April 4th show - Hopkins, Randle & Jacobs

[ArchieBedford]

It's ridiculous - ghost hunters everywhere regularly use video and audio equipment - indeed, it's a must-have. UFO abduction researchers? They rely on hypnosis.

Paul, this is not really true.

Many abductees have set up video-cams in their houses, bedrooms and other places. The problem is they need to run 24-hours a day, or at least be turned on before sleep, or need motion sensors. DJ has told me in some detail about his persistent efforts to get video footage of abductions in progress. Somehow, they have all been thwarted. It's a complicated subject with a long history. Recently I was told about one abductee attempting to video night-time abductions. The next day the video showed her getting out of bed in an apparent daze at 02.20, walking over to the video, putting out her arm and turning it off. The next frame showed her sleeping in bed, more than 2 hours later - so it had somehow been turned back on, by someone.

There are other detailed accounts of attempted filming of abductions in Hopkins & Rainey's "Sight Unseen" - which I assume you have read.

Don't take this personally (because it's a general comment not directed at you but if the boot fits, well...), but it's all very well to snipe from the sidelines and complain that abduction researchers should do this and shouldn't do that, that this and that should be regulated or controlled (always by someone else) and, as you sit back in front of your computer with your feet up with a beer in hand, that you don't believe any of it and someone else must show you the evidence whilst you sit and judge. This subject does not officially exist: it's ridiculed, denied and officially suppressed. You know that, I know that. So what we have at the end of the day is unpaid amateurs, doing investigations with their own money and resources, and not being paid anything, from a sense of dedication and commitment to the subject. At least researchers like Budd Hopkins, John Mack, Dave Jacobs, John Carpenter, Raymond Fowler, Yvonne Smith and all the rest have f***ing DONE something for real, they're not just armchair critics, sniping and making no contribution to anything. They have come to the conclusions they have with extreme reluctance from an initial perspective of skepticism, but at least been honest enough to get out there and do the f***ing work, by themselves. In return their careers suffer and they are vilified by the lazy and ignorant. I could tell you about all the ways DJ tried to put me off working with him and looking into my experiences: it's all negative, and he's under no delusions. He really, really tried to put me off, several times over several weeks, and you have to be VERY persistant and VERY insistent to get him to work with you. EW's fraudulent and ridiculous claims about "falling into the hands of an abduction researcher" are complete, utter BS. She must have petitioned him repeatedly before he's even consider working with her. He never, EVER contacts suspected abductees. It's ALWAYS up to them EVERY single time.

You have to be brave and dedicated to get involved in this field at the sharp end, and stick with it. Challenge: consider becoming an abduction researcher, and offer to work out protocols of how filming might effectively be done without being thwarted by the abductors, which it seems is what happens. Get involved. Bring the rigor and professionalism you claim is absent in others, and let's please see the results. If you don't find anything unusual after a couple of years, well that might be valuable too. Let others judge the protocols and methodology you work out.

I'll offer to co-operate with you in full if you want to use me as a test subject to finally get meaningful video footage. However I only experience 2 or 3 abductions a year, and of course have no idea when they might be, and they're not always at home and have happened at least twice whilst driving a car, and once on a beach at night (this one was witnessed by 3 other people in 1976). It's always when you least expect and will least be missed - which is another problem when dealing with the filming issue. They are clever bastards. You'll have to think about that one too, and work out how to deal with it.

