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

[PararealitySaint]

Jeeeeez. Sometimes I despair of humanity.

Do not despair Archie, I am sure this is nothing more than a mis-communication. The very idea this "hypnosis" was achieved through an IM is ridiculous no matter how it sounded on C2C or any program. I cannot believe that a man who has been in the field as long as Mr. Jacobs would be so stupid or so utterly devoid of his senses as to pull off something as insane as this. I have a feeling that it was "SKYPE" which means face to face and verbally transmitted. I have more confidence in George Knapp than this, and if he was to have heard Mr. Jacobs state that it was 100% IM in the context of a "written relay" between people, he would have exclaimed how preposterous this is as well.

For everyone reading this out there please note: I have been in the Paranormal field in an unprofessional capacity for close to 30 years now. My mainstay has centered around "spiritual" manifestations, and although I have always had a wide variety of interests in the field, I find myself drawn to aspects which delve around supposed "hauntings" and the like.

 

[Elendil]

Yup, it sounds almost less believable than the hybrids. That means you could hypnotize random women just by showing your business card...

I don't disbelieve abductions is happening, but hypnosis been a vital tool for retrieving memories of an alien abduction has too many holes in it for me personally, to accept it as legit piece of UF0- research.

I agree to a point. Hypnosis has raised a lot of questions, but still: I'm gonna repeat myself - how is it possible that a guy from Turkey would retrieve the same minute details like a guy from the US? How can two people give matching accounts under hypnosis? Why would have Carpenter mention that Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs and himself got the same detailed stuff which wasn't in the books or in the media? Was he lying?

 

[Mystery Rider]

It is disturbing to see fallacies promoted especially on a site supposed to be for truth. Skeptics have their own forums, they shouldn't be polluting our forums. Ist of all, there is proof the abductions are real. 2nd Jacobs had a lot of credibility before and still does. 3rd, Emma Woods has no credibility. And even if he had done hypnosis by IM, this wasn't his usual procedure. The abduction boat did not take a hit and is not in any danger of sinking. That it did or that it is is just wishful thinking on the part of skeptics. And there's more than the research of Mack which says UFO abductions can't be explained psychiatrically; there's also Zimmer, 1984, Bloecher et al, 1985, Pamell and Sprinkle, 1980, Parnell, 1988, Rodethier et al, 1993, and Spanos et al, 1993.

And shrinks being bound on paper to a code of ethics does not prevent them from systematically violating it. For the most part, they are abusive, willfully incompetent, and mentally ill. We just have to look at Freud, Jung, Adler, Lewin, Reich, and Gross, for instance. The 1st 4 were associated with the notorious Tavistock, and the last 2 were considered insane even by other shrinks, and Jung had hallucinations for 4 years. There are the jokes,"the odd treating the id"; "How many headshrinkers are there in Hamilton?" "40 odd -- 2 are normal"; and "I'm seeing a shrink and I'm going crazy." "See? It's working."

Also, there is the self-righteous hypocrisy of the skeptics and pseudo-skeptics (believers who pretend to be skeptics to protect the cover-up, like Sagan and Stuart) who do projection and pretend there are no kooks on their side (there are many, like Klass, Jerome Clarke, and CSICOP, for instance).

(The name under my user name should be Advanced Paranormal Buff but I wasn't able to change it.)

 

[Kieran]

Yup, it sounds almost less believable than the hybrids. That means you could hypnotize random women just by showing your business card...




I agree to a point. Hypnosis has raised a lot of questions, but still: I'm gonna repeat myself - how is it possible that a guy from Turkey would retrieve the same minute details like a guy from the US? How can two people give matching accounts under hypnosis? Why would have Carpenter mention that Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs and himself got the same detailed stuff which wasn't in the books or in the media? Was he lying?

How old is this stuff really. Did this not all this just balloon after Streiber it was relevantly unheard before then. Before that people were being contacted allegedly by visitors, but not abducted in crazy numbers as was being reported in the eighties and nineties. You name a few good-cases from Turkey that would back up that statement you've just made above.

Not to have an argument with you, but find some similar cases in Turkey that are genuine, and are similar to cases in America, come back here and then we discuss from there.

