Hopkins Ex-wife Dumps

[Gene Steinberg]

Carol Rainey has written an important article IMO. She has knowledge of Hopkins' that exposes how utterly incompetent and damaging it is. We need to know this is we are to progress and develop better methodology. If we continue to see Hopkins as a capable researcher and rely on his information we carry on the same path to nowhere. Thank goodness she made this public. Perhaps ufology can break a long pattern and start to learn from these colossal mistakes and abuses of subejcts' welfare by Hopkins and Jacobs.

You are dealing with someone's ex-wife dumping on her philandering husband. This isn't to say that Hopkins' work shouldn't be carefully scrutinized, but this is the wrong person to give a fair and balanced viewpoint of the situation. I'm surprised this isn't obvious to you.

 

[James1]

She's giving factual information about his research. If she was talking about their personal marriage unrelated to ufology that would be different. But she isn't. The fact is it's the people close to these researchers who know the truth about their work. She has put the information out there for us, and we can learn from it. Good on her for having the backbone to do it. People are being hurt by this research.

 

[NTS]

She doesn't make any statements at all about his personal conduct other than as it concerns his research. As a screed by an angry ex-wife it would actually be restrained. It's a lot more fair and balanced than a number of other ex-wife-tells-all writings I've seen over the years.

edit: cross-posted with James1

 

[Gene Steinberg]

She doesn't make any statements at all about his personal conduct other than as it concerns his research. As a screed by an angry ex-wife it would actually be restrained. It's a lot more fair and balanced than a number of other ex-wife-tells-all writings I've seen over the years.

edit: cross-posted with James1

If and when Hopkins responds to her statements, it would give us all a chance to judge. You're getting one side of what went on behind the scenes, and the ex-spouse factor has raise alarm bells.

This doesn't mean she isn't absolutely correct. But it raises serious questions that need to be dealt with. Fair and balanced is very difficult under such circumstances.

 

[mike]

A number of my associates are family law court barristers, This is frankly typical of these sorts of situations.
Had she come out and said while the marriage was intact "my intellectual integrity compells me to tell you......." that would be one thing, but the fact that the tales are told when the marriage goes kaput, is the sort of thing we see in family law, and its well known that it must be viewed in that light.
Hell hath no fury, like a woman wronged, and one must understand that these revelations are not coming from a place of honesty, but rather anger.


On this point

From Vallee's Messengers of Deception, 1979.
"...demonstrates that the “abduction” experience is a constant that hypnosis can trigger in almost everybody. This demonstration that contactee experiences can be induced comes from a professor of English at California State University in Long Beach, Al Lawson. … eight subjects finally selected were hypnotized by a clinical hypnotist, Dr. William C. McCall. ...The results of the experiments were shattering. …”All of the imaginary subjects described many details which are identical to ones found in the literature. These patterns range from the obvious (saucer shaped) to rare and even obscure though well-established details of high strangeness."

One possible answer may be everyone gets abducted........................ If what i suspect the greater reality is here, it would make sense that this were so

 

[jjflash]

Serious questions are indeed raised, and critical thinkers raised such questions a long time ago. The UFO community must demand accountability of its researchers. We must not be swayed by what we might prematurely prefer to believe rather than allowing the facts, or the lack thereof, to speak for themselves.

Individuals with a working knowledge of the professional research process have long pointed out that work cannot be defined as legitimate in which the primary tools of investigation include witness testimony and the use of regressive hypnosis as a memory retrieval tool. Furthermore, neither Hopkins nor Jacobs have ever produced any factual evidence (as defined by the professional research community) whatsoever that would verify the circurmstances that the two continue to falsely advertise as fact. Actually, the alleged witnesses often cannot even be produced.

It therefore does not matter what Hopkins' response might be to Rainey's article, and it never has mattered. What matters is whether or not people like him and Jacobs will ever produce any actual evidence as recognized in professional circles that supports their premature claims. To date they have not, and allowing ourselves to be manipulated into focusing on irrelevant issues, such as what Jacobs says about Woods or what Hopkins says about Rainey, only continues to obscure what should be the central issue of truth. Focusing on truth and holding people accountable for obscuring truth should be a goal that is valued and prioritized by all of us.

 

[Simone_m]

jjflash, I posted this question after my latest recounting of ufo experiences. I will doubly post it here as well.

