ChrisJohnsen
Paranormal Adept
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
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!
October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
He probably doesn't believe it. See my thread from a couple weeks ago called something like "Ridiculous theories that the author knows is bogus but continues to perpetuate..."
See, it doesn't matter what these people spew. People will believe it and buy into it. Look at Romanek. The guy is a joke but yet I see him as a speaker at a lot of these UFO conferences. The guy would shrivel up and go away if everybody just mocked him and quit buying his stuff. Same with lot's of these guys.
ChrisJohnsen
Paranormal Adept
Recovered Memories - Are They Reliable?
"At this point it is impossible, without other corroborative evidence, to distinguish a true memory from a false one."
American Psychological Association, Questions and Answers about Memories of Childhood Abuse, 1995.
"At this point it is impossible, without other corroborative evidence, to distinguish a true memory from a false one."
American Psychological Association, Questions and Answers about Memories of Childhood Abuse, 1995.
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Nice quote!
Standanista
Paranormal Maven
Missing time alright: this was two lost hours of my life which I will never get back!
I think the bloke is beyond being a charlatan. His unsubstantiated hybrid/hubrid bunkum aside, this older guy revelling in sexual/reproductive stuff involving younger women, particularly the example he gave of a seven year old girl, I find pretty unsavoury.
I think the bloke is beyond being a charlatan. His unsubstantiated hybrid/hubrid bunkum aside, this older guy revelling in sexual/reproductive stuff involving younger women, particularly the example he gave of a seven year old girl, I find pretty unsavoury.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
From the site Chris referenced above:
Hypnosis and Memory Recovery Techniques
"The Council finds that recollections obtained during hypnosis can involve confabulations and pseudomemories and not only fail to be more accurate, but actually appear to be less reliable than nonhypnotic recall."
American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs, Scientific Status of Refreshing Recollections by the Use of Hypnosis, 1985.
"Psychiatrists are advised to avoid engaging in any ’memory recovery techniques’ which are based upon the expectation of past sexual abuse of which the patient has no memory. Such ’memory recovery techniques’ may include drug-mediated interviews, hypnosis, regression therapies, guided imagery, ’body memories,’ literal dream interpretation and journaling. There is no evidence that the use of consciousness-altering techniques, such as drug-mediated interviews or hypnosis, can reveal or accurately elaborate factual information about any past experiences including childhood sexual abuse. Techniques on regression therapy including ’age regression’ and hypnotic regression are of unproved effectiveness."
Royal College of Psychiatrists, Reported Recovered Memories of Child Sexual Abuse, 1997. (UK)
So these methologies are not just questionable but deemed ineffective, wrong and messes with people. So maybe the avoided topic of Emma Woods is a reckoning of Jacobs' own Freudian making and deserves to be critiqued from that position. Perhaps if there's one area that needs to be razed to the ground and restarted from a much more responsible position it is the Abduction Phenomenon.
Hypnosis and Memory Recovery Techniques
"The Council finds that recollections obtained during hypnosis can involve confabulations and pseudomemories and not only fail to be more accurate, but actually appear to be less reliable than nonhypnotic recall."
American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs, Scientific Status of Refreshing Recollections by the Use of Hypnosis, 1985.
"Psychiatrists are advised to avoid engaging in any ’memory recovery techniques’ which are based upon the expectation of past sexual abuse of which the patient has no memory. Such ’memory recovery techniques’ may include drug-mediated interviews, hypnosis, regression therapies, guided imagery, ’body memories,’ literal dream interpretation and journaling. There is no evidence that the use of consciousness-altering techniques, such as drug-mediated interviews or hypnosis, can reveal or accurately elaborate factual information about any past experiences including childhood sexual abuse. Techniques on regression therapy including ’age regression’ and hypnotic regression are of unproved effectiveness."
