The Ballads of Emma and James

[ArchieBedford]

The Ballad of Emma and James

[FONT=&quot]I am in Dubai under desert skies, about to attend the annual Arab Health Congress. In the UAE, the night-life sucks. Having little to do in the evening before the conference begins, I thought I might peruse some of the recent paracast forum threads.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Most of us are tired and bored with the Emma Woods/ David Jacobs circus: I know I am. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the thread ‘Hopkins Ex-wife Dumps’ started by Don Ecker it seems the issue is being regurgitated yet again like a badly digested lamb kebab.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reading this thread after it was closed, I couldn’t help but notice a very obvious similarity between recently signed-up new poster “james1” and Ms Woods’ own posts in previous threads. So I got to thinking…could they be one and the same? There are lots of opinions of every shade put out on these forums and they all add to the mix (and BTW I have met a few people on here over time who have subsequently become real three-dimensional friends in the real world) but the idea that someone may be using multiple identities to deceitfully promote their own personal agenda kind of pisses me off. So have a look for yourselves and let me know what you think.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“james1” joined the paracast community on 1^st January this year, and immediately began posting in a thread titled “Dave Jacobs, George Knapp and what obligations…” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/8031-Dave-Jacobs-George-Knapp-.....what-obligations[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]started by saucerwench on 22 December following the broadcast of Knapp’s interview with Dave Jacobs on C2Cam.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now, look at the profile of “james1” and we discover the following:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“he” doesn’t tell us an awful lot about “himself:” nothing, in fact[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Look at posting history and what do we find? A total on 22 posts all confined to two threads: the one by saucerwench referenced above about David Jacobs; and a second one started by Don Ecker entitled “Hopkins’ ex-wife dumps” about Carol Rainey’s hit-piece published on the pair-of-dopes’ site and featuring attacks on…wait for it…DAVID JACOBS! [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/8173-Hopkins-Ex-wife-Dumps?highlight=emma+woods[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“james 1” has made no post on any other thread and seems to have no interest in any subject if it does not involve directly attacking David Jacobs (or secondarily Budd Hopkins) and championing the victim-status of “Emma Woods.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here is a brief sampling of james1’s posts:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

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.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Last edited by James1; 01-02-2011 at 08:43 PM. [/FONT][/QUOTE][FONT=&quot]

And…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I suppose if you didn't recognize the blatant abuse in Emma Woods' case yourself, you will also have a hard time understanding Ms. Rainey's motives for writing the article. She wrote it because she recognized the abuse

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

This is a show analyzing one of the recordings on Emma Woods' website. You might find it an eye-opener:

Podcast Hosting | Paratopia 57: The Emma Woods Tapes

This is an interview with Emma Woods:

Podcast Hosting | Paratopia 60: Emma Woods. The Intv.

This is a follow-up show that analyzes Jacobs' response and includes a letter from Ms. Rainey:

Podcast Hosting | Paratopia 62: Threatened By Hybrids

This an interview with another of Jacobs' subjects Brian Reed:

http://paratopia.org/?p=317

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Last edited by James1; 01-20-2011 at 10:54 PM [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

And…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Emma

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Woods is not "playing the victim". She was a victim. It's because she made it known that we know about it. We need to know about it in this field. How can anyone say an abuser should go unchecked in ufology and there is a fault with the victim for making it known? It's an attitude that covers up abuse and keeps it going. We need a thorough examination and stock taking in this area of ufology. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Last edited by James1; 01-20-2011 at 11:18 PM. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Now leaving aside the identical single-issue-obsessive subject matter, compare and contrast the posting style, syntax, sentence structure, clause-composition and layout of “james1” posts with those of “Emma Woods”:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

The abuse that I, as a former research subject of Dr. Jacobs, have been subjected to for publicly questioning him is scary. I wonder how many other research subjects will dare to come forward and raise legitimate concerns, seeing what Dr. Jacobs has done to me. The fact that Dr. Jacobs and Budd Hopkins have been widely regarded as the premier researchers into the "abduction" phenomenon is so sad for people who have real experiences, and would like to know more about it

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Last edited by Emma; 04-24-2010 at 10:29 AM [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

And…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Dr. Jacobs' defamatory statement about me on his website is a series of outright lies and distortions calculated to discredit me personally so that what I have said publicly about his misconduct is not listened to.

