April 4th show - Hopkins, Randle & Jacobs

[ArchieBedford]

You've attributed a quote to me that I didn't write. But hey, I took a look at your links about the symptoms for BPD and couldn't help but notice they tend to square with Jacobs behavior (however his persistent belief in hybrids IMing and Stalking him probably fits also into Paranoid Schizophrenia). But then, I'm not a mental health professional, unlike all-knowing you no doubt. After all it was you, in this thread, who confidently called MUFON investigators George Hansen, Joseph Stefula and Richard Butler - "fraudsters" because they exposed the Linda Napolitano/Cortile hoax on Jacobs colleague Budd Hopkins. Your agenda is too obvious, Archie! Click here to enlarge

You also attribute to me something I have never written. I have no idea if Hansen et al perpetrated a fraud and never claimed this - but pointed out that this is what most people in the field say, who have looked into it. I haven't even read "Nighteyes" and in the earlier reference to which you refer I asked if anyone here had, and could substantiate their claims.

This titillating internet circus perpetrated by EW will pass and diminish over time. I'm not a mental health professional (though I am a very successful healthcare professional of 26 years' experience) but even I recognise an obsessive mental disorder when I see it. BPDs play the victim, and are "persuasive blamers." Diana POW suffered from BPD, though a mild version compared to what we're apparently dealing with here.

DJ's claims about hybrids do look absolutely outrageous - from the outside. But then we don't know the reasons why he might have cause to give this some credence. Abductees in some numbers, from all points geographically, have claimed these things for many years, and even they realise it sounds highly improbable. One who claimed this, prior to any contact with DJ, was "Emma Woods" who no doubt still knows it (as she reported repeated interactions over many years) but chooses not to share it with you now for obvious reasons. These things are reported, again and again. You seem to be implying that a researcher should supress or ignore evidence if it doesn't fit into your tiny little mental box of what is or is not possible - beware of thinking "we all know the Earth is flat: how dare you suggest it's spherical? You must be a paranoid schizophrenic..." This is essentially the (late) Philip Klass attitude, without even the thoroughness of enquiry.

On this general subject, the IF seminar in NYC last Saturday focussed on the issue of hybrid integration. The meeting was packed out, with the biggest attendance in the IF's long history. You would no doubt believe that all these serious-minded people who came to discuss the evidence of this issue are deluded. Maybe. But do you know all the facts, or have you bothered to research it properly? Maybe there's something in it.

Best wishes.

 

[Nchant]

Clearly Archie, you have not done all of the research on this particular case.

And, it's not he said/she said. Let's examine the COMMONALITIES:

1. Both have said that Jacobs used methods to fake out the hybrids -- "tactics" -- because they could read minds and his life might have been in danger. [say what?]

2. Both have admitted to knowing/working with Elizabeth, a fellow abductee, and that there was communication between Emma and Elizabeth . [I directly point to Jacobs' own ICAR site that discusses Contamination.]

3. Both have spoken of working together for YEARS--her material is now off of his website. [Jacobs just now has discovered that she has BPD?]

Who cares? The millions of people who buy his books and listen to his lectures--this man who is held out to be a pillar of ufo research.
Who cares? The many research subjects who will let this person into their mind.
Who cares? The many abductees who are searching for answers and looking for honest material.
Who cares? The serious people vested in ufology -- for whatever reason -- who would like to see the topic studied properly, appropriately, and most of all, honestly and without harm.
Who cares? The researchers rooting out this garbage so that it does not taint the entire field.

You are right, Gene has a block on this one and Archie seems to have an agenda. It's like those network shows on Ufology or Roswell that boasts it is getting at the truth -- cutting out Friedman's evidence and exploiting that lady's sleep paralysis theory -- all in the name of fairness. Puhhhleezze.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Until this case goes before a proper, neutral tribunal, I doubt this debate will advance beyond our current point. Based upon my quick review of the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines, I sincerely doubt they will have jurisdiction to hear this case. I think the ball rests in Ms. Woods' court to retain counsel licensed in Pennsylvania to pursue civil damages in a State court against Dr. Jacobs. Frankly, the legal issues alone in this case will be an absolute hornets' nest (choice of law, venue, applicable international law, bases for the underlying cause of action, etc.) -- even before you get to the facts.

