Hopkins Ex-wife Dumps

[Elendil]

I think debate on this and any other topic is healthy and I encourage it. I will not tolerate any name calling or cheap shots at anyone by anyone. This is The Paracast. Lets keep it professional.

I agree with this and I think it's much needed since we are talking about two very important names regarding the subject and the research. So far, Jacobs and Hopkins came off to me like two guys who are claiming incredible shit but at the same time were saying: "Ok, this shit is very unbelievable - but we are doing our best to evade the pitfalls and we admit that the evidence is weak". And than you could look up into what they are saying and analyze their methods and make up your mind if it's bunk or not. Judging by the interviews, they seemed like guys who tried to be careful and who would check out their alleged witnesses, not just take anyone from the street who claims to be an abductee. They also seemed like people interested to make something out of the abduction research - attract some expertise and the scientific community, as in Mack, Donderi, Apelle and so on...

So, when I get the info that Hopkins wouldn't check out Mortellaro and would even go public with his claims without at least trying to validate some of the stuff he was being delivered - that makes me think how many other frauds got passed him without any checking. Also, when I hear that both Jacobs and Hopkins wouldn't be at least a bit interested into working with a gynecologist who could analyze medical record and abductee claims and maybe provide stronger evidence in the form of collaborating records and expert medical opinions which in documented and printed form (or even find nothing and debunk some stuff - wherever the evidence leads) - that makes me very disappointed with the way they do things. Speaks a lot about researching a topic so out there that it demands checking, double-checking and cross-checking all the time, if we are to see some answers or scientific interest.

That's important info. I don't give a shit about whether Jacobs is versed with SM shops in his free time. I don't give a fuck if the man loves to wear a spiked bunny suit while getting down with the Missus. To each his own. Let's concentrate on the research...

 

[Ron Collins]

Perhaps it is just my own personal bias but I just do not see what either Hopkins or Jacobs has done to forward our collective understanding of the phenomenon within the last 7 to 10 years. Now as quasi-therapists maybe they have helped individuals. Though that could also be argued. But as pure researcher what knowledge have we gained?

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

A few quick thoughts in an effort to balance the dialogue:

1. Research into the abduction phenomena extends beyond Hopkins and Jacobs. John Mack, William Simon, John Carpenter and other qualified mental health professionals, subject to ethical standards and various review panels, appear to have uncovered similar fact patterns. This cannot be ignored if you are assessing the phenomena in its totality. There is no evidence that these numerous, trained professionals need to publicize this phenomena for an ego boost or publicity.

2. Many abductees and their immediate family members claim to have conscious recollection of at least parts of the phenomena. For example, a spouse of an abductee, who happens to be an electrician, spends half his Saturday looking for faulty wiring in the family home when he noticed an odd blue light in the house (an apparent abduction of the female spouse occurred the prior evening).

3. Claims of physical evidence. Scoop marks in the same body location across a number of abductees; damage to vegetation and ground impressions; severe damage to the uterus and cervix of some female abductees, unusual for women of their age; young toddlers found on the ground outside of a home after going missing, when they were last put to bed for an afternoon nap in the second floor bedroom (neighbors got involved and police were called).

4. Third party presence at the time of hypnosis conducted by Hopkins. These include individuals like Tracy Torme and Peter Robbins who have spoken publicly about witnessing Hopkins conduct his sessions. They obviously are not qualified mental health professionals, but I don't think they would speak up as they have done if their common sense told them Hopkins had gone off the rails.

5. Carol Rainey is an adult, and was an adult, at the time she co-authored the books. Her current article is well written, indicating intelligence. If she thought Hopkins was engaged in monkey business, why get involved, even if you are married to the individual, at the time? Why raise this as an issue now, given Hopkins' ill health? If I had a spouse engaging in fraudulent activity, I wouldn't myself get involved in perpetrating the fraud. Would most of the readers on this Forum? Remaining silent and not co-authoring a book is a more likely course of action, even if you stay in the relationship.

I actually know Budd Hopkins (no, I am not an abductee, but collect art in my spare time). My impressions of him are that he is honest, civic-minded, objective, intelligent and balanced. Admittedly, I may have the wrong read on the man, but nothing has raised warning bells in my interaction with him.