If you want to discuss getting involved in a project like this, contact me please.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Don't take this personally (because it's a general comment not directed at you but if the boot fits, well...), but it's all very well to snipe from the sidelines and complain that abduction researchers should do this and shouldn't do that, that this and that should be regulated or controlled (always by someone else) and, as you sit back in front of your computer with your feet up with a beer in hand, that you don't believe any of it and someone else must show you the evidence whilst you sit and judge. This subject does not officially exist: it's ridiculed, denied and officially suppressed. You know that, I know that. So what we have at the end of the day is unpaid amateurs, doing investigations with their own money and resources, and not being paid anything, from a sense of dedication and commitment to the subject. At least researchers like Budd Hopkins, John Mack, Dave Jacobs, John Carpenter, Raymond Fowler, Yvonne Smith and all the rest have f***ing DONE something for real, they're not just armchair critics, sniping and making no contribution to anything. They have come to the conclusions they have with extreme reluctance from an initial perspective of skepticism, but at least been honest enough to get out there and do the f***ing work, by themselves. In return their careers suffer and they are vilified by the lazy and ignorant. I could tell you about all the ways DJ tried to put me off working with him and looking into my experiences: it's all negative, and he's under no delusions. He really, really tried to put me off, several times over several weeks, and you have to be VERY persistant and VERY insistent to get him to work with you. EW's fraudulent and ridiculous claims about "falling into the hands of an abduction researcher" are complete, utter BS. She must have petitioned him repeatedly before he's even consider working with her. He never, EVER contacts suspected abductees. It's ALWAYS up to them EVERY single time.

You have to be brave and dedicated to get involved in this field at the sharp end, and stick with it. Challenge: consider becoming an abduction researcher, and offer to work out protocols of how filming might effectively be done without being thwarted by the abductors, which it seems is what happens. Get involved. Bring the rigor and professionalism you claim is absent in others, and let's please see the results. If you don't find anything unusual after a couple of years, well that might be valuable too. Let others judge the protocols and methodology you work out.

I'm sorry, but the old "paint them as armchair researchers" brush just doesn't play with me. I'll take a hundred "armchair researchers" and "pundits" any day over 1 single "field researcher" who manages to muck the whole thing up through poor methodology. This obsession that people have in "ufology" with the "field researcher" just because they're trying has to end - what is needed is good researchers.

And when people put their work out there, and publish, and lecture, and claim that they know the answers, well then they had better be prepared to accept whatever comes their way, for good or ill. I don't make a film and then, when a critic says it wasn't very good, as has happened from time to time (not often, fortunately), say, "well, what had he / she ever done but sit in his / her armchair and watch movies?"

And we also need to get away from the notion that you have to be brave to do research into the UFO subject. Dr. Jacobs still has his job at Temple. John Mack retained his (and survived an inquiry into his activities). Budd Hopkins continued his artistic career with no perceivable ill effects. Stan Friedman continued to do work in nuclear physics long after he got involved with UFOs. Kevin Randle continued to get promoted, and serve in the military. And so forth. It doesn't require any particular bravery to become involved in UFO research. What is required is competence... and that's what is sorely lacking (with some notable exceptions), particularly when it comes to abduction "research."

Finally, it's not my job to set up inexpensive cameras and try to obtain results - it's the job of those people who profess to be abduction researchers, and who claim to have the answers. Everytime we did a ghost investigation, we set up our cameras. I didn't ask someone else to do it for me. I was the guy in the field, so I did it (and my team). Everytime, and every case. The same thing could easily be done for alleged abductees, and should have been for years. But those brave, plucky "researchers" have simply not done it.

Paul

---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 AM ----------

Recently I was told about one abductee attempting to video night-time abductions. The next day the video showed her getting out of bed in an apparent daze at 02.20, walking over to the video, putting out her arm and turning it off. The next frame showed her sleeping in bed, more than 2 hours later - so it had somehow been turned back on, by someone.

I meant to add that something like this is worthless. The key word in here is "apparently" - without independent corroboration, how do we know she didn't just fake it.

This is what passes for evidence, or argument? Yikes.

 

[Kandinsky]

f***ing DONE something for real, they're not just armchair critics, sniping and making no contribution to anything. They have come to the conclusions they have with extreme reluctance from an initial perspective of skepticism, but at least been honest enough to get out there and do the f***ing work, by themselves. In return their careers suffer and they are vilified by the lazy and ignorant. I could tell you about all the ways DJ tried to put me off working with him and looking into my experiences: it's all negative, and he's under no delusions. He really, really tried to put me off, several times over several weeks, and you have to be VERY persistant and VERY insistent to get him to work with you. EW's fraudulent and ridiculous claims about "falling into the hands of an abduction researcher" are complete, utter BS. She must have petitioned him repeatedly before he's even consider working with her. He never, EVER contacts suspected abductees. It's ALWAYS up to them EVERY single time.

