• 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!

April 4th show - Hopkins, Randle & Jacobs

Status
Not open for further replies.
What was this even in NYC where people witnessed people floating again?? I would like to read more about this event.

This is a reference to an incident allegedly involving the Secretary General of the UN, where he and his motorcade (along with a number of other motorists ) on or near the FDR Expressway in New York City had their cars stopped in the middle of the night almost for the purpose of having them witness firsthand an abduction of a woman who lived right next to the expressway. Evidently this story was told to Budd Hopkins by two of the Secretary General's bodyguards off-the-record, and I believe it was confirmed by one or two third party motorists (as well as the woman who was abducted). This would have been an interesting story if Budd had gone into it because, importantly, it is corroborated independent third party testimony that these events do occur (assuming Hopkins is not outright lying about it, which I doubt he is).

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

I have mixed views on the show, to be honest. There was some new material that was covered, such as the question surrounding the evolution of medical technology employed. However, a good portion of the material has been previously discussed with Messrs. Hopkins and Jacobs before on this show and elsewhere.

Regarding hypnosis, which is a line of questioning which had to be followed given the Woods controversy, Hopkins and Jacobs concede its weakness as an investigative tool, so at the end of the day people very well may need to 'agree to disagree'. Messrs. Hopkins and Jacobs will continue to point to the sheer number of the cases which detail the same complex abduction narrative to counter the pitfalls of hypnosis. This argument certainly has its strengths so long as the researchers are acquiring this information in a neutral, non-leading manner. This is difficult to verify without their cooperation.

Mr. Hopkins made a vague reference to the incident involving the Secretary General of the UN, whose entourage supposedly witnessed firsthand an abduction occurring off the FDR Expressway in New York City. Frankly, I think we need more of these types of corroborated incidents from them to enhance the credibility of their research -- if they exist. The line of questioning which unfortunately was not followed is whether Hopkins and Jacobs can give us actual examples of where independent, third party non-abductees have seen evidence which supports the abduction phenomenon. For example, have they talked to a neighbor who saw a UFO near an abductees home around the time of an alleged abduction incident? Do non-abductee spouses witness strange blue lights in their homes during the night? Have they ever actually talked to a friend present with an abductee who is supposedly 'switched off' during a daytime abduction and who therefore also had missing time? Have they verified a police report of a missing person, who supposedly was abducted, as well as the police response such as sending an officer out to the home?

What increasingly concerns me (besides some of Dr. Jacob's questionable practices) are two things: (i) the apparent complete lack of follow-up with third party witnesses to verify some of these abduction reports (oftentimes a simple telephone call would be sufficient, and would largely be non-threatening to the abductee unless they are lying), and (ii) the failure of Messrs. Hopkins and Jacobs to aggressively pursue videotape or other evidence, as mentioned on the program. Given that they have been at this for decades, I certainly would have exhaustively pursued both of the above in an effort to determine the veracity of the phenomenon. I recognize that Dr. Jacobs stated he did this early in his research efforts, and I recognize that Mr. Hopkins is getting up there in years, but it almost seems like they are waiting for someone else to do this critical work. As a researcher, this would not be my approach, recognizing that the alleged abductees need to be treated with respect and in a non-threatening manner.

At the end of the day, I personally am at the same place as I was before the program: either this is a genuine phenomenon either physical, psychological or both, with the researchers needing to do some essential supporting work, or there is some type of reckless or fraudulent behavior occurring here. I continue have trouble seeing how a group of seemingly intelligent researchers (including John Mack) can negligently or innocently progressively wander off into their own fantasy land which involves hybrid breeding programs.
 
A, very good episode! Gene did a good job of giving the hypnotherapists enough rope to hang themselves. Lets not forget that Jacobs is actually afraid of hybrids. It is apparent in listening to the tapes that he really believes that hybrids are out there and after him. Very sad that a grown man is afraid of hybrid aliens and would throw a woman under to bus to save himself from hybrids. Funny, but also disturbing if you think about it.
 
Dr. Jacobs' response to my allegations on the show, and in the statement that he mentioned that he has just posted on his website, are a series of flat out lies and misrepresentation from beginning to end. It has exceeded even my worst expectations.

He even lied about Temple University, saying that they had sent me a letter saying that they would no longer respond to me. I have received no such letter from them.

I have begun to write a rebuttal to Dr. Jacobs' statement, which I have put on my website. I will update it as I go. It is at http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/rebuttal-david-jacobs.html

As Dr. Jacobs has tried to say that the content of my hypnotically retrieved memories are an indicator that I am mentally ill, I will be posting several audio clips from my hypnosis sessions of him creating false memories in me using extensive leading and suggestion.

I have already posted the first audio clip, which is of him implanting a memory in me while I was hypnotized of "aliens" performing a procedure on me. In my opinion, his use of leading and suggestion while conducting hypnosis is so extensive that he cannot be unaware of what he is doing.

Over the next few days I will also post the correspondence between Temple University and myself, as well as the first four parts of my submission to the Office for Human Research Protections, so that people can assess it for themselves.

I found it ironic that on the show, Budd Hopkins said that I had sent him material (he highly exaggerated the amount as I do not think that it would be possible to post anyone a box three feet wide), that included "temperatures" and that this was an example of my being somehow unbalanced. In fact, the material that I sent him was a research project, in which I collected physiological data for a period one year to correlate with my experiences, which is related to the kind of research that Kevin Randle was saying is needed. The material that I sent Budd Hopkins included my basal body temperatures, in order to correlate my ovulation cycles with my experiences to see if there was a relationship between them. It is one thing to assume that there is a relationship based on hypnotically retrieved memories. It is another thing to collect the data systematically and analyze it. In view of Budd Hopkins' and Dr. Jacobs' theories about the abduction phenomenon being reproductively oriented, this is an obvious area of potential study, which I did on my own case. (I have begun to publish this material on my website at Emma Woods: Physiological Data 2004

I agree with Kevin Randle that these sorts of investigations are essential. However, while researchers such as Dr. Jacobs and Budd Hopkins focus on hypnosis, and, in Budd Hopkins' case, apparently cannot even recognize such an investigation when it is presented to him, are leading the field, there does not seem to be much hope of progress.

