• 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.

ArchieBedford

Partly experienced
Archie, since you claim to be about the closest friend Budd and David have in this world, if they have any physical evidence, why don't you pursuade them to reveal it?
I never made any such ridiculous claim. BH and DJ know hundreds of people - thousands in fact, including Gene Steinberg. Very accessible people. I just know them like a lot of other people. I am not going to "persuade" anybody to do anything.


For example, I saw in a UFO special about 15 years ago that he had hand drawn symbols that abductees had seen in spaceships and under hypnosis drew for him. He also has symbols sent to him by others. Well, if there are some direct matches, why hasn't he shared that with the world?
Many researchers know these symbols privately, but there's an obvious reason distribution to date has been controlled. If you understand anything about how science is done you'll know why, and if you can't work this out by yourself, I can't help you. You may not have much longer to wait.
 
I never made any such ridiculous claim. BH and DJ know hundreds of people - thousands in fact, including Gene Steinberg. Very accessible people. I just know them like a lot of other people. I am not going to "persuade" anybody to do anything.




Many researchers know these symbols privately, but there's an obvious reason distribution to date has been controlled. If you understand anything about how science is done you'll know why, and if you can't work this out by yourself, I can't help you. You may not have much longer to wait.
Well, you sure put ME in my place! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Just between you and me, I think I will be using free energy devices to power my car and home electrical systems far before Budd or other abduction researchers use "science" to accomplish anything!
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Well, you sure put ME in my place! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Just between you and me, I think I will be using free energy devices to power my car and home electrical systems far before Budd or other abduction researchers use "science" to accomplish anything!
Are you always this nasty, or just on this message board?

Now I understand why David Biedny previously banned you from the Forum.
 
Are you always this nasty, or just on this message board?

Now I understand why David Biedny previously banned you from the Forum.
Use logic to disagree with me. Don't just insult me or give me attitude (e.g., that I am just too stupid to understand the use and time involved in the pursuit of science....blah, blah, blah). So you fall for every abduction researcher's pitch. That is very self-evident. You are part of the "faith" because you read their books and they sound really great to you. Marvelous.
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Use logic to disagree with me. Don't just insult me or give me attitude (e.g., that I am just too stupid to understand the use and time involved in the pursuit of science....blah, blah, blah). So you fall for every abduction researcher's pitch. That is very self-evident. You are part of the "faith" because you read their books and they sound really great to you. Marvelous.
You obviously haven't read my past posts on the topic of abductions. And if you perceive that others are giving you "attitude" or "insulting you", go back and re-read your past posts to others, and reflect again carefully.

You are just a nasty piece of work. Biedny was spot on.
 
You obviously haven't read my past posts on the topic of abductions. And if you perceive that others are giving you "attitude" or "insulting you", go back and re-read your past posts to others, and reflect again carefully.

You are just a nasty piece of work. Biedny was spot on.
I've attacked no one here, unless you identify so strongly with Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs that you take my jibs at them personally. If so, I apologize for casting aspersions on your heroes. The only person on this forum who I would suggest "gives attitude" is Archie. Even the moderator, Paul Kimball, has called him on that with his straw man arguements a(e.g., asking me for my published research in a condescending manner...) and nose-in-the-air type responses to questions about his "heroes".

There is no call whatsoever for your personal insults against another poster here. That is what gets people banned here, so buddy, I would suggest you reconsider that strategy. Gene does not appreciate his forum becoming a bitch fight. My snide (?) remarks were always directed at the abduction researchers. If you find that so upsetting that you must attack me personally, then I guess that means you feel "one" with those guys. Man, a world with 6 billion people and you pick these clowns as your heroes? Oh My God.

Bless you. I obviously upset you greatly. I suggest you calm down. This is not meant to be a rude question, but how old are you? I am just sincerely interested.

---------- Post added at 01:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 AM ----------

UPDATE: After contemplating the situation, I agree that it is time for me to stop posting anything about alien abduction researchers. My point-of-view is well known. There is no reason for me to keep pile driving it into the ground. All I am obviously doing is upsetting people who still have some allegiance to these guys.