Royal College of Psychiatrists, Reported Recovered Memories of Child Sexual Abuse, 1997. (UK)
So these methologies are not just questionable but deemed ineffective, wrong and messes with people. So maybe the avoided topic of Emma Woods is a reckoning of Jacobs' own Freudian making and deserves to be critiqued from that position. Perhaps if there's one area that needs to be razed to the ground and restarted from a much more responsible position it is the Abduction Phenomenon.
Last edited:
LatentCauses
Skilled Investigator
I got halfway through this interview before losing patience and tuning out, so I apologise in advance if this issue was addressed with Dr Jacobs in the latter half.
..
As far as I'm aware he refuses to release the transcripts of his hypnosis sessions with patients, citing concerns in relation to patient confidentiality.
No matter how legitimate that concern is, how can anything he writes or concludes be any of 1. scientific or quasi-scientific value OR 2. evidence of anything at all when we don't know what questions he asks, and we can't read the answers that are given? It is the ultimate lack of transparency that will forever render this entire area beyond the fringe.
We are simply supposed to take his word for the fact that his protocols ensure that he is one of the "good" hypnotherapists in this area, to be distinguished from the rogues and the sloppy. And that is a pretty big ask given the Woods fiasco, bits of which I read, and which demonstrated a lot of leading questions.
So after 30 years of hypnotherapy in this area, we are simply supposed to take Dr Jacobs word, and that of his colleagues such as Hopkins, Mack and Karla Turner, that something truly sinister is going on - but we're not allowed to see the data!!
What a joke.
This is such a frustrating area as there are very obvious anomalies, truly worthy of serious investigation, in the circumstances surrounding some of the people who make these claims - missing time, people being physically missing and searched for by relatives, and inexplicable physical alterations. But why would anybody worth their salt be bothered looking at these anomalies, when there is no way of testing the veracity of the primary claims made by abductees and the people who hypnotise them? It's not science, it wouldn't be inadmissible in any court room, and in fact fails to meet any conceivable standard of proof save for the Youtube standard of the very gullible
And I say that as someone who for a long time has held serious concerns that there is something of great primacy that goes fundamentally to the very nature of human existence residing behind the abduction experience. But the likes of David Jacobs are not going to get get us very far as to what it might be.
..
As far as I'm aware he refuses to release the transcripts of his hypnosis sessions with patients, citing concerns in relation to patient confidentiality.
No matter how legitimate that concern is, how can anything he writes or concludes be any of 1. scientific or quasi-scientific value OR 2. evidence of anything at all when we don't know what questions he asks, and we can't read the answers that are given? It is the ultimate lack of transparency that will forever render this entire area beyond the fringe.
We are simply supposed to take his word for the fact that his protocols ensure that he is one of the "good" hypnotherapists in this area, to be distinguished from the rogues and the sloppy. And that is a pretty big ask given the Woods fiasco, bits of which I read, and which demonstrated a lot of leading questions.
So after 30 years of hypnotherapy in this area, we are simply supposed to take Dr Jacobs word, and that of his colleagues such as Hopkins, Mack and Karla Turner, that something truly sinister is going on - but we're not allowed to see the data!!
What a joke.
This is such a frustrating area as there are very obvious anomalies, truly worthy of serious investigation, in the circumstances surrounding some of the people who make these claims - missing time, people being physically missing and searched for by relatives, and inexplicable physical alterations. But why would anybody worth their salt be bothered looking at these anomalies, when there is no way of testing the veracity of the primary claims made by abductees and the people who hypnotise them? It's not science, it wouldn't be inadmissible in any court room, and in fact fails to meet any conceivable standard of proof save for the Youtube standard of the very gullible
And I say that as someone who for a long time has held serious concerns that there is something of great primacy that goes fundamentally to the very nature of human existence residing behind the abduction experience. But the likes of David Jacobs are not going to get get us very far as to what it might be.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Of course you and I cannot see the data! What are you, nuts? Kinda reminds me of another person that has extraordinary claims, but yet just about nobody can see any of the evidence...
