October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

[Gene Steinberg]

I think the new site confirms his version of the events. It doesn't validate his approach.

 

[Burnt State]

What you quote actually proves what you say is not correct. Read it again. It was a ploy, to "deflect" the entities who were after EW. Why do you think she laughed? Sounds like a dumb move to me, but still.

I don't really think we can give too much credit to the issue of whether or not aliens are involved as that's far from proven and resides entirely in the fantastic and unsubstantiated theories of Jacobs. Why this all matters @Christopher O'Brien is because at the heart of Ufology burns some very specific cases - the foundational pieces as it were, and while they may not have the best proofs attached to them, the fact is that Roswell, Kenneth Arnold and The Hills Abduction are the three walls that hold this whole thing up.

Abductions play a special role in this arena because it is about getting up close and personal with actual alien creatures supposedly that would help define that there actually are aliens from space and they are getting up to stuff with us. From the Hills descend Travis Walton and Whitley S. and these also historically bolstered the notion that they are in fact out there, and they're coming to probe us. That turning point in Ufology where Budd Hopkins stood opposite Mack in the debate of good aliens vs. bad aliens, internal experience vs. external experience continues to define our attitudes around the subject. Jacobs is the last one holding the torch from that era and what he proposes and how he discovers his ideas are the focus of this thread and his "work."

But now we know he is not a researcher, just a collector of oral stories. At the centre of his oral stories are sexual abuse and very traumatized people. This matters a lot because if at the heart of abduction lore stands people abused sexually by other humans and this whole alien thing is merely and invention of the so-called researcher then there are much bigger things to talk about then whether or not EW met aliens and was abused by them. What's at stake here is whether or not any of it is true at all. If the methods are faulty and unscientific then just what aspect of alien abduction can be believed at all? We do need to get down to that because in the middle of it all are real people, who are suffering trauma and every person should care about that first before we get to this matter of alien probing, be they hubrid or not, because all I see is Jacobs' hubris. And it's dangerous stuff at best. Messing with people's psyche is not something any respectable member of the thing called Ufology, or anomalous experiences, wants to be a part of because who wants to support the ongoing abuse and exploitation of other traumatized people by distorting further how they think about themselves?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

you have the audio - go back and listen - we all heard it pretty plain as day and it set the tone for all that was to follow.

He speaks in a flat voice without a lot of inflection usually. During the episode, I first heard him chuckle a little about his working with Budd Hopkins.

But I listened to the segment about the UFO abduction when a woman was a seven-year-old child in the third segment, and he seemed to gloss over the details rather quickly. But his emotions rose when he said he was "thrilled" with his success as a hypnotist. He then made a big joke out of the fact that he failed to record the conversation properly. He explained how he called her back for another session to recover the details of the event and concluded that he "had no idea" what he "was doing," and thus decided to establish a set of controls to improve his hypnotic technique. He went on to state how he regards hypnosis as essentially relaxation and not about putting you in a trance.

The conversation turned to the problems with confabulation.

But I do not see his obvious "giddy" state as being the result of retrieving information about a sexually-related encounter. The context was clearly related to his perceived success in hypnotizing someone. You are evidently looking for something that just isn't there.

 

[Burnt State]

I think the new site confirms his version of the events. It doesn't validate his approach.

what is his version - that remains unclear?

 

[Burnt State]

He speaks in a flat voice without a lot of inflection usually. During the episode, I first heard him chuckle a little about his working with Budd Hopkins.

But I listened to the segment about the UFO abduction when a woman was a seven-year-old child in the third segment, and he seemed to gloss over the details rather quickly. But his emotions rose when he said he was "thrilled" with his success as a hypnotist. He then makes a big joke out of the fact that he failed to record the conversation properly. He explains how he called her back for another session to recover the details of the event and concluded that he "had no idea what he was doing," and thus agreed to put in a set of controls to improve his hypnotic technique. He goes on to explain how he regards hypnosis is about essentially relaxation and not about putting you in a trance.

The conversation turns to the problems with confabulation.

But I do not see his obvious "giddy" state as being the result of retrieving information about a sexually-related encounter. The context was clearly about his perceived success in hypnotizing someone. You are evidently looking for something that just isn't there.

I guess we would part ways on that one as it's very clear just how excited he is getting during the retelling of his first case and his thrill could be interpreted as his first case, regardless, his thrill over his first case is about a seven year old's sexual assault and he has no feelings of concern about that at all - those are the facts. i'm only reporting what happened. we all heard that and that's why people are speaking to that point repeatedly.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

what is his version - that remains unclear?