In the meantime, there is no point in all of us getting into fistacuffs on an internet chat forum dedicated to, of all things, UFOs and the paranormal!

 

[paraschtick]

Are you kidding? This story is the single most BIGGEST WASTE OF TIME AND SPACE IN MANY YEARS!
You know there is not much going on in the realms of UFOlogy when this she said/he said cat fight becomes the most popular topic on these forums. C'mon, you either believe one attention seeker or the other. If either party was serious about sorting this tangled mess out properly, they would be seeing each other in court not deluging us with copious amounts of post to try and convince people who have some or no interest in this, vested or otherwise, of who is right and who is wrong. The only person "Emma" has to convince is the judge!

Gene has every right to wash his hands of this mess. Let's move on and find something more interesting.

Wow again my jaw droppeth to the floor. Biggest waste of time in years? No. Far from it in my opinion. If one person can be saved from Dr Jacobs and his NON-LICENSED hypnotherapy ... or one person saved from having ideas of MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER put in their head under hypnosis (OVER THE PHONE) ... or being told they're mad for not thinking that instant messages are coming from ALIEN HYBRIDS ... then I think that this is a good use of mine and others time.

I would like to think that most of us on the forums are in agreement over such people as Greer, Romanek, Peckman, Knell, Horn, Meier etc etc etc ... I still have no idea why some people have a different idea about Jacobs and Hopkins. Why should we believe anyone without providing evidence of their claims. Both Jacobs and Hopkins as far as I know have not provided any evidence of their claims at all (I'd be glad to be proven otherwise on that one). They've written books and hypnotised people, and provided no substantial evidence for what they claim yet some people go along with them. Just because a doctor of History has said that something is true does not make it so.

Case in point. Recently it was discovered that THE expert on Dwight D. Eisenhower, Stephen Ambrose who had written a number of books on the wartime US president not only spent (only) several hours interviewing the ex-president for his biography rather than several hundred hours but its now looking increasingly likely that he made up most of the information in his books. He was also accused of plagiarism back in 2002 for quoting something from another book ... ahem ... but forgot to put in the quotation marks (!!) ie he stole someone elses words. This has sent seismic shockwaves through the historian community in the US.

Just because they have a doctorate in a particular field does not make them any less believable or more honest, and we should be calling out those who act in an abusing fashion in any field regardless of what that field is, and especially if people are being harmed in the process ... which I believe is the case in this matter.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think it's fair to say that I join with a number of my colleagues in having concerns about using hypnotic regression as a tool to gather information about abductions, and even more concern when that process is done by laymen.

That is nothing new. Kevin Randle wrote a book with similar sentiments years ago.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wow again my jaw droppeth to the floor. Biggest waste of time in years? No. Far from it in my opinion. If one person can be saved from Dr Jacobs and his NON-LICENSED hypnotherapy ... or one person saved from having ideas of MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER put in their head under hypnosis (OVER THE PHONE) ... or being told they're mad for not thinking that instant messages are coming from ALIEN HYBRIDS ... then I think that this is a good use of mine and others time.

Then "Emma" should do us all a favor and take Dr Jacobs to court and expose this whole sorry mess.
The big question of all would be is "Why did Emma's therapist advise her to see an unlicensed hypnotherapist or any one other than a professional"! If you, I or any one else was having trouble with their mental health why would you go see someone like that. It makes no sense at all.
Both "Emma" and the therapist have to take responsibility for their choices and actions on this one.
I'm not sticking up for Hopkins and Jacobs in any way at all. Although I agree with Gene in his assessment of Jacobs in this matter.
These issues with Bud Hopkins and David Jacobs have been around since the early nineties. Both of them seem to come in and out of favor with UFOlogy with great regularity. One minute they are being slammed for their work and methods, the next they are being lauded for it and then again (such as now), slammed once again!!! It seems no-one really learns.

 

[paraschtick]

Then "Emma" should do us all a favor and take Dr Jacobs to court and expose this whole sorry mess.
The big question of all would be is "Why did Emma's therapist advise her to see an unlicensed hypnotherapist or any one other than a professional"! If you, I or any one else was having trouble with their mental health why would you go see someone like that. It makes no sense at all.
Both "Emma" and the therapist have to take responsibility for their choices and actions on this one.
I'm not sticking up for Hopkins and Jacobs in any way at all. Although I agree with Gene in his assessment of Jacobs in this matter.
These issues with Bud Hopkins and David Jacobs have been around since the early nineties. Both of them seem to come in and out of favor with UFOlogy with great regularity. One minute they are being slammed for their work and methods, the next they are being lauded for it and then again (such as now), slammed once again!!! It seems no-one really learns.