I think that another important area that needs to be examined is the ability of research subjects to raise legitimate concerns about psychologically abusive research practices, such as, in my case, Dr. Jacobs implanting false hypnotic suggestions in me that I had Multiple Personality Disorder, without accusing that subject of being mentally ill and of mounting a "defamation campaign" against them.

Obviously if someone comes forward, they have to provide evidence to substantiate what they say, which I have done. But if people are just attacked for criticizing a leading researcher, and if influential people support that researcher in attacking the subject concerned, other subjects will see that and not want to put themselves through that. The end result will be that incompetent and abusive researchers will get away with it. This will not be good for abduction research, which is done with human research subjects.

On a final note, the audio recordings of conversations between Dr. Jacobs and myself that I have on my website were all recorded legally. I told Dr. Jacobs that I was recording them, and he recorded at least two of them himself. (Gene, they are not tapes of hypnosis sessions, but of telephone conversations that I had with him about his work with me as a research subject.) The tapes have not been "heavily edited" at all. They have had a few sections removed, such as names, identifying information, material that is private about other people and so on. Other than that, they are the conversations that I had with Dr. Jacobs.


 
Dr. Jacobs' response to my allegations on the show, and in the statement that he mentioned that he has just posted on his website, are a series of flat out lies and misrepresentation from beginning to end. It has exceeded even my worst expectations.

He even lied about Temple University, saying that they had sent me a letter saying that they would no longer respond to me. I have received no such letter from them.

I have begun to write a rebuttal to Dr. Jacobs' statement, which I have put on my website. I will update it as I go. It is at http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/rebuttal-david-jacobs.html

As Dr. Jacobs has tried to say that the content of my hypnotically retrieved memories are an indicator that I am mentally ill, I will be posting several audio clips from my hypnosis sessions of him creating false memories in me using extensive leading and suggestion.

I have already posted the first audio clip, which is of him implanting a memory in me while I was hypnotized of "aliens" performing a procedure on me. In my opinion, his use of leading and suggestion while conducting hypnosis is so extensive that he cannot be unaware of what he is doing.

Over the next few days I will also post the correspondence between Temple University and myself, as well as the first four parts of my submission to the Office for Human Research Protections, so that people can assess it for themselves.

I found it ironic that on the show, Budd Hopkins said that I had sent him material (he highly exaggerated the amount as I do not think that it would be possible to post anyone a box three feet wide), that included "temperatures" and that this was an example of my being somehow unbalanced. In fact, the material that I sent him was a research project, in which I collected physiological data for a period one year to correlate with my experiences, which is related to the kind of research that Kevin Randle was saying is needed. The material that I sent Budd Hopkins included my basal body temperatures, in order to correlate my ovulation cycles with my experiences to see if there was a relationship between them. It is one thing to assume that there is a relationship based on hypnotically retrieved memories. It is another thing to collect the data systematically and analyze it. In view of Budd Hopkins' and Dr. Jacobs' theories about the abduction phenomenon being reproductively oriented, this is an obvious area of potential study, which I did on my own case. (I have begun to publish this material on my website at Emma Woods: Physiological Data 2004

I agree with Kevin Randle that these sorts of investigations are essential. However, while researchers such as Dr. Jacobs and Budd Hopkins focus on hypnosis, and, in Budd Hopkins' case, apparently cannot even recognize such an investigation when it is presented to him, are leading the field, there does not seem to be much hope of progress.

I think that another important area that needs to be examined is the ability of research subjects to raise legitimate concerns about psychologically abusive research practices, such as, in my case, Dr. Jacobs implanting false hypnotic suggestions in me that I had Multiple Personality Disorder, without accusing that subject of being mentally ill and of mounting a "defamation campaign" against them.

Obviously if someone comes forward, they have to provide evidence to substantiate what they say, which I have done. But if people are just attacked for criticizing a leading researcher, and if influential people support that researcher in attacking the subject concerned, other subjects will see that and not want to put themselves through that. The end result will be that incompetent and abusive researchers will get away with it. This will not be good for abduction research, which is done with human research subjects.

On a final note, the audio recordings of conversations between Dr. Jacobs and myself that I have on my website were all recorded legally. I told Dr. Jacobs that I was recording them, and he recorded at least two of them himself. (Gene, they are not tapes of hypnosis sessions, but of telephone conversations that I had with him about his work with me as a research subject.) The tapes have not been "heavily edited" at all. They have had a few sections removed, such as names, identifying information, material that is private about other people and so on. Other than that, they are the conversations that I had with Dr. Jacobs.



Ms. Woods, thanks for your note. Wouldn't a better course of action be for you to pursue this matter in the civil or criminal courts of either the State of Pennsylvania or of your home country, rather than in the media where it quickly deteriorates into a 'he said/she said' argument? Based upon some of the recordings, can't a prima facie argument can be made that Dr. Jacobs was in fact practicing medicine without a license, one in which no written disclosure statement is able to shield him? (n.b., public policy won't permit such a disclosure to shield someone acting without the proper licensing). Is it a question of cost and convenience given the fact that you apparently do not reside in the U.S.? Haven't the local Pennsylvania medical associations taken an interest in the case?

Any insights you can provide would be helpful to the Paracast audience in assessing the situation. It appears that Dr. Jacobs was rightfully tight-lipped on the matter on the Paracast given the potential legal ramifications.
 
Ms. Woods, thanks for your note. Wouldn't a better course of action be for you to pursue this matter in the civil or criminal courts of either the State of Pennsylvania or of your home country, rather than in the media where it quickly deteriorates into a 'he said/she said' argument? Based upon some of the recordings, can't a prima facie argument can be made that Dr. Jacobs was in fact practicing medicine without a license, one in which no written disclosure statement is able to shield him? (n.b., public policy won't permit such a disclosure to shield someone acting without the proper licensing). Is it a question of cost and convenience given the fact that you apparently do not reside in the U.S.? Haven't the local Pennsylvania medical associations taken an interest in the case?