I do not want animosity on the forum, and I will do whatever possible to NOT be responsible for that. Nonetheless, we each have to take some responsibility for our own reactions. Much of what I write is done so in a matter of cynical jesting, not cold blooded death-words.

For the record, I was banned because I was called "batshit insane" by David Biedny for daring to defend Emma Woods, at a time when the moderator Schuyler was also calling HER batshit insane. I demanded evidence. I demanded to know what the secret information was that was hinted at. I made them angry. I honestly do not know why they had such an affiliation for Jacobs. I did not realize how biased people were about this issue. People besides me asked similar questions about the Emma Woods case. David lashed out at them like an angry child, banning several individuals who were simply asking questions. In one case, David said in effect that a NEW poster had no right to ask questions. I guess in David's mind, you had to be a long term poster before you had the right to ask questions!

Things (in my opinion) were out of control. Schuyler had reached a point as moderator where he was attacking people the moment they signed up, paranoidly claiming that they were just coming to this forum as "ringers" to defend Emma Woods. The forum truly was a train wreck in progress, and I said so! A moderator on a forum (which I've done for 10 years) should be objective, calm and courteous, not heavily biased, emotional and rude!

I responded to being called "batshit insane" for questioning the "holy fathers" of Hopkins and Jacobs by posting that I thought David needed mental help, perhaps anger management therapy. I said that no person's body was made to take that kind of emotional abuse day after day. Of course, this infuriated "the angry human" (who is one temper tantrum away from a heart attack at the rate he's going) even more so, and I was banned. After 1 month Gene allowed me to return.

However, again I do not want to cause rancor in the ranks of the "believers". I will never post anything about alien abduction again.

Now, if you are upset because I posted a few joking remarks about Richard Hoagland, then I cannot help you. If you are upset because I posted a few joking and disparaging remarks about Republicans, I cannot help you. If you are upset because I believe in universal health care, and do not think anything proposed by the current administration is "socialism", then I cannot help you. If you are upset because I mentioned the Catholic Church pedophil situation and was NOT sympathetic to the Church, I cannot help you. I'm not going to stop having all opinions just because it might cause someone out there to have a hissy fit and call me names.

However, I will stay away from using political or social analogies to get my point across,.

Bless everyone who reads this.

Signed, IndigoEyes From Los Angeles (Woodland Hills), Sydney, London, Paris, Barcelona and Frostbite Falls, Minnesota!
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Emma,

I personally think you should continue to stick around and actively post on the Paracast Forum, but perhaps avoid discussing your situation with Dr. Jacobs (which hopefully other Forum members will respect). Your notes strike me as very level headed and thoughtful. In my view some of the most insightful posts come from people who claim to have actually had abduction experiences. While abductees don't always agree, they provide frontline feedback which the rest of us armchair researchers cannot offer.

Tom
 

Emma

Paranormal Novice
Emma,

I personally think you should continue to stick around and actively post on the Paracast Forum, but perhaps avoid discussing your situation with Dr. Jacobs (which hopefully other Forum members will respect). Your notes strike me as very level headed and thoughtful. In my view some of the most insightful posts come from people who claim to have actually had abduction experiences. While abductees don't always agree, they provide frontline feedback which the rest of us armchair researchers cannot offer.

Tom

Tom, thank you for your post. I appreciate it.

I have been giving some thought to as whether I should post on the forum or not, in light of the fact that I am personally involved in the issue of Dr. Jacobs’ research, and critical of it, as there is some support for his conduct here.

After thinking about it overnight, I have decided that perhaps I should participate in the discussion more after all, as I do have opinions on it, and they add to the various views that are being expressed.

My views on how abduction research should be conducted, and on Dr. Jacobs’ research, are obviously informed by my experience of being his research subject. Therefore, what I have to say comes from that. I think that instead of trying to avoid it, perhaps it is best if I simply acknowledge that, and post what I know about it from that experience. The concrete experience and examples that I have are useful to the discussion precisely because they are the reality behind the theory.

There are other people posting different opinions, including other research subjects of Dr. Jacobs, so all views are being expressed.

In that light, I think that an important issue that needs to be addressed in regard to Dr. Jacobs’ research that has been conducted using hypnosis, is the issue of his leading and suggestion. My contention is that the reason that his research subjects “remember” such uniform events, which he promotes as evidence that they are real memories, is actually because his leading and suggestion creates these uniform memories.