The above is not intended to mean that we don't look at the research of Hopkins and Jacobs with a critical eye -- indeed, Carol Rainey's article, its facts and her qualifications & motivations equally need to be critically examined, on the merits. For example, I would like to hear directly from Hopkins and Jacobs why they did not let a qualified ob/gyn get involved in examining the missing fetus syndrome (there may be a legitimate reason); or why no one seems to have successful recorded evidence on a night video camera in an alleged abductee's bedroom. However, I do have to say the portrayal of Hopkins by Rainey does not foot with the individual I know in person.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

More research is need from professional from the medical field like the late Dr John Mack .

Maybe more open minded practitioners with good policing of rules and regulations from traditional western medical applications and non- western.

l

 

[Frank Stalter]

http://www.ufoabduction.com/therapists.htm

I never looked too closely at all this abduction stuff, but the above link makes for a curious read.

My reading of it: If you're a therapist with a rigid agenda that is in conflict with our rigid agenda, don't bother us.

 

[James1]

I don't give a shit about whether Jacobs is versed with SM shops in his free time. I don't give a fuck if the man loves to wear a spiked bunny suit while getting down with the Missus. To each his own. Let's concentrate on the research...

The thing is, he's not just doing it with his Missus, is he? He's doing it to his subjects when they are hypnotized. That's the point.

Jacobs told Emma Woods under hypnosis to wear a chastity belt he found at a sado-masochistic sex shop. Not only that, he sent one to another subject as well. This is a man abusing his position as a researcher to act out his own fantasies with his subjects while they are HYPNOTIZED. Then he gave Woods hypnotic suggestions she wouldn't remember it.

This is abuse of human research subjects. It is a HUGE warning flag about Jacobs' research.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

4. Third party presence at the time of hypnosis conducted by Hopkins. These include individuals like Tracy Torme and Peter Robbins who have spoken publicly about witnessing Hopkins conduct his sessions. They obviously are not qualified mental health professionals, but I don't think they would speak up as they have done if their common sense told them Hopkins had gone off the rails.

Hopkins would obviously be careful to mind his ps and qs while being watched carrying out hypnosis. It's not what he does when he is being watched that is the problem. It's what he does in the rest of the time completely unsupervised that's the issue.

One of the main points of Ms. Rainey's article is these researchers are not under any supervision or oversight.

When Budd' Intruder's Foundation Board members tried to supervise Hopkins after one of his debacles, he wouldn't let them.

Carol Rainey is an adult, and was an adult, at the time she co-authored the books. Her current article is well written, indicating intelligence. If she thought Hopkins was engaged in monkey business, why get involved, even if you are married to the individual, at the time?

Ms. Rainey made it clear in her article she went through a process of moving from initially believing Hopkins' research was sound to realizing there were big problems with it. She obviously didn't think he was "engaged in monkey business" when she first got involved.

Why raise this as an issue now, given Hopkins' ill health? If I had a spouse engaging in fraudulent activity, I wouldn't myself get involved in perpetrating the fraud. Would most of the readers on this Forum? Remaining silent and not co-authoring a book is a more likely course of action, even if you stay in the relationship.

If you want to know why Ms. Rainey raised this issue now, just read her article. She explains it right up front:


"Sometimes an event comes hurdling along and scatters well intentioned plans left and right. I had intended to wait several more years before writing about my hard-won insights into the alien abduction phenomenon. During my ten-year marriage to UFO researcher Budd Hopkins, I’d actively participated in some of Budd’s UFO cases; edited his third book, Witnessed; co-authored the next book, Sight Unseen, with him; shot extensive documentary footage of Budd’s research; and produced short films that he used on the conference circuit. But we haven’t been married for the past several years, we’ve each gotten on with our own lives, and, since 2004, I’ve refused to participate in abduction research. There seemed to be a lot to lose and nothing to gain by speaking up, during my former husband’s lifetime, about my perceptions of some researchers’ ethical violations, misuse of human subjects, and their steady manipulation of the abduction narrative into a rigid doctrine. No need to rush to print.