Any insights you can provide would be helpful to the Paracast audience in assessing the situation. It appears that Dr. Jacobs was rightfully tight-lipped on the matter on the Paracast given the potential legal ramifications. .


Thank you for your response.

I was contacted through my website by a 21-year-old man who Dr. Jacobs took on as a research subject after me. He has given me permission to talk about his experience, and in an email he told me:

"In a session I had with Jacobs, my last one in fact, he was very self-concerned and unsympathetic. In my session, I was being approached by several of the "higher-up" beings, and they were very upset and did various unpleasant actions against me …. Instead of expressing sorrow for their ill treatment of me, he said "I'm glad that they have bigger fish to fry now besides me. You're my new best friend." He then tried to instill a message in me, using hypnosis, so they would believe that he wasn't doing anything wrong and that I was "the bad guy." After this session was over, Jacobs stated to me that he would no longer regress me unless I "felt" that they had made references to him, in which case I was supposed to contact him so he could look into it. Obviously, this was very devastating to me as I looked to Jacobs as one of the only people who could understand my situation … ."

I think that it is important that I make this public, as the fact that I initially kept quiet about it meant that Dr. Jacobs simply went ahead and abused this young man with impunity.

After Kim Carlsberg heard about the situation, she recognized the ethical issues involved and wrote a number of blog posts about it. This brought it to people's attention, and I sent emails to many people in the field so that it was known about.

The Clueless One and Jeff Ritzmann of the Paraotpia show recognized both the serious ethical issues involved and the wider implications for abduction research. They did a show on it using the audio clips from my website, and I was then interviewed by them.

Although Dr. Jacobs was not asked much about it in the interview (perhaps as a condition of the interview ?), he has put a long statement on his website, so I think that he just wanted to avoid searching questions about his misconduct.

Depending on the outcome of the OHRP review, I will decide whether to go ahead with legal action and to pursue whether Dr. Jacobs was practicing medicine without a license. it is a big step, as I will have to reveal my identity, so it will be a last resort.

At the end of the day, I think that making this issue public is the best thing that I can do. It will mean that Dr. Jacobs will be less likely to repeat the same sorts of “tactics” that he used with me, and with the young man who contacted me, and it highlights what can go wrong in this type of research.
 
I haven't heard the show.I downloaded it and will listen to it today with great anticipation.In regards to Bud Hopkins,John Mack and David Jacobs i have always been open to them as people trying to get to the truth.In that attempt to find the truth i equate their efforts to stumbling around in the dark trying to find the light switch.That stumbling breaks furniture and sometimes bones. Are we dealing with people with disingenuous motives? I don't think so. At least from having heard them before.
 
I think that it is important that I make this public, ...

I think it really boils down to this being a legal matter that can't and won't be resolved in the court of public opinion. The further publication of information about it might in fact harm whatever case or cases that may exist. I can't believe that a lawyer would advise you to continue to air your differences publicly.

As a cautionary tale it highlights why people should not go to unlicensed and unregulated individuals where mental health issues could come into play. Anyone who does has to be aware that they are placing themselves at great risk.

It is also a reminder that the information coming from alien abduction research should be regarded as highly suspect as it is arrived at through highly unreliable means and circumstances.
 
One thing I want to touch on, and maybe others have but I haven't read through everything here, is the parts about physical evidence from abductions, or even video footage. Was that Randle who asked that?

If you read enough case reports from over the years with people who have had these experiences, you will see that some people did try and take things, and then were prevented from doing so. Others were given objects to take with them that later vanished. These same stories go back to people's encounters with the Fae. You cannot remove things from the Otherworld and bring them back.

Same thing with photographs or videos. If "they" want you to see them, you will see them. If they want you to photogram them, then you will have the opportunity. But make no mistake here, they are in control of this. I can use a recent experience that I had when driving with a friend in his truck. We were on Rt. 46 West in Clifton NJ. I believe this was last August. The sun was setting in front of us, and the clouds were a pretty reddish orange. We both noticed something odd in front of the clouds, but still pretty far away. It was just sitting there in the sky motionless. It was the size of a dime at arms length. It was pretty big. It was an odd orange yellow color, and clearly stood out from the clouds behind it. It seemed to be self illuminated, though it was also being lit from what was left of the daylight. It was disk shaped, but had an odd fuzzy edge, like it was being seen through hot air or something.

We discussed it for a few moments and then I decided to get my camera, which was in a bag by my feet. Now the funny thing is I only wanted to use the telephoto lens to get a better look. For some reason the idea to take a photo of it did not cross my mind. When I had the camera in my hand I got a mental image of the battery compartment on the camera, and I saw it had no batteries in it. So I said to my friend something to the effect "dammit, I don't have batteries in the camera" and put it back in the bag. I did not actually look in the battery compartment.

When we got to our exit a couple of minutes later, and the object was no longer in view, I realized that not only did I have batteries in my camera, but I was using it a half hour earlier! My friend knew this too, and also had a camera with him. We had no explanation for why we thought I had no batteries. Interestingly this sighting led to my friend telling me of a regular sighting he had when he was younger that he seemed to think was Venus, even though it was way too large. I then realized he is VERY uncomfortable with the subject of UFOs, probably based on his own experiences which he is suppressing.

So this leads us to a very important fact. This object knew I was looking at it, and knew I had the intent to get my camera out, and it stopped me from doing so. How many cars were on the highway at that time? Probably hundreds at least. So how would it know one person was looking out of that sea of cars? By the same token you hear where people had an urge to go outside and look up and there it is...

So what exactly are we dealing with here? That's the question. Aliens? I doubt it. Something even stranger.
 
I haven't heard the show.I downloaded it and will listen to it today with great anticipation.In regards to Bud Hopkins,John Mack and David Jacobs i have always been open to them as people trying to get to the truth.In that attempt to find the truth i equate their efforts to stumbling around in the dark trying to find the light switch.That stumbling breaks furniture and sometimes bones. Are we dealing with people with disingenuous motives? I don't think so. At least from having heard them before.

