• 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!

Can't believe I'm saying this but:

Forums New posts
Daktari Impossible said:
"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?
Click to expand...

Okay. First of all, no more Emma Woods talk - this thread is not about her. Secondly, no forum member is required to provide his or her name.
This thread is about having a skeptic on as a guest on the Paracast, something which i think would be a great idea. If you don't want to post about that, please start a new thread.

Oberg would be a pretty good idea, as well as anyone from the SGU such as Rebbecca Watson.
 
"Okay. First of all, no more Emma Woods talk - this thread is not about her. Secondly, no forum member is required to provide his or her name.

"This thread is about having a skeptic on as a guest on the Paracast, something which i think would be a great idea. If you don't want to post about that, please start a new thread."

Then stop demanding Emma Woods provide her name. While you are at it, stop banning her for not providing it.

Gary Haden
 
Ron Collins said:
I am not sure that she is a good choice. I don't think she is the most knowledgeable in the subject matter.
Click to expand...

You're right Ron. She usually sticks to stuff that can be verified like her fight against homeopathy and anti-vaxxers, something that I think is more cut and dry than UFOs.

In all honesty, most skeptics aren't too knowledgeable about the UFO phenomena because it isn't something that is falsifiable. Even the ones that are, can't do anything more than throw ideas around that are more plausible. There are UFOs - no doubt about it. It's just the fact that some people speculate that non-humans aree piloting them, some people think they are natural, and other think they are mis-identified aircraft. When I say UFO though, I mean that it is literally something that is unidentified.
 
OK, "Emma Woods" is hiding behind that and other fictitious names, yet charging someone, identified by name and affiliation, with severe misconduct and possible criminal activity. She has allegedly already identified herself to UFO Magazine and the people at Paratopia, by the way. If she chooses to trash people by name, she should, in turn, tell us who she is. She has no justification to hide; if she filed a real court action, her real name would be disclosed immediately, unless she feared for her life, in which case motions to that effect would be filed and considered.

That's not the same thing as a forum poster using a member name, so long as they stay within the rules.

Period. End of story. If this descends into another "Emma Woods" thread, it will be closed!
 
Angel of Ioren said:
You're right Ron. She usually sticks to stuff that can be verified like her fight against homeopathy and anti-vaxxers, something that I think is more cut and dry than UFOs.

In all honesty, most skeptics aren't too knowledgeable about the UFO phenomena because it isn't something that is falsifiable. Even the ones that are, can't do anything more than throw ideas around that are more plausible. There are UFOs - no doubt about it. It's just the fact that some people speculate that non-humans aree piloting them, some people think they are natural, and other think they are mis-identified aircraft. When I say UFO though, I mean that it is literally something that is unidentified.
Click to expand...

And you just demonstrated why you should be the one to come on the show.

Most of these so called skeptics don't even realize they're utilizing associative thought processes in
their evaluation of the phenomenon. The very fact that you are cognizant of this automatically puts
you above all of them.

Kudos to you sir. I'd say you're ready for your closeup.
 
Kandinsky said:
As it stands lately, Archie, you don't appear to accept any criticism of Hopkins/Jacobs or abduction research. You've endorsed Jacobs' spurious diagnosis of Woods being 'BPD' and further attacked her character in other posts. Carol Rainey's points are discarded because of her motivations as an 'ex.' Ritzman and Vaeni have an 'agenda.' Clancy is incompetent and McNally is a 'complete jerk.' Doesn't leave much to talk about does it?
Click to expand...

Central Issues of the Emma Woods Case

[...]

None of us are above an occasional errant remark that would have been better off not being made, particularly in the often passionate and heated world of ufology. Let's just say there aren't many angels treading around these parts where the rest of us rushed in.

I do not wish to be in anybody's camp. I am not interested in taking sides in any forum wars. I could point out some good points and some not so good points expressed by most all of us, and I am not looking to crucify anyone.

That stated, I want to strongly encourage the UFO community to take a closer look at the real issues in the Woods case. I could list a lot of things the issues are not (that keep getting discussed), but it is more productive to remind you what they are. The central issues of the Woods case are largely being lost in the crossfire, and some of the key points are:
Click to expand...

Full article:

http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2011/08/central-issues-of-emma-woods-case.html


 
At this point in the game, I think anyone who doesn't realize that hypnotic regression, especially by amateurs, is unreliable, unadvised, and dangerous is hopelessly lost in the weeds. The Emma Woods affair is thoroughly explored and worn slap out if you ask me. This should be a legal matter in my estimation and not something discussed endlessly in public forums, and certainly not by sock-puppets. What's to be gained by it?
 
