Dave Jacobs, George Knapp &.....what obligations

[saucerwench]

On the December 19 CoastToCoast, George Knapp and David Jacobs aird a raw no-holds Disclosure about the Dr. and Emma Woods. Basically, it all seems to boil down to the fact that Emma seems to be all-consumingly obsessed with Jacobs, and he said this on Knapp's show. I am one who cannot declare anything factual about Emma, obviously, Only sit in the Ufological audience like a jury member who is hearing defense and prosecution counsil. But the girl has put a --LOT-- of work into (against) the object of her disaffection. A lot.
It makes me want to broach the subject of Ufologists. You Guys (and Gals) have been trying real hard, at the expense of your time money reputations and familys, to find out what the Ufos are, who or what is behind them. Why do they shut down nuclear missles, then re-arm them, much less buzz civillian and military aircraft, and ---alledgedly--- abduct people out of their beds. I GET how important YouAll feel your research is. But there are a LOT of troubled people attached to this Ufo subject, you --cannot-- ignore that. Troubled people are part of the Ufo phenomenon subject. I am NOT referring to a stereotypical crazy guy raving about the Martian voices. I'm talking about souls such as myself, who have been traumatized by Ufo events (in my case, a Ufo-related event) on top of having disabilitys as well. Emma soundslike a clasic BPD with trauma as well. MOST of you are not Psychiatric professionals, so not obligated to be a shoulder for us to cry on. I am curious as to if Ufo researchers who have volunteered to be active Ufologists who look into abduction stuff and deal with whistleblowers: Discussed where/how you draw the line? I myself would have liked to recieve empathy and interest to indepth discuss, because I have two other options. 1. Dump all this far-out X-Files stuff on a non-Ufology Therapist 2. Mostly keep everything to myself. I have done mostly #2.

 

[Kandinsky]

I GET how important YouAll feel your research is. But there are a LOT of troubled people attached to this Ufo subject, you --cannot-- ignore that. Troubled people are part of the Ufo phenomenon subject. I am NOT referring to a stereotypical crazy guy raving about the Martian voices. I'm talking about souls such as myself, who have been traumatized by Ufo events (in my case, a Ufo-related event) on top of having disabilitys as well. Emma soundslike a clasic BPD with trauma as well. MOST of you are not Psychiatric professionals, so not obligated to be a shoulder for us to cry on. I am curious as to if Ufo researchers who have volunteered to be active Ufologists who look into abduction stuff and deal with whistleblowers: Discussed where/how you draw the line? I myself would have liked to recieve empathy and interest to indepth discuss, because I have two other options. 1. Dump all this far-out X-Files stuff on a non-Ufology Therapist 2. Mostly keep everything to myself. I have done mostly #2.

I already know how this thread will end, but I think you've raised a point that hasn't really been addressed in the discussion about Jacobs and Woods.

The point is one of 'professional duty of care.'

EDIT TO ADD: did George Knapp challenge any of Jacobs' points? I'm curious about that.

Morally, I think we all have a duty of care to each other as far it's possible. This is different to a duty of care required by licensed, qualified professionals. Dr Jacobs isn't bound by the code of ethics that those in the mental health field are. He might be aware of the principles (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
), but isn't swayed by them. His Doctorate gives no consideration to the Hippocratic Oath whereby the essence is 'do no harm.'

As a teacher, he's bound by a duty of care, yet this still has no bearing on his activities with those outside of his status as an educator.

'Emma Woods' has been 'diagnosed' by the internet as BPD. This in itself is disturbing. That Jacobs has continued to present this diagnosis through second-hand/hearsay sources is not good at all.

Where you'll probably disagree with me strongly is in your Number 1 option. If someone with these experiences feels the need to approach a psychologist/psychiatrist/therapist, I sincerely believe they are better off consulting someone who is registered, qualified and bound by the code of ethics.