An alternative may be that some, but not all, of the well known abduction researchers operate in a disciplined, ethical fashion. My sense is that John Mack was one of those disciplined and ethical individuals, although we can all debate his interpretations of the facts he collected. Whenever I am inclined to dismiss the abduction phenomenon in toto I am always drawn back to Dr. Mack's qualifications and apparent ethics. Dr. Jacobs may or may not be sloppy in his methods, but I doubt Dr. Mack was. Again, what is lacking is broader verifications of abductees claims (systematic follow-up with third party witnesses, video surveillance).
 
I think it really boils down to this being a legal matter that can't and won't be resolved in the court of public opinion. The further publication of information about it might in fact harm whatever case or cases that may exist. I can't believe that a lawyer would advise you to continue to air your differences publicly.

Emma, of course you have to do what feels right to you, but I think Tom from Hong Kong and Trainedobserver made some good points. I totally understand your wanting to show the truth about yourself and what happened so that you are not misrepresented to people, but, at least for my part, I think that both you and Jacobs have revealed a lot about your characters under stress. From my own observations and from what I've heard and read on the net, you've come out very well and Jacobs has not. So, if you think you might take him to court, you wouldn't want to continue to help his attorney prepare his defense by posting every bit of information you have.

The issue of raising the consciousness of others so that they are careful about whom they seek out for help is also important. Maybe it could be handled without jeopardizing your legal case, should you decide to create one.

Just remember that you have a lot of support out here.
 
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CSteve%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype>I have been listening to the paracast regularly and reading the forums intermittently for about a year and a half, since late 2008. As a matter of fact Gene, it was Budd Hopkins and Leslie Kean who personally recommended the paracast to me so you have two fans there who actively promote the show.
<o></o><o></o>
I registered because I may have something to contribute to this discussion.<o></o>
<o></o>
Some background: after a lifetime of “experiences” I finally worked out late in life that there might be a UFO-abduction connection only after becoming acquainted with the literature. The trigger event happened in 1972 when at age 16 I had a close encounter with a large daylight disk whilst fully awake and outdoors, with 2 hours 15 minutes of seamless “missing time” and a new, unusual physical scar discovered shortly after the encounter. At the time this bizarre experience made absolutely no sense and there was nothing in the public domain in 1972, especially in provincial <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>England</st1> </st1:country-region>in that pre-internet age, which might have helped explain any of this. There were other incidents, but the 1972 one disturbed me the most over the years – and I never, ever spoke about it to anyone because well, what the heck could you say?<o></o>
<o></o>
Starting in 2007 (I knew almost nothing about the subject until then) I finally read all the books of Budd Hopkins, John Mack, Ray Fowler, Dave Jacobs, John Fuller, C D B Bryan and many others. Things began to fall into place, slowly and with big shocks and paradigm shifts. I have two different “scoop-mark” scars, one behind the right shoulder which is large and prominent and matches similar ones on other suspected abductees. Budd Hopkins has shown me photos of a hundred or so of these he has on file, and they all look like mine. I have recently met other people with these scoop scars and they’re all similar and some quite large. So: something strange is definitely going on, and it ain’t just with me. And it ain’t “sleep paralysis” or any of that bunk either: that’s just a stupid, pointless distraction which has nothing to do with this phenomenon. What we’re dealing with is something real and physical.<o></o>
<o></o>
In the published works of Budd Hopkins and Dave Jacobs in particular I was shocked to discover many of their research findings dovetailed exactly with my experiences, right down to the intergenerational component and a number of other factors too subtle and detailed to go into here. I underwent a couple of sessions with a registered and qualified medical hypnotherapist working for the UK Health Service to attempt to recover some memory of the events (long story & no space for it all here but <st1>Nick Pope</st1> was peripherally involved and very helpful). However although this did assist memory recovery of some details, the spin this particular hypnotherapist put on the phenomenon, with which he was quite familiar, was too “new agey” for me and just didn’t sit right. I worked with a second medically qualified hypnotherapist in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region>, with a practice in Sheffield, before deciding to contact abduction researchers in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1></st1></st1:country-region>USA and eventually (another long story) through persistence was able to meet both DJ and BH.<o></o>
<o></o>
I have met Dave Jacobs on a number of occasions and visited him at his home in Philadelphia, but all the memory-recovery sessions I have done with him (about 15, I don’t have an exact record but he does) have been conducted by skype with a webcam. It is very unusual for Dave to work remotely with people, but as I don’t live in the USA and wanted to work with him it was the only practical way to proceed. When we originally discussed the idea he said he had only ever worked with one other person remotely by phone because she initiated contact (Dave never initiates contact with any abductee/suspected abductee, ever) and persuaded him to as she also lived outside the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>USA</st1></st1:country-region>. With his experience of “Alice”, her “meltdowns,” five-times-a-day obsessive phone calls followed by the vilification campaign which by then was in full swing (it’s been going on for 3 years, only coming to more widespread public attention very recently) he was naturally wary of me to say the least, as well he might be. However he was finally persuaded after we’d been talking for a few weeks and had met me in person, for which he has my eternal gratitude and appreciation. As you probably know he never advertises, makes no promises or claims and never charges anything so any suggestion of “practising medicine without a license” is complete bunk and rightly is going to get absolutely nowhere.<o></o>
<o></o>
It seems to me from reading this thread that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about “hypnosis.” All that happens in my experience is a state of deep relaxation which can assist memory recovery. That’s it. Dave’s technique is pretty much exactly the same as that used by the medically qualified and certified hypnotherapists I worked with in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>England</st1> </st1:country-region>but he’s better at it because he gives a lot of time to the person and knows what questions to ask. You can’t “mess with people’s heads” by using hypnosis. That’s just ignorant and misinformed. I am always fully aware of what is going on. To claim that a hypnotist can plant something in someone’s mind without his/her knowledge or consent is to fail to understand hypnosis and how it works, or else comes from a deliberate liar perpetrating fraud. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s how it is.
<o></o>
<o></o>
Sometimes I remember things, sometimes not. I don’t see how people can be “led” to remembering or believing something that didn’t happen, though of course know about “confabulation” in theory. In fact, in my experience most of the memories come AFTER the hypnosis session: up to three or four weeks later whilst engaged in some normal mundane activity a startling abduction-related memory just emerges and you think “but I always knew that – how could I have forgotten?” Well, this is just the subconscious digging up buried memories once you’ve asked it to in the right way, and you can do this yourself without assistance if you have forgotten something you need to remember. It’s not rocket science.
<o></o>
<o></o>
In my extensive personal experience, DJ is highly ethical and has a very professional attitude, with no agenda to push. The strongest “lead” I ever had from him was something like “so…what happens next?” Performing this kind of hypnosis is something anyone can learn to do. You don’t need to be a Professor of Psychiatry any more than you need to have a Masters Degree in Engineering to drive a car: it’s just a skill which anyone can learn. In my admittedly limited experience professional, trained, qualified hypnotists with medical credentials are not always good at it – not as good as DJ, anyway, and certainly not as agenda-free where this particular phenomenon is concerned. Bear in mind I am talking from personal experience of working with two different medically qualified, credentialed hypno-therapists on memory recovery.<o>
</o>
<o></o>
After the session, DJ spends as much time as I want – sometimes several hours – discussing everything. I emphasise, I talk and he mostly listens. If I ask about the memories he will say “Yes, bizarre as it seems I have heard that from at least 100 different people” or conversely, occasionally “I never heard that before, ever, but I heard something vaguely similar twice before.” The vast majority of what abductees remember and reveal in these sessions is not in the public domain, for obvious reasons of control. I fortunately now remember quite a lot of detail about recent incidents (the past two years or so) without any hypnosis, so don’t need it as much. But it’s absolutely invaluable, essential in my view – to understanding the abduction phenomenon, because of the extremely knowledgeable neurological manipulation of the abductors. This ain’t a fantasy: it’s what happens. Most people don’t remember what is done to them without hypnosis though some remember parts which bleed through, and a minority of people seem to be able to constitutionally resist the memory-blanking and remember almost everything with no assistance from hypnosis. There is no essential difference between the narratives of the minority of abductees with fully conscious memory who never undergo hypnosis, and those who need this tool to open the subconscious to assist the memory process: the stories are pretty much the same and match even in quirky and minor detail.<o>
</o>
<o></o>
There’s a lot more I could say about this whole area, but that’ll do for now. I hope it sheds some light. But I will say in conclusion that to go on about hypnosis being only valid when done by a medical practitioner or a qualified psychiatrist, in my view, reveals little acquaintance with the subject. And finally, my considerable personal experience of DJ is of a thorough and ethical researcher, very bright and knowledgeable with a great sense of humor, who has done more for the genuine understanding of this phenomenon in all its vast complexity than most people will ever know.<o></o>
 
