Budd Hopkins Responds to His Critics

[Gene Steinberg]

What are you missing? Well, I have said several times I don't "buy" the concept of hybrid aliens, and am skeptical of other assumptions in abduction investigations. But because I don't support "Woods" 100%, I am an alleged Jacobs supporter, which is preposterous.

"Emma's" biggest mistake is to dedicate her entire life to bringing down Jacobs. If she is as normal as she claims to be, she always had the power to hang up the phone, stop dealing with Jacobs, and get on with her life. In passing, Jacobs claims he told her to stop contacting him, although she is claiming otherwise.

But she has her site, and her emails, articles and podcast appearances. She won't let go! Don't tell me how that's normal behavior! And that has nothing to do with whether or not Jacobs treated her properly.

 

[mike]

Personally i would have been surprised if researchers like jacobs and hopkins had never come across the odd unhinged subject.
One bad apple, dont spoil the whole barrel as the adage goes.
Statistically speaking i find nothing odd about the situation

When dealing with a fringe subject like this, its inevitable you would come across some subjects with a few roos loose in the top paddock.

I once had a vet misdiagnose and treat one of my dogs, the dog died. I found another vet.
I once had an automobile mechanic who on getting a second opinion was doing unnecessary repairs and overcharging me. i took my business elsewhere.
The list goes on

I didnt waste any time trying to bring them down, i just moved on

 

[ArchieBedford]

Personally i would have been surprised if researchers like jacobs and hopkins had never come across the odd unhinged subject. One bad apple, dont spoil the whole barrel as the adage goes. Statistically speaking i find nothing odd about the situation When dealing with a fringe subject like this, its inevitable you would come across some subjects with a few roos loose in the top paddock. I once had a vet misdiagnose and treat one of my dogs, the dog died. I found another vet. I once had an automobile mechanic who on getting a second opinion was doing unnecessary repairs and overcharging me. i took my business elsewhere. The list goes on I didnt waste any time trying to bring them down, i just moved on

Well that's the point, ain't it Mike?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I never said that Emma was a saint. I think however that on the balance of evidence I feel that she has the infinitely stronger case. I can't see how anyone can see otherwise. What I object to is that people have been attacking her for presenting some pretty damning evidence in my eyes, and Jacobs having admitted to some horrendous so called "tactics" she is the one still being attacked. Beggars belief in my way of looking at the world.

Can you blame her for trying to bring some light on her case if she feels aggrieved and believes has had no justice?? I would probably do the same thing if I was in her situation and an unlicenced hypnotherapist with no medical training was playing around my mind.

Of course there are grey elements to this case. I have never said otherwise. Emma has made mistakes. She is only human. But for people to go along with Dr Jacobs and his hybrid IMs, and not change their view of him after what he as admitted to ... well I just don't understand it. Please. If there is something I am missing let me know what it is. I really am quite baffled by it all.

"Emma" has to take some of the blame for what happened to her. She chose to allow herself to be "treated" by Jacobs on the suggestion of her therapist. And where is the therapists culpability in all this? Not only did he suggest Jacobs but when it came to the point of the phone sessions he said he saw no harm in them since there was already an established patient/researcher relationship. (I'm paraphrasing, paraschtick.) If there were no apparent psychological problems at that time or indeed now, then she had made a rational, albeit rash decision to accept his services. Not only that but it continued for at least three years. At which point did she suddenly discover that something wasn't right?
If she indeed has the "stronger "case" then get it into court, sue him or have him in someway sanctioned. Then maybe at least her real name may be exposed.
I think one of the reasons she doesn't get the overwhelming support her supporters crave is because she comes off sounding like an anonymous internet stalker by hiding behind her cloak of anonymity and not appearing to have her case involved in a court of law or an appropriate legal forum.
I don't know for sure but it appears to me that most people, especially on the Paracast forums, have no great love or support for Jacobs as such. Personally I have always found his research and opinions on abduction research to be on the fringe and I recall that in the 90s his research had met with a great deal of criticism even back then. In other words he has always been somewhat controversial and it comes as no surprise that some of his methodology is being brought to light now and receiving the criticism it has. Picking up one of his books or at least some moderate research on him may well have provided her with enough of a case to disregard him as a person to have handle your mental health. (A professor of History who dabbles in hypnosis and alien hybrid research.) What? No alarm bells there?
Paraschtick, you say that "Emma" has made mistakes because she is only human. Jacobs supporters could very well say the same things about him. That he made a mistake in taking on her case. That his clumsy attempts at
treatment or research were a mistake but because he is only human we forgive him and all of his prior research should not be discarded just because of a simple, human mistake. Don't forget she went along with the circus act for three years. She could have pulled the plug at any time before it went that far yet she chose to go along with it. She chose.

