• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not being protective. It's a personal attack and we're way over the line here. You are free to attack his research and his conclusions, which you've done here. Do we really need to concern ourselves over whether he was qualified to get a history degree, or how much he makes from book sales? Focus on the issues, please. There is plenty to dispute without dealing with side issues.
 
Even if they were to try doing so, in essence trying to traumatise the test subject in such a way to fit the implanted
narrative (obviously highly unethical and illegal) it's still not the genuine, wholly personal affect that can only be
received by experiencing a real traumatic memory firsthand. It might result in a simulation of sorts, but nothing
with the meaningfulness of the real thing. Were they to attempt to traumatise the subject for real, they would
have to do it for real for the affect to match.

I agree that she was constrained by ethical boundaries, and some say she went too far as it is. Not everyone who uses memory techniques to recover memories have been so constrained. The kind of techniques that Jacobs uses has created other forms of recovered memories that have been very traumatic. The article I cited earlier about hidden memories recounts traumatic experiences relating to people who found out they were ritually abused by satanic cults that ate children. This has led to both legal and ethical problems, with parallels drawn to abduction research.
 
I agree that she was constrained by ethical boundaries, and some say she went too far as it is. Not everyone who uses memory techniques to recover memories have been so constrained. The kind of techniques that Jacobs uses has created other forms of recovered memories that have been very traumatic. The article I cited earlier about hidden memories recounts traumatic experiences relating to people who found out they were ritually abused by satanic cults that ate children. This has led to both legal and ethical problems, with parallels drawn to abduction research.

One data source that I've found helpful in learning more about corroborated recovered memories is Dr. Ross E. Cheit's corroborated
recovered memory case archive
. To date he's collated 110 cases of corroborated recovered memories, he includes his criteria for how
a case is deemed corroborated as well. I've spent a small fortune tracking down the original source articles and the cases are absolutely
fascinating and I highly recommend checking them out.

It is definitely a precise practice carefully and accurately retrieving consciously inaccessible memories. There are very real dangers
and all due caution and care is a must.

Peace,

Sean
 
Chuckleberryfinn cited some interesting numbers:

"Here is the Amazon sales data after his (David Jacobs') appearance on Art Bell last night:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #13,406 in Books
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #15,507 Paid in Kindle Store

These radio appearances substantially improve his sales, not that this is bad. He should be paid for his books."

Conversely, having a popular name in the field on any particular podcast tends to jack up the numbers. Each hand washes the other. If you have a few minutes of pointed questions you can maintain your fig leaf of 'non-endorsement', while numbers rise on both sides. Everyone's happy and and the wheel keeps trundling along in the same well worn rut.
 
One data source that I've found helpful in learning more about corroborated recovered memories is Dr. Ross E. Cheit's corroborated
recovered memory case archive
. To date he's collated 110 cases of corroborated recovered memories, he includes his criteria for how
a case is deemed corroborated as well. I've spent a small fortune tracking down the original source articles and the cases are absolutely
fascinating and I highly recommend checking them out.

It is definitely a precise practice carefully and accurately retrieving consciously inaccessible memories. There are very real dangers
and all due caution and care is a must.

Peace,

Sean

Unless she has changed her position, Loftus, of course, does not deny that there is no such thing as recovered or repressed memories - she acknowledges that in her "Remembering Dangerously" essay linked above.

I will look at the list more carefully, but it seems to involve childhood sex abuse. Having researched some of the ritual abuse criminal court cases out of Kern County in California, I noticed those were not included in the list, perhaps for obvious reasons. Satan's Silence is an interesting book that includes those cases and documents how hypnosis and other techniques can lead to injustice.

But at the minimum I agree that precision, caution, and care is a must. As Loftus writes, "Each case must be examined on its merits to explore the credibility, the timing, the motives, the potential for suggestion, the corroboration, and other features to make an intelligent assessment of what any mental product means."