I am in the process of publishing a rebuttal to his statement on my website at Emma Woods: Rebuttal to Dr. David Jacobs

After I published the first part of my rebuttal, Dr. Jacobs completely changed some sections in the first part of his statement, that I had refuted. They were not minor changes, but were substantial changes of fact. This is a further example of Dr. Jacobs' dishonesty, and of the lengths that he is prepared to go to in order to falsely discredit me to cover up his misconduct.

I have quoted Dr. Jacobs changes to his statement in my rebuttal, to make it easy for people who did not see the original version of his statement to read them.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Last edited by Emma; 05-02-2010 at 04:55 AM [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I have made the decision to make this issue public as a matter of public interest. Dr. Jacobs is an extremely abusive researcher conducting research with vulnerable human research subjects, who has harmed people. I am doing it partly for myself, and partly for other research subjects who cannot speak out. I hope that it will help to prevent abuses like this from occurring to other people in the future.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Last edited by Emma; 04-27-2010 at 05:22 AM [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

And…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I am in the process of publishing a rebuttal to his statement on my website at Emma Woods: Rebuttal to Dr. David Jacobs

After I published the first part of my rebuttal, Dr. Jacobs completely changed some sections in the first part of his statement, that I had refuted. They were not minor changes, but were substantial changes of fact. This is a further example of Dr. Jacobs' dishonesty, and of the lengths that he is prepared to go to in order to falsely discredit me to cover up his misconduct.

I have quoted Dr. Jacobs changes to his statement in my rebuttal, to make it easy for people who did not see the original version of his statement to read them.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Last edited by Emma; 05-02-2010 at 04:55 AM [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Furthermore she repeatedly displays the habit of posting a carefully written, structured attack-piece and then, within minutes, editing the post: very careful, very precise, very methodical. Notice anything about the posts of “james1”? “Edited by…” on almost every one. Check a couple of threads at random and see how common this is with other posters: not very.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now if this is true, she obviously feels that by creating multiple online IDs with different names, each pushing her I-am-the-victim-and-you-should-hate-and-trash-David-Jacobs agenda, she is going to fool people and convert them to her cause. Indeed, it seems some may have been fooled by it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And once again if this true this lady obviously has serious psychological issues and needs some professional help. Her obsessive campaign of character assassination is absolutely slam-dunk classic Borderline Personality Disorder, even down to distorting evidence, co-opting the gullible as sympathisers and fraudulently CREATING MULTIPLE IDENTITIES ON THE INTERNET to push her agenda: a[/FONT] "persuasive blamer" who will never rest until the target of her anger is completely destroyed.

[FONT=&quot]Gene: is the url of “james1” perchance registered in New Zealand? Oh do tell.[/FONT]

 

[Gene Steinberg]

James1's IP address, as with that of "Emma," are both based in New Zealand. They are different, but that's not unusual. One might change ISPs or the numbers themselves will update or refresh over time.

Last year we had another New Zealand-based poster who came here to support the complaint against Jacobs, and used a similar writing/posting style. Curious.

Thanks for the research.

 

[Simone_m]

SOCKPUPPETS!!! Ha!

 

[Kandinsky]

You might be right Archie; stranger things have happened on-line. The thing is, as I see it, James1 hasn't posted any information in these threads that isn't available to any of us. There's no inside knowledge or elements of opinion that point to Emma Woods.

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“he” doesn’t tell us an awful lot about “himself:” nothing, in fact[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Look at posting history and what do we find? A total on 22 posts all confined to two threads: the one by saucerwench referenced above about David Jacobs; and a second one started by Don Ecker entitled “Hopkins’ ex-wife dumps” about Carol Rainey’s hit-piece published on the pair-of-dopes’ site and featuring attacks on…wait for it…DAVID JACOBS! [/FONT]

1. I've got nothing written on my profile page.

2. It's suggestive of a 'single issue' person and maybe supports your contention. On the other hand, I've seen it before, people appear and post in specific threads. The recent Rendlesham binary topic is a good example. Over on ATS, 6 people signed up to post in one thread. A lot of people have an axe to grind with the abduction scenario and specifically Hopkins and Jacobs. It could be anyone with a similar opinion.

[FONT=&quot]Furthermore she repeatedly displays the habit of posting a carefully written, structured attack-piece and then, within minutes, editing the post: very careful, very precise, very methodical. Notice anything about the posts of “james1”? “Edited by…” on almost every one. [/FONT]

I'll take your word for it. Jacobs has also edited his rebuttal several times unless I'm mistaken? Editing isn't uncommon; indeed, you've edited your own OP.

