April 4th show - Hopkins, Randle & Jacobs

[Paul Kimball]

Great episode Gene. You asked the right questions, and then you let Jacobs and Hopkins hang themselves with their own answers. I could feel Kevin's frustration with them, but after listening to this, it's hard to see how anyone could ever take them seriously again.

The exchange between Kevin and Hopkins / Jacobs on the issue of hypnosis and satanic cults was particularly revealing - Hopkins and Jacobs basically saying, "yeah, but that was bad hypnosis - we would never do it like that" without once realizing how ridiculous that sounds.

You will no doubt be criticized by some, including the "me, me, me" hosts of a certain other show, for not asking the "hard questions." Ignore it - this was a top notch episode that covered all of the bases, and provided both sides a fair hearing.

That is what the gold standard is all about.

Paul

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thanks Paul. I felt that simply being the ringmaster and guiding the discussion to the proper areas would be sufficiently revealing.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Thanks Paul. I felt that simply being the ringmaster and guiding the discussion to the proper areas would be sufficiently revealing.

I will add that in my opinion, based on the available information, Jacobs at the end of the show is flat out lying when he says he hasn't gone through all of Emma Woods' evidence, at least that which she has provided publicly, or to him. Considering that there were complaints filed against him, I think it is unbelievable that Jacobs would not have completely acquainted himself with that evidence.

Paul

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Kevin wasn't the only one that felt frustrated. Several times during the show it seemed as if they were attempting to filibuster by digressing from one rambling story to another that always seemed to dodge the original question they had been asked. This was a bit frustrating. I forgot to follow up my bathroom question to Jacobs with a question about the case where the abductee asked to go to bathroom and was taken to one that was described as incredibly filthy, if my recollection is correct. I wanted to find out more from him about this weird detail. All-in-all I thought the show went pretty well; the two of them seemed fairly relaxed, but on guard. Kevin could have been more combative and I could tell he was getting pretty frustrated at times at the circular nature of many of their answers...

 

[Paul Kimball]

All-in-all I thought the show went pretty well; the two of them seemed fairly relaxed, but on guard.

That's because they've been repeating the same line for years now, so they're pretty well rehearsed. The best thing to do with people like that is not yell and scream at them (as some other shows might), but make sure that they face off against reasonable people who provide a rational counter to what they put forward, and then let the listener draw their own conclusions. I thought you and Gene, and especially Kevin, did exactly that. Well done.

---------- Post added at 04:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 AM ----------

I would also add that I thought it was imperative that you raise the "Emma Woods" question, but not focus on it, as if it was the be-all and end-all of the discussion. It is just one controversial element in a much bigger picture, and to try and make the whole thing about that, as some others have, is to miss the forest for one particular tree.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

One concern that arose was the admission about doing hypnosis by phone. At the very least they could set up a Web cam to observe the reactions if the subject.

Do regular analysts really do that?

 

[Paul Kimball]

One concern that arose was the admission about doing hypnosis by phone. At the very least they could set up a Web cam to observe the reactions if the subject.

Do regular analysts really do that?

I hear that with hypnosis, anything is possible!

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I will have to consider that next time I try to pitch a reluctant advertiser.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I will have to consider that next time I try to pitch a reluctant advertiser.

I'm still not sure what she's selling, but I know that I want to buy!

 

[Kevin Daly]

Great episode Gene. You asked the right questions, and then you let Jacobs and Hopkins hang themselves with their own answers. I could feel Kevin's frustration with them, but after listening to this, it's hard to see how anyone could ever take them seriously again.

The exchange between Kevin and Hopkins / Jacobs on the issue of hypnosis and satanic cults was particularly revealing - Hopkins and Jacobs basically saying, "yeah, but that was bad hypnosis - we would never do it like that" without once realizing how ridiculous that sounds.

You will no doubt be criticized by some, including the "me, me, me" hosts of a certain other show, for not asking the "hard questions." Ignore it - this was a top notch episode that covered all of the bases, and provided both sides a fair hearing.

That is what the gold standard is all about.

Paul

I had a thought about sleep paralysis while I while listening to this one - in all honesty I've long thought there was a good chance that sleep paralysis actually accounts for possibly the majority of abduction reports, but another possibility struck me: what if a susceptibility to sleep paralysis makes someone a good subject for a real abduction, because it enables the control mechanism that prevents them going berserk and breaking the scrawny little buggers' necks?

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

I hear that with hypnosis, anything is possible!

Watching Hypnosis with Kim I do believe I felt a disturbance in the Force.
Or something like that.
I was profoundly moved...

 

[paraschtick]

I will have to consider that next time I try to pitch a reluctant advertiser.

