October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

[Mulvaney]

We agree. But she also obviously agreed to it, even though she pretends otherwise on her own site.

I don't read that she agreed to the hypnotic suggestion before the session. There were a couple of brief references to MPD in the pre-session in reference to Beth, but nothing that would constitute a knowing and voluntary agreement to a hypnotic procedure.

But I think it will be interesting to look at the underwear and chastity belt sessions.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think it's pretty clear what was going on. The site also includes the actual consent agreement that EW signed for DJ. That means he was allowed to engage in this relaxation/hypnotic process. She agreed to it, and she had the power, at any time, to just stop calling, which would have brought it all to an end.

That she didn't is very troubling. DJ is no Svengali. Not even close.

You can certainly attack the approach. But what the MPD section of the site reveals is something EW has denied and withheld, and that goes to her credibility. What lies at the heart of the MPD matter? The new material explains that, and I'm surprised that's not being noticed.

That has nothing to do, again, with the approach. Was it the right thing to do? Was it a totally absurd move? That's separate from what actually happened.

I'm sorry that distinction isn't being made.

 

[kruggutter]

What bores me more than anything in regards to this whole Emma Woods matter is the neverending series of ad hominem attacks.
Emma Woods, and her group of supporters (consisting of The Clueless One, Jeff Ritzmann, Dr. Tyler Kokjohn, Alfred Lehmberg, Jack
Brewer, Regan Lee and Carol Rainey) all present themselves as whistleblowing voices of reason and sincere applicators of legitimate
critical thought. They claim to want to improve abduction research and protect those involved in it, yet most of their time is spent
launching ad hominem attacks against researchers and abductees and gleefully Gang stalking and smearing Dr. David M. Jacobs.
The above individuals have been collectively doing this non-stop since 2007. The latest example of such behaviour is presented below:

Working as an abduction researcher, I have received too many such attacks over the years to feel anything about such words anymore.
Truth be told, every time I receive such an attack it only helps me and my position. It gives me documented proof of ad hominem attacks
from my detractors which can be used against them whenever they attempt to portray themselves as objective and professional researchers.

The different perspectives and points of view on the Emma Woods/David Jacobs matter should be respected. There is certainly enough data
for people to justifiably hold varying points of view and varying feelings about those views. As Gene Steinberg has repeatedly recommended,
time and time again, both sides of the matter should be considered along with all of the available evidence. Lack of agreement on the matter
is no cause for war amongst posters. Lack of agreement doesn't require that people's characters be assassinated.

While I've certainly seen some careful, considered, varying points of view offered on this matter at this thread, I've also seen what appears to
be a genuine lack of interest in properly researching the matter. The impression I get is that for some people it's simply not as much fun to do
work and research than it is to bitch about someone.

I would say that the abduction research field, legitimate abduction research, is anemic at the moment. Many of the best in the field are retired,
close to retirement or dead. There's a need for new, passionate and honest researchers. There's more to be gained from more work being done on
these cases than there is to be gained by bitching about them.

Peace,

Sean

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I see from your brief quote, which I gather is from Vaeni, demonstrates that he will do whatever he can not to admit that the new material doesn't reflect very well on EW's credibility.

Again, I'm not saying it was the right approach. But that's not the issue.

 

[Mulvaney]

I think it's pretty clear what was going on. The site also includes the actual consent agreement that EW signed for DJ. That means he was allowed to engage in this relaxation/hypnotic process. She agreed to it, and she had the power, at any time, to just stop calling, which would have brought it all to an end.

That she didn't is very troubling. DJ is no Svengali. Not even close.

A general consent form is not the same as agreeing to having an MPD diagnosis implanted under hypnosis. She agreed to participate in a "scholarly research" project that involved "memory collection." I do not see anything in the material that approaches consent to what Jacobs did under hypnosis.

To say that it is troubling that she did not call it off or bring it to an end fails to recognize that she was in a vulnerable position and the power that hypnosis can hold. Hypnosis affects neurological brain activity, behavior, and experience. Not only can hypnosis implant false memories, it can make you hold onto inaccurate memories more stubbornly.

