• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast 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! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Your Paracast Newsletter -- April 17, 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
The Uneasy Relationship Between Science Fiction and the Paranormal Featured on The Paracast

So Why Do We Ask for Donations? Although ads help cover a small part of our expenses, the income they produce is never sufficient, not even close. But we don't want to overwhelm the show with spots, so we hope you'll be willing and able to fill the gap, if you can, to help us cover increasing server costs and other expenses -- or perhaps provide a little extra cash for lunch.

No contribution is too small (or too large :). We have a Donate link on our home page, below the logo and audio player. There's also a Donate link on our forums, right below our logo. Or just send your PayPal donation direct to sales (at) theparacast (dot) com or use this direct link: The Paracast Community Forums - Welcome.

You Can Now Order The Official Paracast T-Shirt: You asked, and we answered. We are now taking orders for The Official Paracast T-Shirt and a collection of other specially customized merchandise. To get your T-Shirt, just pay a visit to our new online store at Welcome to The Official Paracast Store to select your size and place your order. We now also offer a lineup of other premium merchandise featuring The Paracast logo.

Sunday, April 18, 2010: The Paracast covers a world beyond science, where UFOs, poltergeists and strange phenomena of all kinds have been reported by millions across the planet.

Set Up: The Paracast hosts interview long-time researchers in the field, to shed light on the mysteries and complexities of our Universe and the secrets that surround us in our everyday lives.

Join us as we explore the realms of the known and unknown, and hear great stories of the history of the paranormal field in the 20th and 21st centuries.

This Week's Episode: Co-Host Paul Kimball presents a roundtable featuring science fiction author and filmmaker Paul Davids and paranormal writer Nicholas Redfern to discuss the dysfunctional relationship between Sci-Fi, UFOs and the paranormal.

Paul Kimball's site: The Other Side of Truth

Paul Davids' site: PAUL DAVIDS.COM

Nicholas Redfern's site: Nick Redfern

Coming April 25: We continue to explore the mystery of Earth-based UFOs and the frontiers of our reality, as expressed by the late Mac Tonnies and others, with co-host Christopher O’Brien and Walter Bosley, Mike Clelland, T. Allen Greenfield, and William Michael Mott.

Christopher O'Brien's site: Home - Our Strange Planet

Mike Clelland's site: hidden experience

T. Allen Greenfield's site: Assembly of the Knowledge and Wisdom of Solomon

William Michael Mott's site: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES - Wm Michael Mott

Reminder: Don't forget to visit our always-active Discussion Forums for the latest news/views/debates on all things paranormal (and note our new Internet address): The Paracast Community Forums. We recently completed a major redesign to make our community even easier to access, with more convenience features to boot.

Of Abductions and Hypnosis

When I was maybe 18 years old, I experimented with hypnotizing one of my friends. He had developed a smoking habit, so I gave him a post-hypnotic suggestion that the cigarette would leave an extremely bad taste in his mouth when he lit up.

Well, my humble efforts at therapy paid off for a short time, until his friends kept egging him on to begin smoking once again. The suggestion faded, and the habit resumed in short order.

Understand that I was just having fun, with the enthusiastic cooperation of my friends. I had read a few books on the subject, and mastered a few simple techniques to induce a trance.

In the UFO field, hypnosis has become a sore point with many of you, because of its frequent use to unearth alleged UFO abductions. A common example involves someone reporting one of those missing time incidents, where time seems to jump minutes or hours unaccountably. Just wait happened during those times, or did the victim somehow black out, even though they managed to remain alert enough to drive to their destinations without getting into an accident?

You know the scene. Someone hypnotizes the potential experiencer, and suddenly they begin to remember all sorts of horrific episodes involving capture by the alien pilots of a flying saucer and perhaps undergoing some sort of weird experimentation.

Now some advocates of this investigative approach claim that the UFOnauts are not just causing those memory lapses, but creating screen memories to hide the actual event, whatever it might be. You’d think that a supposed advanced alien race would be smart enough to devise methods to block those memories so our primitive methods can’t recover them so easily.

I have a some concerns, the most prominent of which is that a lot of this hypnotic regression is being done not by trained therapists but they laymen. Sure, they may have been tutored in the appropriate techniques by professionals, or taken some courses on the subject, but are they qualified to handle a situation where something goes wrong?

Consider that long-simmering controversy involving a woman from New Zealand, known by the pseudonym “Emma Woods,” who claims to be a UFO abductee, and American abduction researcher Dr. David Jacobs.

Now apparently on the advice of a former therapist, “Emma” sent boxes with huge amounts of material to Jacobs and a fellow abduction researcher, Budd Hopkins. I don’t know about you, but if someone sent me that much material unsolicited, I’d treat it with extreme skepticism and concern.