William Strathmann
Paranormal Adept
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate."
So, it would seem Dr. Jacobs presents the D-K effect in spades.
I listened to both the show and after the paracast. Jacobs said during the show that for decades he's been involved with 150 reportees, involving 1,150 events. Hummm . . . seven billion people in the world . . . Add his reportees to those of Hopkins, Mack and whoever else, and would you come close to even a tiny fraction of a percentage of human experience?
In '78, over a period of about a year, I underwent about seven night attacks, that are today called sleep paralysis (by materialists), or abduction (by ETH proponents like Hopkins and Jacobs). I'd never heard of either term in those days. I am convinced that night torments are real, that they do not originate from the victim (why would I want to experience an intense feeling of strangulation around my neck), and I am convinced sentient, malevolent entities are involved. I was not taken from my room. Yet Dr. Jacobs gave his myopic, bifurcated view during the show that either actual alien abduction into a UFO is real, or else the event is a mental issue with the person. I'd say that Jacobs' over confidence in a materialistic world-view prevents him from considering alternatives.
On the other hand, Jacobs says that the aliens are already virtually omniscient (they know when a bedroom has been wired to monitor night activities) and that they already control abductees (to make them shut off monitoring equipment). Jacobs fails to see the non-sequitur: to wit, the aliens need no "hubrids" since they can already control people at will.
I'm fairly confident that Jacobs believes the narrative he espouses. But what if the aliens are influencing him, day by day? What if the aliens, also, are influencing the people he hypnotizes during hypnosis? Both Jacobs and victims would replay a question-answer narrative that the aliens want them to experience, and report to the world.
The bottom line for Chris' lament about Ufology at the beginning of the show: It is the "others" who control the flow of knowledge about "UFOs" and "abduction" and any other related paranormal phenomena. We do not. So Ufology, per se, is far more in the hands of the sentients behind the phenomena, who intrude into our world at will, than in our hands, since we cannot intrude into theirs.
So, it would seem Dr. Jacobs presents the D-K effect in spades.
I listened to both the show and after the paracast. Jacobs said during the show that for decades he's been involved with 150 reportees, involving 1,150 events. Hummm . . . seven billion people in the world . . . Add his reportees to those of Hopkins, Mack and whoever else, and would you come close to even a tiny fraction of a percentage of human experience?
In '78, over a period of about a year, I underwent about seven night attacks, that are today called sleep paralysis (by materialists), or abduction (by ETH proponents like Hopkins and Jacobs). I'd never heard of either term in those days. I am convinced that night torments are real, that they do not originate from the victim (why would I want to experience an intense feeling of strangulation around my neck), and I am convinced sentient, malevolent entities are involved. I was not taken from my room. Yet Dr. Jacobs gave his myopic, bifurcated view during the show that either actual alien abduction into a UFO is real, or else the event is a mental issue with the person. I'd say that Jacobs' over confidence in a materialistic world-view prevents him from considering alternatives.
On the other hand, Jacobs says that the aliens are already virtually omniscient (they know when a bedroom has been wired to monitor night activities) and that they already control abductees (to make them shut off monitoring equipment). Jacobs fails to see the non-sequitur: to wit, the aliens need no "hubrids" since they can already control people at will.
I'm fairly confident that Jacobs believes the narrative he espouses. But what if the aliens are influencing him, day by day? What if the aliens, also, are influencing the people he hypnotizes during hypnosis? Both Jacobs and victims would replay a question-answer narrative that the aliens want them to experience, and report to the world.
The bottom line for Chris' lament about Ufology at the beginning of the show: It is the "others" who control the flow of knowledge about "UFOs" and "abduction" and any other related paranormal phenomena. We do not. So Ufology, per se, is far more in the hands of the sentients behind the phenomena, who intrude into our world at will, than in our hands, since we cannot intrude into theirs.