What he said. The MPD segment was intended to deflect EW's alleged attackers. During the pre-hypnosis session, she agrees to the approach and laughs about it. His correspondence with EW provides a reason why he asked her for her soiled underwear, which clearly was in response to her claims that it was the result of being sexually attacked by her abductors. We can argue forever about his approach, but this material serves to confirm his version of the story.

In contrast, EW withheld some of this material, thus making DJ's approach seem more offensive than it really was. That indicates a clear intent to deceive, to make DJ look as bad as possible.

So I see legitimate questions about EW's credibility, but you can also question DJ's entire approach to these sessions. I see fault on both sides. He should not have gotten involved in what was clearly a very messy situation.

Can we move on now?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I guess we would part ways on that one as it's very clear just how excited he is getting during the retelling of his first case and his thrill could be interpreted as his first case, regardless, his thrill over his first case is about a seven year old's sexual assault and he has no feelings of concern about that at all - those are the facts. i'm only reporting what happened. we all heard that and that's why people are speaking to that point repeatedly.

His giddy demeanor only began when he mentioned his apparent success as a hypnotist. That he recounted the raw details of the abduction in a flat voice, almost glossing over them, makes it clear to me the source of his giddiness. Remember where he describes the subsequent session, and he spends even less time going over the details. Clearly the details were secondary to his learning process as a hypnotist. I went through it twice to confirm my reaction.

 

[Burnt State]

OK, so was Emma Woods a victim of sexual abuse? Is that at the core of her claimed experiences, and did she put those experiences in the hands of powerful alien and/or hybrid abductors to, in a sense, shield herself from the reality that one or more people she knew were abusing her? What really happened to her?

I agree DJ was not qualified to actually provide any help. Is his focus on such cases an obsession with sexually-based UFO episodes, or just representative of the sort of cases that came to him? It may be both.

Forgetting all the back and forth arguments, this all happened years ago. Let's remove DJ from the equation and figure what really happened to EW? Nothing here helps us get to that core question. The rest is just arguing over process. Whether DJ was just a guy trying to do some good, a potential sexual predator, a combination of the two, or none of the above, that's besides the point. The arguments over process will never, ever, be resolved and they take us no closer to any answers.

It is quite obvious from the transcripts that this person is a victim of sexual abuse or believes herself to be. When you read the content you feel so dirty afterwards you need some spiritual cleansing to try to shrug off the various violent abuses that are being talked about, and this is true not just for EW but for the other bits of sexual violence talked about by Jacobs. The sadomasochistic theme that he sponsors in his work, including the nail embedded chastity belts speak to his obsession which is violent sexual assault. What is being narrated and explored has nothing to do with aliens. It is Jacobs in the transcripts that refers to this happening all the time to his other clients - oh yes these are not sexual acts he keeps saying over the phone to hear more about forced oral sex for the purposes of hubrid semen collection - like this makes sense on any planet?! If it's not obvious from the transcripts that the focus is violent sexual assault then I don't know what people think they are reading because there is no discovery of the proof of aliens here - that's never the focus of the conversation. the focus is always sexual assault.

And the central issue here, as the thread title implies, is that it is all about David Jacobs because he is the one that is relaying the sordid tales of supposed violent alien sexual assault. On one hand these alien hubrids need to be instructed on how to shop, but apparently they are exceptional serial rapists. Because this thread is about him and his methods, and because it is through Emma Woods that challenges to his methods determined that his process is entirely unscientific, as deemed by his own university that employs him, it is about his methods regarding EW that needs critical analysis. He exposes himself on his own site. There really is no argument to be had about his method. The jury rang in years ago - he collects oral histories. He is not a researcher, case closed.

So now it's best to investigate him more thoroughly and determine just how many other people have been abused by him and then what in turn are the implications for Ufology and for those who have supported him and given him awards or promote him or give him air time. Think Billy Meier and the wedding cake photo, and then think what toppled after that. Unfortunately here we are dealing with shattered people, who like EW, are having their past sexual traumas being turned into fodder for his bizarre planetary takeover discussion. Who does more damage to the field, Billy Meier or David Jacobs? Who does more damage to vulnerable people - Horn, Meier, the Twins, or David Jacobs? Just who really deserves the castigation here?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

So is the moral of this thread; Don't take my 7 or 9 year old daughters to Dr. J if I think they were abducted by aliens in the middle of the night?