Steady on there Arch, this is a forum where people are allowed to share their thoughts on most anything. Getting mad at guys that don't share your perception of reality is pointless. A lot of people's distrust of the abductee phenomena is caused by the devotion of researchers and claimants on the subject. Here you are swearing at critics of abduction claims and using capital letters to shout at them...it kinda reinforces the questions of how devoted to a theory can you be? How rational?

DJ never contacting abductee claimants is an argument you use to imply he is an objective researcher. Well the flip-side of that argument is that he's guaranteed to have a confirmation bias hard-wired into his research. Kind of like going to a Beyonce concert and being surprised by how many people there love her music...duh.

The same goes for Hopkins in my opinion. Abduction researchers (they're believers don't forget) being contacted by abduction believers is inevitably going to skew any meaningful findings.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Steady on there Arch, this is a forum where people are allowed to share their thoughts on most anything. Getting mad at guys that don't share your perception of reality is pointless. A lot of people's distrust of the abductee phenomena is caused by the devotion of researchers and claimants on the subject. Here you are swearing at critics of abduction claims and using capital letters to shout at them...it kinda reinforces the questions of how devoted to a theory can you be? How rational? DJ never contacting abductee claimants is an argument you use to imply he is an objective researcher. Well the flip-side of that argument is that he's guaranteed to have a confirmation bias hard-wired into his research. Kind of like going to a Beyonce concert and being surprised by how many people there love her music...duh. The same goes for Hopkins in my opinion. Abduction researchers (they're believers don't forget) being contacted by abduction believers is inevitably going to skew any meaningful findings.

Point taken - I wasn't getting mad actually, just respect people who pro-actively go and do something and try in the process to be rigorous and genuinely do the best they can in the face of lack of resources, risk to reputation and public ridicule. Remember, this subject is not even officially recognised to exist and hundreds of military and airline pilots worldwide can testify, right back to the 1950s, what happens if they try to "officially" report their UFO encounters. It's not good news for them, expecially if they have good film of the encounter, so they generally keep their mouths shut.

The point seems to be often missed (more likely just forgotten) that Dave Jacobs, John Mack and many others all started out back in the 1980s somewhere along the bar between highly skeptical and outright hostile to the whole idea of "alien abductions". The fact that they for the most part had the intellectual honesty to modify and finally change their view of the phenomenon in the light of the evidence they started to uncover is the very opposite of "confirmation bias." It's the most outlandish and improbable concept imaginable and disbelief is going to be anyone's initial stance (it was certainly mine, even though the thing was staring me in the face), but the evidence is pretty compelling when seriously looked into.

BTW Budd Hopkins' reputation and potential income in the art world did suffer because of his interest in this subject. A lot. He's not the only one.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------

Finally, it's not my job to set up inexpensive cameras and try to obtain results - it's the job of those people who profess to be abduction researchers, and who claim to have the answers. Everytime we did a ghost investigation, we set up our cameras. I didn't ask someone else to do it for me. I was the guy in the field, so I did it (and my team).

It's because of your experience in this field that I suggested you get involved, Paul. There is no suggestion that it's your "job." If you're interested to know if there's anything in it, then think about investigating the subject for real. You might effectively debunk it and if so, well then you have a real result don't you?

No-one claims to have the answers, Paul. As John Mack said: "There is a phenomenon which I can't explain, and it deserves looking into". All we have is a ton of corroborating data, supported by a good deal of physical scarring (scoop marks and straight-line scars) and inexplicable things like the tree outside my window with the branches snapped off as if by pressure from above, Tom's story of the woman on the snowmobile (earlier in this thread), right back to the Hill case, Ray Fowler's MUFON group investigating the Allagash Four and thousands of other cases. The evidence just piles up, and to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist is either to be uninformed about it (in which case you're not really entitled to a view) or else intellectually dishonest (which is reprehensible).

 

[trainedobserver]

I really wish that Gene would have asked about whether Dr. Jacobs believes the hybrids are communicating with him through email, instant messaging and so forth.

 

[grannysmith]

Point taken - I wasn't getting mad actually, just respect people who pro-actively go and do something and try in the process to be rigorous and genuinely do the best they can in the face of lack of resources, risk to reputation and public ridicule.