Thanks Gene for this show. I really think you did a fantastic job with this interview.

I want to say that as an RN I had to go to college and take a board test to practice. When I first entered the nursing field 27 years ago there were no certifications to work in a particular field. That has changed. I have several certifications but I will describe one. CCM which is certified case manager. I had to be a nurse, I had to work so many hours under a CCM and I had to take a test relating to the field. I have to take continuing education hours and work so many hours in the nursing field to renew my RN license every 2 years.

As an RN I have clinical guidelines to follow, I have a scope of practice to work within, I have clinical review of my work, and I have standard practices to follow. If I do something wrong I can be reported to the Nursing Board. The Nursing Board will review such things of not practicing within my scope of practice, practicing under the influence of drugs or alcohol, not performing to the level of expertise and so forth. I can be mandated to get addition education, practicing under the care of a mentor........closely being monitored and reviewed......my licensed revoked or suspended. I can lose my license for being convicted of a felony. These are just a few guidelines I practice under. Physicians are constantly reviewed by a peer review board.

I think the ancillary medical board in each state should require that people who perform hypnosis or hypnotic regression be regulated. They should be required to have completed a program just for this practice. They should be required to take a certification test or a license. They should have to practice and be reviewed under a Psychiatrist. They should be required to have continuing education and have their license or certification renewed every so many years. They should be held accountable to the ancillary medical board for sanctions.

There should be a standardized intake assessment form established and enforced for all persons performing this. There should be clinical guidelines and a scope of practice for them to work within. The patient should have medical exam (by an MD), basic blood test, basic physiological test, drug test, medical history and so forth that are set forth by a board of practitioners and medical personnel. All sessions should be video and audio recorded for review and to ensure standards are being met. Records should be kept and destroyed along the same guidelines as medical records.

There should be a central standard data base where basic non-identifying information is recorded for each patient. Such as age, sex, location of abduction, blood type, education, location to a military base, the blood test results, medical and physiological test results and so forth. What ever the board requires. That way static’s can be consistently collected, analyzed, and released.

Until these steps are taken these people should cease practicing. Hypnosis and hypnotic regression can be very dangerous to the patient. I am disgusted that this continues without regulations.

Gene I don't know how to get the regulations put in place......but I would be willing to help with the project.

Best Regards,
Redheadnation
 
It seems to me from reading this thread that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about “hypnosis.” All that happens in my experience is a state of deep relaxation which can assist memory recovery. That’s it. Dave’s technique is pretty much exactly the same as that used by the medically qualified and certified hypnotherapists I worked with in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>England</st1> </st1:country-region>but he’s better at it because he gives a lot of time to the person and knows what questions to ask. You can’t “mess with people’s heads” by using hypnosis. That’s just ignorant and misinformed. I am always fully aware of what is going on. To claim that a hypnotist can plant something in someone’s mind without his/her knowledge or consent is to fail to understand hypnosis and how it works, or else comes from a deliberate liar perpetrating fraud. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s how it is.