No hard questions? You must have been listening to a different show. We asked him very critical questions about his process, and the problems were crystal clear. I'm not aware of any other show that actually put him in a box as we did.
You just can't win Gene. W/ Ardi 6killer Clarke, Blake Cousins and others we were too tough, w/ Jacobs, et al, we weren't tough enough.
Jacobs wasn't happy about how he was handled, he said I was "badgering" him. Can't please everyone all the time, I suppose.
Jacobs wasn't happy about how he was handled, he said I was "badgering" him. Can't please everyone all the time, I suppose.
Standanista
Paranormal Maven
-3:50 from the end of the show he mentions some bloke called Michael Menkin who makes "anti-abduction hats"; I had to check him out:
Stop Alien Abductions
"Large leather aviator hats lined with Velostat with secure straps are recommended for making effective helmets..."
Of aliens: "They are good at manipulating your spouse to have a conflict with you about wearing the helmet." I bet.
Stop Alien Abductions
"Large leather aviator hats lined with Velostat with secure straps are recommended for making effective helmets..."
Of aliens: "They are good at manipulating your spouse to have a conflict with you about wearing the helmet." I bet.
Last edited:
As I said in the Question Bank thread, we deliberately chose not to mention the EW case. He mentioned her slightly in passing but we don't pursue it. And we won't. The value of Jacobs' work, or lack thereof, doesn't rest on that episode.
Wade
FeralNormal master
i haven't listened to the show, nor in all likelihood will I, but you shouldn't be disparaged by negative comments/feedback. Rare is the case where you get a universal thumbs up or thumbs down and this appears to be one of them. The fact that both Gene and Chris can get anybody on such a regular basis is commendable. As far as Dr. Jacobs he isn't exactly an unknown quantity and is probably one of the more polarizing figures making the rounds, so any negative feedback should be taken into consideration. His past precedes him and for that reason i choose not to listen and therefore will remain out of the fray. But if a palate cleansing is needed i think a full report on Chris's trip will do the trick unless he already did so in which case i guess i shall have no choice but to listen.
Wade
FeralNormal master
a somewhat related point , part of the reason i opted out of this episode was not only because of the subject but the title of Dr. Jacobs latest work which (perhaps unfairly) got me to roll my eyes. I can safely say i am not in his target audience on this one. But here's my point and it is not my intent to try to put anybody on the spot but it's probably safe to assume that whenever you guys do book a guest you recieve a copy of that persons latest book. I wonder if any such books could be reviewed in this forum so as to let others decide if they want to make the purchase.
I know that Chris has a full plate and it might not serve the hosts well to have them make any reviews. Would it be posssible for to make the book available to any members that may have the time to review? Maybe not even the same person , for instance i don't know if i would have the time but i would take a pass on anything to do with alien abduction/ hypnotic regression because it leaves a bad taste in my mouth , but there are some paranormal phenomena that does intrigue me to the point that i would be interesting in reading and providing my own viewpoint. Granted there is a boook review forum which hasn't exactly taken off but i suspect that might have something to do with the ability to make discrectionary purchases.
Many of us paracasters have to be very discriminating with our hard earned money when it comes to purchasing any books. Perhaps there could be some kind of system set up to ensure that anyone that chooses to partake does indeed provide the service in a timely manner, say within a certain time period. One strike and you're out.
I know that Chris has a full plate and it might not serve the hosts well to have them make any reviews. Would it be posssible for to make the book available to any members that may have the time to review? Maybe not even the same person , for instance i don't know if i would have the time but i would take a pass on anything to do with alien abduction/ hypnotic regression because it leaves a bad taste in my mouth , but there are some paranormal phenomena that does intrigue me to the point that i would be interesting in reading and providing my own viewpoint. Granted there is a boook review forum which hasn't exactly taken off but i suspect that might have something to do with the ability to make discrectionary purchases.