Those of you who have followed this affair realize the fine details are extremely complicated, and I’ll just cover a few of the highlights.

ith the approval of her ex-therapist, “Emma” worked with Dr. Jacobs over an extended period of time to unearth memories of her abductions via telephone-based hypnotic sessions. Yes, they never met in person, not even once. Supposedly this remote therapeutic technique is perfectly acceptable behavior, but those boxes of written material should have lit some warning signs. This was an accident waiting to happen.

After several years of these sessions, there was the inevitable falling out. Depending on which version of the story you believe, the patient was treated badly by Dr. Jacobs, while he maintains she began to stalk him and he was advised to disengage himself from the investigation.

While quite possibly sincere, “Emma” definitely comes across as disturbed and unduly obsessed with the whole affair. Dr. Jacobs understandably regrets his involvement in this case.

As far as I’m concerned, the barn door was closed after the horses left. Now fans of the TV action procedural, NCIS, no doubt recall those comedic scenes where one of the agents gently smacks another in the head as an act of discipline. In my opinion, Jacobs deserves similar treatment. He should have stayed away, maybe written her a letter expressing his regret over her distress and suggesting she continue getting the therapy she needs from people in her city.

Unfortunately, the “Emma Woods” episode has become a major distraction. It is high time for abduction investigators to work with mental health professionals to devise a scientific investigative method to determine what’s really going on. Yes, ET may be involved, and maybe hypnotic regression is a useful tool. But the present scattershot approach does little but vindicate the biases of a specific investigator, and, at times, creates needless controversies.

Not that I really expect that things will soon get better, but it’s also true that Hopkins and Jacobs seemed comfortable with developing such a method when we interviewed them on a recent episode of The Paracast. So I remain optimistic that a proper research technique may eventually be devised.
 

brownie

Skilled Investigator
While quite possibly sincere, “Emma” definitely comes across as disturbed and unduly obsessed with the whole affair. Dr. Jacobs understandably regrets his involvement in this case.
'Emma' "comes across", to me and many others interested in the abduction enigma, as of sound mind who's meticulously presented her history and carefully, eloquently made her case regarding the dispicable behavior of David Jacobs and his web-mistress. Jacobs has been exposed. [ Actually he exposed himself with his book The Threat- which read like sci-fi porn....mostly female abductees having rough sex with hybrids - a Jacobs fantasy]

Jacobs believing hybrids were after him and Instant-Messaging him, therefore he suggested to "Emma", under telephone hypnosis, she had MPD - to throw off the hybrids (who, he thinks can read her mind) from his trail.....well, if that is not "disturbed" and "unduly obsessed", I cannot imagine what is.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Someone who reaches out to total strangers on the other side of the world and, unsolicited, sends then hundreds of pages of material about her problems is not your normal person.

But this doesn't mean she's a bad person. But certainly she is deeply disturbed, even if the causes are external.

I made it clear that Jacobs had no business getting involved. He obviously believes in what he's doing, but got in way over his head. As I said, it's high time for UFO researchers to work with mental health professionals to devise a proper scientific method to investigate cases of this type.

The present techniques are, as this case indicates, fraught with danger.

I also think that some of the extreme reactions to this incident are also unproductive. UFO abduction reports continue to appear. How should they be investigated to produce data that will pass muster, even by the skeptics?
 

brownie

Skilled Investigator
Gene, I wish you'd address the mental health problems of David Jacobs. But, sadly, it's clear you're not going to touch what is the obvious.

As far as 'Emma' sending written materials to Jacobs - I believe it was prefaced with her therapist contacting him. I doubt it was unsoliticed material from what has been explained by 'Emma' so far. If it were and he objected, all he needed to do was email her and turn her down. Clearly he was interested in her as a subject for his next book.

Furthermore, I've seen documentaries that showed film of Hopkins (I'd think Jacobs would be much the same) showing the interviewer massive amounts of mail that arrives in folders, packages, envelopes......stored in big boxes in part of his artist studio.

And it's already been explained that there weren't any well known abduction researchers in NZ.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
I don't think you are qualified to make that determination.

Both Jacobs and Hopkins received those boxes of material from Emma. And I agree there are lots of troubled people out there who need the proper help.

So how can that help be provided? Any ideas?
 

Double Nought Spy

May I please go back to the zoo now?
The more I learn about this misbegotten relationship, the creepier it gets. Could it be that both parties in question have mental issues and questionable judgment? Of course it's possible. It's really hard for us out here in cyberspace to sort it out. It may not be possible for us to have an intelligent opinion based on the information we have at present. For me it's one more item on that big huge pile that has my "gray basket" under it somewhere.

