Can't believe I'm saying this but:

[Angel of Ioren]

You know? that gives me an idea: How about YOU being invited as the skeptic guest in the show?

No, wait: I'm serious.

I've read your comments and you certainly are well versed in this stuff. You would make a much better guest than Oberg or Shostak in a show dealing with the abduction phenomenon —they would inevitably rely to their tired retort of "the distances between star systems" or "why would they bother to come here?" yadda yadda yadda...

What say you?

Umm, no. I am far from qualified, I would say.

I am flattered though. Thank you

It would be nice to get the windfall of money from appearing on a podcast though! Right?

 

[Hotkafka]

I'd be nice to get a credentialed academic in the field of psychology to go toe to toes with the likes of the Wondertwins of abduction research - i.e. Hopkins and Jacobs. How about this cat:

Professor Christopher French

http://www.gold.ac.uk/psychology/staff/french/

Wilson, K., & French, C.C. (2006). The relationship between susceptibility to false memories, dissociativity, and paranormal belief and experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1493-1502

French, C.C. (2003). Fantastic memories: The relevance of research into eyewitness testimony and false memories for reports of anomalous experiences. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 153-174.

Holden, K. J., & French, C.C. (2002). Alien abduction experiences: Clues from neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 7, 163-178.

 

[Hotkafka]

Hi Kandinsky

No, Jacobs has never diagnosed "Alice" as having BPD. He has no qualifications to make such a diagnosis. The evidence of her campaign has been shown to six or seven separate psychiatrists, and THEY have all diagnosed her as a slam-dunk, classic BPD case. Reseach the syndrome if you want to understand it.

I passed this up originally, but I just have to make a comment on this being in the mental health field. If this is the case, this represents a serious breech of ethics here, at least on the part of the purported psychiatrists making a spurious diagnosis. It's one thing to talk amongst ones peers about a potential diagnosis, and that sort of thing happens often amongst mental health professionals, but it's another beast altogether to make a pronouncement about a person's mental health without proper assessment, supervision and cogent professional discussion. Diagnosis is a very serious process with serious implications for the person involved -there's checks and balances, and these measures are all in place for good reason. If what your reporting is in fact true, it's reprehensible, and in most cases, grounds for professional disbarment. If not, well, you could see how this might be beneficial to someone's personal agenda.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Hello Hotkafka

Broadly speaking, your perspective is correct. However, BPD is different to the general rule in that its sole manifestation is a persistent, vindictive and very public defamation campaign against one single individual. The perpetrator is a "persuasive blamer" who often puts herself out there in public, for all to see. The target of the vilification and his/her family, friends and professional reputation are made to suffer as a consequence of the BPD's defamation campaign. Everyone and anyone can see this for themselves, as the BPD makes it her mission to become a minor celebrity and actively seeks wide public exposure. This separates the syndrome from other psychoses in a number of significant ways, and opens the perpetrator to public comment, which she actively seeks.

One example of a "celebrity" who also exhibited classic BPD behaviour was Diana POW, widely diagnosed as a sufferer by a number of experts who never met her. She practiced public vilification of her ex-husband and his extended family even on specially agreed TV interviews where her campaign was the sole topic of discussion. The case study of "Diana" (where the name is not even disguised) can be found in the literature - again, no need for discretion as she put herself right out there and openly campaigned for public support and sympathy.

Once you understand this syndrome for what it is, it's easy to see. Treatment however is a different matter, and has to start with the perpetrator acknowledging her obsessive psychosis and wanting to change.

 

[Hotkafka]

Hello Hotkafka

Broadly speaking, your perspective is correct. However, BPD is different to the general rule in that its sole manifestation is a persistent, vindictive and very public defamation campaign against one single individual. The perpetrator is a "persuasive blamer" who often puts herself out there in public, for all to see. The target of the vilification and his/her family, friends and professional reputation are made to suffer as a consequence of the BPD's defamation campaign. Everyone and anyone can see this for themselves, as the BPD makes it her mission to become a minor celebrity and actively seeks wide public exposure. This separates the syndrome from other psychoses in a number of significant ways, and opens the perpetrator to public comment, which she actively seeks.

One example of a "celebrity" who also exhibited classic BPD behaviour was Diana POW, widely diagnosed as a sufferer by a number of experts who never met her. She practiced public vilification of her ex-husband and his extended family even on specially agreed TV interviews where her campaign was the sole topic of discussion. The case study of "Diana" (where the name is not even disguised) can be found in the literature - again, no need for discretion as she put herself right out there and openly campaigned for public support and sympathy.