There may indeed be some misunderstandings about hypnosis and specifically hypnotic regression in this thread. That's forums...it's how they work. Likewise, don't underestimate the knowledge of some members on here. False memory syndrome, subject suggestibility and the influence of the hypnotist/ hypnotherapist on subjects has been researched in detail in the past 30 years.

The British Psychological Society has guidelines that dictate hypnotherapy be conducted in person and all sessions be videotaped. The use of hypnotic regression is discouraged in criminal cases due to concerns of reliability.

There is considerable potential for harm when hypnosis
is used on the assumption that it facilitates the recollection of events when no conscious memories of these events exist
in the first place. Current understanding of memory processes is inadequate to state unequivocally whether or not it is
possible for a memory to be repressed out of all awareness, yet to be accessible through hypnotic techniques. However,
much evidence suggests that this is implausible (Holmes, 1990; Pope & Hudson, 1995).What is incontrovertible is that
using hypnosis in this way carries a real risk of producing substantial pseudo-memories. Sometimes, these may have such
a bizarre quality (e.g. ‘memories’ of alien abduction) that they would be dismissed by any reasonable person, but some
can be so plausible as to beguile the therapist and client alike into accepting them as accurate. This problem has received
a high profile in the so-called ‘Recovered Memories’ debate (Conway, 1997; Ofshe & Watters, 1994).
http://www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=A7AF6617-1143-DFD0-7E14-10B42D589040&ext=pdf

The problems I have with the alien abduction regressions of Hopkins and Jacobs are numerous. The main one is people with an interest in alien abductions seeking out hypnotherapists with an interest in alien abductions. The symbiotic relationship they have with the subject of abductions raises huge questions of reliability. Mack underwent a 'hostile' investigation of his research protocols...Jacobs hasn't. From your post, it's implicit that Jacobs is far from a neutral counsellor and is an active player in the romance of confirmation bias. You've become a willing participant in a relationship that feeds off and generates ever more ideas that support the concept of alien abduction. It becomes a futile exercise in self-validation.

Whether alien abduction accounts are factual or simply some latent, subconscious aspect of modern life...until these researchers tighten their belts and submit to the same standards as other psychology practitioners...they're just shooting the breeze. They need to subject themselves to the same scrutiny as anyone else when it comes to extraordinary claims.
 
There should be a standardized intake assessment form established and enforced for all persons performing [hypnotic regressions of abductees]
This takes my suggestion to the guests that there should be a standardized approach to investigation of these cases to the next level. Good Point! Much to their credit, both Budd and David agreed that standardization is a good idea, and they also refered back to the suggestion which indicates they were not just supplying the show lip-service. I'm sure your help in this regard would be greatly appreciated by future "abductees" and the many folks out there that have already been subjected to shoddy research techniques and questionable attempts by wannabe "investigators."
 