 

[saucerwench]

Thanks Kand, I appreciate your thoughtful knowledgeable reply. Back in 1976, I made the huuuuuuge mistake of befriending a gal with Borderline Personality Disorder. (She was diagnosed this by a Psychiatrist in a Hospital) < I learned -years- later, lonnnng story...) In short order, she was always --entitled-- to know where I was and what I was doing at all times, when out of her sight. One time, she was physically violent to me. She was not gay (that I knew at that time, but in retrospect, I think she was, and in severe denial about it) and I am not and was not, so oriented as well. But people started whispering about our orientation because she became so extremely obsessed with me. (Six years later, I --suspect-- said misperception followed me into the military service, influencing some mysterious goings-on toward me, which I briefly described in an entirely different thread.) I was horribly lonesome (and bored), due to my own AspergerSyndrome, and when she wasn't acting wacko, she was a barrel-o-monkeys of fun. She was still trying to maintain a connection with me in the '80's while I was in the service, but I severed the connection. Up until 1995, she was trying to get certain Ufo people to persuade me that I needed to be back in contact with her. Today, I don't know if she is dead, alive, or well or unwell. Don't want to. But I learned about how ....tremendous.... the ---obsession--- of the BPD is.

---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 PM ----------

As for duty of care, said 'friend' of mine would threaten suicide if I did not stay friends with her, but I came to realize a long time later, that I was not obligated to assuage that 'feeling' in her, especially when it is a selfish manipulation. It's a complex tightrope to walk, I suppose, about being 'Your brothers' keeper'. The fine line between basic human decency and being an enabler. I always feel pissed off at Libertarians, Conservatives, Republicans, etc, because they never say clearly and indepth, what the ill and elderly should do in their safetynet-less Utopia.

---------- Post added 12-23-2010 at 12:16 AM ---------- Previous post was 12-22-2010 at 11:57 PM ----------

EDIT TO ADD: did George Knapp challenge any of Jacobs' points? I'm curious about that.

Knapp somewhat challenged Jacobs use of "phone hypnosis". Unfortunately, there was not a lot of time for this weighty matter.

 

[trainedobserver]

Paratopia has a couple really good shows on this subject since the Emma Woods UFO magazine article came out. They are worth listening to I believe.

I think the depths of the incredible debacle that is alien abduction research has yet to be plumbed. Although The Abduction Enigma by Kevin D., Russ Estes, and William Matteson seems to have done a good job in 1999. I have a copy but admittedly its on the reading stack and I've only spot read it so far.

 

[Keiko]

On the December 19 CoastToCoast, George Knapp and David Jacobs aird a raw no-holds Disclosure about the Dr. and Emma Woods. Basically, it all seems to boil down to the fact that Emma seems to be all-consumingly obsessed with Jacobs, and he said this on Knapp's show. I am one who cannot declare anything factual about Emma, obviously, Only sit in the Ufological audience like a jury member who is hearing defense and prosecution counsil. But the girl has put a --LOT-- of work into (against) the object of her disaffection. A lot.
It makes me want to broach the subject of Ufologists. You Guys (and Gals) have been trying real hard, at the expense of your time money reputations and familys, to find out what the Ufos are, who or what is behind them. Why do they shut down nuclear missles, then re-arm them, much less buzz civillian and military aircraft, and ---alledgedly--- abduct people out of their beds. I GET how important YouAll feel your research is. But there are a LOT of troubled people attached to this Ufo subject, you --cannot-- ignore that. Troubled people are part of the Ufo phenomenon subject. I am NOT referring to a stereotypical crazy guy raving about the Martian voices. I'm talking about souls such as myself, who have been traumatized by Ufo events (in my case, a Ufo-related event) on top of having disabilitys as well. Emma soundslike a clasic BPD with trauma as well. MOST of you are not Psychiatric professionals, so not obligated to be a shoulder for us to cry on. I am curious as to if Ufo researchers who have volunteered to be active Ufologists who look into abduction stuff and deal with whistleblowers: Discussed where/how you draw the line? I myself would have liked to recieve empathy and interest to indepth discuss, because I have two other options. 1. Dump all this far-out X-Files stuff on a non-Ufology Therapist 2. Mostly keep everything to myself. I have done mostly #2.

That's a very interesting point you make. I guess this dynamic is operating in all walks of life. If you go to a psychic/shaman to get shed some light on a particular problem...you have to know that there are risks involved and monitor and measure your response to their work/ideas. Even with the best of intentions, someone can lead you down a road you later regret. There is of course a greater measure of safety in going to a certified practitioner but in the end the same rules apply. Doctors misdiagnose too.