I agree, Gene, some professional oversight is needed for several reasons. One thing that makes me hopeful about that is mental health professionals generally seem more open to the "paranormal" than, say, physicists or astronomers or MDs. That could just be because they don't need a lot of specific information about who or what the antagonists are in a given psychological drama. They deal with the reality of the issue as the patient or subject knows it, and don't need to fit it into a conventional framework in order to do their jobs. They don't even have to believe any paranormal thing exists in order to help the subject deal with their problems. Even so, the people in the field that I have known don't seem to feel a need to dogmatically close themselves off from "weird" possibilities. That's very refreshing.
 

brownie

Skilled Investigator
I don't think you are qualified to make that determination.
I'm (and anyone else) as qualified as you are to give an opinion. You have, many times over, publically labeled 'Emma Woods' as "deeply disturbed" and other judgemental labels about her mental health and behavior.

Both Jacobs and Hopkins received those boxes of material from Emma. And I agree there are lots of troubled people out there who need the proper help.
I didn't discuss "troubled people" with you. But we know that any outre subject like this has them. Since you opened that can of worms up, it's beyond obvious that David Jacobs is "troubled". No mentally sound individual believes alien hybrids are chasing him and sending him Instant Messages.

So how can that help be provided? Any ideas?
Yes. UFO Watchdog can 'out' David Jacobs. His own words, behavior and writings (not just his public diatribe against 'Alice'/'Emma' and his astonishingly bad behavior on the tapes she recorded, but his sex-obsessed alien-hybrid books - The Threat and Secret Life) are more than ample reason to begin revision of the field of abduction research. It needs to start with with culling of bad abductionologists who've projected their own sick ideas onto their subjects and created cults around themselves attacking anyone who chooses to leave and publically criiticize said cult.

If UFO Watchdog is not biased or afraid, I expect to see David Jacobs in the Hall of Shame.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Emma didn't seek therapy because she has no problems. You are clearly portraying Jacobs and Hopkins as guilty and Emma as innocent, but in this particular situation, there are legitimate concerns about both sides.
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Could it be that both parties in question have mental issues and questionable judgment? Of course it's possible. It's really hard for us out here in cyberspace to sort it out. It may not be possible for us to have an intelligent opinion based on the information we have at present.
Double Nought Spy, you are exactly right. I am baffled how some can state so clearly who is at fault and what their mental condition is with the limited information we have, principally from one side. I suspect this case will never go to a court or other deliberative body where the proper procedures can be followed and precautions taken for the protection of both parties. I think in life we have all seen situations that appear clear cut on the surface, only later to discover that realty is less definitive when full disclosure is provided.
 

ArchieBedford

Partly experienced
The mistake DJ made, it seems to me, was in responding at all to "EW's" initial entreaties for him to work with her, to those of her therapist in NZ, and to the ton of personal history material she sent him, unsolicited. Does anyone actually know who this therapist is? "EW" has been as secretive about this therapist's ID as about her own, though claims to have worked with him/her for 10 years (10 YEARS IN THERAPY - red flag, Dave...?). DJ has, thus far, refused to break his confidentiality agreement about revealing her ID, and she continues to hide behind an assumed ID so we don't know who these people really are, do we?

DJ should have sent the ton of material right back by container ship, advised her to look for yet another local therapist to help her sort out her obviously extensive problems or just said simply "Sorry, I can't help you. I do not work with people by phone" (which up to that moment was a true statement). He's paid dearly for that mistake, and got in way over his head.

I would speculate that if he continues to be petitioned by people asking for help to sort out their suspected abduction experiences, he's going to be even more cautious in the future about responding, and may stop taking on new people altogether. It seems inconceivable that after this episode he will ever again respond positively to someone from the other side of the world begging him to work with them on the phone, but as she is the only one who ever has this is not likely to be repeated in any case.

The reasons why he decided to respond to her in the first place are probably not worth pursuing, but out of interest there were definite markers in her reported experiences which were very specific and which he had only been told a few times before in such detail. These details were in all cases including hers consciously reported prior to any hypnosis and are still, to this day, not published anywhere - even by her. Researchers get intrigued by such idiosyncratic consistencies between different cases, unfortunately.
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
The mistake DJ made, it seems to me, was in responding at all to "EW's" initial entreaties for him to work with her, to those of her therapist in NZ, and to the ton of personal history material she sent him, unsolicited. Does anyone actually know who this therapist is? "EW" has been as secretive about this therapist's ID as about her own, though claims to have worked with him/her for 10 years (10 YEARS IN THERAPY - red flag, Dave...?). DJ has, thus far, refused to break his confidentiality agreement about revealing her ID, and she continues to hide behind an assumed ID so we don't know who these people really are, do we?
Archie,

I can understand why Ms. Woods would not want to publicly disclose her identity, but as to the therapist, I believe you are right. The therapist is likely to have doctor/patient confidentiality restrictions in New Zealand, so there should be less of an issue with the disclosure of his identity, if for nothing else than to avoid the current situation: no one is going on the record, so it is difficult to confirm that the doctor's professional psychological assessment is in fact authentic -- a logical question given the course of debate to date. I also agree that it is suspect that someone is in therapy (probably supported by the New Zealand public welfare system) for ten years for general life issues relate to UFOs. Again, a logical question.