The problem, of course, is that there is serious evidence out there to suggest that this does not stand as a description of the practice and circumstances of Dr Jacobs.

 

[ArchieBedford]

The problem, of course, is that there is serious evidence out there to suggest that this does not stand as a description of the practice and circumstances of Dr Jacobs.

What evidence? You mean "Emma Woods"?

 

[grannysmith]

What evidence? You mean "Emma Woods"?

Yes. I think her evidence is, at least prima facie, tantamount to 'a case to be answered' other than simply by way of character assassination and smear.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Yes. I think her evidence is, at least prima facie, tantamount to 'a case to be answered' other than simply by way of character assassination and smear.

She's been pursuing this vilification campaign 7 days a week, non-stop, for 3 years and if there's a "case to be answered" then she would have succeeded in getting somewhere by now. She has targeted the Temple University authorities, every single member of the academic staff at Temple individually, the US Department of Health, and various other organizations, all to zero result. The truth is, there is no "case to answer." Nothing. It's just a pile of BS, supported by doctored audio tapes, fraudulent claims and lies. The minimum of genuine investigative rigor of the "claims" by these authorities has revealed her claims to be bogus.

You are probably aware that a number of mental health professionals who have seen this deluge of defamation material say she is the most serious case of Borderline Personality Disorder they have ever come across. The problem is, very few psychiatrists will specialise in BPD, because they almost always get targeted by the vilifier in this way. DJ has (as you will see on his website) been advised by mental health professionals to ignore it, as BPD sufferers are energised by attention which elevates their fantasy self-righteous victim status.

Recently she targeted a large number of researchers and authors in the UFO field with this enormous mountain of manufactured junk, all sent by email. One comment to me by a recipient was "She's obviously a f***ing nut case, but just sane enough to be really dangerous." The comment was made to me personally, face to face, by someone who is in the Paracast Hall of Fame.

BPDs are persuasive blamers, who make it their mission in life to destroy someone by spreading lies about them. They can be very plausible, to someone who does not understand the illness. It's about attention seeking and elevation to victim status. Sometimes they go on for years, and never give up. Most people it seems are starting to see through it though. What she has been doing fits the remit of the criminal harassment statutes of the State of Pennsylvania, so it's a good job she doesn't live there or she'd be in jail by now.

 

[grannysmith]

You are probably aware that a number of mental health professionals who have seen this deluge of defamation material say she is the most serious case of Borderline Personality Disorder they have ever come across.

I was not aware of that : can you point me to these diagnoses.

 

[Keiko]

One thing I want to touch on, and maybe others have but I haven't read through everything here, is the parts about physical evidence from abductions, or even video footage. Was that Randle who asked that?

If you read enough case reports from over the years with people who have had these experiences, you will see that some people did try and take things, and then were prevented from doing so. Others were given objects to take with them that later vanished. These same stories go back to people's encounters with the Fae. You cannot remove things from the Otherworld and bring them back.

Same thing with photographs or videos. If "they" want you to see them, you will see them. If they want you to photogram them, then you will have the opportunity. But make no mistake here, they are in control of this. I can use a recent experience that I had when driving with a friend in his truck. We were on Rt. 46 West in Clifton NJ. I believe this was last August. The sun was setting in front of us, and the clouds were a pretty reddish orange. We both noticed something odd in front of the clouds, but still pretty far away. It was just sitting there in the sky motionless. It was the size of a dime at arms length. It was pretty big. It was an odd orange yellow color, and clearly stood out from the clouds behind it. It seemed to be self illuminated, though it was also being lit from what was left of the daylight. It was disk shaped, but had an odd fuzzy edge, like it was being seen through hot air or something.

We discussed it for a few moments and then I decided to get my camera, which was in a bag by my feet. Now the funny thing is I only wanted to use the telephoto lens to get a better look. For some reason the idea to take a photo of it did not cross my mind. When I had the camera in my hand I got a mental image of the battery compartment on the camera, and I saw it had no batteries in it. So I said to my friend something to the effect "dammit, I don't have batteries in the camera" and put it back in the bag. I did not actually look in the battery compartment.