I think it is a very difficult call for a UFO reseacher...that's why people like John Mack and Budd Hopkins formed groups where other abductees/experiencers could meet each other and get support there.

Regards

Keiko

 

[PararealitySaint]

I already know how this thread will end, but I think you've raised a point that hasn't really been addressed in the discussion about Jacobs and Woods.

The point is one of 'professional duty of care.'

EDIT TO ADD: did George Knapp challenge any of Jacobs' points? I'm curious about that.

I feel that Mr. Knapp does a much better job of questioning his guests about the truth behind accusations and the like, but there could have been more.

He hit him with one "accusation" pertaining to a supposed form of brainwashing he used on her during one of their hypnotic sessions, but it was quickly suppressed as poppycock by Jacobs.

I kept waiting for someone to phone in and supplement the "harder" questioning which wasn't there, but this never happened.

All in all it's his word versus hers and the jury is still out.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In other words, what I said here months ago was borne out. He said/she said. Let's move on. End of story.

 

[Kandinsky]

I feel that Mr. Knapp does a much better job of questioning his guests about the truth behind accusations and the like, but there could have been more.

He hit him with one "accusation" pertaining to a supposed form of brainwashing he used on her during one of their hypnotic sessions, but it was quickly suppressed as poppycock by Jacobs.

I kept waiting for someone to phone in and supplement the "harder" questioning which wasn't there, but this never happened.

All in all it's his word versus hers and the jury is still out.

Thanks for answering that question. A couple of months ago I watched a show about abduction presented by George Knapp. It was a one-sided presentation of Hopkins/Jacobs' ideas and made me wonder why he wasn't taking an 'investigative reporter' approach? I was wondering if the friendly approach was reserved for Hopkins in particular and why?

 

[PararealitySaint]

Thanks for answering that question. A couple of months ago I watched a show about abduction presented by George Knapp. It was a one-sided presentation of Hopkins/Jacobs' ideas and made me wonder why he wasn't taking an 'investigative reporter' approach? I was wondering if the friendly approach was reserved for Hopkins in particular and why?

Your welcome.

Unfortunately, many of those productions have a preset agenda and that is obviously to show bias towards the "extraterrestrial" abduction phenomena. Very rarely have I seen one (but there are some) which takes the abduction scenario and places it in the context of "demonic" or "government" influences. George Knapp is a proponent of the belief in abduction but I have never heard him say that he believes this strange happening to just be driven by "UFO" or extraterrestrial in nature only.

As far as his bias towards Hopkins or Jacobs, I don't believe he is any more defensive of these men than he is any other quest he has on his many shows. I think it boils down to his agreeing that what they have to say is a "possibility" more than fact as you might hear from reporters such as Linda Moulton Howe and others.

What I was interested in hearing this time around was Mr. Knapp questing for a deeper relevance to Mr. Jacobs and perhaps ask a little tougher questioning than he did. Again this isn't "one sided" per-say, but more lackluster in the finer detail of the subject. As others have said on here, Coast To Coast is for "entertainment" purposes only for the most part, so I guess this is to be expected.

 

[Elendil]

Well, even though we've heard from Gene on a number of occasions (including now) that we should move on, I'd really like to see an episode of the Paracast which would feature another abduction round table with some really tough questions, Emma/Alice related. Even though I can't totally buy Emma's victim act - it's not like she was coerced to work with someone she knew was not a qualified medical practitioner/therapist, but a layman doing abduction research (correct me if I'm wrong) - some of her stuff successfully torpedoed what little credibility Jacobs had. In the process of defending Jacobs, Hopkins also got on the line.

So, before we had at least somewhat credible people saying incredible stuff + a nice amount of issues related to their research, now the abduction boat got another good hit and is sinking fast. I'd like to see if anything can be salvaged before it totally goes under...

 

[PararealitySaint]

Well, even though we've heard from Gene on a number of occasions (including now) that we should move on, I'd really like to see an episode of the Paracast which would feature another abduction round table with some really tough questions, Emma/Alice related.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Here is the problem as I see it.