[FONT=&quot]She obviously feels that by creating multiple online IDs with different names, each pushing her I-am-the-victim-and-you-should-hate-and-trash-David-Jacobs agenda, she is going to fool people and convert them to her causse. Indeed, some might even be fooled by it.[/FONT]

You could be right, it happens. Lloyd Pye threads turn up sock-puppets on a regular basis. At the same time, your emotive language indicates its own agenda. Whatever agenda you, I, James1 or Emma Woods is pushing, there are relevant questions raised by the discussion she's generated. We can go back over ten years and see similar questions being asked of Jacobs and Hopkins methodology.

[FONT=&quot]Now, this lady obviously has serious psychological issues and needs some professional help. Her completely obsessive campaign of character assassination is absolutely slam-dunk classic Borderline Personality Disorder, even down to distorting evidence, co-opting the gullible as sympathisers and fraudulently CREATING MULTIPLE IDENTITIES ON THE INTERNET to push her agenda.[/FONT]

Apparently she sought 'professional help' and that's why we're here today. Neither you, I or even Jacobs is qualified to diagnose mental conditions from internet posts and tapes. If we were, surely Jacobs' actions and statements would similarly face diagnoses of abnormal psychology? How would he be viewed by a mental health professional? As world views go, believing he is a recipient of threatening IMs from a hybrid species of Beings involved in the potential overthrow of the human race would raise a flag or two in Harley Street.

We can attack the characters of Woods and Jacobs all day. A more productive approach should ask where abduction research goes from here?

---------- Post added at 08:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------

James1's IP address, as with that of "Emma," are both based in New Zealand. They are different, but that's not unusual. One might change ISPs or the numbers themselves will update or refresh over time.

This is the first time I've seen a website give up the location of a member at the request of another member. Whoever James1 is, or isn't, they should be entitled to privacy in that regard.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think the reference to a country is hardly a privacy issue or concern. We all know "Emma" is from New Zealand. And lots of members identify the country they live in. Besides, if James1 is a fake, such matters are secondary. We have told you nothing about their city even.

 

[Kandinsky]

I think the reference to a country is hardly a privacy issue or concern. We all know "Emma" is from New Zealand. And lots of members identify the country they live in. Besides, if James1 is a fake, such matters are secondary. We have told you nothing about their city even.

Maybe. It's an uneasy precedent.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Maybe. It's an uneasy precedent.

If "Emma" and "James" are one and the same, which appears to be the case, nothing has been disclosed that isn't already public knowledge.

Besides, New Zealand is a country that is 900 miles long, by 250 miles wide, with a population of 4.39 million as of their 2006 census.

If you think we've somehow invaded anyone's privacy by reminding you of the already-published fact that "Emma" lives in New Zealand, you and I are on different planets here in this discussion. So far as I can see, no new facts or private information has been disclosed, other than that we have another case of sockpuppetry represented here.

As far as "Emma Woods" is concerned, by posting here under one or more fake names, thus representing herself in the third person, she is not doing herself any good. She is simply demonstrating once again her obsessive behavior, and that, I fear, confirms much of what Jacobs says about her conduct. You can criticize the way Jacobs deals with his subjects during his investigations, and you may be right in many cases, but that doesn't mean "Emma" isn't a fake, a liar, and someone deeply troubled.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Hi Gene ,
The whole Emma & Jacobs thing has become a boring saga of throw muck at each other in the history of Ufology.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Hi Gene ,
The whole Emma & Jacobs thing has become a boring saga of throw muck at each other in the history of Ufology.

I think the revelation that "Emma" is not above assuming other fake personas for her own benefit (and remember that "Emma Woods" is also fake name) is sufficient cause to render her irrelevant.

My newsletter this week covered this matter. As long as humans love gossip, this will never change. We just have to climb through the muck on occasion to get beyond this nonsense. I hope this news helps move some people who were in her camp to start looking at the issue more realistically. It doesn't necessarily let Jacobs off the hook insofar as his investigative techniques are concerned, but maybe it'll help us find more universally acceptable methods to figure out what's going on.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Editing isn't uncommon; indeed, you've edited your own OP.

Hi Kandinsky - I sure did. I'm not very computer-competent, and when the OP was published I discovered the font in one paragraph was bigger than the rest of the post and that it looked very odd. There were also two typos.