So Gene ... you're telling us you have inflatable breasts ... ok ... the world just got a little stranger

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Just have to convey the proper illusion.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Just have to convey the proper illusion.

How about NASA Gene

 

[Kieran]

Great showing guys, just finished listening to it. I've gave my opinion a number of times to what i think about hypnosis. But again, i don't consider it to be valid tool for gaining memories back. There is something happening however were beings that are non human want contact with a number of individuals from around the World. I know that to be the case, because it happened to some members of my family. But they were never abducted and taken onboard a spacecraft.

And for the most part remembered the whole experience. Also they've never considered it to be a UFO experience and such a thought never entered their minds, and they just thought, what occurred was evil. However i was more researched about these type of topic's and to me what they described was similar to a Whitley Streiber experience were he claimed he saw small hooded like beings.

My Aunt and Uncle, they've never went out of there way to look for answers to something that they couldn't understand. If you can't remember just leave it be, because in the end you'll cause more problems for your mental well-being by doing so.
Look most of the people are going to Jacobs and Hopkins because they obviously aware or have a believe they are been abducted by aliens. These people could have read books and read papers about UFO abductions and polluted their minds with different thoughts.

The question is, what is the motive, behind the individual going to Jacobs and Hopkins? are they expecting answers back that match their experience and if they don't get the answers that matched their view before the hypnosis. Do they get upset. I'm more interested in cases, were the individual is referred to Hopkins or Jacobs by a psychiatrist and this person is hesitant, but has serious problems moving on with his life. So agrees, but this person has no idea beforehand of what an Abduction case was or detailed. It be interesting to see, what details would emerge from a case like that?

 

[bmadccp]

Not that Psychology Today is a peer reviewed academic resource, but this article rather succinctly points out the pros and cons of hypnosis. I'm IN the mental health profession and other than trying to alter behavior (get people to stop smoking or lose weight) hypnosis isn't a really respected tool. That being said, I'm not a doctor and I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert but in my qualified opinion regression hypnotherapy is not QUITE a joke, but it's getting there.


Excerpt from article linked below....

Unfortunately, attempts to find brainwave patterns that distinguish hypnosis from ordinary waking consciousness have not panned out. The rare physiological sign of hypnosis spotted in the laboratory has failed to prove the existence of a hypnotic state. When Stanford psychiatrist David Spiegel, M.D., told hypnotized subjects to focus their attention elsewhere while receiving mild electric shocks, they showed a decreased physiological response to pain. But the same effect could be elicited from subjects not undergoing hypnotic induction--just by getting them to focus their attention elsewhere. "Every time we thought there was a physiological indicator it hasn't held up," concedes Thurman Mott, M.D., editor of the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/the-trouble-hypnosis

to be fair, there are plenty of experienced mental health practitioners who have studied hypnosis and the results seem to be mixed (with regard to behavior modification)<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

 

[trainedobserver]

One concern that arose was the admission about doing hypnosis by phone. At the very least they could set up a Web cam to observe the reactions if the subject.

Do regular analysts really do that?

You have to ask yourself the question, "Would a reasonable person submit to hypnosis by phone?"

Given the valid concerns about hypnotic regression that exist in the first place, I don't think so and I don't think a reasonable person would attempt such a thing.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

You have to ask yourself the question, "Would a reasonable person submit to hypnosis by phone?"

Given the valid concerns about hypnotic regression that exist in the first place, I don't think so and I don't think a reasonable person would attempt such a thing.

Other than Emma Woods, Jacobs claims that other subjects he performed phone hypnosis with had previously worked with him in person. I do wonder what traditional therapists think about that form of treatment, however.

 

[trainedobserver]

Other than Emma Woods, Jacobs claims that other subjects he performed phone hypnosis with had previously worked with him in person. I do wonder what traditional therapists think about that form of treatment, however.

Dr. Roberta is into it.

 

[jratcliff]

It was nice to hear Jacobs and Hopkins both call for some standards in the field.

Here are my standards. Before you can offer therapy to someone claiming to be abducted by aliens you must first be a licensed professional therapist. And, you should only be offering therapy *after* the individual has been given a clean bill of mental health by a professional psychiatrist.

Otherwise, you are practicing medicine without a license and f**king with people's lives.

Just my correct opinion, of course...

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

It was nice to hear Jacobs and Hopkins both call for some standards in the field...

I seem to remember I was the one that called for standardization and they both agreed. And it makes sense. If you are going to insist that this mystery has relevance, you might as well standardize the approach to research and investigation. Might be advisable to also devise experiments that could gain the investigators and experiencers hard, physical evidence, as well. But, the bottom line IMO is that cases perpetrated by "others" are extremely rare and most experiences are something else—probably some kind of paraphysical trickster-type phenomenon or manifested psychological issues.