You have so many people out there wanting so very much for there to be ET and for there to be an ET abduction condition, that the “round-table” would be biased in the extreme. Mix this in with the fact that “evidence” as to real abduction cases are limited to metallic objects found in supposed victims, mediums, and regressive therapy sessions, which purport abduction via hypnotic suggestion (sorry, I am not in favor of utilizing hypnosis as a way to gain intelligence of any form); it would be very difficult to land anything quantitatively significant, and instead you would wind up with the usual one sided affair.

Now then, if you preplanned a round-table with “experts” of diversely opinionated positions, and did this with the objective of taking any “facts” and if necessary force placing thus in the context of their actual weight in reality, then and only then would you have a show worth the hassle of getting those many people together in one room.

Interesting though this would be, in conclusion and based on this formula, what you would find would be a show based on conjecture, because conjecture is all any of this really is. If abductions are indeed happening to people (and I believe it is quite possible and for the most part probable), and this is not some form of mass hysteria or wishful thinking, then the best topic for your round-table would be, “Why” instead of “If.”

 

[Elendil]

Well, I'd rather say that we should still aggressively dwell on the "if" should we want to move on from conjecture. And regarding the round table - I was more aiming at something in the vein of an episode where Jacobs would get a(nother) chance to present his explanation of the Woods story and the bulk of his research but this time with tougher and more precise questions. I tend to believe that any researcher who is genuine would be very interested in clearing his name and data.

I still don't know what to think about the guy. Woods effectively destroyed him...

 

[PararealitySaint]

Well, I'd rather say that we should still aggressively dwell on the "if" should we want to move on from conjecture.

But it's only conjecture due to the lack of evidence in the first place. Beating a dead horse cannot advance the semblance of a "truer" answer any more than it can pose as an improved upon fact. My original point about the "if" is due to the lack of thus, and the situation with Jacob's isn't included in this. Perhaps a more in depth discussion in that area could prove beneficial, but I am tired of the long winded "maybes" which lead to the "ifs" in the area of abduction analysis.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I'm not going to say anything more about the Jacobs/Woods saga but I am going to address some of the comments about Knapp's questioning. His questions seemed tough enough to me. All the time I see comments around here about someone not being questioned aggressively enough by someone else. What do you guys want, a balls-out argument that ends in a few minutes because the guest gets pissed and cuts the connection? What point would that serve? Knapp asked some probing questions, he touched on some uncomfortable areas for Jacobs. That's really all he could have done. If you push it too far it's going to be perceived as an attack and the person is going to bail. There's a balance you have to achieve, a line you try to get close to but don't cross. I think Knapp did OK.

 

[Elendil]

But it's only conjecture due to the lack of evidence in the first place. Beating a dead horse cannot advance the semblance of a "truer" answer any more than it can pose as an improved upon fact. My original point about the "if" is due to the lack of thus, and the situation with Jacob's isn't included in this. Perhaps a more in depth discussion in that area could prove beneficial, but I am tired of the long winded "maybes" which lead to the "ifs" in the area of abduction analysis.

I can't tell if you got me right - what I meant was this: we still can't prove if the abduction phenomenon is real or not, so therefore we are totally in conjecture-land. Speaking about why's before resolving the first level - the if - can't do much. We can all make guesses on that, but the fact is that we still don't have any definite proof that something is really going on. Regarding that, it's crucial to evaluate the things we have and make sure that all the questions are answered before someone with a more debunking mindset gets a go. And I'd have a lot of questions for Jacobs...

Really makes me wonder what is left now of the abduction research? Mack's death was IMHO quite a loss for the field. There you had someone who was immune to the old "research being done by laymen" and "hypnosis done by un-trained people" arguments recovering almost the same stuff as the laymen. Not to mention that it was also hard to see Mack just as an attention-whore or someone in it for cash. Why would a Harvard professor be so keen to start working on something which would certainly label him as a wacko among his peers? Do the abduction books really sell that well? Or maybe he was a really genuine guy with a real interest in the topic plus with some nice credentials to sex up the field and make it look more "serious".
And now you have another college professor who seemingly also didn't stand to gain a lot from his abduction research with a ton of shit on him. That leaves us with the likes of Derrel Sims, Richard Boylan, Eve Lorgen and a whole hive of evenly dubious characters plaguing this mess. I don't see them pulling in someone like Stuart Apelle, Don Donderi or someone else from the academia with the training and resources to filter out at least some of the noise. Someone with a more systematic approach willing to watch his step and look out for mistakes because his peers with a less open mind would be very keen on dissecting his work. Maybe such people already know that this whole abduction business is shit? Maybe the Jacobs story is the final proof that there are no good guys in the field of abduction research? Damn, I hate it when guys like Shermer win...