To be fair, Dr. Jacobs has done a few things which are questionable on the surface, so both parties appear to have some degree of fault. I doubt this will end up in the proper forum, however, so at the end of the day the case gets tried on the Paracast and Paratopia Fora -- not ideal venues (although it keeps us all occupied and does lead to some online drama, doesn't it?).

Tom
 

Double Nought Spy

May I please go back to the zoo now?
The reasons why he decided to respond to her in the first place are probably not worth pursuing, but out of interest there were definite markers in her reported experiences which were very specific and which he had only been told a few times before in such detail. These details were in all cases including hers consciously reported prior to any hypnosis and are still, to this day, not published anywhere - even by her. Researchers get intrigued by such idiosyncratic consistencies between different cases, unfortunately.
This, for me, is the interesting part. Jacobs apparently got caught up in the intrigue. It's a slippery slope. I've been involved in some examples of what can be called the Trickster aspect of the UFO realm, and it can be hard to find your center when weird things are happening and seem to be directed at you. I thank my German ancestors for providing me with the stubborn unwillingness to dive into questionable endeavors head first. It's all that saved me. I couldn't help noticing that as soon as I "called bullshit" on the weird synchonicities and the highly personalized drama, it all just stopped. The Trickster went looking for easier prey, if you want to put it in those terms. I'm looking for better terms, but don't have any.
 

Emma

Paranormal Novice
Now apparently on the advice of a former therapist, “Emma” sent boxes with huge amounts of material to Jacobs and a fellow abduction researcher, Budd Hopkins. I don’t know about you, but if someone sent me that much material unsolicited, I’d treat it with extreme skepticism and concern.
Someone who reaches out to total strangers on the other side of the world and, unsolicited, sends then hundreds of pages of material about her problems is not your normal person.

But this doesn't mean she's a bad person. But certainly she is deeply disturbed, even if the causes are external.

Gene, the material that I sent to Dr. Jacobs was not “unsolicited.” He asked me to send it to him, and told me that he was looking forward to receiving it. In addition, I did not contact him by sending him the material. I sent it to him three months after he had already taken me on as his research subject.

In Dr. Jacobs’ original version of the defamatory statement that he posted about me on his website, he made the false claim that I had contacted him on November 2004 by sending him and Budd Hopkins this material unsolicited.

After I refuted this in my rebuttal, at Emma Woods: Rebuttal to Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Jacobs changed his original statement completely, and said that my former therapist had contacted him in 2002. He also removed the word “unsolicited” in his reference to the material that I sent him. However, he gave no explanation for his previous false claims, including that the material was “unsolicited”.

(This is one of a number of substantial changes of fact that Dr. Jacobs has made to his original statement, with no explanation for the changes.)

This is an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs telling me during one of my hypnosis sessions that he thought that my material was “absolutely remarkable”, “put together in a scientific way” and “unique”. He often told me this, and said that this was why he wanted to publish some of it on his website, which he did in 2006.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-jacobs-my-material.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-jacobs-my-material.wma

I did not at any stage petition Dr. Jacobs to take me on as his research subject. I was in communication with him by email and telephone for two and a half years before I became his research subject, and he gave me advice and help with the research that I was doing on my own case. It never occurred to me to ask him to do hypnosis with me, as I did not know that it could be done by phone.

(Dr. Jacobs later told me that he had conducted hypnosis over the phone with a number of other research research subjects before me, although he had met them in person beforehand.)

In December 2004, Dr. Jacobs offered to do hypnosis with me, and he convinced me to become his research subject. I agreed to it because he said that I would be a research subject of Temple University participating in scholarly research. I signed Temple University research consent forms which stated this.

It was three months later, in March 2005, that I sent Dr. Jacobs the large section of my material, which he said that he wanted me to send to him.

Dr. Jacobs knows who my former therapist is. They communicated by email and phone, and my former therapist gave him information about his qualifications, the professional association that he belonged to, and the names of some of the organizations that had employed him, so that Dr. Jacobs could check on his credibility.

---------- Post added at 05:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 AM ----------

ith the approval of her ex-therapist, “Emma” worked with Dr. Jacobs over an extended period of time to unearth memories of her abductions via telephone-based hypnotic sessions.

My former therapist did not give approval for Dr. Jacobs to conduct hypnosis with me. He said that as he was no longer my therapist, that he could not advise me on it, and that he could not give his approval for it, or monitor it.

In Dr. Jacobs original version of his defamatory statement about me, he said the following:

"The first step with Alice was to require that she ask her now ex-therapist to agree to the process. Alice's ex-therapist wrote that doing hypnosis with her via telephone would not, in his opinion, have a potential for harm."

