been involved in alien abduction, a reasonable choice would be to contact an organization promoting itself as dedicated to scientific study of UFOs, ala MUFON. Operative word there being 'scientific.' However, if after contacting MUFON, the individual is then referred to a hypnotist, subjected to regressive hypnosis and encouraged to sit in meetings where people discuss any number of topics as factual that in reality have not yet been so much as confirmed to exist, the individual has been blatantly and negligently misled. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The individual was never given the opportunity to review the facts and make an informed decision prior to being coerced and peer pressured into forming beliefs about their experiences. All of which would have been okay if the individual willingly contacted fringe elements in the first place, as opposed to being under the impression they were contacting a scientific research organization. Such situations are regularly taking place and have been for decades.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I present for consideration that the same scenario applies to an individual who would contact a man holding a PhD and employed at a major American university. Such people should be trustworthy of presenting information in unbiased and complete manners, but they clearly are not. What little of their work has been made available for competent peer review is very telling, which is, no doubt, why peer review is so frequently, blatantly and negligently avoided:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/UFO.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Perhaps most importantly of all, such negligent 'researchers' were the trend setters. They are indeed entitled to believe anything they may choose. They are equally entitled to publish any beliefs they may form. They are not, however, entitled to prematurely present said beliefs as facts, indirectly influencing masses of other 'researchers' to spend a few nights at a hypnosis class, pass a simple test and do same. Unfortunately, that is just what happened, in spite of such people having no right to muddy the waters to such detrimental extents as has taken place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Did regressive hypnosis deserve a fair shot? Maybe. I suppose a reasonable argument could be made on its behalf. I would even go as far as to say its supporters were well intentioned in many circumstances, as Keiko suggested. That does not change the fact, however, that we are now a few years older and wiser, and it is time to, at the least, encourage regressive hypnosis practitioners to make prospective clients fully aware of the AMA stance, potential inaccuracies and potential emotional damage prior to proceeding. Again, I respectfully suggest that if individuals do not have first hand experience with such issues, they are poorly equipped to comment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Archie Bedford apparently wants it taken into consideration that an individual's rationality, or lack thereof, should weigh heavily into assigning value to their statements. I of course agree. I also enthusiastically agree, as Archie wrote, that “you have to view anything they say or claim in this light and subject it to the greatest possible scrutiny through the prism of skepticism, surely.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That was indeed my point, Archie. What people say or choose to believe is beside the point as compared to what they back up with fact; established, peer reviewed fact. If supporters and practitioners of regressive hypnosis would present such factual evidence, everything else would be irrelevant. But they do not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]They do not, in spite of the plethora of opportunities that the intelligent observer has now noticed. Claims of alien-hybrids mating with humans, being trained to blend into society by shopping at 24-hour Wal-Marts and sending electronic messages from specific, easily located computers. My, what opportunities for DNA samples... Forthcoming soon?[/FONT]
Thanks for the detailed reply jj. As far as I am aware most of the reputable researchers do this and of course all should. I have mentioned before on these forums that I did a couple of sessions with Dr Jacobs some years back. So I can testify that this was made 100% clear to me. Also I was warned of the difficulties that any memory recovery could bring to my life. Actually, I was pretty much discouraged from going ahead and had to wait a week or before DJ agreed to work with me to ensure I had taken time to really weigh it up and make the right decision for me. I think most people do agree that RH is problematic but some decide it has advantages as a tool in figuring out what is happening to them. The only RH reseacher I heard present at at conference is Yvonne Smith (a qualified hypnotherapist) and she put forward her ideas and research in a professional way.
There's a few points to address here: RH is controversial, this we agree on but so are many (most) areas of psychological and medical treatment. People still choose and use and there are endless debates. If MUFON gives someone contact details for an 'abduction researcher' or an RH therapist open to discussing this high strangeness then that is for the person to make a decision. What would you suggest to someone in this boat? If someone asks for RH they are not 'subjected' to it - that word infers no choice and imposition, as if they are a victim or prisoner. I was never encouraged to sit in on any meetings but I know there are support groups. Why not? Talking to others who have had similar weirdness in their lives is probably quite healing. I'm sure MUFON do their best to help people who contact them. It is a UFO group not a scientific research organisation. People hardly mistake it for NASA?
This is Dave Jacobs you referr to, no? Well I contacted him and quite honestly I found him very trustworthy (and decent). How many people who have worked with him have you spoken to? Apart from Ms Woods who has been very vocal about her negative feelings are there many others? So I am not sure how you have reached this conclusion? Most people who go to serious abduction reseachers are extremely private about the matter. Most don't want publicity. Most don't come on chat forums (as I am doing now). So what was you methodology in collecting and assessing how Jacob's 'clients' feel or felt about him? I don't quite understand your point about peer review? You criticise them for discussing/publishing their work yet they have not put enough material out for peer review? What did you mean by 'telling'? I can't comment on this until it is clarified.
You have not demonstrated to me that the pioneers in this field were 'negligent'. Ultimately they may be mistaken in many of their ideas, but that's a different thing. Presenting beliefs as facts...I'm not sure if this was done...I mean isn't the whole UFO thing speculative? No one has the proof of what these beings/craft are so all ideas are only and can only be hypotheses. Even witness testimony from someone like General De Brower is not fact...it's just testimony. Ideas cannot be quarantined and controlled. No reseacher I have met encourages a cheap, worthless hypnosis class? I believe Yvonne Smith spent 3/4 years studying. So I don't know why you accuse them of this.
Absolutely agree here and as I mentioned before this was my experience with Jacobs.
I agree this is extremely far out! However, people seem to be reporting this to him. Now I agree there is a problem with the possibility of a self-fulfilling narrative. It has not to by knowledge been claimed by any other researcher than Jacobs so he is out on a limb here. It is not fair or warranted to suggest that all reseachers using RH are in the same boat here or are associated with his claims. But don't forget he didn't start discussing hybrids in Walmart in public. That was one of his clients (EW) who broke her confidentiality agreement (I assume she signed something...he agrees not to reveal your identity and you give him permission to use your 'information). Perhaps he wanted to wait and see did others start describing experiences like this to him before he jumped to conclusions or to what degree this 'integration' may be happening? We'll never know. Regarding DNA samples. The only sample that I know of it in the Peter Khoury case (Australia) and that does seem to suggest or allow for an explanation of some artifically hybridised DNA.
Additional thought...I do think there are huge problems with the EW case. I just don't think it alone should be used to criticise the whole field or all other researchers. I wish the case had been presented by EW in a different way, maybe to MUFON with the help of her therapist. An objective analysis of the whole history of the case is needed so we can see where and how it all went wrong. Then the field could have had a chance to 'self-police' and maybe even strike Jacobs off their list if they felt this was required. Instead we just have an internet free for all - emotional, vitriolic and uninformed. I have alot of sympathy for EW for what she went through, even it seems before she met Jacobs. I hope she finds some peace.