Back to the original point: I am convinced james1 is one of EW's possibly multiple sock-puppets. It's classic BPD behaviour, and sadly unsurprising. The confirmation of the NZ url registeration, the identical posting style, the identical syntax, use of the same vocabulary, regular habit of immediate self-review and editing of posts, and the single-issue obsessive subject matter add up to a slam-dunk case, don't you think?

Peace.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Hi Kandinsky - I sure did. I'm not very computer-competent, and when the OP was published I discovered the font in one paragraph was bigger than the rest of the post and that it looked very odd. There were also two typos.

Back to the original point: I am convinced james1 is one of EW's possibly multiple sock-puppets. It's classic BPD behaviour, and sadly unsurprising. The confirmation of the NZ url registeration, the identical posting style, the identical syntax, use of the same vocabulary, regular habit of immediate self-review and editing of posts, and the single-issue obsessive subject matter add up to a slam-dunk case, don't you think?

Peace.

Well, I have no idea if it's her or not but I can't resist a little joke: If it is her maybe she did it in her sleep.

 

[Ron Collins]

It wouldn't be the first time a controversial figure has appeared incognito on this forum and used that persona to lend credence to their own story. It really pisses me off that someone would stoop to that level of absurdity. But, such is life in cyberspace.

 

[Jonah]

Maybe. It's an uneasy precedent.

One of too many set here lately for my taste. I'm really not comfortable being a part of a discussion board that ultimately benefits someone who, in this very thread, has gone from "curious" based on very circumstantial evidence to being accusatory towards someone who he won't allow defend herself here. Ms. Woods has been censured although she violated no stated rules of the house, other than being persistent in her cause.

I think the revelation that "Emma" is not above assuming other fake personas for her own benefit (and remember that "Emma Woods" is also fake name) is sufficient cause to render her irrelevant.

Although there is no proof, it has now become a "revelation"? And it is now being parroted as fact.

I am convinced james1 is one of EW's possibly multiple sock-puppets. It's classic BPD behaviour, and sadly unsurprising.

I was censured by Gene in the other thread - accused of a personal attack for implying that although Hopkins may be ill he could and should respond to the Rainey essay (he's been well enough to make appearances with Jacobs over the last few months) and yet Mr. Bedford is allowed to launch the same against Ms. Woods with what appears to be the blessing of Mr. Steinberg.

I am convinced james1 is one of EW's possibly multiple sock-puppets. It's classic BPD behaviour, and sadly unsurprising.

A true double standard exists at the Paracast regarding the Woods/Jacobs/Rainey/Hopkins issue. Sadly this is -not- a precedent, although it took me some time to realize it. Which makes this -not- a discussion board IMO.

Consider me resigned.

Jonah

 

[ArchieBedford]

Although there is no proof, it has now become a "revelation"? And it is now being parroted as fact.

Like Carol's vindictive hit-piece promoted by Vaeni, you mean?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

A true double standard exists at the Paracast regarding the Woods/Jacobs/Rainey/Hopkins issue. Sadly this is -not- a precedent, although it took me some time to realize it. Which makes this -not- a discussion board IMO.

Consider me resigned.

Jonah

Actually, we've devoted a fair amount of forum space to the "Woods"/Jacobs issue. Her writing style is obvious, and when someone imitates it almost to a "T," you have to have strong suspicions as to what is happening.

There will be no confession, but the chances of this being a sockpuppet are quite high. And remember, too, she is the attacker here, as is Hopkins' ex-wife in her article.

Unlike certain forums and shows, we have actually provided both sides of the issue. You're pissed because we're not favoring your side — but I'm not necessarily in favor of the other side either, as I've made perfectly clear.

With regard to Hopkins' illness, anyone who knows him realizes he is quite ill. Your denial of a well-known fact and your suspicions of the matter do, indeed, constitute a personal attack. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

This all is exactly why, as a matter of Due Process, we require accusers to confront the accused in public proceedings when serious charges such as these are being made. No one on this Forum knows who "Emma Woods" is (or, in fact, "James", if they are the same person), can test "her" (or "his") credibility, or can authenticate and cross-examine the apparently damning evidence presented. We do not know if "Emma Woods" is an individual, or perhaps a collection of individuals, pulling a prank or worse. To date, despite the passage of more than a year, no case has been filed in a court of competent jurisdiction or an administrative tribunal in the matter ("she" or "he" certainly can sue Jacobs in either New Zealand court or in Pennsylvania State Court under common law tort).