 

[Burnt State]

How is he a predator if he requests evidence of sexual abuse?

I see him as misguided, perhaps wrong, but saying he's a predator because of someone's skewed interpretation of the interactions is unfair. His expanded version seems more about good intentions gone bad, and coping with matters he was unqualified to handle.

It's getting too extreme here. The issues you mention, if they have no UFO/paranormal connection, are important but not within our purview here.

he's a predator because he did nothing to help this person but continued ad nauseum to listen to three to five hour phone conversations about sexual abuse - is that a clinician doing that? what clinician would ever do that? so in this way there really is no paranormal connection for the one that he invents which then puts him in the same camp as many who remain nameless as posted above. they are nameless because they have no regard for scientific research. they are hoaxers. and if that's what they are then what is Jacobs?

where on earth can we see any good intentions at all, ever, in anything he said?

 

[mrs. eccentric]

Burnt State: "Who does more damage to vulnerable people?" Exactly. To me, this has always been the central question, from DJ's second book which laid bare his sadistic concerns for all to see. I do take heart to see people in this thread who care about this question as passionately as I do - sadly this is a rare state of affairs in the field of ufology.

 

[Burnt State]

One more thing: Don't forget that EW has, since she began her vilification campaign against DJ, turned herself from a nobody into an international personality by playing the victim card. She has been on radio shows, written articles, and been the subject of extensive debate across the online world. I don't know if she has earned any money from any of these pursuits, but she is far from an unknown now. She's made herself into an object of sympathy.

So who is exploiting whom?

I'm not sure how healthy any of this discussion is, nor do I see her helping herself, though there is the chance that other people who have been victimized by oral history collectors might recognize that they're not getting any help either. that would be of a great benefit. but saying someone who was sexually traumatized played the victim card makes no sense. no one equates their sexual assault to a game, nor should any of us. that's anti-oppression lesson 101. we don't say people play the race card because racism is not a game. same thing applies here.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The raw question is this: Are some abductees the victims of violent sexual assault? Is that assault being done by aliens, hybrids, or are some of these remembrances concealed memories of sexual assaults by human actors? The latter comes to my mind when I hear about EW's encounters.

I think DJ should have stopped all this as soon as it went off the rails. He should not have continued. He claims she continued to call him asking for more sessions, and that he finally said no more. She is denying that, but I find it difficult to accept what she says as accurate given her deception in other cases.

Regardless, we have to start from scratch. EW will not get help unless or until she decides she is not normal, which is what she claims, and needs to resolve her issues whatever they are. But there are other people who have been abducted, who may not yet have sought counseling from an investigator or mental health professional. That's where abduction research needs to be fixed.

Little more can come of the EW/DJ debate. What's done is done, and he's at a point where he's winding down anyway.

 

[Burnt State]

Burnt State: "Who does more damage to vulnerable people?" Exactly. To me, this has always been the central question, from DJ's second book which laid bare his sadistic concerns for all to see. I do take heart to see people in this thread who care about this question as passionately as I do - sadly this is a rare state of affairs in the field of ufology.

I took time to read Jacobs' content just to confirm that what appeared to be fairly cut and dried exploitation of sexual trauma, given what's been reported, was true. It's kind of shocking that Jacobs would report it all and then make the blind paternalistic comment that she could have left the situation whenever she wanted, completely disregarding his own power position in the situation and how disempowered and vulnerable she was. It demonstrates how callous he is towards people who have suffered this way and how little he knows about working with people who have suffered sexual trauma.

If there's something in this world that disturbs me and that needs education on it's sexual assault and understanding why we call it rape crisis. It's not a game or a joke. It requires serious therapy and a lot of compassion. Those who share time with sexual assault victims and those suffering from sexual trauma have a very special onus to care for these very vulnerable people. They should not be exploiting them. And you shouldn't even think about entering into such conversations without having proper safeguards and skills in place for all involved. The inability for the patriarchs to see this drives me bonkers as this is what perpetuates attitudes that silence women and allows for the ongoing violation of those who suffer sexual abuse to not be properly addressed in society. When these crimes are minimized in such ways it makes it difficult for society to engage in prevention of a crime that is primarily a man's responsibility to correct.