 

[James1]

I am sure this is nothing more than a mis-communication. The very idea this "hypnosis" was achieved through an IM is ridiculous no matter how it sounded on C2C or any program. I cannot believe that a man who has been in the field as long as Mr. Jacobs would be so stupid or so utterly devoid of his senses as to pull off something as insane as this. I have a feeling that it was "SKYPE" which means face to face and verbally transmitted. I have more confidence in George Knapp than this, and if he was to have heard Mr. Jacobs state that it was 100% IM in the context of a "written relay" between people, he would have exclaimed how preposterous this is as well.

Brian Reed was specifically asked about it in his interview. He says it was just typing. He said Elizabeth sent him the transcripts of her hypnosis sessions with Jacobs on IM.

George Knapp did exclaim that it sounded outrageous (from memory that was the word he used.) Jacobs did not deny it.

You can't hypnotise someone using instant messaging - i.e. text sent from one computer to another, which has to be read and a typed response sent. The idea is utterly ridiculous, and the claims manifestly bogus. If you really are gullible enough to believe anyone in the real world might attempt this (and especially gullible enough to believe someone who goes on an internet chat show under an assumed name to get their 15 minutes of fame with made-up stories) then please ask any qualified hypnotherapist or a psychologist who understands something about the process. Or better still, ask Dave Jacobs about this in person and he'll explain it to you.

It sounds to me like you are trashing Reed’s credibility just because he talked about Jacobs doing hypnosis on IM.

Reed and Woods both say Jacobs did hypnosis on IM, and Jacobs did not deny it when asked by George Knapp.

If you’re friends with Jacobs like you claim, maybe you could ask him and quote his reply here. Let him deny it himself in public in his own words. He had his chance on C2C and did not deny it then.

Otherwise, accept the facts even if you don’t like them. (And maybe try to stop trashing Reed simply for talking about it.)

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think the question is whether Jacobs is Internet savvy enough to understand the distinction between instant messaging and voice messaging. Up till now, I had the impression all this had been accomplished by voice, not text. Before making a final decision about the matter, I hope that can be clarified. Voice (by phone or Skype) makes little enough sense to me. Text messaging makes the entire effort seem impossible.

 

[Kieran]

Brian Reed was specifically asked about it in his interview. He says it was just typing. He said Elizabeth sent him the transcripts of her hypnosis sessions with Jacobs on IM.

George Knapp did exclaim that it sounded outrageous (from memory that was the word he used.) Jacobs did not deny it.







)

If this was straightforward question from Knapp. What was his response he must have said something! I have not heard this interview, but if he was asked and never denied the fact it happened. That is conclusive, but I have not heard the interview. What I am reading is just speculation for me and lot of others. Have you a clip a short video of this questioning from knapp to jacobs James?

 

[James1]

I think the question is whether Jacobs is Internet savvy enough to understand the distinction between instant messaging and voice messaging. Up till now, I had the impression all this had been accomplished by voice, not text. Before making a final decision about the matter, I hope that can be clarified. Voice (by phone or Skype) makes little enough sense to me. Text messaging makes the entire effort seem impossible.

Gene, could you ask Jacobs about this, and get an official quoted response from him?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Gene, could you ask Jacobs about this, and get an official quoted response from him?

It's on the agenda; I left him a phone message for clarification. Might as well get both sides of the issue.

 

[James1]

If this was straightforward question from Knapp. What was his response he must have said something! I have not heard this interview, but if he was asked and never denied the fact it happened. That is conclusive, but I have not heard the interview. What I am reading is just speculation for me and lot of others. Have you a clip a short video of this questioning from knapp to jacobs James?

I don't have a clip, and I don't have time to listen to the interview again, but it is here:

ET Hybrids / Ultraterrestrials - Shows - Coast to Coast AM


Brian Reed's interview is here:

Paratopia
Episode 94: Brian Reed Vindicates Emma Woods

---------- Post added at 08:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------

Brian Reed and Emma Woods both say Jacobs did hypnosis with Elizabeth on IM by typing.

On C2C Jacobs says the only way he could tell if Elizabeth was writing the hybrid IM messages to him was if he looked in her window. (Obviously, if he had asked her to put up a webcam, like Reed did, he could have seen who was typing the messages.)