In my own hypnosis sessions, Dr. Jacobs engaged in extensive leading and suggestion. I do not know how Dr. Jacobs conducted hypnosis with all of his other research subjects. However, I have spoken to one other research subject of his who says that he also engaged in leading and suggestion with him. He now doubts many of his hypnotically retrieved “memories” because of this. Through him, I learned of another research subject of Dr. Jacobs who said that he had led her to believe that she was being abducted by aliens.

In my own case, Dr. Jacobs conducted ninety-one hypnotic regressions with me, and he told me that I am one of three people with whom he has conducted the most amount of hypnosis. Therefore, I think that the hypnosis that Dr. Jacobs conducted with me is likely to be representative if the hypnosis that he has conducted with his other research subjects as well.

To illustrate Dr. Jacobs’ use of leading and suggestions while conducting hypnosis with me, these are audio clips from my hypnosis session of him doing it:



Hypnosis Session 2

In the following audio clip from my second hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs implants a false memory in me of an “alien” performing a procedure on me. He goes on to tell me that he has many examples of this procedure. In view of the way that he implanted the memory in me, I think that this is why he has many examples of it.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-2-alien-throat-catheter.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-2-alien-throat-catheter.wma



Hypnosis Session 7

In the following audio clip from my seventh hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized to expect "aliens" to "chastise" me one of those days, and to tell me that I should not talk to him about my experiences.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-7-chastise-tell-david-jacobs.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-7-chastise-tell-david-jacobs.wma



Hypnosis Session 8

In the following audio clip from my eighth hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that if I were to remember a "hybrid" having a conversation with me, that the "hybrid" would be the one who was in control and that I would be in a "second class situation".

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-8-hybrid-control.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-8-hybrid-control.wma



The following excerpts from my hypnosis sessions are of Dr. Jacobs telling me about his other research subject’s experiences of threats and abuse from “aliens” and “hybrids”, while I am hypnotized, which amounted to direct suggestion.



Hypnosis Session 11

In the following audio clip from my eleventh hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that "hybrids" put intense pressure on Elizabeth (his research subject who is also his webmaster) not to talk to him.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-hybrid-pressure-elizabeth.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-hybrid-pressure-elizabeth.wma



Hypnosis Session 11

In the following audio clip from my eleventh hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that a former research subject cut off communication with him after being warned by "hybrids" not to see him.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-warning-research-subject.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-warning-research-subject.wma



Hypnosis Session 11

In the following audio clip from my eleventh hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that "aliens" put intense pressure of some of his former research subjects not to talk to him, to the point of threatening their children.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-threats-research-subjects.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-threats-research-subjects.wma



Hypnosis Session 11

In the following audio clip from my eleventh hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that "hybrids" put intense pressure on Elizabeth not to see him ever again, and that this included threats on himself as well.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-elizabeth-hybrid-threats.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-elizabeth-hybrid-threats.wma



Hypnosis Session 11

In the following audio clip from my eleventh hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that "hybrids" assaulted Elizabeth and threatened to kill him.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-elizabeth-assault-death-threats.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-elizabeth-assault-death-threats.wma



Hypnosis Session 11

In the following audio clip from my eleventh hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that he was concerned about Elizabeth's "hybrids'" threats to him, and that she was "bathed with guilt" over it.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-concerned-threats.wma

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-11-concerned-threats.mp3



Hypnosis Session 12

In the following audio clip from my twelfth hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that "hybrids" used threats to bend people to their will.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-12-hybrids-use-threats.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-12-hybrids-use-threats.wma



Hypnosis Session 12

In the following audio clip from my twelfth hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that "aliens" threatened a research subject by showing her an image of her son being pushed into an oncoming truck on the street.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-12-aliens-threaten-son.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/hypnosis-session-12-aliens-threaten-son.wma



Dr. Jacobs goes to lengths in his interviews to tell people that he is aware of the problems of leading, suggestion, and confabulation in hypnosis. He has also talked about a book that he is writing on the methodology of the hypnosis of “abductees”. Consequently, I am of the opinion that he cannot be unaware of the fact that he was engaging in extensive leading and suggestion with me while I was hypnotized, and that this was the cause of the hypnotic “memories” that I subsequently confabulated. In my opinion, it is likely that this is the case with his other research subjects as well.