 

[Keiko]

Can you blame her for trying to bring some light on her case if she feels aggrieved and believes has had no justice?? I would probably do the same thing if I was in her situation and an unlicenced hypnotherapist with no medical training was playing around my mind.

Hi Paraschtick,
How exactly would justice be done according to EW's standards? When he is tarred and feathered? Shunned by all who know him? When is enough enough?

She has clearly made public her negative experience with him so if that is her goal it is achieved. She has her website, she has had articles published about her story. At what point does on ongoing campaign become harrassment? Is it really appropriate behaviour to phone every radio show/conference ahead of time and accuse Jacobs of being abusive? Is it really Ok to email every UFO researcher in the English speaking world and give them links to your website (even if they have nothing to do with abduction research)? Is emailing all the top dogs and faculty members at his university with your accusations and website links also appropriate in this quest? If so, how many times?

Abduction research is fringe and Jacobs is the fringe of the fringe...he is completely open about the fact that he has no hypnotherapist licence or any other medical/psychological qualifications...yet she asked him repeatedly to 'play around in her mind'.

Where is the personal responsibility?

And on another note, I saw her video with all those marks on her body. How awful! She clearly believed she was having involuntary experiences with 'beings' that were leaving physical trauma long before she contacted Jacobs. If those images are real and not self-inflicted...then what or who the hell was doing that to her?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Woods was on Jeff Rense's show last night.

Edit: Well, that wasn't what I was expecting. Jacobs wasn't even mentioned.

---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 AM ----------

At UFOUpdates Jeff Rense's racism is being discussed. I had forgotten about that. This is the first show of his I've listened to in a few years (And I grabbed it off of a torrent site so I still haven't set eyes on his page in a few years). But now that it's been mentioned I do recall that he always had some extremely bizarre stuff linked on his website, stuff about Jews and Zionists and all of that. I even asked in an email once why that stuff was plastered all over the place (Among a lot of other crazy shit) but I never got a response. But yeah, it just slipped my mind so sorry if I offended anyone by bringing him up.

 

[Hotkafka]

Coming from a medical model standpoint, here's my problem with the whole Woods tango. Clearly, in Woods, you have a person whom was experiencing extreme emotional turmoil, and struggling to come to some level of insight into the nature of her condition. She makes the reasonably solid decision to enter therapy with purported Psychotherapist #1. Whatever unfolded therapeutically once Woods floated across this therapist's threshold is anyone's guess, but I can tell you this. From reading this therapist's case summary, it's clear she didn't know whether the sky was red, blue, purple or pink in Wood's wild and wooly pscyhe. So what does this therapist do? She does the equivalent of a therapeutic mulligan and sets her free into the forests of Xanadu -i.e. straight into the awaiting arms of Jacob's Barnum and Bailey's Electric Hybrid Engineering Parade. Not that I don't respect what Jacob's is attempting to do, ...but the guy is clearly not trained to treat a potentially flowering personality disorder. Whomever this therapist was, she did Wood's an extrodinary disservice by handing her off to a researcher busy exploring the nether regions of Interplanetary Consciousness, an absolute powder keg for someone budding with potential psychosis. Bad move. Bad, bad move and one that if any blame is to be levied here, should not fall on the "potentially" unstable patient, nor the Academic Cowboy, but directly on the shoulders of the therapist whom was well aware of her duty to care for and treat a clearly vulnerable and unpredictable individual, i.e.one Ms. Emma Woods.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Let me add one tidbit of information: According to David Jacobs, "Woods" signed an agreement before undergoing hypnotic sessions agreeing not to hold Jacobs responsible for anything he did as a part of his investigative process. It's a pretty standard indemnification clause, I gather. She also agreed not to release recordings of those sessions. Clearly "Woods" doesn't believe in contracts or agreements.