I accept that it may have been a silly thing to do to be referred to Dr Jacobs. But Emma was apparently in an extremely vulnerable state at the time (and having been in one myself I can vouch for not being totally rational or logical about things at the moment), and I have a feeling that as Dr Jacobs was highly regarded in the ufo community the psychiatrist probably thought that he was entirely trustworthy. Sometimes humans do not do their due diligence. We don't always check all the facts about someone beforehand. So there may well be fault there. Although I believe that Emma can be forgiven for going ahead with the hypnotic regression since she was in such an apparent vulnerable state. I think any reasonable person in the same situation would do the same thing.

However since then I think that she has shown herself to be far from "insane" as some people have stated. I believe she has shown herself to be clear minded, intelligent, and as far as I can see totally consistent. So when I see something I know to be wrong in my mind, I have to call it as I see it.

If what you say about these matters being around for a long time is true (and I've got no evidence to doubt you), then isn't it time for people like Dr Jacobs and Hopkins to be finally taken to task?? I agree that a court of law might be the right and proper place to conduct things but if people can't speak out about things in internet forums lots more people may go to Dr Jacobs before it all comes out in court, and more damage will be caused. I think its better to try to prevent this if at all possible. As always just my opinion.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Paraschtick. I agree with you, somewhat, in your assessment of Jacobs and Hopkins although not entirely. If, as you say, they are causing great harm and trauma to their innocent and naive clients with their shoddy methods and ethics then yes they should taken to task. Yet there are others who claim that their work and methods are helpful especially in the abduction sector.I have no opinion either way on these matters.
As for "Emma". She would be better directed to spend her time in pursuing a legal case against Dr Jacobs if she really wants the truth to come out. As to her mental condition I think that is best left to professionals.

I agree that a court of law might be the right and proper place to conduct things but if people can't speak out about things in internet forums lots more people may go to Dr Jacobs before it all comes out in court, and more damage will be caused.

She certainly is quite entitled to post her opinions and evidence on this or any forums that she wishes to, no argument from me there. The problem I see is she is presenting evidence with very little corroboration. And Jacobs seems to have stopped talking about the matter making it a he said/she said situation. So for those of us who have no opinion either way, on who is right or wrong, the argument appears to be going nowhere. This needs to go to a higher functioning forum such as a court of law. At least then if Jacobs is complicit in any way his employer may be forced to take action against him.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I think it's fair to say that I join with a number of my colleagues in having concerns about using hypnotic regression as a tool to gather information about abductions, and even more concern when that process is done by laymen.

Yet you still make fun of "Emma" on your latest episode?

 

[ArchieBedford]

I still have no idea why some people have a different idea about Jacobs and Hopkins. Why should we believe anyone without providing evidence of their claims. Both Jacobs and Hopkins as far as I know have not provided any evidence of their claims at all (I'd be glad to be proven otherwise on that one). They've written books and hypnotised people, and provided no substantial evidence for what they claim yet some people go along with them.

You really mean this?

All the people I ever met who have bothered to review the evidence - i.e. have contacted Budd Hopkins (or the IF, or any other investigator as a starting point), reviewed the files on the literally thousands of cases (or even a small number of say 20 or 30), done some field investigation themselves, interviewed abductees repeatedly, reviewed the X-ray and medical evidence of implants, inspected the lab reports of soil samples where there is evidence of something having landed and burned/baked the ground, carefully examined and compared testimony, looked at the common bodily scars on abductees and read the dermatological reports - all the people, with no exception to my knowledge, who have bothered to get off their lardy butts and actually do some real investigation agree there is a great deal of evidence for this and that it adds up to something. Exactly what it adds up to then enters the field of hypothesis and speculation. But something is going on. It has persisted for 50 years, worldwide, is independent of what any investigator might think or believe, it continues and slowly evolves, and new cases come forward every single day.

If abductions were not clandestine and secretive, there wouldn't be any controversy about this phenomenon. Everyone would know it, see it. In a world of complete official denial and ridicule about the whole UFO phenomenon, the only way you're ever going to discover anything is to investigate, put in the work and put yourself on the line. Then you'll know.