I think that the difference between the false memories of sexual abuse that have been generated in patients using hypnosis, and the false memories of alien abduction that have been confabulated in “abductees”, is that in cases of sexual abuse, innocent people have been convicted and served prison terms. Consequently, as it became clear that people were forming false memories of sexual abuse under hypnosis, it was brought out into the open.

However, in the case of abduction research, there is not that impetus for having the false memories examined. Although people may have numerous false memories as a result of hypnosis, including traumatic memories that cause suffering for the person concerned, the issue has not been brought out into the open yet in the same way.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
Emma,

I apologize if you have already answered these questions elsewhere.

Given your distrust in Jacobs and his conclusions what do you now think the true nature of your "experiences" (whatever drove you to work with Jacobs) actually are?
Are your experiences on-going?
Are you currently under the care of a physician of some sort that is aware of your experiences?
If you are under the care of a physician were they aware of your work with Jacobs and what was their opinion of it?

---------- Post added at 08:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 AM ----------

I agree with every word you wrote above, you lucky dog!
I'm verklempt !

But seriously. Until we wrestle one of these "other" things down onto an operating table and take DNA and other samples of their flesh and analyze them we don't know what we are actually dealing with. Maybe that wouldn't even do it. Capturing one (or get a volunteer) and analyzing them at the molecular level would be a start but eventually we'll have to track them back to their point of origin. We will never understand these things until we uncover whatever society and infrastructure supports the manufacture and operation of their vehicles and technology. Until we can do that we don't know squat. We only have our semi-educated guesses based on hearsay and blurry photographs at this point. (wait a minute ... wait a minute ...doesn't that sound like what they are supposedly doing?)
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Hypnosis Session 12

In the following audio clip from my twelfth hypnosis session, Dr. Jacobs tells me directly while I am hypnotized that "aliens" threatened a research subject by showing her an image of her son being pushed into an oncoming truck on the street.
Yes, he does recount someone else's experience, but I hear nothing to indicate that you were hypnotized when this happened. He may have just been telling you what was experienced by other people while you were in an awake state, although I'd think it would have been far better for Jacobs to just ask questions rather than fill in background that could influence your perceptions and recollections.

There is no context or definite beginning or end, and that applies to some of the other audio clips I've heard. Also, considering the high background noise, speaking as someone who has done a lot of editing of audio content, it would be trivial, what with the long pauses between questions and answers, to move whole sentences around to convey an altered meaning.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but a full session, without interruption or editing, would be easier to evaluate even if it represented a substantial file download. Much of what I see on your site is presented as portions, excerpts, of phone conversations, even if they are fairly lengthy.

On the other hand, I think the positions are, as I said, clearly drawn. I hope that we can get on with more constructive pursuits, such as how to figure out what's really going on.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
I hope that we can get on with more constructive pursuits, such as how to figure out what's really going on.

It seems one the more important questions at the moment is whether hypnosis is a valid research tool or not. If it is not then we have to discard the "information" gathered using it. From what I can gather from my admittedly spotty reading on the subject it is not a valid research tool for the recall of "suppressed" memory. Can anyone really make the argument that it is a valid tool that produces reliable results? Shouldn't abduction researchers abandon it? IMHO we need to jettison the practice and place all the information gathered using it on the shelf and start over.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
It seems one the more important questions at the moment is whether hypnosis is a valid research tool or not. If it is not then we have to discard the "information" gathered using it. From what I can gather from my admittedly spotty reading on the subject it is not a valid research tool for the recall of "suppressed" memory. Can anyone really make the argument that it is a valid tool that produces reliable results? Shouldn't abduction researchers abandon it? IMHO we need to jettison the practice and place all the information gathered using it on the shelf and start over.
It would be a good idea to strictly focus on conscious memories, and leave the supposedly unconscious ones as the province of mental health professionals to determine if they are real, one's imagination or something in between. It appears that Hopkins and Jacobs may have gotten involved in their own sessions simply because enough therapists weren't available to do the heavy lifting, but we need to return to that.
 