This note is not a defense of Dr. Jacobs, but a cautionary statement. How many people remember the Duke rape case where false charges were made against a number of Duke lacrosse players, all of whom were completely innocent? There, the bogus charges were pursued by an overzealous district attorney more concerned about making a name for himself.

 

[ArchieBedford]

This all is exactly why, as a matter of Due Process, we require accusers to confront the accused in public proceedings when serious charges such as these are being made. No one on this Forum knows who "Emma Woods" is (or, in fact, "James", if they are the same person), can test "her" (or "his") credibility, or can authenticate and cross-examine the apparently damning evidence presented. We do not know if "Emma Woods" is an individual, or perhaps a collection of individuals, pulling a prank or worse. To date, despite the passage of more than a year, no case has been filed in a court of competent jurisdiction or an administrative tribunal in the matter ("she" or "he" certainly can sue Jacobs in either New Zealand court or in Pennsylvania State Court under common law tort). This note is not a defense of Dr. Jacobs, but a cautionary statement. How many people remember the Duke rape case where false charges were made against a number of Duke lacrosse players, all of whom were completely innocent? There, the bogus charges were pursued by an overzealous district attorney more concerned about making a name for himself.

Hi Tom - good to see you posting again after some months away. Your contributions might be especially relevant to this kind of issue as I understand you're a qualified and practising lawyer.

Good points all, but I would prefer if posters on this thread restrict their thoughts to the issue of paracast forum sock-puppetry in order to dishonestly push a personal vendetta and seek attention, of which this seems to be an obvious example. We need to be careful about ploughing the same well-worn ground about the hypnosis/abuse questions yet again, as we've been there before.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Actually, we've devoted a fair amount of forum space to the "Woods"/Jacobs issue. Her writing style is obvious, and when someone imitates it almost to a "T," you have to have strong suspicions as to what is happening.

There will be no confession, but the chances of this being a sockpuppet are quite high. And remember, too, she is the attacker here, as is Hopkins' ex-wife in her article.

Unlike certain forums and shows, we have actually provided both sides of the issue. You're pissed because we're not favoring your side — but I'm not necessarily in favor of the other side either, as I've made perfectly clear.

With regard to Hopkins' illness, anyone who knows him realizes he is quite ill. Your denial of a well-known fact and your suspicions of the matter do, indeed, constitute a personal attack. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

When you refer to Hopkins' ex-wife as an "attacker" and a poster here at the forum a "sockpuppet" you are taking sides.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

When you refer to Hopkins' ex-wife as an "attacker" and a psoter here at the forum a "sockpuppet" you are taking sides.

No, I am stating facts. Hopkins' ex-wife is attacking him in print. That doesn't reflect on the merits of her attacks. When I call a poster in this forum a sockpuppet, I'm basing that on the evidence presented. That doesn't mean that David Jacobs didn't behave badly in his handling of the "Emma Woods" case, which is another issue. But if she is posting here under assumed names to buttress her claims (and that appears to be the case), she is damaging herself.

That isn't a reflection of support or lack thereof when it comes to Hopkins and Jacobs. Their investigative methods should be analyzed, and the fact that they aren't trained therapists is a huge negative. But that can be done without the sideshow.

More often than not, things aren't necessarily black and white. You need to understand that.

 

[Frank Stalter]

No, I am stating facts. Hopkins' ex-wife is attacking him in print. That doesn't reflect on the merits of her attacks. When I call a poster in this forum a sockpuppet, I'm basing that on the evidence presented. That doesn't mean that David Jacobs didn't behave badly in his handling of the "Emma Woods" case, which is another issue. But if she is posting here under assumed names to buttress her claims (and that appears to be the case), she is damaging herself.

That isn't a reflection of support or lack thereof when it comes to Hopkins and Jacobs. Their investigative methods should be analyzed, and the fact that they aren't trained therapists is a huge negative. But that can be done without the sideshow.

More often than not, things aren't necessarily black and white. You need to understand that.

Hopkins is ill, I can understand that, so invite Jacobs onto your show so he can address these issues. I don't believe Carol Rainey was ever married to him.

In Emma’s audiotapes, we can hear Jacobs,
before the regression, telling Emma about
his other cases, which included their
hybrids’ violent, sadomasochistic sexual
behavior and warning her that they just
might discover that in her own upcoming
hypnosis session. That isn’t even “leading”:
it’s an outright push for her to then deliver,
under hypnosis, the exact narrative he
needs for his book.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-29-david-jacobs-suggestions-mpd.mp3