Have you personally done any work on this? Or do you expect someone like Budd Hopkins to make an appointment with you, come round to your place while you sit with your feet up with a beer, and and make a personal presentation to you of all the evidence, or what?

This isn't personal aNorthernSoul, just pointing out an attitude of mind.

 

[brownie]

On this general subject, the IF seminar in NYC last Saturday focussed on the issue of hybrid integration. The meeting was packed out, with the biggest attendance in the IF's long history. You would no doubt believe that all these serious-minded people who came to discuss the evidence of this issue are deluded. Maybe. But do you know all the facts, or have you bothered to research it properly? Maybe there's something in it..

Imagine that! All of those "serious-minded people" who attended Budd's Intruders Foundation Seminar, where "hybrid integration" was discussed! And my jaded self was just 2 1/2 hours away by car. What was I thinking?

It reads like you overcame the volcanic ash to catch a plane across the Atlantic to attend. Do tell, Archie.....Did David share his experiences of implanting false ideas of MPD into Emma, under hypnosis, in order to throw the mind-reading sexed-up hybrids off his trail? No, I don't think so.

But, I assure you when Hopkins hosts Jacobs coming out of the hybrids-own-my-sorry-ass closet, I'll be attending.....and recording!

 

[ArchieBedford]

Imagine that! All of those "serious-minded people" who attended Budd's Intruders Foundation Seminar, where "hybrid integration" was discussed!

Sure - the Earth is flat, ain't it? I mean we all know that. Look out the window. it's obvious. Don't you dare tell me it's round.

---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------

It reads like you overcame the volcanic ash to catch a plane across the Atlantic to attend. Do tell, Archie.....Did David share his experiences of implanting false ideas of MPD into Emma, under hypnosis, in order to throw the mind-reading sexed-up hybrids off his trail? No, I don't think so.

I wasn't there, so I don't know. But I'm told by a couple of people who were there that it was never brought up by anyone in the audience - no surprise. No-one in the real world cares a toss about this ridiculous "Emma Woods" shit, nor are they ever likely to.

As has been said before, even the youngest person reading this forum will be long dead of old age before this ridiculous circus ever amounts to anything except tabloid tittle-tattle on a few internet fora. Not exactly the real world is it?

 

[Nchant]

Archie, are you a shill for Jacobs, Hopkins, or Elizabeth? Actually, are *you* Jacobs, Hopkins, or Elizabeth? Maybe a hybrid?

 

[brownie]

All the people I ever met who have bothered to review the evidence - i.e. have contacted Budd Hopkins (or the IF, or any other investigator as a starting point), reviewed the files on the literally thousands of cases (or even a small number of say 20 or 30), done some field investigation themselves, interviewed abductees repeatedly, reviewed the X-ray and medical evidence of implants, inspected the lab reports of soil samples where there is evidence of something having landed and burned/baked the ground, carefully examined and compared testimony, looked at the common bodily scars on abductees and read the dermatological reports - all the people, with no exception to my knowledge, who have bothered to get off their lardy butts and actually do some real investigation agree there is a great deal of evidence for this and that it adds up to something. Exactly what it adds up to then enters the field of hypothesis and speculation. But something is going on. It has persisted for 50 years, worldwide, is independent of what any investigator might think or believe, it continues and slowly evolves, and new cases come forward every single day. If abductions were not clandestine and secretive, there wouldn't be any controversy about this phenomenon.

These points - physical evidence of CEs in the form of "burned/baked ground", "soil samples", "dermatological reports".....I'd add to that list also conjunctivitis (sudden eye inflammation and infection) aren't applicable in the the Woods/Jacobs matter. Some of evidence you've brought up has been documented scientifically with lab analysis. The French 'COMETA' report did an excellent job regarding UFOs and trace evidence. The problem here however is that Jacobs has no evidence for his hypothesis of late stage, human-looking hybrids that he claims control his clients and are after him.

 

[paraschtick]

These points - physical evidence of CEs in the form of "burned/baked ground", "soil samples", "dermatological reports".....I'd add to that list also conjunctivitis (sudden eye inflammation and infection) aren't applicable in the the Woods/Jacobs matter. Some of evidence you've brought up has been documented scientifically with lab analysis. The French 'COMETA' report did an excellent job regarding UFOs and trace evidence. The problem here however is that Jacobs has no evidence for his hypothesis of late stage, human-looking hybrids that he claims control his clients and are after him.