"But then along came Emma Woods’ story, reaching me last spring while I was living and working in the 14th century Moroccan walled-city of Fez. It was an explosive case of subject abuse that shook up many people and would later become the November 2010 cover story for UFO Magazine. During a long rainy day, waiting for the donkey to deliver my cooking gas, I took the time to carefully review the material on both sides—on the subject (Emma Woods’) website and also on the website of researcher David Jacobs. The audio taped excerpts of the sessions provided a trail through the labyrinthine ways in which researchers are able to “lead” the subject in a certain direction by pre-hypnosis conversation about other cases they’re interested in; how the narrative is manipulated to fit the high strangeness requirements of the researcher’s upcoming book; the tapes also show egregious boundary crossing and ethical improprieties.

"It electrified me out of my silence and into action. Because Emma’s case brought painfully to mind several other cases that had passed through my own home in the not too distant past—and for any adverse effect on these individuals’ lives that I might have contributed to as the documentary filmmaker or writer on the scene, I am genuinely sorry. At this point, perhaps I can best make amends by responding to the question asked in a letter to the editor of UFO Magazine by veteran UFO researcher Ray Fowler: “I wonder how many other Emmas there are out there?”

"Let me begin to name them, because they are most definitely there. ..."

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Once again, a reality check on a couple of issues.

When "Emma Woods" came out against David Jacobs, Jacobs posted a response, but very, very few of the people commenting on the issue here ever bothered to read it.

Budd Hopkins is not very likely to respond to the article by his ex-wife simply because he is quite ill and has other concerns. We wish him well. I would hope he will respond, and then you'll have both sides of the story to evaluate.

When you only have one version, from an aggrieved ex-wife, even if she is largely correct in what she writes, there has to be some suspicion as to her motives and the accuracy of her remarks. Also, knowing her ex-husband's condition, and I'm sure she does, this seems a bad case of timing to release this now.

I am not rendering a judgement here. I just believe there are at least two sides to every story, and most of you have read just one so far.

 

[James1]

When "Emma Woods" came out against David Jacobs, Jacobs posted a response, but very, very few of the people commenting on the issue here ever bothered to read it.

I think most people did read it, and some at least realized it did not fit the evidence. The man was clearly covering up for himself by spinning a yarn. The omissions alone in that document say everything.

I would hope he will respond, and then you'll have both sides of the story to evaluate.

I hope Hopkins responds too.

I would also like to hear from Hopkins' former Intruders Foundation Board members who resigned. Could you try to contact them to get their input?

 

[Infolad1]

Once again, a reality check on a couple of issues.

When "Emma Woods" came out against David Jacobs, Jacobs posted a response, but very, very few of the people commenting on the issue here ever bothered to read it.

Budd Hopkins is not very likely to respond to the article by his ex-wife simply because he is quite ill and has other concerns. We wish him well. I would hope he will respond, and then you'll have both sides of the story to evaluate.

When you only have one version, from an aggrieved ex-wife, even if she is largely correct in what she writes, there has to be some suspicion as to her motives and the accuracy of her remarks. Also, knowing her ex-husband's condition, and I'm sure she does, this seems a bad case of timing to release this now.

I am not rendering a judgement here. I just believe there are at least two sides to every story, and most of you have read just one so far.

Thank you Gene. As I always like to say, where you there? If not, then it's ALL heresay, and should be analyzed accordingly.

And when it comes to relationships, especially when they break up, things can get very ugly. As Gene said, we've only heard one side.

With that said, this is what can happen in any type of life situation when there's a lack of accountability. The problem with abductions, and for that matter, the entire "paranormal" landscape is that the Western scientific paradigm, even if they were willing, which they are not, is ill equipped to deal with it. It seemingly goes against every law of the physical world that they know. And it intersects with, and can play with, the mind. This in itself is horrifying to the average person. If you don't have control over your own mind, it generates the primal fear of losing it.

UFO researchers have no business using hypnosis, they don't know what they're doing & what they're playing with. But neither do Psychologists. They're adept at dealing with the lower mind, and are to be appreciated for doing so, but have no understanding of it's higher faculties and functioning. To paraphrase Lon Milo DuQuette "It's All In Your Head... You Just Have No Idea How Big Your Head Is".

It's bad for the field what's happening. But this is a train wreck that could be seen coming a mile away.

 

[Simone_m]

If you're a therapist with a rigid agenda that is in conflict with our rigid agenda, don't bother us.