When we got to our exit a couple of minutes later, and the object was no longer in view, I realized that not only did I have batteries in my camera, but I was using it a half hour earlier! My friend knew this too, and also had a camera with him. We had no explanation for why we thought I had no batteries. Interestingly this sighting led to my friend telling me of a regular sighting he had when he was younger that he seemed to think was Venus, even though it was way too large. I then realized he is VERY uncomfortable with the subject of UFOs, probably based on his own experiences which he is suppressing.

So this leads us to a very important fact. This object knew I was looking at it, and knew I had the intent to get my camera out, and it stopped me from doing so. How many cars were on the highway at that time? Probably hundreds at least. So how would it know one person was looking out of that sea of cars? By the same token you hear where people had an urge to go outside and look up and there it is...

So what exactly are we dealing with here? That's the question. Aliens? I doubt it. Something even stranger.

I was thinking about your experience yesterday. It’s really very fascinating. It is surely some kind of intelligence but I find it so difficult to get my head around it, and why let some ‘see’ it and others not?

The power of this UFO to control and manipulate the human brain is really disturbing. I wonder if the UFO or those inside have the technology to deflect observation by emitting a kind of frequency, a kind of advanced stealth? Instead of cloaking themselves from visibility and radar detection like an F117, these UFOs cloak themselves from our perception and in built into this technology is the ability to disturb the natural functioning of the brain if perceived. I was thinking maybe it was not so much as it ‘knew’ you were looking at it, as it has the ability to affect perception of itself en masse. The fact that you and you friend could see it at all may reflect some mental abilities in you. However, once perceived, your brain had no ‘choice’ but to create a reason why it could not photograph the object ie no batteries. (This brain pattern may be something similar to that which we can experience in dream states). Yet when away from the forcefield/frequency it resumed normal function and you realised there were two working cameras available.

Just an idea…

Anyway thanks for posting it.

Regards

 

[Paul Kimball]

because of your experience in this field that I suggested you get involved, Paul. There is no suggestion that it's your "job." If you're interested to know if there's anything in it, then think about investigating the subject for real. You might effectively debunk it and if so, well then you have a real result don't you?

But I already have a real result - the so-called researchers have failed to convince me (or very many other people) that there is anything of a paranormal nature to investigate. At the end of the day, it comes down to an allocation of resources, and time... and I choose to allocate mine to areas that interest me more, or that I think have more potential to yield results.

I have to repeat - it is up to the people asserting the validity of the alien abduction experience to make their case to me, and not for me, or anyone else to debunk it. The burden of proof is on them, and in my considered opinion, they have failed.

No-one claims to have the answers, Paul.

That is incredibly disingenous given who we're talking about. Hopkins and especially Jacobs absolutely claim to have the answers.

The evidence just piles up, and to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist is either to be uninformed about it (in which case you're not really entitled to a view) or else intellectually dishonest (which is reprehensible).

That's funny - I would use the term intellectually dishonest about the alien abduction cultists.

But then it's the same old refrain, isn't it? Anyone who criticizes "just doesn't understand the evidence" in some way.

Hogwash.

How about this - we've looked at the evidence, and found it, and the methodology used to gather it, to be sorely lacking.

 

[Kieran]

Don't be surprised that no (or maybe few, is more correct) attempts have been made to video tape abductions.

We see this all the time in all closets of the paranormal. For instance, psychics COULD prove once and for all they have powers with simple tests but for some reason they always seem to demur.

I am reminded of David Biedny's oft-discussed mothership sighting from the 1970's, an event that seemed to mean so much to him. And yet, when I asked him on the phone about obtaining the front page newspaper reports with photos (that he was sure existed) he seemed strangely uninterested.

Perhaps sometimes it is more about holding onto the belief than exploring it?

And let's remember that, according to Hopkins/Jacobs, the number of abductions taking place is so astoundingly large that one OUGHT to be scarcely able to look up into the night sky without seeing squadrons of saucers flitting about.

Lance

Lance it isn't about proven something to you. David was in my opinion telling the truth. He, David probably would say; who cares what you think, i know what i saw. I'm very worried when someone claims to be a skeptic, but doesn't act like one. Your obviously an intelligent guy i won't take that away from you.