PAUSE FOR A SUGGESTION:

Should there be a comprehensive (new) study (and----review)of Close Encounters before the books by Hopkins, Jacobs, and Strieber came out? Or would those be too tainted as well, by the Betty and Barney Hill story? I just know that I am not having "Cognitive Dissonance" like those poor Ones after When their Prophecy Failed.

 

[Decker]

Individuals with a working knowledge of the professional research process have long pointed out that work cannot be defined as legitimate in which the primary tools of investigation include witness testimony and the use of regressive hypnosis as a memory retrieval tool. Furthermore, neither Hopkins nor Jacobs have ever produced any factual evidence (as defined by the professional research community) whatsoever that would verify the circurmstances that the two continue to falsely advertise as fact. Actually, the alleged witnesses often cannot even be produced.

It therefore does not matter what Hopkins' response might be to Rainey's article, and it never has mattered. What matters is whether or not people like him and Jacobs will ever produce any actual evidence as recognized in professional circles that supports their premature claims.

Back in the early 1990's, when my wife Vicki and I were publishing UFO Magazine, we knew and were friends with Dr. Richard Neal. Dr. Neal was a practicing Gynecologist here in Los Angeles. Also, Dr. Neal had a deep fascination with the abduction phenomenon. Vicki and I often attended support group meetings and knew many of the people attending these events. It was around this time that the "missing fetus" thing really became big.

Dr. Neal knew all about the work that Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs was conducting and also knew that Vicki and I knew Hopkins and Jacobs very well. What Neal wanted to do was to be able to prove (via his medical specialty and thru science) whether the missing fetus phenomena was real or not. He requested we introduce him to Hopkins and Jacobs.

After the intro Neal told Hopkins and Jacobs that what he wanted to do was to interface with "abductees" that Hopkins and Jacobs were working with, that claimed having been pregnant and then the fetus disappeared. Neal wanted to speak and share information with the abductees doctors of record. The bottom line? (and I am not suggesting anything beyond what I am saying here ...) neither Hopkins nor Jacobs had any interest in working with Neal nor introducing him to any of these abductees.

Decker

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Rather than comment pro or con, let me just say that I understand that Hopkins has been quite ill in recent years. While I realize some are anxious to make a big deal, in a tabloid fashion alas, of the complaints from his ex-wife, in light this situation, we should respect Hopkins privacy and wish him a speedy recovery.

Feel free not to approve of the research methods employed by Hopkins and Jacobs, but let's keep the personalities out of it, or I'll close this thread!

 

[Ron Collins]

Back in the early 1990's, when my wife Vicki and I were publishing UFO Magazine, we knew and were friends with Dr. Richard Neal. Dr. Neal was a practicing Gynecologist here in Los Angeles. Also, Dr. Neal had a deep fascination with the abduction phenomenon. Vicki and I often attended support group meetings and knew many of the people attending these events. It was around this time that the "missing fetus" thing really became big.

Dr. Neal knew all about the work that Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs was conducting and also knew that Vicki and I knew Hopkins and Jacobs very well. What Neal wanted to do was to be able to prove (via his medical specialty and thru science) whether the missing fetus phenomena was real or not. He requested we introduce him to Hopkins and Jacobs.

After the intro Neal told Hopkins and Jacobs that what he wanted to do was to interface with "abductees" that Hopkins and Jacobs were working with, that claimed having been pregnant and then the fetus disappeared. Neal wanted to speak and share information with the abductees doctors of record. The bottom line? (and I am not suggesting anything beyond what I am saying here ...) neither Hopkins nor Jacobs had any interest in working with Neal nor introducing him to any of these abductees.

Decker

You don't need to suggest anything, that speaks VOLUMES! Hopkins seems to at least be a good intentioned guy from the interviews I have heard. However, hypnosis as a tool for recovering memory is dubious. I am continuously disappointed in the lack of collaborative research. I would expect that if researchers were really interested in finding answers they would jump at a chance to collaborate. Especially when mainstream sources come knocking. The fact that this was dropped on the floor is troubling. There really needs to be a better way of doing this research.

 

[Keiko]

Rather than comment pro or con, let me just say that I understand that Hopkins has been quite ill in recent years. While I realize some are anxious to make a big deal, in a tabloid fashion alas, of the complaints from his ex-wife, in light this situation, we should respect Hopkins privacy and wish him a speedy recovery.