This is because a rigid agenda was meant by god only for an open yielder.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I am not rendering a judgement here. I just believe there are at least two sides to every story, and most of you have read just one so far.

I'm reading their own website, and it stinks to high heaven.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm reading their own website, and it stinks to high heaven.

The design or the content? If the former, very few UFO/paranormal sites are well done.

 

[Frank Stalter]

The design or the content? If the former, very few UFO/paranormal sites are well done.

The content. I'll quote at length . . . .

At present there are quite a few therapists who work with abductees, but many of them are heavily influenced by New Age and aliens-as-Space-Brother ideas. They tend toward religious, transformational, spiritual, and mystical interpretations of UFOs and abductions. These interpretations are reflective of the therapist’s “mind-set,” and have no relation whatsoever to the actual phenomenon. Unfortunately, they can transfer their particular agenda to abductees during hypnotic sessions and join together with them in mutually confirmational fantasies. These individuals are sometimes helpful to a few like-minded abductees, but more often they are detrimental to abductees' well-being and lead them into fantasies rather than dealing objectively with the abduction phenomenon and its effects on the abductees’ lives.
If you would like to contribute to the investigation of abductions using agenda-free investigative and therapeutic strategies, I will send you an e-mail packet of information about techniques of hypnosis, protocols of investigation, proper questioning procedures, and problems in therapy. If you are serious and would like to become more active, please send me your vita and a request for information. Label the subject line "Therapist Info."

The agenda is pretty clear . . . alien rape . . . . hybrid babies and so on. How do they know it's all one way and not, at least in part, the other? It's a big galaxy out there. Manipulating people who are likely in need of professional help is pretty sleazy.

 

[mike]

I dont understand the issue with chastity belts.
If you have a subject who may be having unwanted gynae proceedures being done, then it seems to me like a valid experiment.
Get them to wear a device that prevents it, if its interfered with ie they wake up and the locks are off/broken then you have a valid result.
Kmart dont stock these devices, sex shops do, visiting a sex shop shop to procure these devices doesnt in that context strike me as wrong

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I dont understand the issue with chastity belts.
If you have a subject who may be having unwanted gynae proceedures being done, then it seems to me like a valid experiment.
Get them to wear a device that prevents it, if its interfered with ie they wake up and the locks are off/broken then you have a valid result.
Kmart dont stock these devices, sex shops do, visiting a sex shop shop to procure these devices doesnt in that context strike me as wrong

I'm going to assume that the chastity belt thing had nothing to do with sex as far as Jacobs was concerned. To him it was likely another tactic, a defense, a way of giving them trouble. But even that scenario is hilarious in the extreme. I don't know what possibly could have gotten into his head that would lead him to believe a chastity belt could thwart beings allegedly able to travel the stars, walk through walls, evade all of our surveillance capabilities, etc.

 

[mike]

On the matter of ex wife testimony, she sounds like she's doing the right thing.
But let me give you a real life example from the family law courts.

I dealt with a case where an ex wife made a petition to the court to limit access by the ex husband to the children of the union, the reason being the ex husband smoked pot, she told the court she didnt want the children exposed to this behaviour, and wanted the court to supervise any access visits.

That sounds reasonable, it sounds like she was doing the right thing. But under cross examination and the testimony of other witness's it turns out she knew her husband smoked before they were married, married him and had children despite it, allowed and even participated herself in smoking in the home with the children present, she only felt a pressing need to do the right thing and protect her children after he was caught cheating.

It is very typical in these sceanrio's for people to suddenly want to do the right thing after the breakup, where before they turned a blind eye.

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

I'm going to assume that the chastity belt thing had nothing to do with sex as far as Jacobs was concerned. To him it was likely another tactic, a defense, a way of giving them trouble. But even that scenario is hilarious in the extreme. I don't know what possibly could have gotten into his head that would lead him to believe a chastity belt could thwart beings allegedly able to travel the stars, walk through walls, evade all of our surveillance capabilities, etc.

