April 4th show - Hopkins, Randle & Jacobs

[Keiko]

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

Yes, they do present it as a physical reality but I would define that claim as a condition of the phenomena, not as claiming to have an answer as such. Much the same as I could say stigmata is physical in nature but that doesn’t mean I claim to know what it is (psychosomatic/connection to Jesus etc).

The claim that they come from other planets – well again I think the ETH is more of a convenient working hypothesis, ‘alien’ being ‘other’ as opposed to Venusians or Zeta Reticulans or anything definite.

Language can become problematic when the subject matter is so anomalous and we have no shared cultural context from which to extrapolate.

Yes Jacobs certainly believes he has uncovered some consistent behaviour patterns and ascribes motives to them. This is true. Fair point. I would feel that is best described as claiming to have some answers.

Anyway, an interesting discussion!

Regards

---------- Post added at 12:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 AM ----------

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.

It was his publisher that chose the title, I may be wrong but I think he had wanted to call it 'Gray Area'

Regards

 

[Kieran]

Keiko, Well i don't believe that. Have you anything to show that he wanted to call it the Gray area but the Publisher chose this particular title.
Jacobs has done many interviews in the past and he often said during the interview. These Aliens are a serious threat and for me would fit with the theme of his book.

 

[Keiko]

Keiko, Well i don't believe that. Have you anything to show that he wanted to call it the Gray area but the Publisher chose this particular title.
Jacobs has done many interviews in the past and he often said during the interview. These Aliens are a serious threat and for me would fit with the theme of his book.

He told me that personally. Please contact him yourself and ask him if you don't believe me.

 

[Kieran]

He told me that personally. Please contact him yourself and ask him if you don't believe me.

He told you Personally. Why are you friend of his?

 

[Keiko]

He told you Personally. Why are you friend of his?

Yes, I did some sessions with DJ some time ago. But I don't think I hypnotise very well, I didn't remember much at all.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Regarding Ms. Woods, the best forum to try her claims is either in a Pennsylvania State or administrative court or in front of a medical / psychiatric review board with jurisdiction, all of which are deliberative bodies better suited to assess the totality of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, including through the use of cross-examination. To be fair to Dr. Jacobs, it is Ms. Woods who has publicized this dispute in the media, leading to the disclosure of some but probably not all of the relevant facts. Most notably, missing from the public record are a complete understanding of Dr. Jacob's methodologies in this case, as well as the mental / psychiatric condition -- properly assessed -- of both Dr. Jacobs and Ms. Woods. As (admittedly) a non-practicing attorney not licensed in the State of Pennsylvania, trying this dispute in the public media is not the course of action I would recommend, both for Ms. Woods' protection as well as Dr. Jacobs'.

It sounds as if this dispute has been lingering for years (someone mentioned three years earlier in this thread). The honest questions I would have include: has this controversy already been vetted by State / local prosecutors and administrative agencies in Pennsylvania, has it already been submitted to the proper medical / psychiatic review boards who have declined to move forward with a formal recommendation, and have Pennsylvania licensed attorneys already taken a look at the merits of the case and taken a pass due to the remoteness of success of any potential claim? I recognize that it has been submitted to a federal health body, which frankly I have never heard of before. From what people write above, Temple University has decided not to take action against Dr. Jacobs, although you can ascribe various motivations to their decision.

Trying cases in the media generally lead to one conclusion: everyone loses, and the truth very well may get thrown under the bus. We also need to recognize that generally one party has more to lose than the other, so rarely is it an even draw, with both parties suffering even losses.

 

[Kieran]

Yes, I did some sessions with DJ some time ago. But I don't think I hypnotise very well, I didn't remember much at all.

That is interesting. I wasn't hinting that you were a liar. I just wanted to know how you knew that for sure. An email from him telling you this or a phone call from him telling you this. Is very impersonal compared to a face to face chat. Thanks for revealing you were a patient. I find it odd still he told you he wanted to call the book the Gray area. But i wasn't there so i accept that he told you this and i can't confirm if Jacobs was being truthful to you about this. But ii accept your word.

 

[Paul Kimball]

As (admittedly) a non-practicing attorney not licensed in the State of Pennsylvania, trying this dispute in the public media is not the course of action I would recommend, both for Ms. Woods' protection as well as Dr. Jacobs'.

As a non-practising lawyer in Nova Scotia, I concur... although I would add that wherever "Woods" lives would be an appropriate forum as well, and from the civil perspective may have less stringent libel laws (good for Jacobs).

Paul

 

[skeptoid humanoid]

David Jacobs really thinks that alien hybrids are among us!! This is insane! What in the hell is wrong with this guy?

 

[ArchieBedford]

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

Hi Paul - OK, understood. Your point is accepted, and I don't consider it harsh. Good rules, actually.

I got no investment in this, just repeating what people have said to me. Need their permission to quote their names on a public forum. Will ask them.

Meanwhile shall I delete the above post?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Hi Paul - OK, understood. Your point is accepted, and I don't consider it harsh. Good rules, actually.

I got no investment in this, just repeating what people have said to me. Need their permission to quote their names on a public forum. Will ask them.

Meanwhile shall I delete the above post?

Archie,

No, let the post stand so that people can have everything in context.