It is no more troubling that Emma did not call it off than it is with others who have been in similar positions. Are you really stating that the vulnerable party bears responsibility to stop it at any moment? The implications of that for any kind of relationship - whether it be therapeutic or personal - is staggering.

I also think it's clear what was going on - and do not see that the Jacobs material validates the methods, enhances his credibility, or justifies problems in regard to Emma.

But we seem to be so far apart in how we view the material that it is probably best left there.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It happened during a pre-hypnosis session, as indicated in the transcript. She hadn't been "put under" yet. They were just talking. That's clear from looking at the transcript and that's why it's called "Pre Hypnosis Session." I thought you'd realize that.

This is not about whether it validates his methods. It's about credibility and whether what he says about what he did, why and how was correct, and it appears to be. I have lots of problems with what was done, but it's not that he was dishonest about it.

Maybe you should read the transcript again, since you've missed a few obvious things.

 

[Mulvaney]

It happened during a pre-hypnosis session, as indicated in the transcript. She hadn't been "put under" yet. They were just talking. That's clear from looking at the transcript and that's why it's called "Pre Hypnosis Session." I thought you'd realize that.

This is not about whether it validates his methods. It's about credibility and whether what he says about what he did, why and how was correct, and it appears to be. I have lots of problems with what was done, but it's not that he was dishonest about it.

Maybe you should read the transcript again, since you've missed a few obvious things.

I have read the pre-session at least five times and just read it again. Please tell me where you think Jacobs tells Woods that he is going to use hypnosis to implant an MPD diagnosis. I see two references to MPD in the transcript - neither of which would have alerted me to what followed. If anything the transcripts validate what Emma has stated - and certainly what happened goes beyond the "memory collection" in the consent forms you cited.

More importantly, do you believe that she was in a position to say "no" at that point? At what point does the vulnerable party bear responsibility for not walking away from any type of relationship?

Jacobs credibility as a "researcher" is defined by the methods he uses, the judgments he makes, and contradictions in the statements he has made about the methods. The material he has released give him little support.

 

[mrs. eccentric]

Gene said: "It happened during a pre-hypnosis session, as indicated in the transcript. She hadn't been "put under" yet. They were just talking. That's clear from looking at the transcript and that's why it's called "Pre Hypnosis Session.""

I do not know whether to laugh or to cry. From the wikipedia entry on hypnosis: "Harvard hypnotherapist Deirdre Barrett writes that most modern research suggestions are designed to bring about immediate responses, whereas hypnotherapeutic suggestions are usually post-hypnotic ones that are intended to trigger responses affecting behavior for periods ranging from days to a lifetime in duration." From the section on 'suggestion'.

It may be helpful for people to read up on the history and characteristics of hypnosis if they are interested in this controversy. DJ could have used more information in that area, EW surely could have. One thing seems certain to me, some of the alleged abductees are capable of profound states of hypnotic induction and thus are extraordinarily vulnerable to manipulation - even unconsciously done - by people hypnotizing them. Whatever the 'credibility' of people involved (hello, the other party here thought he was instant messaging with hubrids and that convincing someone that she had MPD would get those same 'hubrids' off of his tail - yeup, completely credible!) this is a dangerous game to play.

Not to mention it is taking us no closer to any helpful information about these strange events.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I don't subscribe to the "DJ as Svengali" approach. EW's aggressive behavior online reveals someone who is not a shrinking violet. The intent of the MPD matter is defined in those references and her responses.

Other than to deflect her alleged attackers, why do you think this scheme ever came up? That's what he says in the trsnscript.

I agree it's absurd. But the transcript clearly validates the intent.

 

[Mulvaney]

Jacobs might well have been intending to help by implanting a diagnosis of MPD during hypnosis. I'll give him the benefit of assuming this. But since you stated that Emma agreed to the method Jacobs used - and could have stopped it -- where does he explain what he is going to do under hypnosis and where does Emma give her consent to it?