Hello, trainedobserver -

trainedobserver said:
At this point in the game, I think anyone who doesn't realize that hypnotic regression, especially by amateurs, is unreliable, unadvised, and dangerous is hopelessly lost in the weeds.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think there are many among us, however, who would gladly draw more people into the weeds if given the opportunities. Do you?

The Emma Woods affair is thoroughly explored and worn slap out if you ask me.
Click to expand...

What do you think about her responding to the recent series of remarks? I do not mean that as a rhetorical question, but wish to sincerely inspire reasonable discussion. Seriously, if it were you and your situation, TO, how would you go about identifying when to respond and when to leave remarks go unrecognized?

About what is to be gained by discussing the situation, I think there is a lot to be gained if a discussion can proceed in civil and sensible manners. Just a few potentially beneficial outcomes include increasing practical dialog, increasing critical thinking and increasing accountability while further dismantling the myths surrounding the use of hypnosis as a memory retrieval tool.

There is very little to be gained, however, if reasonable discussion protocol cannot be followed and respected. A reasonable argument could even be made that we stand to lose potential benefits. After all, it only stands to reason there are more Emmas out there, and most anyone should agree substantial information was gained from her coming forward.

What do you think about any of that, TO?

Thanks in advance for your response,
Clueless Wonder
The UFO Trail
screen name jjflash
UFOmania - Home
 
What do I think? Perhaps I was too colloquial. I think it isn't worth any further public discussion. This should be a private legal matter between the anonymous woman and Jacobs. All such hypnotic regression alien abduction research should be abandoned. Could I be any clearer?
 
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Yes, trainedobserver, you are thoroughly clear in your opinion the Woods case should not be publicly discussed any further. You are of course entitled to your opinion and perspective as others are entitled to theirs. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]My opinion, for instance, is that to state and repeat the case should not be discussed may seem hypothetically reasonable, but it lacks practicality. It seems to me that it is kind of like saying people should just behave civilly and we would need no forum mods.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Woods case is a central issue in ufology. It presents very important, fundamental points and questions, and resulted in situations such as Carol Rainey's article, another important development on the ufology landscape. It will continue to be discussed, whether you or others participate in the discussion or not, TO.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I mentioned the importance of reasonable discussion protocol being observed and followed. If, for example, this subject angers or annoys you, you are both free and encouraged, at least by me, to explain and discuss what you are angry about. Point being to please bear in mind that I do not deserve to be the object of your anger, but I will indeed 'listen' and empathize if you would like. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As reasonable discussion protocol could be described, questions may be posed and should be acknowledged and answered. This is the path to the open exchange of accurate information and opinions. Acknowledging what has been presented and applicably addressing it, i.e., observing and answering direct questions, are also ways discussion participants demonstrate sincerity, gaining respect. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You asked, for example, what is to be gained by discussing the Woods case. You also asked if you had made yourself clear. I directly answered both questions.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Contrastingly, you did not directly address my questions. I asked, specifically, if this was your situation/case, how you would go about identifying when to respond to remarks and when to let them go. Even more specifically, would you please clarify, TO, by suggesting the case should not be discussed, whether you are suggesting Paracast personnel should not have made their latest remarks or that Woods should not have responded?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]To be clear, I invite comments on the related issues from others, not just TO. There is a wealth of relevant information, circumstances and implications to be explored (in addition to and much more important than the personality confilcts). I sincerely wish to discuss the issues as I previously cited in the article I linked, and commit I will observe reasonable discussion protocol if any of you choose to exchange comments. I simply ask that such reasonable treatment be reciprocated.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Thank you.[/FONT]
 
jjflash said:
The Woods case is a central issue in ufology.
Click to expand...

I don't think there are a lot of people who share that opinion with you.

What remains to be discussed? The merits or dangers of hypnotic regression? Why? The events that allegedly transpired between some anonymous person and Jacobs? Why? To what end? Is there anything else to be gotten from this other than the further exposure of the foolish and dangerous behavior of both parties and the fact that "hypnotic regression" is worthless and "hypnotic regression over the phone is doubly so?"

You've spent a good deal of space to say essentially nothing. You would think if there was some salient point that requires further discussion you'd have brought it up.
 
As a credentialed Special Education teacher with fourteen years of classroom experience dealing with a variety of medically diagnosed disorders, including autism, ADD/ADHD, ED, OCD, as well as BPD, I can tell you that rarely do two cases diagnosed with the same disorder present the same set of symptoms or behaviors. I have dealt extensively with females diagnosed with BPD, and symptoms and behaviors do not reduce to such a ridiculous summation. My question for Mr. Bedford is what experience with BPD do you have that would give you the confidence to make that statement?
 