 

[Hotkafka]

Let me add one tidbit of information: According to David Jacobs, "Woods" signed an agreement before undergoing hypnotic sessions agreeing not to hold Jacobs responsible for anything he did as a part of his investigative process. It's a pretty standard indemnification clause, I gather. She also agreed not to release recordings of those sessions. Clearly "Woods" doesn't believe in contracts or agreements.

Your point has the earmark of missing my point entirely.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I didn't intend to address your point. I was just adding a piece of salient information that has to color the entire controversy.

 

[Hotkafka]

I see. But it seems the pattern here is to invoke confusion over a confused individual's actions -which seems an oxymoron given that the consensus appears to be "she's crazy."

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Her behavior does indicate she has serious problems. She has a total obsession with destroying Jacobs' reputation, as evidenced by the massive amount of material she has sent via email, to message boards, and so forth and so on. Even if you think Jacobs did everything wrong in his investigation of her alleged abductions, his comments on her behavior reveal similar issues.

Regardless of the objective truth in this particular controversy, she's in need of help. She appears to have devoted the main portion of her life to David Jacobs. That's not healthy, and that has to stop. But it won't stop as long as some people with the power to give her a platform continue to enable her.

 

[paraschtick]

Oh boy Gene, if you have listened to any of Emma's audio files, or even read anything about this case, you would have realised by now that Dr Jacobs doesn't have a reputation any more. Except maybe one, of course, for being an unlicenced hypnotherapist who pokes around in people's minds and creates breathtakingly silly scenarios out of them.

You also continue to insinuate that Emma has some kind of "mental illness", usually defined by Archie Bedford as some kind of behavioural disorder but also continue to defy all laws of logic by saying that you are not taking sides. Its about time you came off that virtual fence don't you think?

Anyway, I myself, as I have stated many times on the forums, and I don't mind admitting it at all, actually have a mental disorder. Its an anxiety disorder called "Social Phobia". Its a chronic disorder, meaning that it is incurable, and I believe that this gives me some small insight into such matters even though I am not a medical practitioner of any stripe, and not really an expert. But I can generally tell if something is "wrong" with someone at a hundred paces pretty well I think.

Normally this can be a subtle thing: body language, not making eye contact etc. Or it can be a not so subtle thing: ranting, over exaggeration, obsessive compulsive habits et al.

As I see it Emma seems to be a pretty level headed, fair minded person. There is no way in hades would she be able to put her website together in the lucid way she has if she were a dribbling simpleton. Far from it. Again from her (very few) interviews and audio files, she comes across as a thoughtful, considerate individual who as she sees it has been done a grave wrong and demands some justice. If I was in her position, I would probably do the same thing. She has made a few mistakes, and I think that she may actually be the first to admit that, but that just proves her to be human.

However, on the other hand, I see your posts on the forum in a completely different way. I see someone who has no medical training whatsoever continuing in a rather vicious way to insinuate that a person he hasn't met has an undefinable mental illness. I am sick to the teeth of this underhand and malicious attack on Emma from someone who not only hasn't got any medical training, but who continues to lie not only about his ex-partner on the programme but constantly denies that he supports someone who has committed unethical acts and has actually admitted doing so.

In fact, even though I'm not a medical practitioner as I have stated, from your over exaggeration of almost every facet of this case, the overbearing pompousness, the underhand and snide attacks on someone who I believe is doing the right thing, not only does disservice to the field, but makes me come to believe that you yourself might be suffering from some sort of mental illness.

You continue to twist facts, allow others with the same mental disorder (which for some odd reason seems to afflict a number of people in these forums), and who claim to be leading medical experts not only to attack someone who maybe should be helped rather than tarred with the moniker "crazy person", but continue to defend someone who in any sane dimension would be tarred, feathered and possibly put in the stocks to be ridiculed by all usunder.

But ... and here is the funny thing in all this. I can't say any of this for a fact ... because I'm not a medical practitioner. I'm not a doctor, or psychiatrist. And if I were I wouldn't be whispering such things into any ear in the vicinity anyway, but I would be talking to you, urging you to get some advice or medical help in a compassionate manner, and not attacking you in a thoroughly malicious way in an online forum.