Reed says Elizabeth refused point blank to put up a webcam when he asked her to record the hybrids writing the IM messages. She gave multiple excuses, including her webcam was not working, etc.

As Elizabeth refused to put up a webcam, and Jacobs says the only way he could see who was typing on her IM was if he looked in her window, means Jacobs could not have been doing visual hypnosis with her on skype on the IM.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Let me get in touch with Jacobs and see what's what, OK?

I'm assuming this Brian Reed person wasn't there, right?

 

[James1]

Brian Reed said in his interview that Elizabeth sent him transcripts of the hypnosis sessions Jacobs did with her on IM, and it was done by typing. Reed was not present at Elizabeth's actual hypnosis sessions, but Elizabeth told him about them and sent him transcripts of them.

Woods said Jacobs told her he was doing hypnosis with Elizabeth on IM. She also says Reed was told by both Jacobs and Elizabeth that hypnosis on IM worked well.

 

[Kandinsky]

It is disturbing to see fallacies promoted especially on a site supposed to be for truth. Skeptics have their own forums, they shouldn't be polluting our forums. Ist of all, there is proof the abductions are real. 2nd Jacobs had a lot of credibility before and still does. 3rd, Emma Woods has no credibility. And even if he had done hypnosis by IM, this wasn't his usual procedure. The abduction boat did not take a hit and is not in any danger of sinking. That it did or that it is is just wishful thinking on the part of skeptics. And there's more than the research of Mack which says UFO abductions can't be explained psychiatrically; there's also Zimmer, 1984, Bloecher et al, 1985, Pamell and Sprinkle, 1980, Parnell, 1988, Rodethier et al, 1993, and Spanos et al, 1993.

And shrinks being bound on paper to a code of ethics does not prevent them from systematically violating it. For the most part, they are abusive, willfully incompetent, and mentally ill. We just have to look at Freud, Jung, Adler, Lewin, Reich, and Gross, for instance. The 1st 4 were associated with the notorious Tavistock, and the last 2 were considered insane even by other shrinks, and Jung had hallucinations for 4 years. There are the jokes,"the odd treating the id"; "How many headshrinkers are there in Hamilton?" "40 odd -- 2 are normal"; and "I'm seeing a shrink and I'm going crazy." "See? It's working."

Also, there is the self-righteous hypocrisy of the skeptics and pseudo-skeptics (believers who pretend to be skeptics to protect the cover-up, like Sagan and Stuart) who do projection and pretend there are no kooks on their side (there are many, like Klass, Jerome Clarke, and CSICOP, for instance).

(The name under my user name should be Advanced Paranormal Buff but I wasn't able to change it.)

This forum is full of informed and rational members who have the intelligence to ask good questions. Every post we make is subject to the scrutiny of other members and they'll kick back against posts they disagree with or holes in the logic.

Your championing of Dr Jacobs speaks volumes. 'Emma Woods' hasn't been so easily dismissed by Paracast members because she's raised valid concerns. These concerns existed before the Paratopia interviews and have been raised for a decade at least.

Your references to guys like Freud and Jung are out of date. College psychology courses barely refer to them outside of providing a basic history and understanding of psychology. Why not look at Susan Clancy or Stuart Appelle? They highlight the ongoing discussion and alternative explanations for the abduction experience.

Like it or not, millions of humans being abducted (as in the Roper Poll) is not the most probable explanation for the abduction phenomena. There are still other avenues to explore.

If you feel the need to dismiss the various schools of psychology in order to vindicate Jacobs or the abduction phenomena...maybe your certainty is misplaced? Certainly, your straw man arguments won't wash in these forums.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

An excerpt from an article on David Jacobs website "ICAR" called "The Defamation Campaign". For the full article, go here.

International Center for Abduction Research

.." As a first step, I normally require a person's therapist to agree to the process. In Alice's case though, her ex-therapist was aware of what was happening from the beginning and later wrote to me that doing hypnosis over the phone was, in his opinion, "unlikely to be harmful." He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately."

 

[Gene Steinberg]

An excerpt from an article on David Jacobs website "ICAR" called "The Defamation Campaign". For the full article, go here.