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I feel confident I have clearly expressed my comprehension of your perspective, trainedobserver, but I will do so again if you would find it helpful and assist you in feeling more fully heard:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I understand you do not see any value in discussing the Woods case or its related issues. I am clear that you would prefer it not be discussed.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I am quite confident I have repeatedly and clearly offered my answers to your questions. I have also repeatedly and effectively mirrored back your perspectives, in spite of the fact you have neither offered me the same empathy nor answered my direct questions. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sometimes, TO, people just disagree about something. You see no value in discussing the Woods case, while I do. We just happen to disagree on this issue.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]An issue then becomes whether or not you can relax while I and/or others state their perspectives, understanding that all do not share nor have to share the same point of view. Surely you understand that you are unnecessarily causing the topic to be potentially combative and mired in confrontation from the very outset of my attempts to discuss it. This carries what should be obvious consequences that are detrimental to open and productive discussion. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I will, however, once more address your questions, in spite of the facts that you seem either unable or unwilling to reciprocate my empathy or directly answer my direct questions. I will once again offer some of my direct questions for your re-consideration at the end of this post. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As stated in the article I previously referenced, http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2011/08/central-issues-of-emma-woods-case.html , I think central issues of the Woods case, as you keep asking about and in addition to others, include:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- A real hard look needs to be taken at the protection of human research subjects who work with self-described ufologists, especially as it relates to supposed investigative techniques that throw critical thinking under the bus and ignore American Medical Association policy ( https://www.asch.net/Public/AMANotice/tabid/277/Default.aspx ).[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- Woods has every right to discuss her case and the related abuse as long as she so chooses.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- By any definitions, it is irrational and unreasonable for others to suggest Woods should silence herself and cease discussing her own case and related abuse while they, no less, continue discussing both her and her case. To do so is simply unreasonable.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Additional related issues not mentioned in my previously referenced article but which I am confidently of the opinion warrant discussion include:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- Doug Mesner is an activist, researcher and author taking a great interest in false memories and working for policy reform. He is attempting to raise public interest and sway legislation for more thorough review of academic institutions, organizations, their faculties and/or memberships that engage in questionable and potentially harmful activities to clients, patients, research subjects and so forth. His website:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.process.org/discept/[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]An article Mesner graciously composed for UFOmania: [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.ufomania.proboards.com/i...y&board=organizations&thread=833&page=4#10386[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- Dr. Tyler Kokjohn, an educator and scientist working in the area of Alzheimer's disease biochemistry, has made some interesting and relevant contributions to discussions taking place in various mediums. Among such contributions is his article, Tainted, Toxic and Taboo: A Scientist's Assessment of Abduction Research:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.ufomania.proboards.com/i...&board=alienabductions&thread=855&page=1#9888[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It seems clear to me that if the Woods case motivates such qualified experts to invest their resources in ufology and the abduction phenom, we should encourage them to continue. I am strongly of the opinion that the field has long lacked qualified experts who practice critical thinking, so I welcome more. There are more aspects of the Woods case and its implications that justify discussion, but this is a decent start.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Are these adequate answers to your questions, TO? Please bear in mind that you of course do not have to agree with my answers, but these are my answers, and for you to continue to shotgun questions about reasons to have a discussion seems of no discussion-value to me.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Questions I have directly asked of you, of which you avert, include:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- Do you think there continue to be people who would willingly and intentionally lead others to be 'lost in the weeds' of abductology and its poorly conceived investigative methodology?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- Do you think Paracast personnel should not have made their most recent statements about Woods or that Woods should not have responded? ...as documented and discussed at:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://ufomagazine.squarespace.com/ufo-magazine/2011/8/17/response-to-paracast-defamation.html[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- If it was the trainedobserver case rather than the Emma Woods case, how would you go about identifying when to respond to defamatory comments and when to not respond?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]These are reasonable questions in light of your assertions and stated opinions, TO. Please address them directly if you choose to continue to so passionately discuss something you are so adamantly certain should not be discussed. [/FONT]

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

Hi, bbridges -

Thank you for expressing your opinion and observation. I would like to read more of your observations as your time and attention allow. For example, in your relatively qualified opinion, what are some of the most common stumbling blocks in attempting to diagnose and treat such disorders? In what ways do they overarch? Have you drawn any insights during your career that you correlate with ufology and the abduction phenomenon?

Thanks...
 