Feel free not to approve of the research methods employed by Hopkins and Jacobs, but let's keep the personalities out of it, or I'll close this thread!

Tabloid style indeed Gene. I mentioned in this forum before that I worked with Dr Jacobs for a few sessions. I always found him to be an intelligent, considerate, kind man. He never introduces ideas pre-hypnosis. If you describe a memory/event during the session that he is familiar with, he will discuss his thoughts about this AFTER the session. That’s a fact, so Ms Rainey’s accusations are not credible in that regard IMHO. Implying that Dr Jacobs is a pervert – this would be laughable if it was not so outrageous and disgraceful. Of course the righteous howls for standards in the field obviously don’t apply to those making public allegations. Slander, pseudonyms, doctored evidence, uncorroborated testimony by obviously biased individuals with dubious motives - these things are not accepted in professional or academic circles last time I looked. Peer review and critiques are acceptable, absolutely but they have rules and standards attached too. As far as I know EW went both to Temple University and some national standards board and they both dismissed her complaints. These are the structures set up to deal with abuse of position, the very thing so many call for…but these same people conveniently choose to ignore when they pass judgement and the verdict doesn’t support their preconceived ideas.

Do I think there are problems with hypnosis? Yes I do. Do I think it offers some help in understanding this phenomenon? Yes it can (John Mack thought so too). Are there dangers? Yes. That’s just the way it is. There is no ideal world. People like Vaeni are just out to make a name for themselves. Since they have nothing to offer they know their best hope is to cause controversy and destroy other people. It’s not that unusual an MO. He is the guy who filmed himself ‘channelling’ Tai Chi moves in his underwear, or am I mistaking him for someone else?

I think a lot of questions need to be asked about Ms Rainey’s article, her motives, her facts and her history. Where exactly does Ms Rainey hope to take research of the phenomenon from here? I for one will be interested to see how many experiencers she works with and what data and evidence she publishes to back up her hypothesis (which is unclear at this point). I think you have been very even handed and decent in your handling of these sideshows Gene.

 

[Ron Collins]

Personally I think there are at least two classes of abduction.

1 - The abductee is out, sees a UFO and is abducted. Skagway, Walton, and the Hills are good examples.

2 - The silent invasion of your home while you are sleeping scenario.

While I am still unsure about both, I tend to give more credence to #1 as being a real phenomenon. #2 ,to me, seems to be more of a construct of the mind. I am not sure why I feel this way. Perhaps it is that scenario 1 has multiple witnesses and scenario 2 is a solitary event that pushes the boundary of what I am prepared to accept is possible. Floating someone through walls and windows, stopping time, and all the other super weird stuff associated with 2 just seem more fantasy than reality to me.

 

[James1]

Hell hath no fury, like a woman wronged, and one must understand that these revelations are not coming from a place of honesty, but rather anger.

Well that may be your mindset, but not all ex-wive's fit your sterotype, and Ms. Rainey certainly does not come across like that in her article. She has given us important information about Hopkin's research, and she has explained why she has done it. It is because people are being hurt by this research.

---------- Post added at 02:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 AM ----------

After the intro Neal told Hopkins and Jacobs that what he wanted to do was to interface with "abductees" that Hopkins and Jacobs were working with, that claimed having been pregnant and then the fetus disappeared. Neal wanted to speak and share information with the abductees doctors of record. The bottom line? (and I am not suggesting anything beyond what I am saying here ...) neither Hopkins nor Jacobs had any interest in working with Neal nor introducing him to any of these abductees.

That says everything, doesn't it? They both know their research is a house of cards, and neither will subject it to basic investigation.

---------- Post added at 02:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 AM ----------

Jacobs and Hopkins are irrelevant in this subject. They have been for years. Cataloginig sordid affairs is good daytime drama for those that care. Most, I suspect, won't care. I agree with Chris. Let's focus on the abductees that don't need hypnosis to recall that they had an abduction.

Hello!?

Hopkins and Jacobs are THE TOP ABDUCTION RESEARCHERS. Of course it is relevant.