Dr. Jacobs clearly intended to give the impression that he required my therapist to agree to his conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone before he did so, and that he obtained a written statement from him saying that it was his opinion that hypnosis with me over the telephone would not have a potential for harm, before he went ahead with it.

However, this was completely false.

At the time that Dr. Jacobs took me on as his research subject, in December 2004, my former therapist had already retired, although he was continuing to assist me with my research on my own case as he had become interested in it. Dr. Jacobs told me that he would prefer to obtain my former therapist's agreement before proceeding with the hypnosis. However, my former therapist said that as he was no longer my therapist, that he could not give Dr. Jacobs formal approval to proceed. Dr. Jacobs went ahead with the hypnosis without obtaining any written agreement from my former therapist.

Much later, in 2006, when Dr. Jacobs published my material on his website, my former therapist wrote a statement about the hypnosis sessions which Dr. Jacobs published on his website. In his statement, my former therapist said:

"One aspect of the data gathering process has been the use of hypnosis by researcher Dr. David Jacobs. This raised questions with respect to safety because due to geographical constraints it was impossible to do face to face sessions and the sessions were done by phone. Because of there having been a long period of contact between [my name] and Dr. Jacobs prior to the hypnosis, and the awareness of both of them for the need for local support for [my name] which was put in place, it was my view that it was unlikely to be harmful."

However, this statement was written long after Dr. Jacobs had started conducting hypnosis with me. In addition, my former therapist made it clear in the statement that as he was no longer my therapist at the time, that he did not formally monitor the effects of the hypnosis on me.

In mid January 2006, Dr. Jacobs told me that he thought that when he published my research on his website, that he would be criticized for conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone. He said that he would have to figure out a strategy for how to tell people about it.

Jacobs subsequently wrote a Foreward to my material, in which he addressed the issue of his having conducted hypnosis with me over the telephone. Before publishing it, he sent me a draft copy of it in which he said:

"I suggested that we could explore some experiences on the phone, but that I would only proceed with her now-former therapist's written approval."

He also said:

"In our first few hypnosis sessions I had with her, we arranged for her former therapist to be in the room with her in case she had an adverse reaction and so that she could have someone to rely on for support and counseling."

Both of these statements by Dr. Jacobs were completely false.

At the time, I thought that Dr. Jacobs must have made a mistake. I reminded him that he had not obtained written permission from my former therapist before proceeding to conduct hypnosis with me, and that he had not arranged for him to be in the room with me during any of my hypnosis sessions.

Dr. Jacobs then changed one of the statements in the draft, and said:

"In our first few hypnosis sessions, we arranged for a sympathetic friend to be in the room with her in case she had an adverse reaction and so that she could have someone to rely on for support."

Once again, this statement by Dr. Jacobs was completely false. In addition, he retained his other false statement in the draft.

I once again reminded Dr. Jacobs that these statements were untrue, and he then removed the statement that he had arranged for a sympathetic friend to be in the room with me during the first few hypnosis sessions. However, although I repeatedly reminded him that he had not obtained written permission from my former therapist before proceeding to conduct hypnosis with me, he nevertheless went ahead and published that statement in his Foreward. At my request, he eventually removed that statement from his Foreward after it had been published.

At the time, I thought that Dr. Jacobs' actions were an indicator that he might be in the early stages of dementia. However, I am now of the opinion that he engaged in a deliberate deception to cover himself, which he has repeated in his current statement.

After I refuted Dr. Jacobs false claims in his statement in my rebuttal, at Emma Woods: Rebuttal to Dr. David Jacobs, he changed it to the following:

"As a first step, I normally require a person's therapist to agree to the process. In Alice's case though, her ex-therapist was aware of what was happening from the beginning and later wrote to me that doing hypnosis over the phone was, in his opinion, "unlikely to be harmful." He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately."

Dr. Jacobs failed to give any explanation for his previous statements that gave the false impression that he required my former therapist to agree to his conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone before he did so, and that he obtained a written statement from him saying that it was his opinion that hypnosis with me over the telephone would not have a potential for harm, before he went ahead with it. In addition, Dr. Jacobs now provides a different misleading account of the events.

In his new version of the events, Dr. Jacobs tries to give the false impression that he obtained informal approval from my former therapist before conducting hypnosis with me. Dr. Jacobs adds, "He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately." He writes this statement as though my former therapist said it in the present tense, before the hypnosis took place, with the implication that my former therapist told him that he would mention any harmful effects as the hypnosis took place.

However, as mentioned above, my former therapist wrote his statement long after Dr. Jacobs had started conducting hypnosis with me. My former therapist made it clear in the statement that as he was no longer my therapist at the time, that he did not formally monitor the effects of the hypnosis on me. At that time, he said that if he had noticed any harmful effects at any point he would have said so immediately. However, I did not discuss the effects of the hypnosis with him, as he was no longer my therapist. (He later became concerned about the effect of the situation on me, and towards the end of my work with Dr. Jacobs he suggested that I consider stopping it.)