International Center for Abduction Research

.." As a first step, I normally require a person's therapist to agree to the process. In Alice's case though, her ex-therapist was aware of what was happening from the beginning and later wrote to me that doing hypnosis over the phone was, in his opinion, "unlikely to be harmful." He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately."

Agree or disagree with Jacobs, it's unfortunate that so few actually examined his side of the story. My opinion is, once again, stop they're both wrong! And I hope Jacobs clarifies this alleged IM hypnosis technique. I mean, maybe we should watch out for our cell phone texts next. You never know when you might go under.

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

OK, Jacobs says he didn't hypnotize her with IM. "You can't do hypnosis with instant messaging," he responded. He used AOL IM communications strictly for text communications, although he did say she'd occasionally put herself into a relaxed state during those sessions. But hypnosis? Absolutely not!

Jacobs says that this is the first time in 24 years that he's run into anyone like this. So there ya go! I've had quite enough of this, folks!

 

[James1]

Gene, thanks for getting an official response from Jacobs.

My question is, why would Brian Reed and Emma Woods both say that Jacobs did it? Why would they both lie about it?

My opinion is Jacobs did it, but he is now disclaiming it in a belated attempt to salvage his public image.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Brian Reed wasn't there, right?

More to the point, I am not confident in anything Emma Woods says, since I've caught her exaggerating things highly in several situations, such as her claims that Jacobs made vast changes in his response to her on his site, and then quoting a few phrases that weren't substantially different. So she might be labeling the IMs are hypnotic sessions simply because she was relaxed at the time she was participating in them and chose to interpret them in that way.

Besides, how do you hypnotize someone by IM? Really!

How about a post?

You are falling into a deep, quiet, restful, relaxing sleep? Listen closely to the sound of my keyboard. Can anyone take this seriously?

But I also told Jacobs he shouldn't have gotten involved in this mess, so there you go. Talk about being sick and tired of this stuff!

 

[James1]

An excerpt from an article on David Jacobs website "ICAR" called "The Defamation Campaign". For the full article, go here.

International Center for Abduction Research

.." As a first step, I normally require a person's therapist to agree to the process. In Alice's case though, her ex-therapist was aware of what was happening from the beginning and later wrote to me that doing hypnosis over the phone was, in his opinion, "unlikely to be harmful." He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately."

An excerpt from Woods’ rebuttal to Jacobs’ statement. For the full rebuttal go here.

Emma Woods: Rebuttal to Dr. David Jacobs



Dr. Jacobs originally wrote:

"The first step with Alice was to require that she ask her now ex-therapist to agree to the process. Alice's ex-therapist wrote that doing hypnosis with her via telephone would not, in his opinion, have a potential for harm."


Dr. Jacobs clearly intends to give the impression that he required my therapist to agree to his conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone before he did so, and that he obtained a written statement from him saying that it was his opinion that hypnosis with me over the telephone would not have a potential for harm, before he went ahead with it.

However, this is completely false.

At the time that Dr. Jacobs took me on as his research subject, in December 2004, my former therapist had already retired, although he was continuing to assist me with my record as he had become interested in it. Dr. Jacobs told me that he would prefer to obtain my former therapist's agreement before proceeding with the hypnosis. However, my former therapist said that as he was no longer my therapist, that he could not give Dr. Jacobs formal approval to proceed. Dr. Jacobs went ahead with the hypnosis without obtaining any written agreement from my former therapist.

Much later, in 2006, when Dr. Jacobs published my material on his website, my former therapist wrote a statement about the hypnosis sessions which Dr. Jacobs published on his website. In his statement, my former therapist said:

"One aspect of the data gathering process has been the use of hypnosis by researcher Dr. David Jacobs. This raised questions with respect to safety because due to geographical constraints it was impossible to do face to face sessions and the sessions were done by phone. Because of there having been a long period of contact between [my name] and Dr. Jacobs prior to the hypnosis, and the awareness of both of them for the need for local support for [my name] which was put in place, it was my view that it was unlikely to be harmful."

However, this statement was written long after Dr. Jacobs had started conducting hypnosis with me. In addition, my former therapist made it clear in the statement that as he was no longer my therapist at the time, that he did not formally monitor the effects of the hypnosis on me.