As I've said before as far as I know, Dr Jacobs has no evidence at all for what he claims. All we are given are his accounts from hypnosis of abductions etc. For all we know he might have made everything up ... hmmmmm . Emma has given us much more evidence for what she has been through with Dr Jacobs than what Dr Jacobs has given to us regarding alien hybrids and their longterm hybridisation programme.

[just think about that clearly for a second people ... Dr Jacobs is telling us that some aliens are here breeding with us and creating crossbred human/alien "hybrids" ... and we're supposed to go along with this as the truth?? ... through "evidence" given to us from Dr Jacobs after hypnotising people??? Gee-whiz ...]

ps Nchant ... ouch

 

[ArchieBedford]

[just think about that clearly for a second people ... Dr Jacobs is telling us that some aliens are here breeding with us and creating crossbred human/alien "hybrids" ... and we're supposed to go along with this as the truth?? ... through "evidence" given to us from Dr Jacobs after hypnotising people??? Gee-whiz ...]

No, you're not "supposed to go along with" anything.

Repeated corroborative eyewitness testimony about a peculiar phenomenon from different people over a wide geographical area and over a long period of time is not conclusive evidence for anything. But it is evidence, of a weak kind but nevertheless valid as far as it goes. Precisely this level of evidence (eyewitness testimony) is acceptable in an American court of law and has certainly convicted thousands of people, even condemned people to death, and still does.

So far as I know David Jacobs has always made clear that this is speculative and the evidence is not category one (i.e. artifacts, signed official documents). Obviously, as a professional tenured historian he will be quite aware of the value and strength of different categories of evidence accepted by academia because he is employed and paid a no doubt not inconsiderable salary to teach students about precisely these fine points of historical evidential value every day. It's his job to understand it. The reason "Secret Life" and "The Threat" were granted academic credits by the University authorities is because, and only because, the methodology employed conforms to these rigorous requirements. If they didn't, they would have been refused.

Now, if a historian uncovers repeated corroborative testimony about an issue from widely varying sources, and this narrative does fit and correspond with what others have found, it's fundamentally dishonest to ignore, discount or reject said evidence just because it may not fit neatly into someone's tiny, weeny little mental box about what is or is not possible. Remember the world is flat, and powered heavier-than-air flight not possible, and space flight not possible: all arguments definitively proved at one time by ignorance and incredulity. So the honest and principled historian has to report it: cautiously, conservatively, with the usual "maybe, maybe not" caveats. But if he ignores or disregards what is reported, he may justifiably be considered a fraud.

Now we can see that this type of dishonesty is what you seem to desire and advocate. Well, that's your perogative. But remember, in science, ignorance and incredulity are always trumped by data, no matter if the data are incomplete or not category one.

You can accept, believe or reject whatever you like. But recognise that if your belief is grounded in ignorance and incredulity, you could well be wrong. Your choice. I have a hard time accepting this stuff as well, and it's definitely in my "gray basket" but at least I have to recognise that it fits with a lot of stuff I have been told by others and a couple of things experienced myself, so it's plausible, even if uncomfortable. I refuse to allow myself to be so ignorant as to reject something outright because it sounds implausible.

Gray basket, then. If there's any truth to it, maybe we'll know eventually for sure. So we must wait and see.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

You really mean this?

All the people I ever met who have bothered to review the evidence - i.e. have contacted Budd Hopkins (or the IF, or any other investigator as a starting point), reviewed the files on the literally thousands of cases (or even a small number of say 20 or 30), done some field investigation themselves, interviewed abductees repeatedly, reviewed the X-ray and medical evidence of implants, inspected the lab reports of soil samples where there is evidence of something having landed and burned/baked the ground, carefully examined and compared testimony, looked at the common bodily scars on abductees and read the dermatological reports - all the people, with no exception to my knowledge, who have bothered to get off their lardy butts and actually do some real investigation agree there is a great deal of evidence for this and that it adds up to something. Exactly what it adds up to then enters the field of hypothesis and speculation. But something is going on. It has persisted for 50 years, worldwide, is independent of what any investigator might think or believe, it continues and slowly evolves, and new cases come forward every single day.