Once you understand this syndrome for what it is, it's easy to see. Treatment however is a different matter, and has to start with the perpetrator acknowledging her obsessive psychosis and wanting to change.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from -but here's the problem. First off, having experience with assessment and diagnosing, this focus on specific personality traits and behavior as being indicative of "classic" BPD behavior is misguided. It's not that simple, as an argument can levied for a fit with a number of D.O.'s in the dramatic cluster of personality disorders. Secondly, this unoffical diagnosis is being used as leverage as a defense. Specifically because the material related to the defamation campaign has been shown to a number of unidentified psychiatrists. These psychiatrists, if aware of the professional code of ethics they're sworn to abide by, will not step forward to validate such a diagnosis -especially without proper assessment. Given this, none of this creates a valid argument for Mental Illness being the driver behind this women's efforts. At this point, it's outright slander, despite the upsurge of popular sentiment and pop diagnosing, however convienient.

Once you understand this syndrome for what it is, it's easy to see.

I find this statement peculiar.

 

[ArchieBedford]

At this point, it's outright slander, despite the upsurge of popular sentiment and pop diagnosing, however convienient.

Hotkafka, a person who hides her real ID behind a variety of assumed names and disguises in order to slander someone else on the internet, cannot herself be slandered (using a strict legal definition of the term) until and unless her own name and ID are revealed. In other words, you can't slander an assumed ID, only a real person.

Your arguments in general though are cogent and well structured, in an abstract sense.

 

[Hotkafka]

OK, lets put it this way. Clearly something has gone wrong with this woman, it doesn't take a PhD to figure that out. But it does take a PhD to determine if that something is an officially nuts.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And when PhDs comment on the behavior and point to a specific disorder as a likely explanation, certainly those observations should be taken seriously. They are examining her well-known behavior in this particular instance. Nothing about it appears hidden; it's in public for all to see, so it may not even require a personal examination to make an informed observation.

Understand I am not necessarily saying there wasn't anything wrong with her treatment, or the way her alleged abduction experiences were investigated. It may well be that her problems were caused by having paranormal encounters, or, instead, made her believe she had such encounters. I think the therapist who passed her off to a researcher in the U.S. didn't help her cause. She needs to sit face to face with someone to attempt to understand what's going on.

 

[Hotkafka]

And when PhDs comment on the behavior and point to a specific disorder as a likely explanation, certainly those observations should be taken seriously. They are examining her well-known behavior in this particular instance. Nothing about it appears hidden; it's in public for all to see, so it may not even require a personal examination to make an informed observation.

Understand I am not necessarily saying there wasn't anything wrong with her treatment, or the way her alleged abduction experiences were investigated. It may well be that her problems were caused by having paranormal encounters, or, instead, made her believe she had such encounters. I think the therapist who passed her off to a researcher in the U.S. didn't help her cause. She needs to sit face to face with someone to attempt to understand what's going on.

I fully agree with the second point Gene.

 

[Infolad1]

Umm, no. I am far from qualified, I would say.

I am flattered though. Thank you

It would be nice to get the windfall of money from appearing on a podcast though! Right?

Dude, do it. You know the subject, from what I've seen from your various posts. You're probably more
qualified as a skeptic than any of these so called skeptics.

I say so called, because a lot of these guys are humanists and/or secular humanists. And anyone who's read the various humanist manifestos know that they discount any and all " paranormal, supernatural" phenomena. So when these people say they're being scientifically objective, they're actually being intellectually disingenuous to an amazing degree, and are to be ignored.

True skepticism is to be respected and embraced. It helps to keep the discussion honest.

I may not agree with most of what you say, but you say it well and with intelligence.

If Gene okays it, go on the show. You'll have fun. Forget the money, imagine the groupies
(as people chant: Angel,Angel,....)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Dude, do it. You know the subject, from what I've seen from your various posts. You're probably more
qualified as a skeptic than any of these so called skeptics.

I say so called, because a lot of these guys are humanists and/or secular humanists. And anyone who's read the various humanist manifestos know that they discount any and all " paranormal, supernatural" phenomena. So when these people say they're being scientifically objective, they're actually being intellectually disingenuous to an amazing degree, and are to be ignored.

True skepticism is to be respected and embraced. It helps to keep the discussion honest.

I may not agree with most of what you say, but you say it well and with intelligence.

If Gene okays it, go on the show. You'll have fun. Forget the money, imagine the groupies
(as people chant: Angel,Angel,....)

Thanks.

I don't need groupies either since I'm happily married.

I don't think I'm that different from the people I think you're talking about. I usually agree with the stuff Brian Dunning does - someone I think would make a fantastic Paracast guest. In terms of my skepticism, I share my view with what Carl Sagan wrote about in A Demon Haunted World. He's a personal hero of mine.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Forget the money, imagine the groupies

OK - how many we talking about?

 

[dyingsun]

Yeah, do tell.

 

[toxicsurf]

One debunker that does not annoy me too much is James Oberg. I don't agree with some of the things he says but at least he tends to be polite about it.

