October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

[SheaOlmsford]

On the other hand, I have no particular reason to give Jacobs much credibility. He has claimed, for instance, that he is only collecting histories and not conducting research. He has described his methods as relaxation techniques rather than hypnosis. And he has contradicted these statements.

Undoubtedly, Emma has posted some very well-written material. And while I agree that this does not foreclose emotional problems, Emma's "troubling" "pattern of behavior" is really not the issue. If she was that troubled, it was all the more reason why implanting suggestions of a psychological diagnosis, memories of abduction experiences, and chastity belts are problematic.

But my problems with Jacobs have less to do with Emma and more to do with the use regressive techniques that have been associated with any number of fallacies. As I wrote earlier, why should I trust his methods as applied to aliens any more then I trust them as applied to mass satanic ritual abuse. There has been enough research and documentation to make me believe that these techniques are dangerous. Jacobs credibility does not hinge on rebutting Emma by showing that she was troubled, but by the methods he uses and his own statements.

To support you, how many people go to abduction "therapists" unless they are TROUBLED? To defend Jacobs by declaring that EM was "troubled" is ludicrous. Most abductees I've met through John Mack years ago were troubled.

 

[Life_Model_Decoy]

Everyone shouldn't be so shocked that no surveilience cameras (or any other cameras) captures ANY abudctions in progress. Jacob's patients or otherwise. If they have the ability to abduct Linda Cortile MULTIPLE TIMES in a city with 8.4 million people (NYC) and not have ONE camera capture ANYTHING, then we shouldn't be shocked that they can abduct someone living in a home by themselves or with a spouse in suburbia

Once that supposes that the Linda Cortile case happened as described or the phenomenon can be taken at face value. I do not believe it likely that a camera is going to catch aliens going through a wall and leaving with an abductee, rather I think it more likely you'll start to see the cameras losing power or getting static for 90 minutes or a couple hours they will clear up and the abductee will wake up in the morning with the feeling of being taken.

I don't think cameras or motion detectors or radiation monitors are going to give us "smoking gun" evidence but I think they will start to give us some data even if it is nothing more than "the camera is some how shut off every night before I wake up with scoop marks and a nose bleed". Is that proof of anything? No, but it is the being of data gathering from which correlations can start to be made which is the basis of the scientific method.

 

[Life_Model_Decoy]

The bottom line is that from a human perspective the abduction phenomenon does not behave in rational or linear ways that we would expect. I think it highly unlikely if an alien intelligence is involved and was trying to suppress peoples memories of their encounters they would be so easily foiled by hypnosis which is essentially guided mediation. Is the abduction experience just how the human mind comprehends something that it otherwise could not? More of a metaphor then an actual physical event? Or is there more of a trickster element where something is trying to create the impression of extra terrestrial visitation and experimentation?
How does one prove the existence of something with human level intelligence that actively sabotages attempts to study it or refuses to be studied? The only real way is through rigorous empirical based observation and experimentation with the goal of eventually gathering enough evidence which proves something one way or the other.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Yes you are. You consistently are defending David Jacobs. Back when the Emma Woods material surfaced, you refused to even go to the web site and listen to the audio tapes. Your support of Jacobs is really historical and quite obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.

I have not supported Jacobs' position. I've made it clear that I do not believe in rampant alien hybrids/hubrids, nor do I believe that hypnotic regression is a way to dig up "hidden" memories of UFO abductions. It's a lot more complicated than that.

But this is something I've repeated dozens of times, and people like you continue to make up a different version that doesn't relate to the facts.

If you've been paying attention—and you haven't—I've long insisted you look at both sides. Far too many have refused to do that, or just dismiss the response out of hand.

After posting a link to a new site from Jacobs that is designed to present recordings and other material Emma Woods has withheld, the responses have been nearly absent. One person wonder why she was once referred to as "Heidi," and another person came up with a disingenuous "vindictive" comment, but actually never directly referenced the new material.

Otherwise, it's been crickets so far.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Once that supposes that the Linda Cortile case happened as described or the phenomenon can be taken at face value. I do not believe it likely that a camera is going to catch aliens going through a wall and leaving with an abductee, rather I think it more likely you'll start to see the cameras losing power or getting static for 90 minutes or a couple hours they will clear up and the abductee will wake up in the morning with the feeling of being taken.

I don't think cameras or motion detectors or radiation monitors are going to give us "smoking gun" evidence but I think they will start to give us some data even if it is nothing more than "the camera is some how shut off every night before I wake up with scoop marks and a nose bleed". Is that proof of anything? No, but it is the being of data gathering from which correlations can start to be made which is the basis of the scientific method.