Dr. Jacobs makes no mention of his false statements in the Foreward to my material that he published on his website, and he provides no explanation for them.

Unfortunately, I have learned to expect this kind of dishonesty from Dr. Jacobs in covering up his misconduct. It is demoralizing having to refute it, but I think that it is important.
 
Gene, the material that I sent to Dr. Jacobs was not “unsolicited.” He asked me to send it to him, and told me that he was looking forward to receiving it. In addition, I did not contact him by sending him the material. I sent it to him three months after he had already taken me on as his research subject.

In Dr. Jacobs’ original version of the defamatory statement that he posted about me on his website, he made the false claim that I had contacted him on November 2004 by sending him and Budd Hopkins this material unsolicited.

After I refuted this in my rebuttal, at Emma Woods: Rebuttal to Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Jacobs changed his original statement completely, and said that my former therapist had contacted him in 2002. He also removed the word “unsolicited” in his reference to the material that I sent him. However, he gave no explanation for his previous false claims, including that the material was “unsolicited”.

(This is one of a number of substantial changes of fact that Dr. Jacobs has made to his original statement, with no explanation for the changes.)

This is an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs telling me during one of my hypnosis sessions that he thought that my material was “absolutely remarkable”, “put together in a scientific way” and “unique”. He often told me this, and said that this was why he wanted to publish some of it on his website, which he did in 2006.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-jacobs-my-material.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-jacobs-my-material.wma

I did not at any stage petition Dr. Jacobs to take me on as his research subject. I was in communication with him by email and telephone for two and a half years before I became his research subject, and he gave me advice and help with the research that I was doing on my own case. It never occurred to me to ask him to do hypnosis with me, as I did not know that it could be done by phone.

(Dr. Jacobs later told me that he had conducted hypnosis over the phone with a number of other research research subjects before me, although he had met them in person beforehand.)

In December 2004, Dr. Jacobs offered to do hypnosis with me, and he convinced me to become his research subject. I agreed to it because he said that I would be a research subject of Temple University participating in scholarly research. I signed Temple University research consent forms which stated this.

It was three months later, in March 2005, that I sent Dr. Jacobs the large section of my material, which he said that he wanted me to send to him.

Dr. Jacobs knows who my former therapist is. They communicated by email and phone, and my former therapist gave him information about his qualifications, the professional association that he belonged to, and the names of some of the organizations that had employed him, so that Dr. Jacobs could check on his credibility.

---------- Post added at 05:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 AM ----------




My former therapist did not give approval for Dr. Jacobs to conduct hypnosis with me. He said that as he was no longer my therapist, that he could not advise me on it, and that he could not give his approval for it, or monitor it.

In Dr. Jacobs original version of his defamatory statement about me, he said the following:

"The first step with Alice was to require that she ask her now ex-therapist to agree to the process. Alice's ex-therapist wrote that doing hypnosis with her via telephone would not, in his opinion, have a potential for harm."

Dr. Jacobs clearly intended to give the impression that he required my therapist to agree to his conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone before he did so, and that he obtained a written statement from him saying that it was his opinion that hypnosis with me over the telephone would not have a potential for harm, before he went ahead with it.

However, this was completely false.

At the time that Dr. Jacobs took me on as his research subject, in December 2004, my former therapist had already retired, although he was continuing to assist me with my research on my own case as he had become interested in it. Dr. Jacobs told me that he would prefer to obtain my former therapist's agreement before proceeding with the hypnosis. However, my former therapist said that as he was no longer my therapist, that he could not give Dr. Jacobs formal approval to proceed. Dr. Jacobs went ahead with the hypnosis without obtaining any written agreement from my former therapist.

Much later, in 2006, when Dr. Jacobs published my material on his website, my former therapist wrote a statement about the hypnosis sessions which Dr. Jacobs published on his website. In his statement, my former therapist said:

"One aspect of the data gathering process has been the use of hypnosis by researcher Dr. David Jacobs. This raised questions with respect to safety because due to geographical constraints it was impossible to do face to face sessions and the sessions were done by phone. Because of there having been a long period of contact between [my name] and Dr. Jacobs prior to the hypnosis, and the awareness of both of them for the need for local support for [my name] which was put in place, it was my view that it was unlikely to be harmful."

However, this statement was written long after Dr. Jacobs had started conducting hypnosis with me. In addition, my former therapist made it clear in the statement that as he was no longer my therapist at the time, that he did not formally monitor the effects of the hypnosis on me.

In mid January 2006, Dr. Jacobs told me that he thought that when he published my research on his website, that he would be criticized for conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone. He said that he would have to figure out a strategy for how to tell people about it.