<LINK rel=File-List href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CSteve%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:smarttagtype class=inlineimg title=Embarrassment alt="" smilieid="2" border="0" redface.gif="" smilies="" namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com
 images=
</o:smarttagtype>I have been listening to the paracast regularly and reading the forums intermittently for about a year and a half, since late 2008. As a matter of fact Gene, it was Budd Hopkins and Leslie Kean who personally recommended the paracast to me so you have two fans there who actively promote the show.
<O></O><O></O>
I registered because I may have something to contribute to this discussion.<O></O>
<O></O>
Some background: after a lifetime of “experiences” I finally worked out late in life that there might be a UFO-abduction connection only after becoming acquainted with the literature. The trigger event happened in 1972 when at age 16 I had a close encounter with a large daylight disk whilst fully awake and outdoors, with 2 hours 15 minutes of seamless “missing time” and a new, unusual physical scar discovered shortly after the encounter. At the time this bizarre experience made absolutely no sense and there was nothing in the public domain in 1972, especially in provincial <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1>England</ST1> </st1:country-region>in that pre-internet age, which might have helped explain any of this. There were other incidents, but the 1972 one disturbed me the most over the years – and I never, ever spoke about it to anyone because well, what the heck could you say?<O></O>
<O></O>
Starting in 2007 (I knew almost nothing about the subject until then) I finally read all the books of Budd Hopkins, John Mack, Ray Fowler, Dave Jacobs, John Fuller, C D B Bryan and many others. Things began to fall into place, slowly and with big shocks and paradigm shifts. I have two different “scoop-mark” scars, one behind the right shoulder which is large and prominent and matches similar ones on other suspected abductees. Budd Hopkins has shown me photos of a hundred or so of these he has on file, and they all look like mine. I have recently met other people with these scoop scars and they’re all similar and some quite large. So: something strange is definitely going on, and it ain’t just with me. And it ain’t “sleep paralysis” or any of that bunk either: that’s just a stupid, pointless distraction which has nothing to do with this phenomenon. What we’re dealing with is something real and physical.<O></O>
<O></O>
In the published works of Budd Hopkins and Dave Jacobs in particular I was shocked to discover many of their research findings dovetailed exactly with my experiences, right down to the intergenerational component and a number of other factors too subtle and detailed to go into here. I underwent a couple of sessions with a registered and qualified medical hypnotherapist working for the UK Health Service to attempt to recover some memory of the events (long story & no space for it all here but <ST1>Nick Pope</ST1> was peripherally involved and very helpful). However although this did assist memory recovery of some details, the spin this particular hypnotherapist put on the phenomenon, with which he was quite familiar, was too “new agey” for me and just didn’t sit right. I worked with a second medically qualified hypnotherapist in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region>, with a practice in Sheffield, before deciding to contact abduction researchers in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1></ST1></st1:country-region>USA and eventually (another long story) through persistence was able to meet both DJ and BH.<O></O>
<O></O>
I have met Dave Jacobs on a number of occasions and visited him at his home in Philadelphia, but all the memory-recovery sessions I have done with him (about 15, I don’t have an exact record but he does) have been conducted by skype with a webcam. It is very unusual for Dave to work remotely with people, but as I don’t live in the USA and wanted to work with him it was the only practical way to proceed. When we originally discussed the idea he said he had only ever worked with one other person remotely by phone because she initiated contact (Dave never initiates contact with any abductee/suspected abductee, ever) and persuaded him to as she also lived outside the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1>USA</ST1></st1:country-region>. With his experience of “Alice”, her “meltdowns,” five-times-a-day obsessive phone calls followed by the vilification campaign which by then was in full swing (it’s been going on for 3 years, only coming to more widespread public attention very recently) he was naturally wary of me to say the least, as well he might be. However he was finally persuaded after we’d been talking for a few weeks and had met me in person, for which he has my eternal gratitude and appreciation. As you probably know he never advertises, makes no promises or claims and never charges anything so any suggestion of “practising medicine without a license” is complete bunk and rightly is going to get absolutely nowhere.<O></O>
<O></O>
It seems to me from reading this thread that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about “hypnosis.” All that happens in my experience is a state of deep relaxation which can assist memory recovery. That’s it. Dave’s technique is pretty much exactly the same as that used by the medically qualified and certified hypnotherapists I worked with in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1>England</ST1> </st1:country-region>but he’s better at it because he gives a lot of time to the person and knows what questions to ask. You can’t “mess with people’s heads” by using hypnosis. That’s just ignorant and misinformed. I am always fully aware of what is going on. To claim that a hypnotist can plant something in someone’s mind without his/her knowledge or consent is to fail to understand hypnosis and how it works, or else comes from a deliberate liar perpetrating fraud. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s how it is.
<O></O><O></O>
Sometimes I remember things, sometimes not. I don’t see how people can be “led” to remembering or believing something that didn’t happen, though of course know about “confabulation” in theory. In fact, in my experience most of the memories come AFTER the hypnosis session: up to three or four weeks later whilst engaged in some normal mundane activity a startling abduction-related memory just emerges and you think “but I always knew that – how could I have forgotten?” Well, this is just the subconscious digging up buried memories once you’ve asked it to in the right way, and you can do this yourself without assistance if you have forgotten something you need to remember. It’s not rocket science.
<O></O><O></O>
In my extensive personal experience, DJ is highly ethical and has a very professional attitude, with no agenda to push. The strongest “lead” I ever had from him was something like “so…what happens next?” Performing this kind of hypnosis is something anyone can learn to do. You don’t need to be a Professor of Psychiatry any more than you need to have a Masters Degree in Engineering to drive a car: it’s just a skill which anyone can learn. In my admittedly limited experience professional, trained, qualified hypnotists with medical credentials are not always good at it – not as good as DJ, anyway, and certainly not as agenda-free where this particular phenomenon is concerned. Bear in mind I am talking from personal experience of working with two different medically qualified, credentialed hypno-therapists on memory recovery.<O>
</O><O></O>
After the session, DJ spends as much time as I want – sometimes several hours – discussing everything. I emphasise, I talk and he mostly listens. If I ask about the memories he will say “Yes, bizarre as it seems I have heard that from at least 100 different people” or conversely, occasionally “I never heard that before, ever, but I heard something vaguely similar twice before.” The vast majority of what abductees remember and reveal in these sessions is not in the public domain, for obvious reasons of control. I fortunately now remember quite a lot of detail about recent incidents (the past two years or so) without any hypnosis, so don’t need it as much. But it’s absolutely invaluable, essential in my view – to understanding the abduction phenomenon, because of the extremely knowledgeable neurological manipulation of the abductors. This ain’t a fantasy: it’s what happens. Most people don’t remember what is done to them without hypnosis though some remember parts which bleed through, and a minority of people seem to be able to constitutionally resist the memory-blanking and remember almost everything with no assistance from hypnosis. There is no essential difference between the narratives of the minority of abductees with fully conscious memory who never undergo hypnosis, and those who need this tool to open the subconscious to assist the memory process: the stories are pretty much the same and match even in quirky and minor detail.<O>
</O><O></O>
There’s a lot more I could say about this whole area, but that’ll do for now. I hope it sheds some light. But I will say in conclusion that to go on about hypnosis being only valid when done by a medical practitioner or a qualified psychiatrist, in my view, reveals little acquaintance with the subject. And finally, my considerable personal experience of DJ is of a thorough and ethical researcher, very bright and knowledgeable with a great sense of humor, who has done more for the genuine understanding of this phenomenon in all its vast complexity than most people will ever know.<O></O>

Oh my goodness! You don't think people can be led in hypnosis?? Or that it should not be done by a medical person??? No -you don't know enough about hypnosis! There are many casesof people who have been led in hypnosis and have had false memories implanted. What qualifies you to know what is in the best interest of patients? I know that I have a medical background and I have some basic common sense about this. Unregulated hypnosis has hurt many many people that is why it is no longer accepted in a court of law.

Best Regards
Redheadnation

---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

There may indeed be some misunderstandings about hypnosis and specifically hypnotic regression in this thread. That's forums...it's how they work. Likewise, don't underestimate the knowledge of some members on here. False memory syndrome, subject suggestibility and the influence of the hypnotist/ hypnotherapist on subjects has been researched in detail in the past 30 years.

The British Psychological Society has guidelines that dictate hypnotherapy be conducted in person and all sessions be videotaped. The use of hypnotic regression is discouraged in criminal cases due to concerns of reliability.

http://www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=A7AF6617-1143-DFD0-7E14-10B42D589040&ext=pdf

The problems I have with the alien abduction regressions of Hopkins and Jacobs are numerous. The main one is people with an interest in alien abductions seeking out hypnotherapists with an interest in alien abductions. The symbiotic relationship they have with the subject of abductions raises huge questions of reliability. Mack underwent a 'hostile' investigation of his research protocols...Jacobs hasn't. From your post, it's implicit that Jacobs is far from a neutral counsellor and is an active player in the romance of confirmation bias. You've become a willing participant in a relationship that feeds off and generates ever more ideas that support the concept of alien abduction. It becomes a futile exercise in self-validation.