@Wickerman:

I haven't got the chance to listen to the show yet, but it seemed by the other comments that Knapp's questioning was kinda timid. But I also wouldn't agree with the line thing. There is no line regarding this. The abductions are dubious business, interviewers should be there to ask any question and sort everything out, since it is anyways going to get sorted out by the debunkers.
And BTW, I love your avatar. Up the Irons, dude!

 

[PararealitySaint]

I can't tell if you got me right - what I meant was this: we still can't prove if the abduction phenomenon is real or not, so therefore we are totally in conjecture-land.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Yes and my point was that considering we are in "conjecture-land", I feel it is much better to concentrate our energies toward weeding out the fantastical or ambivalent aspect of the subject. One can only achieve this by proposing a common ground, attainable if you will, by pointing out as many sides to the argument as possible, and always allowing for the difference between cutting out hyperbole for the sake of grandstanding, and circumspection as a base relevance.

I.E. A round table which includes ET abduction experts, Demonic abduction experts, Government abduction experts, and, or any hybrids of the same. Take this group, weed out the BS "aliens/ET did this (I have proof just ask my medium) and that" routine, and then look at the case studies and let the audience decide which is which and the "Why's" not the "ifs" as I mentioned earlier. By doing this with a fair amount of time given the various "opinions" or "conjecture", or when having only one guest/"conjecture" on solely and still adhering to the same rule/policy; the end result is a show worth listening to....Thus The Paracast.

But then again as someone pointed out earlier, C2C is for entertainment purposes....you know, Circus see Circus do....whatever.

With the example of Jacobs, it wasn’t whether or not the woman was abducted, as Jacobs himself felt she was, but rather whether or not the conditions were met to ascertain if he took advantage of the woman in question. Did Mr. Knapp attain this posture and other circumstances surrounding the issue?

That was the original reasoning behind my posts and I pray this enlightens you to my intent.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Demonic abduction experts, Government abduction experts

Who might they be, by name?

---------- Post added at 11:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> [FONT=&quot]I listened to the show twice, and here's my 10-cents worth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If C2C is "entertainment" then what show of this type is anything different? Over 20 years, Knapp has earned a reputation as an even-handed reporter with good background knowledge of the field. Of course he’s known Dave Jacobs for years, met and interviewed him countless times so he can hardly turn on some attack-dog act and assault his guest can he? It’s not his style.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I thought Jacobs came over during the two hours as confident, relaxed, intelligent and good-humored. He made it clear right off the bat he wasn’t going to take any crap from the ill-informed. I thought Knapp’s questioning about the effect that a declared interest in this field can have on an academic career was insightful and, as expected, Jacobs agreed it had been damaging to him, had inhibited career progression and earnings and, like John Mack and a few other academics, admitted it made you a kind of outsider in the academic world. It’s all downside, Jacobs explained: abduction research is a “negative cash-flow business” and the only person who, in the past 40 years, ever made a cent out of writing a book about abductions is Whitley Strieber. If you want a successful career progression then you steer clear of it. Fortunately Jacobs has a lot of respect from people who count and has done so much good work he has earned the right to speak his mind. When Knapp repeated some of the allegations impotently heaped on Jacobs from inside the tiny ghetto of the “UFO community” he responded they were “nonsense” from the gullible and the ignorant, and he just dismissed them outright. Even though I don't agree with him on everything (and I know him personally quite well) I found myself smiling at this robust attitude and welcoming such conviction.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The point raised in the interview about most regular psychiatrists (a) admitting they have no understanding of the abduction phenomenon, and (b) charging money by the hour was an interesting one. This is the reason abductees continue to go seek out people like Dave Jacobs: they never charge anything, and know about the phenomenon in detail so can genuinely help abductees understand what is happening to them. It’s that simple. Having first gone to a “mental health professional” about these experiences many years ago, I can personally attest to the fact that it was a complete waste of time, as they are totally fucking clueless.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When questioned about the controversy in which Jacobs had become “embroiled”, he responded by saying that he refused to become “embroiled” in anything, but just sat back and watched the whole ridiculous circus swirl around. Jacobs explained that he didn't diagnose his obsessive tormentor in NZ to be a BPD because he has, as many have pointed out, no professional expertise in psychiatry. He explained that, following her escalating obsessive behaviour for a year or so back in 2007-08 when she contacted the organiser of every venue where he was due to speak in advance to attempt to trash him, sent a pile of defamatory material to every member of the academic staff at Temple (even those long retired and those who had barely heard of him) and plagued his family with intrusive phone calls day and night, he consulted nine separate psychiatrists over time in order to try to find out why she would pursue her destructive campaign with such persistence and how she might be stopped. It is these health care professionals who have repeatedly diagnosed her, from the copious behavioural evidence, as a classic BPD: a persistent persecutor and "persuasive blamer" who can successfully persuade the gullible and less critically aware to take her "side." Now I’m not qualified in psychiatry either, but if you research the syndrome, she does indeed fit the classic profile to a "T". The advice invariably given to the target of a BPD attack is to not respond in any way, and he took this professional advice and acted accordingly. If you respond and give a BPD attention, then you feed them. This is the reason he has kept quiet and refused to become "embroiled", so now it's clear.