Understood but I disagree.

 

[Life_Model_Decoy]

Understood but I disagree.

With which part?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

With which part?

About abductions not being able to be captured on video/camera.

 

[Life_Model_Decoy]

Which makes setting up a comprehensive camera rig in an abductees home more imparative.

I don't know what you'll get footage wise which is why the attempt is so important.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Which makes setting up a comprehensive camera rig in an abductees home more imparative.

I don't know what you'll get footage wise which is why the attempt is so important.

Agreed and yet you'd think with everybody having access to video/camera's that SOMETHING, ANYTHING would have been captured by now. And I'm speaking just in the U.S. Once you factor in the rest of the planet, it's mind boggling to me.

I feel the same about not one, structured, legit, UFO/flying saucer on camera/film as well. Seems impossible really in today's day & age.

 

[mrs. eccentric]

Gene said: "You mean the tape where he and EW frame the multiple personality disorder session?"

How do we know that Jacobs didn't have EW under hypnosis when this occurred? Or that DJ didn't implant a post-hypnotic suggestion in EW in order for her to play this role? Yes, that is an accusation which is almost impossible to refute. However DJ himself created that situation by using such sketchy, unprofessional techniques with people who are dealing with emotional troubles (most likely as the sequelae of trauma).

Burnt State, Mulvaney, beyondthestargate, and paraschtick have all made excellent points which remain unaddressed. I am left wondering what on earth a person would have to do in order to 'not deserve the publicity' of a Paracast interview (i suspect it may have something to do with drawing low ratings - call my cynical).

It is also mind-boggling that Gene keeps casting aspersions on EW's mental health, while DJ happily prattles on about the coming hubrid invasion...yep, a stellar example of feet-solidly-on-the-ground mental stability there/s (and yes i need to put a snark tag on that statement...how deep is this rabbit hole, again?).

 

[Standanista]

If somebody who had had nothing to do with the field from the past came across Jacobs' case, I bet you that they would have him down as an old self-aggrandising pervert. It would be funny if it wasn't so true; I think we take our eyes off the real-world broader picture sometimes.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

Gene said: "You mean the tape where he and EW frame the multiple personality disorder session?"

How do we know that Jacobs didn't have EW under hypnosis when this occurred? Or that DJ didn't implant a post-hypnotic suggestion in EW in order for her to play this role? Yes, that is an accusation which is almost impossible to refute. However DJ himself created that situation by using such sketchy, unprofessional techniques with people who are dealing with emotional troubles (most likely as the sequelae of trauma).

Burnt State, Mulvaney, beyondthestargate, and paraschtick have all made excellent points which remain unaddressed. I am left wondering what on earth a person would have to do in order to 'not deserve the publicity' of a Paracast interview (i suspect it may have something to do with drawing low ratings - call my cynical).

It is also mind-boggling that Gene keeps casting aspersions on EW's mental health, while DJ happily prattles on about the coming hubrid invasion...yep, a stellar example of feet-solidly-on-the-ground mental stability there/s (and yes i need to put a snark tag on that statement...how deep is this rabbit hole, again?).

I am not inclined to believe Jacobs' ideas, but I feel that the anti-Jacobs front is being a bit unfair to Gene. Gene has repeatedly said that people should look at all of the info and come to their own conclusions. At this point it seems like badgering to get GS to come down on Woods' side. Just saying: Jacobs was on the show/it was an interesting episode/what's the endgame in saying that one doesn't agree with Jacobs\the decision to have him as a guest\etc?

 

[Standanista]

I am not inclined to believe Jacobs' ideas, but I feel that the anti-Jacobs front is being a bit unfair to Gene. Gene has repeatedly said that people should look at all of the info and come to their own conclusions. At this point it seems like badgering to get GS to come down on Woods' side. Just saying: Jacobs was on the show/it was an interesting episode/what's the endgame in saying that one doesn't agree with Jacobs\the decision to have him as a guest\etc?

I just think that there is some very unsavoury stuff pertaining to Jacobs and his conduct, which labels the guy as a menace to vulnerable women. I don't see it as him versus Emma Woods. EW had issues and, for me, he knowingly exploited her/them. The Jacobs stuff raises issues well beyond the scope of a paranormal forum, IMO. Would you trust this bloke with your daughter?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Gene said: "You mean the tape where he and EW frame the multiple personality disorder session?"

How do we know that Jacobs didn't have EW under hypnosis when this occurred? Or that DJ didn't implant a post-hypnotic suggestion in EW in order for her to play this role? Yes, that is an accusation which is almost impossible to refute. However DJ himself created that situation by using such sketchy, unprofessional techniques with people who are dealing with emotional troubles (most likely as the sequelae of trauma).