I agree 100 percent,its not likely to stop them. but the experiment might have yeilded physical evidence that makes his case, for example he provides the locks and keeps the keys at night, if the next morning the belt is removed, or damaged or in anyway circumvented, thats evidence something happened.
We hear accounts of people being returned with the wrong clothes, or on back to front, its possible the means they use to remove the belt might be such as to leave evidence of the tampering, that would be useful and valid evidence
Personally as experiments go, i think it was worth a try

 

[Simone_m]

Re: Wickerman


Well then, it would have be one heck of a strong big belt! Bight'cher head off, man.

 

[mike]

To use an earthly example, if a woman wore a chastity belt to her Obstetric/Gynae specialist for her medical exam, and didnt have the keys with her, two scenarios could occur, one the Dr would be unable to do the exam, or two he would use a device to cut the straps and remove it.
While i agree entitys who can allegedly travel the stars etc etc might have a more sophisticated option available to them, the results of the experiment are still valid, even if all that was added to the body of data was, they were able to proceed despite the wearing of a device designed to prevent them.
It also telegraphs to these alleged entitys "i know what your doing", "this is designed to prevent you from doing so"

 

[Infolad1]

The content. I'll quote at length . . . .



The agenda is pretty clear . . . alien rape . . . . hybrid babies and so on. How do they know it's all one way and not, at least in part, the other? It's a big galaxy out there. Manipulating people who are likely in need of professional help is pretty sleazy.

Thanks Frank for this very revealing quote.

It always amazes me that Mr. Jacobs fell for the trickster / elemental / psychoid archtype okey doke. In all his research, did he, or for that matter, Mr. Hopkins read Passport to Magonia? Dimensions? Alien Identities? The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries? The Secret Commonwealth?

It's obvious they didn't. Substitute " Fairy Ring" for "Spaceship", and " Changeling" for genetic hybrid, and it's just more of the same. Tricks really ARE for kids!

The intellectual arrogance this man exhibits is astounding. Here he is dealing with something happening in the intermediate zone between the mental and gross physical planes, and he dismisses the most important part! Amazing.

Manifested reality is not that cut and dry. Giants such as C.G. Jung and Wolfgang Pauli understood this. As did Richard Thompson & John Keel. Jaques Vallee, Phil Imbrogno, Christopher O'Brien, Gregory Little, Allen Greenfield, Lon Milo DuQuette, Nick Redfern, & Jungian depth psychologist Remo F. Roth all have pieces of the puzzle. Oh yeah, and a major piece is in, of all things, the classic Sci- Fi movie "Forbidden Planet".

The "Trickster" opens and closes the way to your higher mental faculties, the "Gods,Deities, Archangels, etc." He's the guardian at the door. And you're asking for trouble if you knock on the door and don't know the password, which is the fate Mr. Jacobs & Mr. Hopkins are now suffering.
"Sebek, Hermes, Legba," governs the intellect and moves at the speed of sound. They couldn't keep up.

"Dealing with forces beyond your comprehension" indeed.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

The content. I'll quote at length . . . .

The agenda is pretty clear . . . alien rape . . . . hybrid babies and so on. How do they know it's all one way and not, at least in part, the other? It's a big galaxy out there. Manipulating people who are likely in need of professional help is pretty sleazy.

It's not that I disagree that Jacobs was in the wrong with things he's done in the last several years. But I just can't agree with the way people are characterizing the wrongdoing. What I see is evidence for a guy who got way in over his head with his belief system. There was no doubt for him anymore and he started behaving in a "the ends justify the means" kind of way and began doing some very bizarre, stupid, and even unethical things. I don't condone it but I can make sense of it. I think he's so far gone in his convictions and paranoia that over time it became easier and easier to step over boundaries. After all, to him, "It's fargin' war!" I am convinced that he completely believes the things he says and kept getting deeper and deeper into a "It's up to me to save the world because nobody else is willing to" kind of mindset. But lots of you are trying to spin these things into something else. "He wanted her to wear a chastity belt and send him crusty knickers because he's a perv." Bullshit! "It's all a scheme, he's deliberately influencing testimony so he can sell books." Gatorshit! Emma Woods has convinced me he did the things she claims he did. And they are truly some pretty strange and idiotic things (Every time I read about the "tactics" he would try I can't help but laugh and shake my head. Is he trying to trick space-trekking ETs or The Little Rascals?). He's guilty. But I just cannot agree with the motives quite a few of you are speculating about.