I do not see that happening in the abduction field - at least here where the head of a local MUFON group has told people that if they are interested in the UFO phenomenon it could very well mean that they are experiencers who have hidden memories. And a conference this weekend features group regression. But if Jacobs offers corroboration, I am more than willing to look at it.
 
Last edited:
To All you Worthless Jacobs-bashers!
Dr. Jacobs is doing original investigation, right or wrong.
What are you doing?
Dr. Jacobs is in the trenches fighting!
What are you doing?

You are doing PEA TURKEY SQUAT!
Be part of a constructive solution or
dry up and blowaway! I commend
Jacobs on focusing on the intelligence
behind the UFOs. Thank God for Dr. Jacobs!
Gene is it possible an interview with one or more
of Jacob's abductee clients could be arranged?
 
I could ask. But these people may just want to stay private. You can see how entering the public arena is not always the best idea.
 
Not being protective. It's a personal attack and we're way over the line here. You are free to attack his research and his conclusions, which you've done here. Do we really need to concern ourselves over whether he was qualified to get a history degree, or how much he makes from book sales? Focus on the issues, please. There is plenty to dispute without dealing with side issues.

"Unfortunately, the UFO field is littered with people with fake doctorates and other fanciful credentials."

Faking It
By Gene Steinberg

Your Paracast Newsletter -- August 11, 2013
 
So you feel his degree is fake? What's your basis for that assumption? And, no, not because he has some far-out UFO-related opinions.
 
It's not relevant to this thread. I see no evidence his degree is fake. As to his credentials, he's a laymen when it comes to hypnosis. He says that, and that his training is limited to sitting beside Budd Hopkins and some sort of workshop/course. So again, he's not claiming any special credentials.
 
Gene, his doctorate is fair game because he chooses to put it at the forefront himself. It's on the cover of his books and he insists on people calling him doctor or professor when he appears on shows like yours. That makes it completely fair to discuss the issue.

I never stated I thought his degree was fake, Gene. My point in bringing the issue up is simply because I find it paradoxical that a person can have a legitimate PhD and at the same time openly espouse crackpot "aliens taking over the world" theories. That is all. It's a much more simple concept than you are trying to make it out to be, and it's not a personal attack against Jacobs.

It's a simple observation that many people have made about the man, probably even some of his own students.
 
To All you Worthless Jacobs-bashers!
Dr. Jacobs is doing original investigation, right or wrong.
What are you doing?
Dr. Jacobs is in the trenches fighting!
What are you doing?

You are doing PEA TURKEY SQUAT!
Be part of a constructive solution or
dry up and blowaway! I commend
Jacobs on focusing on the intelligence
behind the UFOs. Thank God for Dr. Jacobs!
Gene is it possible an interview with one or more
of Jacob's abductee clients could be arranged?
That's not helpful. Having a laugh and not believing in someone's process/conclusion is not
'Bashing'
Calling people worthless is not a good start to a message.
Doing original research is laudable but whether 'right or wrong' makes a difference to a lot of people.
 
His degree isn't fake. His claimed credentials aren't fake, unless you have evidence otherwise? So it's not entirely relevant.

Listen, we are getting wrapped up in issues that really don't relate to his views, research, and claimed results. Why can't we restrict the discussion to that.
 
His degree isn't fake. His claimed credentials aren't fake, unless you have evidence otherwise? So it's not entirely relevant.

Listen, we are getting wrapped up in issues that really don't relate to his views, research, and claimed results. Why can't we restrict the discussion to that.
That's the best idea.
 
Everything you say seems adversarial. Even if it's not intentional- just my observation.

Thanks, but what happened in this instance is Gene called me out for my being surprised that Jacobs has a doctorate, yet in Gene's own newsletter he made a similar statement about some of the people in this field.

You are correct, calling someone "worthless" (forum member cosmonaut's post) is over the top, but Gene seems to be cool with it, so there we are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top