Burnt State, Mulvaney, beyondthestargate, and paraschtick have all made excellent points which remain unaddressed. I am left wondering what on earth a person would have to do in order to 'not deserve the publicity' of a Paracast interview (i suspect it may have something to do with drawing low ratings - call my cynical).

It is also mind-boggling that Gene keeps casting aspersions on EW's mental health, while DJ happily prattles on about the coming hubrid invasion...yep, a stellar example of feet-solidly-on-the-ground mental stability there/s (and yes i need to put a snark tag on that statement...how deep is this rabbit hole, again?).

You're actually got it completely wrong. Their points have been addressed at the new site. I am not saying that information would change your point of view, but clearly you haven't taken the time to actually check it over.

Are you aware of the emails from Emma Woods posted there that explain what the so-called underwear issue was about?

DJ is not happily prattling on about his theories on The Paracast unrefuted, since I've made it clear that I don't believe in his hybrid/hubrid invasion, nor does Chris.

As to Emma Woods, forget whether DJ exists or not. Now imagine someone undergoing regular contacts with alleged aliens and/or hybrids, and sometimes being sexually abused by them. Do you think anyone would come out of that unscathed?

We aren't focusing on what really happened to her. Can you forget about DJ and look at that?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I just think that there is some very unsavoury stuff pertaining to Jacobs and his conduct, which labels the guy as a menace to vulnerable women. I don't see it as him versus Emma Woods. EW had issues and, for me, he knowingly exploited her/them. The Jacobs stuff raises issues well beyond the scope of a paranormal forum, IMO. Would you trust this bloke with your daughter?

Please look at the new site, and spend as much time there as you spent on the Emma Woods site and see if anything there gives you at least a new perspective on the matter. That's the challenge. I'm not asking you to change your conclusions, but don't forget that, as far as I know, only one person has complained about DJ's methods. Just one in 30 years. It doesn't mean he does what he does correctly, but, yes, it is DJ versus EW.

 

[mrs. eccentric]

Gene said: "...but, yes, it is DJ versus EW."

Well, it is obvious whose side you have taken.

 

[Standanista]

Please look at the new site, and spend as much time there as you spent on the Emma Woods site and see if anything there gives you at least a new perspective on the matter. That's the challenge. I'm not asking you to change your conclusions, but don't forget that, as far as I know, only one person has complained about DJ's methods. Just one in 30 years. It doesn't mean he does what he does correctly, but, yes, it is DJ versus EW.

It's not a challenge I'm after Gene, I'm just giving my views based on Jacobs' conduct on your show. Getting excited about the sexual abuse of 7 year olds is not alright and the bloke should not be being given a forum, the man is dangerous.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Gene said: "...but, yes, it is DJ versus EW."

Well, it is obvious whose side you have taken.

I haven't taken a side. I've summarized the situation. Your response is not responsive.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It's not a challenge I'm after Gene, I'm just giving my views based on Jacobs' conduct on your show. Getting excited about the sexual abuse of 7 year olds is not alright and the bloke should not be being given a forum, the man is dangerous.

You've lost perspective. Did you ever think that abduction recollections that cite episodes of sexual abuse may, in fact, involve abuse by sexual predators from this planet and not aliens or hybrids? But they are being recalled that way as a possible defense mechanism that is hiding the underlying problem? If anything, it calls out for experts on sexual abuse to look into some of these abductions and see if there's any connection. Remember that EW cites a number of incidents of being sexually attacked by "them." What DID happen to her anyway?

You are focusing on the wrong issue. Pretend that DJ doesn't exist. What IS happening to these people?

 

[Standanista]

You've lost perspective. Did you ever think that abduction recollections that cite episodes of sexual abuse may, in fact, involve abuse by sexual predators from this planet and not aliens or hybrids? But they are being recalled that way as a possible defense mechanism that is hiding the underlying problem? If anything, it calls out for experts on sexual abuse to look into some of these abductions and see if there's any connection. Remember that EW cites a number of incidents of being sexually attacked by "them." What DID happen to her anyway?

You are focusing on the wrong issue. Pretend that DJ doesn't exist. What IS happening to these people?

Hang on, hang on, let's take a step back. It is exactly this planet that I'm talking about. I'm also talking purely Jacobs, forget Woods. The man came up with some stuff on your show which was very close to the knuckle, which raises (for me at least) some big suspicions as to what he's really about. Do you think that mentioning the 7-year-old sexual stuff, twice, was acceptable?