O'berg (King of space poop and ice crystals) might be interesting if you have someone that can reasonably and soundly refute his bullshit, maybe Ecker (or Kandisky?) While I have learned quite a bit of good info from some of Obergs posts, he comes off a such a self-important, egomaniac, know-it-all, that I can't believe you used the word "polite"...

 

[ArchieBedford]

O'berg (King of space poop and ice crystals) might be interesting if you have someone that can reasonably and soundly refute his bullshit, maybe Ecker (or Kandisky?) While I have learned quite a bit of good info from some of Obergs posts, he comes off a such a self-important, egomaniac, know-it-all, that I can't believe you used the word "polite"...

Leslie Kean would be good to put up against him, as they have locked horns already a number of times. She's an effective media performer and interviewee and would keep her cool.

 

[Hotkafka]

Who needs Angelo when you can easily play the recorded loop, "It definantely isn't paranormal."
...Just poking fun Angelo.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

O'berg (King of space poop and ice crystals) might be interesting if you have someone that can reasonably and soundly refute his bullshit, maybe Ecker (or Kandisky?) While I have learned quite a bit of good info from some of Obergs posts, he comes off a such a self-important, egomaniac, know-it-all, that I can't believe you used the word "polite"...

He can get a little testy in print sometimes. But when I've seen him engaged in face to face discussions he usually behaves pretty respectfully.

I saw some posts in here about Emma Woods. I recently noticed that she is now posting at UFOUpdates. Has there ever been someone posting anonymously there before? Things have gotten just plain weird. Yeah, yeah, I know that lynching Jacobs from a rusty hook is pretty popular right now (And hey, while we're at it let's throw Budd up there as well) but it just strikes me as bizarre how comfortably the field is reacting to such a supercharged and relentless campaign coming from an anonymous source. I could understand it for a bit but if she's going to rail on and on everyday for years and from every nook and cranny of the net shouldn't you at some point say, "OK, enough already! It was fine for a time but if I have to listen to you everyday for the rest of my life give me a damned name!" At this point what's the anonymity even for? She's already said that she now has doubts about ever having been an abductee in the first place and that Jacobs deliberately implanted the memories into her. She's gone, rightly or wrongly, from experiencer to highly energetic accuser and since when should plaintiffs enjoy complete anonymity with nobody questioning it?

 

[ArchieBedford]

I saw some posts in here about Emma Woods. I recently noticed that she is now posting at UFOUpdates. Has there ever been someone posting anonymously there before? Things have gotten just plain weird. Yeah, yeah, I know that lynching Jacobs from a rusty hook is pretty popular right now (And hey, while we're at it let's throw Budd up there as well) but it just strikes me as bizarre how comfortably the field is reacting to such a supercharged and relentless campaign coming from an anonymous source. I could understand it for a bit but if she's going to rail on and on everyday for years and from every nook and cranny of the net shouldn't you at some point say, "OK, enough already! It was fine for a time but if I have to listen to you everyday for the rest of my life give me a damned name!" At this point what's the anonymity even for? She's already said that she now has doubts about ever having been an abductee in the first place and that Jacobs deliberately implanted the memories into her. She's gone, rightly or wrongly, from experiencer to highly energetic accuser and since when should plaintiffs enjoy complete anonymity with nobody questioning it?

If Borderline Personality Disorder is the root of the persecuting behavior, which is what it has always looked like, then she will never stop, ever. It will be blame, blame, blame, blame for imagined wrongs done to her by one single individual singled out for persecution every day and every night for the rest of her natural life, and even after David Jacobs' demise there will be no let-up. That's the way it works. Only incarceration or death will stop it.

Someone, somewhere, is likely to publicly "out" her ID, eventually. She never will. Anonymity offers too much power and control, so long as it's indulged.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

If Borderline Personality Disorder is the root of the persecuting behavior, which is what it has always looked like, then she will never stop, ever. It will be blame, blame, blame, blame for imagined wrongs done to her by one single individual singled out for persecution every day and every night for the rest of her natural life, and even after David Jacobs' demise there will be no let-up. That's the way it works. Only incarceration or death will stop it.

Someone, somewhere, is likely to publicly "out" her ID, eventually. She never will. Anonymity offers too much power and control, so long as it's indulged.

Let's not bring Emma Woods into this thread please.

If you guys want to keep talking about how I would make a great guest on the show though, that would be cool

---------- Post added at 06:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 AM ----------

Who needs Angelo when you can easily play the recorded loop, "It definantely isn't paranormal."
...Just poking fun Angelo.

That sounds about right.

 

[Daktari Impossible]

"Someone, somewhere, is likely to publicly "out" her ID, eventually. She never will. Anonymity offers too much power and control, so long as it's indulged."

Archie Bedford is a pseudonym, is it not? I know Miss Woods's name. There are others who know her name.

I don't know your name.

Gary Haden is mine. What's yours?