Emma

Paranormal Novice
I've attacked no one here, unless you identify so strongly with Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs that you take my jibs at them personally. If so, I apologize for casting aspersions on your heroes. The only person on this forum who I would suggest "gives attitude" is Archie. Even the moderator, Paul Kimball, has called him on that with his straw man arguements a(e.g., asking me for my published research in a condescending manner...) and nose-in-the-air type responses to questions about his "heroes".

There is no call whatsoever for your personal insults against another poster here. That is what gets people banned here, so buddy, I would suggest you reconsider that strategy. Gene does not appreciate his forum becoming a bitch fight. My snide (?) remarks were always directed at the abduction researchers. If you find that so upsetting that you must attack me personally, then I guess that means you feel "one" with those guys. Man, a world with 6 billion people and you pick these clowns as your heroes? Oh My God.

Bless you. I obviously upset you greatly. I suggest you calm down. This is not meant to be a rude question, but how old are you? I am just sincerely interested.

---------- Post added at 01:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 AM ----------

UPDATE: After contemplating the situation, I agree that it is time for me to stop posting anything about alien abduction researchers. My point-of-view is well known. There is no reason for me to keep pile driving it into the ground. All I am obviously doing is upsetting people who still have some allegiance to these guys.

I do not want animosity on the forum, and I will do whatever possible to NOT be responsible for that. Nonetheless, we each have to take some responsibility for our own reactions. Much of what I write is done so in a matter of cynical jesting, not cold blooded death-words.

For the record, I was banned because I was called "batshit insane" by David Biedny for daring to defend Emma Woods, at a time when the moderator Schuyler was also calling HER batshit insane. I demanded evidence. I demanded to know what the secret information was that was hinted at. I made them angry. I honestly do not know why they had such an affiliation for Jacobs. I did not realize how biased people were about this issue. People besides me asked similar questions about the Emma Woods case. David lashed out at them like an angry child, banning several individuals who were simply asking questions. In one case, David said in effect that a NEW poster had no right to ask questions. I guess in David's mind, you had to be a long term poster before you had the right to ask questions!

Things (in my opinion) were out of control. Schuyler had reached a point as moderator where he was attacking people the moment they signed up, paranoidly claiming that they were just coming to this forum as "ringers" to defend Emma Woods. The forum truly was a train wreck in progress, and I said so! A moderator on a forum (which I've done for 10 years) should be objective, calm and courteous, not heavily biased, emotional and rude!

I responded to being called "batshit insane" for questioning the "holy fathers" of Hopkins and Jacobs by posting that I thought David needed mental help, perhaps anger management therapy. I said that no person's body was made to take that kind of emotional abuse day after day. Of course, this infuriated "the angry human" (who is one temper tantrum away from a heart attack at the rate he's going) even more so, and I was banned. After 1 month Gene allowed me to return.

However, again I do not want to cause rancor in the ranks of the "believers". I will never post anything about alien abduction again.

Now, if you are upset because I posted a few joking remarks about Richard Hoagland, then I cannot help you. If you are upset because I posted a few joking and disparaging remarks about Republicans, I cannot help you. If you are upset because I believe in universal health care, and do not think anything proposed by the current administration is "socialism", then I cannot help you. If you are upset because I mentioned the Catholic Church pedophil situation and was NOT sympathetic to the Church, I cannot help you. I'm not going to stop having all opinions just because it might cause someone out there to have a hissy fit and call me names.

However, I will stay away from using political or social analogies to get my point across,.

Bless everyone who reads this.

Signed, IndigoEyes From Los Angeles (Woodland Hills), Sydney, London, Paris, Barcelona and Frostbite Falls, Minnesota!
IndigoEyes, I am really sorry to hear of your decision to stop posting on the alien abduction issue. I think that your posts on the issue have been to the point, and really helpful to the debate. I for one never found your posts offensive to anyone. I thought that they were spirited, and made valid points. As someone who was personally attacked on this forum by a few people simply because I raised the issue of the serious psychological abuse that I was subjected to as Dr. Jacobs' research subject, I valued your posts which highlighted important aspects of the situation. I hope that you reconsider your decision, and continue to post on the subject. However, if you decide not to, I respect your decision. Thank you for your valuable posts. Thank you also for your support. It is much appreciated.