But i would consider you to be a classic debunker than a skeptic. A skeptic, should have an open mind to another possibility, if the evidence so presents itself. A debunker doesn't believe anything no matter what you present in the form of evidence. You flow between been a skeptic and being a Debunker.

The prove is in what you have posted here. But Speaking for myself here.
I have seen UFO's that were real without a doubt and have seen and witnessed other paranormal events with friends and on my own.

I have no prove to any of my sightings. My last sighting, Was when i was flying from London to Shannon Ireland on a Ryanair flight less than a year ago. I posted it here a day later and i give the time of the flight and all the relevant details.

Now just because I'm faceless person to you, doesn't mean i pulling your leg or looking for attention. I get plenty of attention from people in my life without having the need to come on here and spew crap. From reading your posts about the UFO phenomenon. You believe there might not be lot here to study or believe in. I too can be skeptical, but i understand this very well.

Stories about the Phenomenon can make you think long and hard and ponder about the evidence presented. But how can you be sure there is a reality here without actually seeing a unknown craft for yourself. That is why i wonder about the doe-eyed believer, who never have seen a UFO, and is taken in by all the crazy stories.

There is many Videos on the Web and some of those videos show UFO'S but in reality they are just specks of light behind a dark background. There is plenty of people who haven't seen a UFO and are perfectly reasonable in how they discuss this subject,. Being a skeptic is ok,
But lance. The Condon Report and what you said was about it. Well what the Hell?

 

[Schuler]

I was listening to the episode on my way back from work, and I heard the most epiphanial, surprising an utterly SHOCKING Paracast moment EVER: so the scientist in the underground facility in Independence Day is DATA??? Man... it's true. All these years... I had no idea! I'm shocked. . . . . . . Shocked, man.

What a blooper. I ended up posting on the wrong thread. I should have said that on the thread about the 04/28 episode. Shame on me, especially because the discussion on THIS topic seems to be a very compelling one.

Forgive me, my friends.

 

[Paul Kimball]

She's been pursuing this vilification campaign 7 days a week, non-stop, for 3 years and if there's a "case to be answered" then she would have succeeded in getting somewhere by now. She has targeted the Temple University authorities, every single member of the academic staff at Temple individually, the US Department of Health, and various other organizations, all to zero result. The truth is, there is no "case to answer." Nothing. It's just a pile of BS, supported by doctored audio tapes, fraudulent claims and lies. The minimum of genuine investigative rigor of the "claims" by these authorities has revealed her claims to be bogus.

Well, then, I would expect that Jacobs sue her, and get some sort of restraining order against her. It's not like it hasn't been done before - Stan Friedman sued Jenny Randles and a Manchester newspaper years ago for a far less egregious "infraction" (it was settled out of court). The fact that Jacobs has not taken any legal action is a red flag.

You are probably aware that a number of mental health professionals who have seen this deluge of defamation material say she is the most serious case of Borderline Personality Disorder they have ever come across. The problem is, very few psychiatrists will specialise in BPD, because they almost always get targeted by the vilifier in this way. DJ has (as you will see on his website) been advised by mental health professionals to ignore it, as BPD sufferers are energised by attention which elevates their fantasy self-righteous victim status.

As another poster has said - names? Who are these mental health professionals? Have they examined "Woods" in person? Where are their reports? I suspect the answers to those last two questions are: 1. no, and 2. there are none.

What she has been doing fits the remit of the criminal harassment statutes of the State of Pennsylvania, so it's a good job she doesn't live there or she'd be in jail by now.

Ahh, but there are all sorts of other ways to skin the legal cat. Jacobs could do so if he chose to. I suspect he chooses not to, despite what he may say, because he would rather sweep this all under the rug than expose himself to the kind of scrutiny that either a civil or criminal trial would bring to both sides.

Consider the following fair warning - you are clearly here to defend Dr. Jacobs. That is fine. However, you will not be allowed to make further unsubstantiated claims as to the mental state of "Emma Woods" - any such claims from this point forward will be removed, and you will be banned from the forums. If people think that's harsh, too bad.