Intent only goes so far. A lot of people have suffered after hypnosis and guided imagination created traumatic false memories - which presumably had the good intent of uncovering evil acts. As the hypnotist, Jacobs had the responsibility for the techniques he used. Regardless of his intent, implanting suggestions of a psychological disorder is wrong.

The material I have read from Emma does not amount to aggressive behavior, but I did not follow what went down here. And that is not relevant now. How could she had not been in a vulnerable position at the time of the sessions?

Since I do not see that we will reach any agreement, I will let this thread run its course. But since you did state that I missed the obvious in the pre-session transcripts I would like to know how you interpret them apart from Jacobs having good intentions?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We have to get past this crap and look at what might have been happening to her. That appears enough to freak anyone out. And maybe what went down was, for better or worse, due to a desperate situation.

 

[Burnt State]

First of all there is a question as to whether or not there has been any true legitimate abduction research ever carried out. To date the only one I see acting responsibly towards clients is Chris Rutkowski. I know that there are some well published thesis papers but these are not easy to access by actual grad students doing sociology work but what we are talking about here is abduction research in ufology and that is a sorry and disturbing field. In the complaint to Temple University about Jacobs' work with his "clients" it was determined that what he was doing was not research, at least not by the standards of that university body. It was determined that what he was doing was capturing oral histories and not research at all. So let's stop calling him a researcher and find more appropriate names.

Anyone who takes time to listen to any of the content published regarding the Emma Woods sessions, or reads through the transcripts, knows that there is absolutely zero research taking place. What you have here is a vulnerable woman who is in a state of crisis due to sexual trauma. Jacobs, in his oral history recordings, appears to be using them as a personal sex phone line as the material is all about the sex: the oral sex as sperm collection, the frequent rapes and sexual assaults of all manners. Never once is there sympathy; frequently there is suggestiveness and implanting of ideas about how to think about these as he compares her case to others during the sessions. Oftentimes he is talking more than the subject and is defining events while waiting to hear more about the sex being described. These practices are shameful at best and offer no insight whatsoever into the phenomenon of alien abduction. What they do offer is insight into his methods and how unstable the subject is, and just how dangerous his methods were. I see no defense being presented in anything he published recently, just confirmation of how inappropriate and exploitational he is.

His preambles regarding the underwear are his excerpts of emails and they also make no sense whatsoever. On the show he demonstrated a fundamental incapacity to complete scientific research or scientific testing. As pointed out on ATP recently, lab work done in NZ, if that in fact the intention was to complete scientific analysis which does not feature in his work at all, would have been a much saner thing. But we know from other publications that he has been in the business of collecting women's used underwear so that one is still a burning issue. He has offered no clarity there at all.

That Emma Woods was free to break off at any time this relationship is also a red herring. Anyone who knows anything about working with vulnerable people in crisis and in trauma knows how easy it is for them to become targets and just how fragile they are. They are very needy and any ear that they can pour out their troubles to, or to try to make sense of their sexual trauma with, is a necessary ear. It's obvious from the transcripts that she was that vulnerable and that this was a lifeline. Obviously she chose the wrong one. She may be no shrinking violet now, after the fact, and after taking time out from the trauma phone sex sessions to recognize that nothing good was coming from this, at least no help was coming, just psychological labeling by someone who has zero clinical background. The MPD conversation should have been shunned by Jacobs all the times - no jokes and no suggestions about it. That's the last thing vulnerable people need to worry about. She is in the process of sorting out multiple rapes and assaults - he had no business being in the middle of that.