As someone who has devoted decades to working against sexual violence with professionals and activists in the field I have found most of this conversation around Emma Woods' sexual trauma to be very sad, but not unfamiliar. I know that in time the wrongs will be righted and we will live in a better society that actually cares about these issues because ignorance will give way to education and more open dialogue about the true impact of sexual assault.. History will do right by all involved here. The only real question here is what side are you on?

To learn more about what men can do to end sexual violence go to whiteribbon.ca

 

[Burnt State]

What he said. The MPD segment was intended to deflect EW's alleged attackers. During the pre-hypnosis session, she agrees to the approach and laughs about it. His correspondence with EW provides a reason why he asked her for her soiled underwear, which clearly was in response to her claims that it was the result of being sexually attacked by her abductors. We can argue forever about his approach, but this material serves to confirm his version of the story.

But he's the one that is invested in the narrative of these raping aliens who are taking over the planet, so on the face of it there is really nothing that confirms his version of the story; because, his story has no basis in reality. So he can make up whatever he wants about how legitimate his process is but that doesn't make it right. If my story is I want to commit genocide because I believe this will save my nation then certainly I can't be exonerated just because I believe my version of events is true. There is a moral line here and that's why everyone won't let it go. Acknowledgement of the immorality of it all is what trumps everything else. I think I said that about 20 pages ago but that fell on deaf ears. This discussion needs clear leadership that understands first and foremost what sexual assault is all about. David Jacobs made his own bed - how can there be any sympathy there?

In contrast, EW withheld some of this material, thus making DJ's approach seem more offensive than it really was. That indicates a clear intent to deceive, to make DJ look as bad as possible.

She's a sexual assault trauma victim and so it's difficult to evaluate her motives which may be tied to personal embarrassment or may, as we read clearly in the transcripts, be exceedingly difficult for her to talk to or own up to. That does not change how she was treated by the person who was not violated and who was in the position of power all along in this relationship. So I do not personally evaluate the trauma victim because they are vulnerable and not psychologically well. But the history prof on the other hand needs to be held to significantly higher standards. Her 'deceptions' as you call them are perfectly understandable in light of what she went through, and how the prolonged dialogue around her assaults met with no healing or caring, just jokes about multiple personality disorders. I can not judge someone in such a vulnerable position so easily. Perhaps if you have spent time with people who have suffered sexual trauma you might have more compassion for her position and be less inclined to judge her at all?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So the assumption is that she was sexually assaulted by humans?

 

[kruggutter]

Yet more ad hominem attacks from Emma Woods' supporters.

These individuals proclaim to be voices of reason, yet they can't speak without insulting
people.

 

[Burnt State]

if you read the transcripts that is what she is narrating - not aliens. and as stated previously, trauma victims will invent all manner of monsters to deflect the human identity of their assailant. this is an ongoing theme in the material. when's the last time an "abduction researcher" documented violent sexual assaults? that's Jacobs' territory and it speaks to the type of victims he likes to hear to talk to him over the phone for hours on end. that's what makes him so much worse than Meier, Horn, Greer, the twins altogether. this speaks to whether or not any methodology akin to his and Hopkins' approach has any validity whatsoever. it is the field of the damned and needs to be stopped and reset by experts in the field. didn't David Gotlieb already make a series of statements regarding how to proceed with such people who come forward like about twenty years ago or something? he is a clinician - you would think that these other self-appointed researchers would be following a real expert's approach as opposed to inventing their own bunk.

 

[Burnt State]

Yet more ad hominem attacks from Emma Woods' supporters.

These individuals proclaim to be voices of reason, yet they can't speak without insulting
people.

Temple University identified that Jacobs is not a researcher and that there is no science to what he does so what business does he have in consulting with sexual assault victims? One could say the exact same thing about Hopkins, his teacher and instructor in said methodologies. So if they are not scientists or researchers and have no qualifications to talk to people who have survived sexual trauma, then just what exactly are they and do they deserve any defence or support at all?

 

[kruggutter]

Temple University identified that Jacobs is not a researcher and that there is no science to what he does so what business does he have in consulting with sexual assault victims? One could say the exact same thing about Hopkins, his teacher and instructor in said methodologies. So if they are not scientists or researchers and have no qualifications to talk to people who have survived sexual trauma, then just what exactly are they and do they deserve any defence or support at all?

I see, so Emma Woods' supporters can launch ad hominem attacks on anyone they wish?