 

[plumbbob12]

Gee, I don’t quite know how to broach this topic in a genteel way. One that does not insult those who have come before me. Let me make my point with another example. Albert Einstein was somewhat of a wild man in his private life, and had many affairs on his wife, ending in a bitter divorce. Of course his Nobel Prize still stands, and so too does his theories on modern physics. When an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a charter default of the person who developed the premise is made, we have a classic ad hominem, or “to the man” fallacy. While there are some instances where ones personal character is relevant to an issue, (such as when the ultra conservative television evangelist preach the premise of doing away with gay folks, and are then caught with there “little preacher” up the “glory hole” of a 16 year old boy). Otherwise, the connection between alien abduction and a bitter wife’s tabloid account is nothing more than an exercise in verbal masturbation, (no pun intended). pb

 

[James1]

I mentioned in this forum before that I worked with Dr Jacobs for a few sessions. ... He never introduces ideas pre-hypnosis. If you describe a memory/event during the session that he is familiar with, he will discuss his thoughts about this AFTER the session. That’s a fact, so Ms Rainey’s accusations are not credible in that regard IMHO.

Well, try reading Gary Haden's posts about Jacobs' hypnosis with Emma Woods. He links to countless audio clips of Jacobs leading her under hypnosis, and making suggestions before hypnotizing her:

Speculative Realms: The Multiple Personality Disorder of David Jacobs

Implying that Dr Jacobs is a pervert – this would be laughable if it was not so outrageous and disgraceful.

Have you heard the audio of Jacobs telling Woods under hypnosis she should wear a chastity belt and he could get one for her from a sado-masochistic sex shop? Come on.

As far as I know EW went both to Temple University and some national standards board and they both dismissed her complaints. These are the structures set up to deal with abuse of position, the very thing so many call for…but these same people conveniently choose to ignore when they pass judgement and the verdict doesn’t support their preconceived ideas.

You need to check your facts. Temple said Jacobs was not carrying out research so they could not investigate. I assume by the "some national standards board" you mean the Office for Human Research Protections. They said the same thing. Woods' charges were never dismissed. Jacobs managed to avoid investigation because his research is not viewed as research by mainstream organizations.

 

[Jonah]

Feel free not to approve of the research methods employed by Hopkins and Jacobs, but let's keep the personalities out of it, or I'll close this thread!

I think that's a good idea. Can we start by properly addressing the author of the article being discussed with the respect she deserves rather than referring to her objectively as "Hopkins Ex-Wife" or the "bitter wife" who "dumps" etc etc. It strikes me as rather misogynistic and it echoes much the same language used to describe Ms. Woods in earlier threads here. There is nothing either of these women has written that they haven't been able to back up or that has been reasonably refuted by those accused. I've not read any decent rebuttals to any of the cases Ms. Rainey uses as examples in the essay and I have no doubt that she can document (as she referenced in the article) everything she's put forth. She is also a co-author of "Sight Unseen" with Hopkins and deserves at least some respect from the community as she's earned it in her own right.

To continue to cast dispersions on her motives as the "bitter ex-wife" is unwarranted as it's been six years since she describes the separation between them. If you have evidence or references that somehow refutes the points she's made, then bring it.

It strikes me as odd there has been much howling and pining for a more science based methodology in both Ufology and Abduction research and when someone who has walked in both worlds writes the definitive essay on why this is most necessary, she is subtly accused and objectified by some who've howled the loudest for the "science" as being nothing more than a whiny bitch seeking revenge.

Fuck that shit.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Close the thread Gene as it become just trash throwing.

 

[Decker]

Close the thread Gene as it become just trash throwing.

Perhaps you should ask me since I opened the thread when I received the original note and links.

Decker

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Decker , closed the thread if it becomes just trash throwing

 

[Decker]

Decker , closed the thread it become just trash throwing

I do not believe that any deliberate trash throwing has occurred as of yet. It is apparent to me that (and I suspected it when I posted the original note) this would, beyond any doubt, stir the pot. Well, this is what The Paracast is for, to examine the claims and STIR THE POT.

Allow me to say that I know and have known Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs since I first became active in research going all the way back to 1987/1988. I have interviewed Budd and David and I have seen them work - up close and personal - going all the way back. Now, I would be less than honest if I didn't state that I have my own feelings about abduction research, their methodology and abductions in general. I am currently holding off on any conclusions. I fully intend to speak to Budd, although it is my understanding he is currently not doing well. I have been in contact with Ms. Rainey also. I intend to invite her on DMR to discuss this article she wrote. Now, allow me to say this ...

I think debate on this and any other topic is healthy and I encourage it. I will not tolerate any name calling or cheap shots at anyone by anyone. This is The Paracast. Lets keep it professional.

Decker