It was good to hear Jacobs going on the record at last, and remains to be seen what long-term damage has been caused to the field by those who promoted the Emma Woods circus. Reassuring on this point to hear there is no let-up in the number of people filling-in ICAR’s online questionnaire about their experiences, and asking Jacobs to work with them - not a situation some might have expected after three and a half years of this persistent defamation campaign. It seems such a campaign carried out on internet chat-forums has little influence on people in the real world, and maybe that's a good thing for abductees.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[PararealitySaint]

Who might they be, by name?

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Two off hand that I can think of would be someone like an R.G. Teets for Demonic Abduction and Dr. Helmut Lammer for Government Abduction cases.

I had also listened to the C2C Show with Jacobs and as I mentioned in an earlier post, I believed that George Knapp is one of the rare hosts on the show who I believe does the best job of any of the others. In fact I wish he was the main host that Bell turned over the show to instead of George Noory. I didn’t have a problem with what Jacobs had to say. My original post was more in tune with the ease so many hosts on the program have with falling in line with the guest’s unsubstantiated psycho drivel, like communications with aliens from Zeta Reticuli and “how I lived with bigfoot.” It’s when someone like Linda Molton Howe gets on the line and states that the Rendelsham Forest episode “PROVES Extraterrestrial U.F.O.’s exist” which rubs me the wrong way.

Lastly and once again, the main reason why I listen to The Paracast is because Gene and his guest hosts won’t allow one of their guests to go on about outlandish “facts” which have nothing factual behind them, and for the most part will (usually) act courteous and probe for evidence, or eventually ensure the understanding for the audience, that what the guest is discussing is either opinion based or downright fictional.

All too many times the other c2c hosts will just cheer lead by defending the legitimization of the guest’s bullshit as if the very words are etched in gold.

I’m sorry, it’s one thing to have a show which you feel does an excellent job of presenting the paranormal in the light of honest and truthful discussion, and quite another to sit back and cow tow to how the hybrid aliens are amongst us, or defend a guest talking about life underground in the thousands of tunnels the lizard men created because they were here thousands of years before us and the current guest was given a special tour….etc.

 

[ArchieBedford]

It’s when someone like Linda Molton Howe gets on the line and states that the Rendelsham Forest episode “PROVES Extraterrestrial U.F.O.’s exist” which rubs me the wrong way.

Yeah me too. I'll be meeting Linda again later today in Woodbridge and no doubt there will be more of this zealotry to look forward to. She is so emotionally invested that I suspect there's no turning back for her now.

---------- Post added at 08:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 AM ----------

All too many times the other c2c hosts will just cheer lead by defending the legitimization of the guest’s bullshit as if the very words are etched in gold.

Yeah, pity. I agree George Knapp is a notable exception to this general trend: he does engage in serious questioning of his guest without coming over as an attack dog, and overall he usually gets the balance about right.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

George Knapp show on the whole issue was well balanced and time to move on.