The only really important critical fact in this case is that you have someone who has no clinical background working with a sexually traumatized individual on a very intense and repeated level. That person was vulnerable to every single suggestion and narrative turning point that Jacobs supplied. That's why much of the abduction field is not about research but about personal ego & fantasy, pet theories and corruption. So a more serious attention piece needs to be given regarding not the fabulous things that might be behind Emma Woods story, as we have no access to that and Jacobs certainly has not provided that; however, what we do have, as seen in his new website, is that he feels that Emma Woods had all the power to leave at any time and that is both ignorant and stupid. For any man to not recognize why women won't or can't leave their abusers demonstrates their own ignorance around sexual assault. The relationship he inappropriately formed with Emma Woods was an abusive one, and it was one in which she had no power, only a critical desire to know why the things that happened to her kept happening and he was her enabler. He was also her confabulist, as for all that crap he spoke about confabulation on the Paracast it galls me that in the transcripts that is actually what he is doing - confabulating and defining experiences. He was in no position to help that nor did he. If anything he perpetuated her mental and emotional torments. Reading his website content actually made me more disturbed, and more critical of just how despicable his practices are and how precarious abduction research is.

"If you think you've been abducted," we've heard time and time again on the show, "the last person you want to talk with is an abduction researcher." This is an abused woman talking and you need to start from that space and from that mind set if you want to understand her actions during and post the Jacobs crap she went through. And please stop calling him a researcher - he is a collector of stories of sexual abuse. So what does that make him?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

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

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

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

 

[Ron Away]

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

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

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

Your right we will never have the answers.It is not however besides the point.What disturbed me and I assume many others was his attitude towards the sexual nature of this phenomenon.He seemed to relish it and his suggestions 're underwear and the child abuse left me as a retired police officer very concerned.I can only speak for myself but having him on the show was not a good or comfortable listen for me and I wouldn't want to hear him again.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

From the new site, it appears DJ requested the underwear on the basis of EW's claims that she was repeatedly sexually attacked by "them," and that her underwear was, as a result, soiled. So the request may not have been made out of prurient interest, but to investigate what might be physical evidence of alien DNA. If such a thing were to be discovered, it would be an absolute breakthrough in UFO research.

I can't speak to DJ's heart, but I can see a valid reason why the request was made, in response to what EW told him. On the other hand, the optics are bad. People will judge, and he would have done better to have her send it to a third party to analyze the garment. That would have freed DJ from the criticisms over the actions. If he wanted women's underwear to sniff, he didn't have to ask a woman living thousands of miles away to provide it, right?

Remember that, until his retirement, he was a university professor. There are certainly female students who might want to get it on with a "famous" professor and would be happy to satisfy such needs. Just sayin'

Understand that DJ appeared on The Paracast on three previous occasions, and we didn't get near the outcry. But we won't shy away from controversy. There will be other shows on abductions, but unless DJ has some compelling new evidence to offer, it's time to move on to evaluate other approaches to the phenomenon.

 

[Standanista]

I can only echo Burnt State's and Ron Away's posts above.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I can only echo Burnt State's and Ron Away's posts above.

And I trust you see my point as well.

The new DJ site does confirm his version of the story with regard to his interactions with EW. It doesn't validate his approach, but allows you to see a fleshed out version, with the material that EW has withheld because it doesn't entirely jibe with her version of the events.

Armed with that information, I wouldn't disagree that he was way out of his element here and he should have left well enough alone, or sent it on to an abduction researcher with mental health training to pursue further.

This argument will never be resolved. As I said, it's time to stop the demonizing, move on and actually investigate some abductions.

 

[Standanista]

And I trust you see my point as well.

I don't want to get into another tit for tat here, suffice to say that the fun stuff which we spout on UFOs and the like is triviality compared to real life. Psychological and sexual abuse is a massive issue and - to me - this bloke is a predator. Bring in a few non-paranormal-field medics/councillors/law officers and see what they have to say about the dynamics in play here - that would be a good show.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

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

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

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

 

[Standanista]

Gene, if you read my past posts, I've steered entirely clear of getting involved with the Woods stuff. You've been raising it in counter to my posts but I'm really not trying to defend the woman's skewed interpretations; I have no doubt she's a full-on fruitcake. My entire beef with the fella Jacobs is that he's dodgy and exploitative - just step outside the paranormal field and have a look at what the guy is up to. I have no issue with consenting adults swapping underwear... come to think of it, what time does Primark and the post office shut? Enough.