Emma
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
Just as a point of order I'd like to say it is unnecessary to quote entire posts and long passages which can wind up detracting from the intended response. Instead quote selected passages and use ellipses to indicate the more can be found in the original posting. This not only makes responses easier to read and comprehend but it saves bandwidth and space on disks somewhere. Peace out and what not.
 

ArchieBedford

Partly experienced
Re: Your Paracast Newsletter -- April 17, 2010 Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tom From Hong Kong Click here to enlarge Emma, I personally think you should continue to stick around and actively post on the Paracast Forum, but perhaps avoid discussing your situation with Dr. Jacobs (which hopefully other Forum members will respect). Your notes strike me as very level headed and thoughtful. In my view some of the most insightful posts come from people who claim to have actually had abduction experiences. While abductees don't always agree, they provide frontline feedback which the rest of us armchair researchers cannot offer. Tom


Tom, thank you for your post. I appreciate it. I have been giving some thought to as whether I should post on the forum or not, in light of the fact that I am personally involved in the issue of Dr. Jacobs’ research, and critical of it, as there is some support for his conduct here....

"Emma"

If I can attempt to paraphrase what Tom's post suggested, he was saying: we all know what you're putting out about about David Jacobs, no-one could be in any doubt about that by now (speaking for myself, it's past the point where it started to sound like a stuck record and now sounds worryingly single-track and obsessive). However, do you have any views on the phenomenon itself?

Your therapist originally contacted DJ on your behalf and petitioned him to talk to you: what led him to do this if you did not believe at that time that you were an abductee? Do you still believe yourself to be an abductee, as you obviously did before any contact with Dave Jacobs? If not, why not? Did he manage to convince you that in fact you're not an abductee?

The phenomenon has been reported consistently since the 1950s (Villas Boas case) and 1960s (Hill case, Andreasson, others) through the 1970s into thousands upon thousands of similar cases with similar narratives from all over the world, and it continues. Do you have any views on all this? If DJ had never been born, or never taken any interest in this phenomenon, or you had never heard of him or spoken to him, we would still have a phenomenon wouldn't we?

You and your therapist reported you had a lot of UFO experiences going on for years and years. What do you think about them? Many people might like to read what you think.

Please don't just endlessly churn out the same obsessive deluge about DJ and his alleged crimes and misdemeanours. People are starting to get bored with it. Do you have anything to contribute about what the the phenomenon might be, and what might be happening?

This might be interesting to know.

Thanks.
 
IndigoEyes, I am really sorry to hear of your decision to stop posting on the alien abduction issue. I think that your posts on the issue have been to the point, and really helpful to the debate. I for one never found your posts offensive to anyone. I thought that they were spirited, and made valid points. As someone who was personally attacked on this forum by a few people simply because I raised the issue of the serious psychological abuse that I was subjected to as Dr. Jacobs' research subject, I valued your posts which highlighted important aspects of the situation. I hope that you reconsider your decision, and continue to post on the subject. However, if you decide not to, I respect your decision. Thank you for your valuable posts. Thank you also for your support. It is much appreciated.

Emma
Emma, thank you. Yes, I've received a lot of private emails and private messages thanking me for my input here, although most of those people do not post themselves, but lurk about like angels above the fray. I seriously do not have anything further to say about alien abduction research by history professors and artists. I think this is a scam and dangerous to the vulnerable people involved. However, I realize that an entire paradigm/reality system has been constructed around this since at least the 1980's when Whitley Strieber first published COMMUNION and Budd published INTRUDERS. The stage was set for the growth of a new myth, a new urban legend, so to speak. While I believe that most if not all abductees HAVE HAD A PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE, I do not accept the literal interpretation on a linear level of thought which marks the Jacob's and Hopkins dogma. However, I can see why it is gigantically popular because it is easy to understand, rather fun and scary, and links up so effortlessly with the science fiction movies and TV over the last 50+ years. There is a gigantic "will to believe" and I've certainly encountered that here.