In the end all I can say is that it seems as if not only you Gene, but a number of people here in the paracast forums have somehow stumbled into some sort of Moral Bermuda Triangle, and found that your compass isn't functioning any more.

Quite a pitiful state of affairs really.

paraschtick ... probably ... out.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Anyway, I myself, as I have stated many times on the forums, and I don't mind admitting it at all, actually have a mental disorder. Its an anxiety disorder called "Social Phobia". Its a chronic disorder, meaning that it is incurable, and I believe that this gives me some small insight into such matters even though I am not a medical practitioner of any stripe, and not really an expert. But I can generally tell if something is "wrong" with someone at a hundred paces pretty well I think.
Normally this can be a subtle thing: body language, not making eye contact etc. Or it can be a not so subtle thing: ranting, over exaggeration, obsessive compulsive habits et al. As I see it Emma seems to be a pretty level headed, fair minded person.

Have you met her, paraschtick? Can you give us this assessment of her because you have? Do you know her real name? Why doesn't she at least give us her real name? Wouldn't that be fair minded? After all she has no problem in trashing Jacob's reputation from the safety of anonymity.

If you don't think she's obsessed, have a look at her website.Why has she created and dedicated a whole website to attacking one person when she already has the support of a number of so called luminaries of the UFO and paranormal podcast world, gaining a significant amount of publicity already?

In the end all I can say is that it seems as if not only you Gene, but a number of people here in the paracast forums have somehow stumbled into some sort of Moral Bermuda Triangle, and found that your compass isn't functioning any more.

You seem to think that some of us here are Jacobs appologists. Why? Because we aren't as shocked and horrified as you as to what has happened? This is the UFO field, old matey. It's ranks are filled people just like Jacobs and it comes as no great shock that he has eventually wandered off the reservation.
What do you want us to do? Get a forum posse together and ride out to Jacobs house, frog march him up to Temple University, place him in stocks and bring on whatshername and anyone else that has been wronged by him so that they can publicly chastise him , throw rotten fruit and veg even faeces at him? It seems that you wont be satisfied until someone does. I'm sorry for you that some of us don't feel as aggrieved as you do about this. She made a bad choice and now she's paying for it. Pretty simple really. People do it all the time. If she is/was the level headed and intelligent person that you say she is then she made a terrible decision in letting him handle her mental health for those three years.
She's made her point now maybe it's time to move on.

 

[tyder001]

paraschtick I have no dog in this fight. I actually do believe that Jacobs is off his rocker with his "They gonna get us if we don't watch out." But, at the same time if he did something unethical and this lady has the proof then why doesn't she simply sue him? Otherwise, it does look rather obsessive on her part. Not that he comes off looking any less kooky or paranoid. But, at least he is out there with his own name. Ya see that is the difference. He does have a career and a name that she can smear rightly or wrongly. She on the other hand never comes out from behind her "firewall." It would be like me finding your real name and finding you had a job or a career and going to your boss and/or friends and coworkers and telling them what a snot you are. (Not that I think you are I'm just giving an example.) Then when you say well let me present my side you are told. "Fine, but you can't say "tyder's" name or where he works or who he knows or anything else that will idenify him. Is that fair? Just? No, it's not. Was he unprofessional? YES! Should he be called on it? YES. But, do it either face to face or put your (meaning Emma) name out there and be a big girl. File a lawsuit. But, this contant attack,attack,attack doesn't make either of them look good. Anyway, that is my two cents and now I'm out on this one cause I honestly don't wish either of them any harm and I do feel for her because it's apparent that she is hurting and angry and reaching out for some kind of justice be it real or imagined.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As I've said many times here, those tapes are excerpts. They have been edited. She claims she only removed personal information, but you don't know that she hasn't also removed sentences and paragraphs that might change the context completely. Certainly no independent party can determine that without having access to all of the unaltered recordings. If Jacobs is correct about the agreement she signed with him, it's also true that she violated that agreement, which doesn't make one feel warm and fuzzy about her honesty in this matter. This doesn't mean Jacobs is correct in his interpretation of the issue, or in his research methods. But we have to be realistic about both sides here. Putting blinders on, as a few have done, won't help understand what's going on.