Whether alien abduction accounts are factual or simply some latent, subconscious aspect of modern life...until these researchers tighten their belts and submit to the same standards as other psychology practitioners...they're just shooting the breeze. They need to subject themselves to the same scrutiny as anyone else when it comes to extraordinary claims.

Well Said!
 
The problems I have with the alien abduction regressions of Hopkins and Jacobs are numerous. The main one is people with an interest in alien abductions seeking out hypnotherapists with an interest in alien abductions. The symbiotic relationship they have with the subject of abductions raises huge questions of reliability. Mack underwent a 'hostile' investigation of his research protocols...Jacobs hasn't. From your post, it's implicit that Jacobs is far from a neutral counsellor and is an active player in the romance of confirmation bias. You've become a willing participant in a relationship that feeds off and generates ever more ideas that support the concept of alien abduction. It becomes a futile exercise in self-validation.

I am not being deliberately argumentative but I think you're wrong about this. You probably know that neither Dave Jacobs nor John Mack (nor many other researchers) were originally sympathetic to the idea of alien abductions: in fact, they were skeptical verging on hostile. However, they were professional enough and honest enough to slowly modify and finally change their views when faced with the mounting body of evidence they were uncovering, none of which they were prepared for, expected or could initially accept. This is the very opposite of "confirmation bias." Abductees go through the same process. It's the very last thing you want to be real, but honest analysis of the facts eventually forces you to accept that it may be. Alternately, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend it's all psychological, or sleep paralysis, or fugue states, or some other fantasy.

The sessions I had with both hypnotherapists in 2007 & 2008 in the UK were not videotaped but were audiotaped (DJ always audiotapes the sessions too). To claim that everything should be "regulated" is of course very American and no doubt laudible. No-one will argue too strongly against this in principle but in practice you can't regulate everything anyone ever does in a free society, and shouldn't. Enough already don't you think?

---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------

Oh my goodness! You don't think people can be led in hypnosis?? Or that it should not be done by a medical person??? No -you don't know enough about hypnosis! There are many casesof people who have been led in hypnosis and have had false memories implanted. What qualifies you to know what is in the best interest of patients? I know that I have a medical background and I have some basic common sense about this. Unregulated hypnosis has hurt many many people that is why it is no longer accepted in a court of law. Best Regards Redheadnation

Maybe people can be. I know I can't, because usually when under hypnosis I can't remember a thing, no matter how the hypnotist may try to lead. But sometimes things emerge unexpectedly days or weeks later. Then it's a real memory I can't believe I ever forgot, but it seems to be a delayed effect of the hypnotic state which opens the unconscious to slowly release things.

I never said "hypnosis should not be done by a medical person." You misquote me, or misunderstand what I said. My point is that of the three people who have aided me in memory recovery, two were medically qualified, certified hypnotherapists and one wasn't. The two medically qualified were no better, in fact I have to say less skilled and effective, than the third who unlike them was pushing no agenda, did not attempt to lead and asked better, non-leading open questions. This is not the same as saying "hypnosis should not be done by a medical person." It's just saying that being a "medical person" and "regulated" is no guarantee they are going to be any good, that's all.

"Unregulated hypnosis has hurt many people" - no doubt. I am just recounting my own personal experience, not pronouncing how I think things should or should not be in the minefield of medical liability and regulation which infests the western world these days.

BTW my profession is in the field of medical device regulation and international standards and I work with surgeons all day long, and have done so for 25 years.

Best regards.
 
I'm not 'pretending' that sleep paralysis or other explanations are responsible...they remain reasonable interpretations.

Likewise, I'm not suggesting that everything becomes regulated. Jacobs is making some very bold claims regarding alien abduction. If his practises are as ethical and repeatable as he claims...why not be held as accountable as other psychological practitioners? Dr Mack was more plausible as an outcome of the investigation than he ever was before it.
 
I think there have been some interesting and well meaning suggestions regarding the need to have a licence to practice hypnosis and a database for alleged abductions. However, to me, the biggest problem about this is that mainsteam academics and science will not take this subject seriously. Look how John Mack was treated by his peers. Unfortunately, I think there will be very few people willing to risk reputations and careers by getting into a serious engagement with this topic, or UFOs in general. If UFOs don’t officially exist, then any experience reported by someone MUST be explained away by some other acceptable version of reality – the psychological version of ‘swamp gas’. I have just finished reading Terry Hansen’s ‘Missing Times’ – it is extremely well written and puts forward a very cogent account of how the media can be manipulated and controlled in the name of National Security. I raise this point to highlight that IMO we are living in a contrived and manipulated environment when it comes to the UFO issue. The subject is being denied and ridiculed by design. This makes it very difficult to create a credentialed body with any legitimacy (not to mention the resources needed for such an endeavour). Also, as far as I am aware, if money is not exchanged between two parties then the services offered are deemed informal and therefore do not fall into the remit of professional regulatory bodies. Ultimately, while we can document and analyse abductions/experiences, until we get a clearer understanding of what the UFOs are or represent we are left trying to make a jigsaw with too many pieces missing. Maybe our brains just can’t process the bigger picture yet. However, I have always found the work of Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack and others in this field valuable. Being human, they have probably made their share of mistakes but I believe they are/were well intentioned and sincere and that means a lot to me in a field too often filled with disinformation, hoaxes and charlatans.
 
I'm not suggesting that everything becomes regulated. Jacobs is making some very bold claims regarding alien abduction. If his practises are as ethical and repeatable as he claims...why not be held as accountable as other psychological practitioners? Dr Mack was more plausible as an outcome of the investigation than he ever was before it.

Can't argue with that. Knowing Dave as I do, I'm sure he'd be delighted to co-operate with any investigation, should such a thing be proposed. He has spent his life under the rigors of professional academia and besides being voted the most popular professor at Temple by the students for several consecutive years, has had four books published by major publishing houses including his doctoral thesis and a book of essays by Kansas University Press. he's not exactly a stranger to academic scrutiny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top