I think that "Woods" probably does have some psychological problems, perhaps serious ones, but I offer that only as a personal opinion, and in no way as a defence to her claims against Jacobs. Indeed, when I was at Legal Aid in law school, I represented a couple of mental health patients - I know all too well that just because a person may have mental health issues, that does not mean they don't have a claim. Indeed, it often makes their claim more compelling, because they are easier to abuse, as it seems certain that Jacobs has done in this case, in the absence of real evidence to the contrary.

If the evidence is doctored, prove it. Refute the claims made by "Woods" on their merits, and not by an attack on the individual.

More importantly, deal with the damning critiques offered against the general methodology and conclusions drawn by Jacobs et al - on their merits. You might start by visiting Paratopia and listening the series of shows they have run on both the "Woods" case in particular, and the use of hypnosis in general.

Paul

 

[Keiko]

"No-one claims to have the answers, Paul."

That is incredibly disingenous given who we're talking about. Hopkins and especially Jacobs absolutely claim to have the answers.

.

I don’t think either Hopkins or Jacobs think they have all the answers. They both vehemently argue that this is a physical phenomenon but to say they think they have all the answers is unfair. Both feel strongly that their research indicates certain patterns, for example, hybrids being created, or telepathy as being the default form of communication. However, I think it should be pointed out that Hopkins and Jacobs do not agree about everything regarding the abduction scenario. Also Hopkins has made a concerted attempt to get testimony from other people involved in or witnessing an event and any physical evidence that may support a case. That is his ‘MO’. Jacobs does not make any attempt to interview potentials witnesses for various reasons. (I don’t think John Mack made any attempt to find corroborating evidence for his clients either, he relied on anecdotal evidence alone and became convinced there was a real phenomena. Of course they differed on the interpretation of that phenomenon, as is well known, but it is odd that many of the accounts he received were very similar to Hopkins, Jacobs and others).

It is your prerogative to review what they present as evidence for their claims and reject it due to content, methodology or sources. But at no time either reading their books, listening to interviews or speaking to them have they ever claimed, hinted or insinuated that they have all the answers.

 

[Paul Kimball]

It is your prerogative to review what they present as evidence for their claims and reject it due to content, methodology or sources. But at no time either reading their books, listening to interviews or speaking to them have they ever claimed, hinted or insinuated that they have all the answers.

With respect, that's just not true. The answer that they present is that the "abduction phenomenon" is a physical reality, conducted by beings from other planets. Jacobs goes even further - watch some of the videos of him - in describing what he is certain are the motives for these events.

That is offering a definitive answer, by any definition. The rest is just arguing about the details.

PK

 

[grannysmith]

I enjoyed the elision from Paul's "Hopkins and especially Jacobs absolutely claim to have the answers" to Keiko's "I don’t think either Hopkins or Jacobs think they have all the answers".

 

[LF-Reality]

if there are ET's that have the technology to travel endless lightyears across space , why the hell would they have primitive technology such as probes etc..... this is what i see as the flaw with the abductee cases.... if you where a intergalactic civilisation surely you would have developed something abit more special to examine life forms with

 

[Kieran]

With respect, that's just not true. The answer that they present is that the "abduction phenomenon" is a physical reality, conducted by beings from other planets. Jacobs goes even further - watch some of the videos of him - in describing what he is certain are the motives for these events.

That is offering a definitive answer, by any definition. The rest is just arguing about the details.

PK

Agree with you here Paul. Haven't watched the videos of him speaking, but Jacobs book is entitled.(The Threat: Revealing the Secret Alien Agenda)

Words have meaning.
1)Threat 2) Revealing 3) secret 4) Alien agenda.
He is proclaiming Jacobs this phenomenon is a Threat( a view held by him) why else would Threat be there as the first word of his book. Revealing the secret Alien agenda is another sign that he has reached and formed an opinion to what abductions are all about. The words Revealing, Alien and agenda are pivotal here.
He is assuming a lot Jacobs, were did he get his information and evidence from. Well patients of his who told him stories, while in a relaxed state. Surely there must be other patients out there who have gone to Jacobs for help and might come on as guest of the show? We could learn lot more about Jacobs the person and his methods by interviewing more people that went to him for help.