Jacobs subsequently wrote a Foreward to my material, in which he addressed the issue of his having conducted hypnosis with me over the telephone. Before publishing it, he sent me a draft copy of it in which he said:

"I suggested that we could explore some experiences on the phone, but that I would only proceed with her now-former therapist's written approval."

He also said:

"In our first few hypnosis sessions I had with her, we arranged for her former therapist to be in the room with her in case she had an adverse reaction and so that she could have someone to rely on for support and counseling."

Both of these statements by Dr. Jacobs were completely false.

At the time, I thought that Dr. Jacobs must have made a mistake. I reminded him that he had not obtained written permission from my former therapist before proceeding to conduct hypnosis with me, and that he had not arranged for him to be in the room with me during any of my hypnosis sessions.

Dr. Jacobs then changed one of the statements in the draft, and said:

"In our first few hypnosis sessions, we arranged for a sympathetic friend to be in the room with her in case she had an adverse reaction and so that she could have someone to rely on for support."

Once again, this statement by Dr. Jacobs was completely false. In addition, he retained his other false statement in the draft.

I once again reminded Dr. Jacobs that these statements were untrue, and he then removed the statement that he had arranged for a sympathetic friend to be in the room with me during the first few hypnosis sessions. However, although I repeatedly reminded him that he had not obtained written permission from my former therapist before proceeding to conduct hypnosis with me, he nevertheless went ahead and published that statement in his Foreward. At my request, he eventually removed that statement from his Foreward after it had been published.

At the time, I thought that Dr. Jacobs' actions were an indicator that he might be in the early stages of dementia. However, I am now of the opinion that he engaged in a deliberate deception to cover himself, which he has repeated in his current statement.

After I refuted Dr. Jacobs false claims in his statement in my rebuttal, at Emma Woods: Rebuttal to Dr. David Jacobs, he changed it to the following:

"As a first step, I normally require a person's therapist to agree to the process. In Alice's case though, her ex-therapist was aware of what was happening from the beginning and later wrote to me that doing hypnosis over the phone was, in his opinion, "unlikely to be harmful." He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately."

Dr. Jacobs failed to give any explanation for his previous statements that gave the false impression that he required my former therapist to agree to his conducting hypnosis with me over the telephone before he did so, and that he obtained a written statement from him saying that it was his opinion that hypnosis with me over the telephone would not have a potential for harm, before he went ahead with it. In addition, Dr. Jacobs now provides a different misleading account of the events.

In his new version of the events, Dr. Jacobs tries to give the false impression that he obtained informal approval from my former therapist before conducting hypnosis with me. Dr. Jacobs adds, "He did not monitor her formally, but if he noticed any harmful effects in the contact he had with her, he stated he would mention them immediately." He writes this statement as though my former therapist said it in the present tense, before the hypnosis took place, with the implication that my former therapist told him that he would mention any harmful effects as the hypnosis took place.

However, as mentioned above, my former therapist wrote his statement long after Dr. Jacobs had started conducting hypnosis with me. My former therapist made it clear in the statement that as he was no longer my therapist at the time, that he did not formally monitor the effects of the hypnosis on me. At that time, he said that if he had noticed any harmful effects at any point he would have said so immediately. However, I did not discuss the effects of the hypnosis with him, as he was no longer my therapist. (He later became concerned about the effect of the situation on me, and towards the end of my work with Dr. Jacobs he suggested that I consider stopping it.)

Dr. Jacobs makes no mention of his false statements in the Foreward to my material that he published on his website, and he provides no explanation for them.

Unfortunately, I have learned to expect this kind of dishonesty from Dr. Jacobs in covering up his misconduct. It is demoralizing having to refute it, but I think that it is important.
Emma,

I will state the obvious, since that is what I do best! :rolleyes:

You are trying to convince people who have been unconsciously biased toward the current ufo & alien abduction paradigm since the 1980's, when Whitley Strieber and Budd Hopkins kicked it off with their books COMMUNION & INTRUDERS.

You are ruffling feathers, and people like Gene (God Bless him) seem to be unconsciously putting up straw man arguments for you to knock down. This will NEVER stop! It is like trying to convince a deeply devout Catholic that the Vatican has more than "idle gossip" to contend with in the area of pedophilia in the priesthood. Such a person would not budge his/her view if he/she were to witness a priest in the act!

The point of this post to you is to say:
1. I think you have made very valid points. As Jeff Ritzman has said on countless occasions, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU ARE MENTALLY UNBALANCED, that does not excuse Jacob's behavior. All the apologists for him in this forum are disgusting to me.