In mid January 2006, Dr. Jacobs told me that he thought that when he published my research on his website, that he would be criticized for conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone. He said that he would have to figure out a strategy for how to tell people about it.

Jacobs subsequently wrote a Foreward to my material, in which he addressed the issue of his having conducted hypnosis with me over the telephone. Before publishing it, he sent me a draft copy of it in which he said:

"I suggested that we could explore some experiences on the phone, but that I would only proceed with her now-former therapist's written approval."

He also said:

"In our first few hypnosis sessions I had with her, we arranged for her former therapist to be in the room with her in case she had an adverse reaction and so that she could have someone to rely on for support and counseling."

Both of these statements by Dr. Jacobs were completely false.

At the time, I thought that Dr. Jacobs must have made a mistake. I reminded him that he had not obtained written permission from my former therapist before proceeding to conduct hypnosis with me, and that he had not arranged for him to be in the room with me during any of my hypnosis sessions.

Dr. Jacobs then changed one of the statements in the draft, and said:

"In our first few hypnosis sessions, we arranged for a sympathetic friend to be in the room with her in case she had an adverse reaction and so that she could have someone to rely on for support."

Once again, this statement by Dr. Jacobs was completely false. In addition, he retained his other false statement in the draft.

I once again reminded Dr. Jacobs that these statements were untrue, and he then removed the statement that he had arranged for a sympathetic friend to be in the room with me during the first few hypnosis sessions. However, although I repeatedly reminded him that he had not obtained written permission from my former therapist before proceeding to conduct hypnosis with me, he nevertheless went ahead and published that statement in his Foreward. At my request, he eventually removed that statement from his Foreward after it had been published.

At the time, I thought that Dr. Jacobs' actions were an indicator that he might be in the early stages of dementia. However, I am now of the opinion that he engaged in a deliberate deception to cover himself, which he has repeated in his current statement.


Dr. Jacobs' subsequent change following my rebuttal:

Following my rebuttal to this section of Dr. Jacobs' defamatory statement, he completely changed what he initially wrote.

Dr. Jacobs' new version of this section of his statement is the following:

"As a first step, I normally require a person's therapist to agree to the process. In Alice's case though, her ex-therapist was aware of what was happening from the beginning and later wrote to me that doing hypnosis over the phone was, in his opinion, "unlikely to be harmful." He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately."


Dr. Jacobs fails to give any explanation for his previous statements that gave the false impression that he required my former therapist to agree to his conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone before he did so, and that he obtained a written statement from him saying that it was his opinion that hypnosis with me over the telephone would not have a potential for harm, before he went ahead with it. In addition, Dr. Jacobs now provides a different misleading account of the events.

In his new version of the events, Dr. Jacobs gives the misleading appearance that he obtained informal approval from my former therapist before conducting hypnosis with me. Dr. Jacobs adds, "He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately." He writes this statement as though my former therapist said it in the present tense, before the hypnosis took place, with the implication that my former therapist told him that he would mention any harmful effects as the hypnosis took place.

However, as mentioned above, my former therapist wrote his statement long after Dr. Jacobs had started conducting hypnosis with me. My former therapist made it clear in the statement that as he was no longer my therapist at the time, that he did not formally monitor the effects of the hypnosis on me. At that time, he said that if he had noticed any harmful effects at any point he would have said so immediately. However, I did not discuss the effects of the hypnosis with him, as he was no longer my therapist. (He later became concerned about the effect of the situation on me, and towards the end of my work with Dr. Jacobs he suggested that I consider stopping it.)

Dr. Jacobs makes no mention of his false statements in the Foreward to my material that he published on his website, and he provides no explanation for them.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm more interested in how she determined what those alleged changes were. Did she copy the text every single day and do a document compare to figure them out? Does she have an eidetic memory? Is she THAT obsessive on this subject?

How do you verify these revisions anyway, since Jacobs' site is not coded to support "Wayback"? But don't make much of that, folks. We block it too, as part of our SEO setup to keep traffic at the site and not on some archiving resource.

As to quoting this stuff: Stop! If anyone wants to read it, they can go to her site, and they can go to Jacobs' site for his response. End of story!

And end of thread! If anyone can post something that provides some real illumination on this matter, fine. But this constant rehash is taking us nowhere fast!