All I could really do now is just repeat myself. Why bother? When you disturb someone's belief sytsem, you in a sense attack that person's sense of self, since we unconsciously identify with our belief systems. When I do so, this feels pretty nasty to the recipients and they are understably angry (some others just react with condescension...).

I agree it is time to move on for both of us. I do think that you will NEVER convince anyone on the PARACAST forum of the authenticity of your claims. Changing a person's mind is extremely hard. You can compile lengthy posts including audio clips, only to have a response that claims you probably are lieing, i.e., were NOT hypnotized when you claimed to be under hypnosis, that you probably did edit the tapes to suit yourself, etc. You cannot win with these people because they already are biased towards the "men on a pedestal". Let me point out to people like Tom From Hong Kong that these men are public figures. That leaves them open to criticism that might seem quite cruel if directed at a regular average citizen. They are published authors and appear on all the fringe radio programs and podcasts. I noticed that you never complained about Archie's denunciations of Emma's mental health status. Why is that? Wasn't that nasty?

However, Archie is right. (Archie, you can savor this momentous moment when I agree with you). Offer your views on the topic of ufology itself. However, considering this crowd, I would keep your guard up. You definitely are not among friends.

Take care.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
I do think that you will NEVER convince anyone on the PARACAST forum of the authenticity of your claims.
I go by the evidence, my friend. The recordings I've heard are clearly out of context, and, Emma emits, edited. To what degree, you'll probably never know unless Emma submits the recordings for independent outside authentication. Jacobs claims that they were manipulated to make him look bad.

To me it's a she said/he said situation. But Jacobs can be rightly criticized for a number of reasons largely because he isn't a therapist and should have stayed away.

So how many mental health pros are can we depend upon to do abduction research? Doesn't seem like much of a list.
 
I go by the evidence, my friend. The recordings I've heard are clearly out of context, and, Emma emits, edited. To what degree, you'll probably never know unless Emma submits the recordings for independent outside authentication. Jacobs claims that they were manipulated to make him look bad.

To me it's a she said/he said situation. But Jacobs can be rightly criticized for a number of reasons largely because he isn't a therapist and should have stayed away.

So how many mental health pros are can we depend upon to do abduction research? Doesn't seem like much of a list.

Gene, with utmost respect, you seem to be going on the following:
1. The words of David Jacobs, which you seem to be giving incredible weight
2. Discounting the words of Emma and her tapes, and insisting that anything that shows Jacobs in a bad light MUST be editted or taken out of context. You have NO proof, but seem to consider this opinion "evidence".

I think you are very biased in that respect. This is OK. I am biased in a different direction. To each his own. I have encouraged Emma that if she has the compulsion to keep proving her case via the internet, she should just release all the tapes without edits, and let the chips fall where they may (in terms of confidentiality, e.g., Elizabeth seems to have stabbed Emma in the back so I would feel no guilt about revealing her true identity).
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Gene, with utmost respect, you seem to be going on the following:
1. The words of David Jacobs, which you seem to be giving incredible weight
2. Discounting the words of Emma and her tapes, and insisting that anything that shows Jacobs in a bad light MUST be editted or taken out of context. You have NO proof, but seem to consider this opinion "evidence".

I think you are very biased in that respect. This is OK. I am biased in a different direction. To each his own. I have encouraged Emma that if she has the compulsion to keep proving her case via the internet, she should just release all the tapes without edits, and let the chips fall where they may (in terms of confidentiality, e.g., Elizabeth seems to have stabbed Emma in the back so I would feel no guilt about revealing her true identity).
I go by the evidence. Most of the audio segments are snippets, and there's no way to know how much they were edited or in what context they were actually recorded. Emma admits content was removed from longer segments, though she claims they are personal details and similar information.

This isn't a question of bias. It's a question of facts. I find fault with both sides. Move on.
 
I go by the evidence. Most of the audio segments are snippets, and there's no way to know how much they were edited or in what context they were actually recorded. Emma admits content was removed from longer segments, though she claims they are personal details and similar information.

This isn't a question of bias. It's a question of facts. I find fault with both sides. Move on.
Emma, I would consider this firm advice for YOU. Stop wasting your time here unless you like being (in so many words) repeatedly called a lyer. I think you should cut your loses and leave before you/I are banned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Top