2. However! You are NEVER going to reach a sense of closure on this issue via your current campaign on the internet. It will just go on and on and on. You will knock down one "straw man" only to have another one pop up. You will perhaps silence (at best) one individual on an internet forum, only to find 20 others spouting the same pro-Jacobs mantra elsewhere. Where does it end? How do you really expect to find peace this way? I realize you've been through hell, but when do you just move on with your life, and let this loser (Jacobs) and his adoring fans go from your life? They are thousands of miles away. Who cares what some silly Americans think? These are the people that almost destroyed the world economy, and started a war based on lies, YET no one responsible has been held responsible. Responsibility is NOT popular in the world right now. Everyone is a victim. Consequently, you (as a victim) will get nowhere, because whenever anyone does anything wrong nowadays, THEY proclaim themselves the victim. The Catholic Church is the victim, NOT the children who were molested. Right wingers in the USA who threaten violence claim they are victims, being forced to violence by the progressive elements in society. It is always someone else's fault.

3. So what was that political/social diatribe in #2 all about? It is to tell you that you are going to get nowhere via an ongoing multi-year campaign against Jacobs, because everything is stacked against you. You can include 100000 pages on your website, and people will simply not read it.

4. I have been abused, in my case it was sexual abuse from my father, and it causes extreme bitterness and anger. To this day, he refuses to take responsibility for it, and the rest of the family defend the old pedophile! HE is considered the victim, since he is now 97 years old - poor guy. And me? I am out of the will - for being sexually molested and COMPLAINING ABOUT IT, I will get no inheritance. That is how the world works.

At some point, you need to move on for your own survival mentally and physically. Has this become your only goal in life? Does your life now center around getting justice from Jacobs?

I just do not think that is possible in the United States, for the sociological reasons I mentioned above. You are going to go to your grave still pursuing closure on this, and Jacobs will still be pontificating about alien hybrids (he and Hopkins are giving a symposium on the "hybrid threat" in New York City soon). Jacobs will still be an honored guest on Coast to Coast international radio.

Afterall, George Bush is living peacefully in luxury in Texas (whereas when I travel to Europe most people seem to consider him an international war crimes criminal!) and is now on the inspirational speaker circuit. Can you imagine? That's America for you, baby!

For your own good, you must move on. There are 10,000,000 internet posters out there who always seem to stake the deck in favor of Jacobs. The alien abduction meme is a cottage industry and people really like it. It is very entertaining for them.

I am more concerned about your welfare, and hope you can find a new purpose to your life besides beating your head against a stone wall.

I am very sympathetic to you, but if you just keep doing this year after year, you are going to find the world growing very cold. People will move on (even The Clueless One and Jeff Ritzman have said in one podcast that they are pretty much finished with the topic), because in America everyone has a right to only 15 minutes of fame. After that, they become "old news" and no one listens. I'm sorry it is that way. I am not defending it. But you have to understand our culture. The USA is NOT New Zealand!!!

Take care.
 

Emma

Paranormal Novice
Thanks IndigoEyes. I know you are right. Other people have given me the same advice as well. Every now and then I fall off the wagon and respond to something, although I know that I should just let it go. Thank you for your support.
 
Thanks IndigoEyes. I know you are right. Other people have given me the same advice as well. Every now and then I fall off the wagon and respond to something, although I know that I should just let it go. Thank you for your support.
God Bless you! By the way, like Jacobs I revised my post (did not change the meaning, but tried to make it more clear, and added my personal abuse story). Time for bed here in California.
 

Emma

Paranormal Novice
IndigoEyes I am so sorry to hear what happened to you. I think you are very brave for standing up to them. It is so true that the world does not always work the way it should. Thank you for sharing it.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
In all due respect to everyone, even though there may be slight variations in the stories about how those boxes of material were sent, it is clear to me that therapists don't reach out across the world to seek help for a patient if that patient isn't deeply troubled by something. To suggest otherwise is absurd. And I also agree that Dr. Jacobs should have just said no, or considered having a therapist work with him during all sessions to protect his and the patient's interests in case the inevitable problem occurred.

As for you Emma: Do what you wish, but at this point you should be seeking out a therapist in your city, if you don't already have one, and try to do the best with your situation. If you still feel wronged by Jacobs, then maybe legal action should be sought. Otherwise, try to get on with your life. Acting out on your dispute with Jacobs is clearly causing you a whole lot of pain.

Members: I think we've had enough back and forth on this subject to fill a book. Now how about more suggestions about how to improve abduction research?

Let's move on.
 
P

Paul Kimball

Guest
Hi Gene,

I will happily move on - as I think everyone else will - if you can agree that neither David Jacobs nor Budd Hopkins, who has defended Jacobs' behaviour, have any credibility left, and are part of the problem, not the solution.

Paul
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
I am only looking for answers here. The signal from the noise. Everyone's position is clear cut.

I agree that abduction research must be placed in the hands of professional therapists. If a layman gets involved, do so with the therapist at hand and only to provide some background about the UFO field and its historical context.

This episode demonstrates the existing structure isn't working. Regardless of where someone stands, that's crystal clear.

Solutions please!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Top