Many of us paracasters have to be very discriminating with our hard earned money when it comes to purchasing any books. Perhaps there could be some kind of system set up to ensure that anyone that chooses to partake does indeed provide the service in a timely manner, say within a certain time period. One strike and you're out.
kruggutter
Paranormal Maven
From what I've observed, of the current culture of the public internet UFO and alien abduction forum communities,
there appears to be more of an interest in, and practice of, casually insulting and gossiping about researchers and their
work, as well as witnesses and abductees. People cite unproven allegations about someone or something and use that
as justification to smear others, all the while reflecting on those unproven allegations as though they were facts. The
issue of Emma Woods in regards to David Jacobs is a specific example of this. As has been said many times before the
fully contexted evidence on that matter is not out there, yet, for more supportable evidence based conclusions to be drawn.
As someone who does their best to collect as much legitimate data on the topics of UFOs and alien abductions as possible
(and fascinating data it is) I can say that there is a wealth of data for study on those topics already currently in the public
arena. With notable exceptions of course, a lot of people in the aforementioned observed communities, still prefer to stick
to the task of gossiping and insulting the people responsible for bringing the data to public attention, rather than studying
the data itself. Whether this is a result of the unification of the online debunker and internet troll communities is very difficult
to say, but it would appear to play some role in it. That being said everyone is entitled to their opinions and to express them.
One certainly cannot expect to discuss controversial subjects with others and not receive understandably varying appraisals.
Good data, especially in large quantities, requires time and energy to properly, not casually, understand it. To treat such data,
and the people it is sourced from, with such casual disrespect and flippancy offers no incentive for such people to bring more
data to public attention. It is one of the many reasons that proper UFO and abduction research is not disappearing, but instead
returning to being conducted privately and underground.
To receive good data, ignore it for the most part, insult those responsible for releasing it, and then demand more of it from those
people, to in all likelihood be ignored as well, is an irrational but common practice in the public internet UFO and alien abduction
forum communities. Differences of opinion about a person or subject aside, there is no reason or incentive for UFO researchers,
witnesses or abductees to entrust any data to such communities, or at least that is how I feel about it.
Peace
Sean F. Meers
www.lindacortilecase.com
there appears to be more of an interest in, and practice of, casually insulting and gossiping about researchers and their
work, as well as witnesses and abductees. People cite unproven allegations about someone or something and use that
as justification to smear others, all the while reflecting on those unproven allegations as though they were facts. The
issue of Emma Woods in regards to David Jacobs is a specific example of this. As has been said many times before the
fully contexted evidence on that matter is not out there, yet, for more supportable evidence based conclusions to be drawn.
As someone who does their best to collect as much legitimate data on the topics of UFOs and alien abductions as possible
(and fascinating data it is) I can say that there is a wealth of data for study on those topics already currently in the public
arena. With notable exceptions of course, a lot of people in the aforementioned observed communities, still prefer to stick
to the task of gossiping and insulting the people responsible for bringing the data to public attention, rather than studying
the data itself. Whether this is a result of the unification of the online debunker and internet troll communities is very difficult
to say, but it would appear to play some role in it. That being said everyone is entitled to their opinions and to express them.
One certainly cannot expect to discuss controversial subjects with others and not receive understandably varying appraisals.
Good data, especially in large quantities, requires time and energy to properly, not casually, understand it. To treat such data,
and the people it is sourced from, with such casual disrespect and flippancy offers no incentive for such people to bring more
data to public attention. It is one of the many reasons that proper UFO and abduction research is not disappearing, but instead
returning to being conducted privately and underground.
To receive good data, ignore it for the most part, insult those responsible for releasing it, and then demand more of it from those
people, to in all likelihood be ignored as well, is an irrational but common practice in the public internet UFO and alien abduction
forum communities. Differences of opinion about a person or subject aside, there is no reason or incentive for UFO researchers,
witnesses or abductees to entrust any data to such communities, or at least that is how I feel about it.
Peace
Sean F. Meers
www.lindacortilecase.com
- Status