Perhaps the most difficult part is that people present with a combination of symptoms that overlap. For example, some may be diagnosed with ADHD and Bipolar conditions. Or BPD and bipolar and ADD, and dyslexia. Psychiatrists may prescribe a set of medications to address each issue, leading to further confusion and masking of symptoms. We work closely with the students' doctors, often returning long evaluations of observed behaviors. This may lead to new diagnoses and medications that may improve operant behavior in one area while exacerbating symptoms in another. Add to that the fact that past judgments put on a teenager can build anger and frustration, on top of the 'normal' problems of adolescence, not to mention parents and their problems. It comes down frequently to long term observation over the course of months or years to figure out what works in a particular case. Misdiagnosis is also a problem.
Some psychiatrists will diagnose a case from previous doctors' notes, without even bothering to meet the child in question. It needs to be understood that labels are a bureaucratic device, not a true description of an individual. The DSM is a perfect example. Categories are used to determine eligibility for social and medical services and are required by insurance companies and other funding agencies. In the classroom, where the 'rubber meets the road', we frequently find ourselves having to discard everything we've been front-loaded to believe about a student. As far as ufology and the vexing abduction phenomena, I'm as clueless as anyone. But, I don't buy that people for the most part are deliberately inventing stuff. We are all grappling with the sheer absurdity of it all, in spite of the fact that many of us find our previously accepted perception of ourselves and what constitutes 'reality' turned on its head. I do believe that it is worth looking closely at the whole history of a person to better understand how these events and experiences might be understood. Sometimes I think that paranormal and mystical experiences cannot be contained or explained in any scientific model, but are nonetheless real. As someone once wrote, "Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced..." The experiencer is the only true arbiter of the meaning. And in that struggle to comprehend 'what happened' there is a breaking down of old taken for granted fundamentals to be replaced by challenging new questions of who and what we really are. Thanks for asking, jj, I love being forced to try to express my ever evolving ruminations on our shared quest.
 
You are very welcome, bbridges. Thanks for sharing.

You recently wrote that "symptoms and behaviors do not reduce to such a ridiculous summation" as implied in some previous posts. Would you please expand on that as time allows? Thanks.

About children and sometimes ill advised diagnoses and grouping for matters of convenience, I happen to have some direct experience with such a situation. I knew a boy very well who had various reasons, such as frequent changes of schools (and as you mentioned), to have a number of doctors and specialists to have collectively assessed him as special needs education. Interestingly, it took an adult of unusually high intelligence to have the ability to accurately identify the child was actually gifted and of high intelligence. Tests were re-administered at the urging of said adult and, sure enough, the child scored very high in IQ.
 
I think I may have recently made the acquaintance of this 'said adult.' You may have opened an area that directly relates to skeptical thinking and the attempts to understand things like abduction. More when I'm not whacked on post-op pain meds after this morning's shoulder surgery. bb.
 
As a cautionary tale the Woods/Jacobs affair is useful. Through it, it becomes painfully obvious that people should not participate in hypnotic regression, especially conducted by amateurs and that alien abduction research by non-mental health professionals is a highly dangerous and pseudo-scientific endeavor.

Common sense would dictate that anyone who thinks they have some alien abduction thing going on shouldn't subject themselves to the likes of an alien abduction researcher whose working hypothesis is that the earth is being overrun by alien hybrids. People who think they have been abused by this sort of thing should seek legal recourse. That's the only way to put these amateur psychologists of business. There is no authority ​other than legal authorities to appeal to in the matter.
 
As a person with absolutely no dog in this hunt or in my native "southern" with no dawg in this fight. Let me say this. I don't understand why legal charges have not been brought if this is as cut and dried as the Emma Woods folks say it is. I do think she makes some devestating points that Jacobs just can't seem to answer. But, on the other hand she has the advantage of being annonymous while he is out there for everyone to see. The other thing is this: While I personaly don't agree with closing threads and stopping "civil" discussion. This forum is not the only means to express yourself. So, in that reguard Gene or the Paracast is not censoring Ms. Woods or anybody else. They are just not discussing it here. If that becomes a problem then there are other forums and shows to support. If it isn't a problem to the vast majority of the people here then it's not a big deal. Finally, on the question of hypnosis I am on the side of only letting a trained professional with no hidden agenda do the procedure. I'm not so sure it's worthless unto itself. After all they laughed when finger prints were first advanced. They scoffed when told washing hands before surgery was a good plan. Nothing heavier than air would ever fly. But, still I wouldn't let somebody "looking" for alien abduction hypnotise me.

They laughed when Louie Armstrong first said he would walk on the moon...Who's laughing now. :D
 
Back
Top