If abductions were not clandestine and secretive, there wouldn't be any controversy about this phenomenon. Everyone would know it, see it. In a world of complete official denial and ridicule about the whole UFO phenomenon, the only way you're ever going to discover anything is to investigate, put in the work and put yourself on the line. Then you'll know.

Have you personally done any work on this? Or do you expect someone like Budd Hopkins to make an appointment with you, come round to your place while you sit with your feet up with a beer, and and make a personal presentation to you of all the evidence, or what?

This isn't personal aNorthernSoul, just pointing out an attitude of mind.

Nah, it's all good. I am speaking of the idea that actual evidence is being ignored in this certain instance and instead the words of people who have never really presented ANY evidence is being taken to disregard the evidence being presented by the person in question.

As for abduction research, I think it's a pretty complicated situation. BUT as I am not a psychologist, I lean towards the idea that many actually qualified people speak strongly as to the issues with hypnosis and these actually properly educated people feel that it shouldn't be the backbone of any investigation into someone's situation.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Archie, are you a shill for Jacobs, Hopkins, or Elizabeth? Actually, are *you* Jacobs, Hopkins, or Elizabeth? Maybe a hybrid?

If I were David Jacobs, I would have made public the real ID of "Emma Woods" plus the town where she lives in NZ, in 2007 when this defamation campaign started. Moreover, all 150+ hours of recorded testimony from her, including all the stuff about alleged hybrid interactions which she reported prior to and in the first phase of working with him, and before any hypnosis, unedited and un-spliced, would be in the public domain in its entirity. Then you'd get a shock wouldn't you?

Fortunately for her, Jacobs seems a lot more principled than I would be in the circumstances, and seems to scrupulously observe signed confidentiality agreements to the letter. Pity others are not so principled.

 

[Emma]

In regard to my own anomalous experiences, I did not see them in terms of "hybrids" until I made contact with Dr. Jacobs. I had some experiences that involved human looking people, and Dr. Jacobs told me that they were "hybrids". During the period that I was his research subject, I usually still referred to them as "human-looking people", rather than "hybrids".

I do not know what the cause of my anomalous experiences is. However, I doubt that Dr. Jacobs' theories about "hybrids" explain them.

I have published an account of my childhood experiences on my website at Emma Woods: My Anomalous Experiences - Childhood 1961-1970 This is the same material about my experiences that Dr. Jacobs published on his own website in 2006. There is nothing "shocking" about it. They were simply my experiences. Dr. Jacobs published my later adolescence and adult experiences on his website in 2006 as well. All of this material of mine was on his website for many months, and according to Elizabeth, who was his webmaster in addition to being his research subject, thousands of people accessed it.

Dr. Jacobs would never publish the recordings of my hypnosis sessions himself, because his extensive use of leading and suggestion is evident throughout them. In addition, they further corroborate what I have said about the events.

Once my action in regard to this issue is concluded, I will be making the recordings of all of my hypnosis sessions public myself. That way they can be assessed in their entirety by anyone who wishes to.

Dr. Jacobs has already disclosed my real name without my permission to at least one person that I know of. In my opinion, there is circumstantial evidence that he has disclosed my real name to a number of other people as well. He disclosed the identity of, and provided potentially identifying information about, some of his other research subjects to me. In my opinion, anyone who has been a research subject of Dr. Jacobs for an extended period of time knows that, although he does not formerly announce the names of his research subjects in public, he nevertheless does not maintain confidentially in the way that he is supposed to.

In my case, Dr. Jacobs threatened to reveal my identity if I talked in public about the "warning" that he received from a "hybrid" (a.k.a. Elizabeth) on instant messenger about working with me. That was a reprehensible thing for a researcher to do, and was one of the many abusive actions that he took towards me.

This is an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs threatening to reveal my identity:

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/david-jacobs-threat-reveal-my-identity.mp3

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/david-jacobs-threat-reveal-my-identity.wma

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

The lines around the Emma Woods' affair are now clearly drawn, and nothing anyone has to say will cause others to change their minds at this juncture. Either people believe in what Ms. Woods has published on the internet, or they are holding off for a more formal process, if one is to occur at all.

One thing clearly has resulted from all of this drama: two people are now banned from The Paracast Forum and a whole bunch are now pissed off at one another.

As Edward R. Murrow used to say at the end of his radio broadcasts, "Good night, and good luck."