My biggest concern, however, is that "Woods" has basically devoted most of her life to attacking Jacobs. You can't discuss anything else with her. She has her site, she's written thousands of emails and message board posts. She posts about herself using more than one name, as we demonstrated in our forums. She writes articles, and goes on radio shows. All this is done in the interest of bringing down Jacobs. I mean, is that normal behavior? Really now!

More to the point, it brings us no closer to understanding UFO abductions. It's a sideshow, and we need to move on, which is why this thread is now also closed.

 

[ArchieBedford]

If you don't think she's obsessed, have a look at her website.Why has she created and dedicated a whole website to attacking one person when she already has the support of a number of so called luminaries of the UFO and paranormal podcast world, gaining a significant amount of publicity already?

What do you want us to do? Get a forum posse together and ride out to Jacobs house, frog march him up to Temple University, place him in stocks and bring on whatshername and anyone else that has been wronged by him so that they can publicly chastise him , throw rotten fruit and veg even faeces at him? It seems that you wont be satisfied until someone does. I'm sorry for you that some of us don't feel as aggrieved as you do about this. She made a bad choice and now she's paying for it. Pretty simple really. People do it all the time. If she is/was the level headed and intelligent person that you say she is then she made a terrible decision in letting him handle her mental health for those three years.

My biggest concern, however, is that "Woods" has basically devoted most of her life to attacking Jacobs. You can't discuss anything else with her. She has her site, she's written thousands of emails and message board posts. She posts about herself using more than one name, as we demonstrated in our forums. She writes articles, and goes on radio shows. All this is done in the interest of bringing down Jacobs. I mean, is that normal behavior? Really now!

Guys

If you really haven't studied BPD and the way it manifests, you need to. You'll soon work out what is wrong with her.

Start here:

http://angiemedia.com/2008/12/29/bpd-distortion-campaigns/

It'll all start to make sense.

I posted these facts on this very forum almost a year ago, and was shouted down and even censured for stating what to any mental health professional is manifestly obvious, as BPD is diagnosed solely by public behavior and evidence of exactly this kind of personal vilification campaign. Thankfully, a lot of people have now worked it out. She is a slam-dunk, 100% classic textbook case, no grey areas.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely to ever end. Even if David Jacobs were to die (God forbid), she would continue to publicly trash the memory of his reputation, forever - as long as she is granted a platform by the minority of the naive and gullible who utilise her to further their own anti-abduction ideologies.

See it for what it is, for God's sake; and move on.

---------- Post added at 05:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 AM ----------

Whomever this therapist was, she did Wood's an extrodinary disservice by handing her off to a researcher busy exploring the nether regions of Interplanetary Consciousness, an absolute powder keg for someone budding with potential psychosis.

Hotkafka - for the record the therapist was male, not female.

Jacobs had extensive dealings with this therapist, and the agreement was that he would 'monitor' his patient whilst she was recalling her abduction experiences to Jacobs, long before any hypnosis was done. Jacobs even called him to request he look in on her to check everything was OK, as she was relating how intruders were entering her home on a regular basis (again, prior to any hypnosis sessions). We can all agree that this therapist may be in some major ways culpable, but he is not the chosen target of her vilification campaign so seems to be more or less ignored in this sorry debate - for which mercy, he is no doubt very relieved.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

If you really haven't studied BPD and the way it manifests, you need to. You'll soon work out what is wrong with her.

When i visited her site the first thing that struck me was the intricate attention to detail of every facet of her life and her apparent zeal in bringing retribution to Dr Jacobs. Having said that and also after perusing the link that you provided, I do not wish to make the leap into diagnosing her with any type of disorder or mental illness as I have no expertise or qualifications in that area, although i agree that something is indeed not quite right in the land of "Woods".
Jacobs, of course, is no angel in this sorry tale and he has to take ownership for some of the flak associated with the fallout of this case. This does not mean, of course, that a vilification campaign by an anonymous internet identity is acceptable either.

See it for what it is, for God's sake; and move on.

Totally agree

 

[Sean Elifritz]

What the...? I thought the thread was closed...

 

[ward]

yes quickly seal the crack before any of the Zealots call Jihad on Archie Bedford and his BPD post. Wow reading what BPD is just fits Emma to a "T" imo.