Paul

 

[ArchieBedford]

Regarding Ms. Woods, the best forum to try her claims is either in a Pennsylvania State or administrative court or in front of a medical / psychiatric review board with jurisdiction, all of which are deliberative bodies better suited to assess the totality of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, including through the use of cross-examination. To be fair to Dr. Jacobs, it is Ms. Woods who has publicized this dispute in the media, leading to the disclosure of some but probably not all of the relevant facts. Most notably, missing from the public record are a complete understanding of Dr. Jacob's methodologies in this case, as well as the mental / psychiatric condition -- properly assessed -- of both Dr. Jacobs and Ms. Woods. As (admittedly) a non-practicing attorney not licensed in the State of Pennsylvania, trying this dispute in the public media is not the course of action I would recommend, both for Ms. Woods' protection as well as Dr. Jacobs'. It sounds as if this dispute has been lingering for years (someone mentioned three years earlier in this thread). The honest questions I would have include: has this controversy already been vetted by State / local prosecutors and administrative agencies in Pennsylvania, has it already been submitted to the proper medical / psychiatic review boards who have declined to move forward with a formal recommendation, and have Pennsylvania licensed attorneys already taken a look at the merits of the case and taken a pass due to the remoteness of success of any potential claim? I recognize that it has been submitted to a federal health body, which frankly I have never heard of before. From what people write above, Temple University has decided not to take action against Dr. Jacobs, although you can ascribe various motivations to their decision. Trying cases in the media generally lead to one conclusion: everyone loses, and the truth very well may get thrown under the bus. We also need to recognize that generally one party has more to lose than the other, so rarely is it an even draw, with both parties suffering even losses.

Hi Tom

Excellent points, as intelligent, perceptive and fair-minded as I have come to expect from you during my short time here. I aspire to your consistent standard of impartiality...

There is a relevant question you can ask yourself about this DJ/EW issue. If you felt you had some kind of medical or psychiatric claim against someone (let's leave to one side for the moment that this person had only talked to you at all on your petitioning and insistance and had never considered charging you any money), how would you go about it?

Would you:

a) Contact some regulatory body/bodies through legal channels and bring a formal complaint, keeping it restrained and confidential so as to not ruin your chances of legal redress

b) Spend months manufacturing a 150+ page dossier of detailed materials defaming said person, and then mail it to hundreds of people who might know this individual in their place of work, in the research field in which they were known throughout the wider world, and post it all over the internet - so jeopardising and possibly ruining through prior disclosure any chance you might have of succeeding with a legal complaint?


It's clearly not about any "legal claim": it's a public defamation campaign, with character assassination as a goal. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it all, surely we can all see that it's motivated by emotion?

Again on the purely legal issue, I think the fact she lives in New Zealand and will not/refuses to travel to the USA makes it complicated, as there is a cross-jurisdiction element as regards criminal harassment or any possible medical liability.

 

[Paul Kimball]

b) Spend months manufacturing a 150+ page dossier of detailed materials defaming said person

The question of whether she is defaming Jacobs or not is a matter of opinion (indeed, a legal opinion), not a fact, as you state it. If what she says is true, it's not defamation.

It's clearly not about any "legal claim": it's a public defamation campaign, with character assassination as a goal. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it all, surely we can all see that it's motivated by emotion?

Which is irrelevant. If I had been abused and misled, as she claims, then I would probably be pretty emotional too. Neither her emotions, nor her motivation, is relevant - only the truth of what she is claiming is relevant.

Again on the purely legal issue, I think the fact she lives in New Zealand and will not/refuses to travel to the USA makes it complicated, as there is a cross-jurisdiction element as regards criminal harassment or any possible medical liability.

She could file a lawsuit against Jacobs in her home country if she wanted to, and he could do likewise in his. If she refused to attend, then he could obtain a default judgment against her and have it enforced in her jurisdiction.

Paul

 

[ArchieBedford]

She could file a lawsuit against Jacobs in her home country if she wanted to, and he could do likewise in his. If she refused to attend, then he could obtain a default judgment against her and have it enforced in her jurisdiction.

I wasn't aware of that. Interesting. I wonder why this has not been done - though have been told by DJ that all the legal advice he has sought on the matter for the past three years has told him the same thing: to sever contact and not respond in any way. He now states this information publicly on his ICAR site. Maybe he's been badly advised.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I wasn't aware of that. Interesting. I wonder why this has not been done - though have been told by DJ that all the legal advice he has sought on the matter for the past three years has told him the same thing: to sever contact and not respond in any way. He now states this information publicly on his ICAR site. Maybe he's been badly advised.

Well, he shouldn't be taking legal advice from me either, and I'm certainly not offering any.

All I know is that if I thought I was being libeled and it was damaging my professional reputation (and / or costing me money), I would sue the person doing it without hesitation, regardless of jurisdiction. Indeed, while the law in the US is, to my understanding, pretty tight when it comes to libel, it is less restrictive, i.e. more favourable to the plaintiff, in other jurisdictions.

But this isn't the real issue. Emma Woods isn't the real issue. The real issue is the methodology used and the conclusions drawn by Jacobs throughout his entire career. We need to avoid the trap of falling into an Emma Woods debate, as some others have done, as if it all centered on her. If the whole Woods thing never happened, my opinion of Jacobs wouldn't change one iota.

 

[Keiko]

Well, he shouldn't be taking legal advice from me either, and I'm certainly not offering any.

All I know is that if I thought I was being libeled and it was damaging my professional reputation (and / or costing me money), I would sue the person doing it without hesitation, regardless of jurisdiction. Indeed, while the law in the US is, to my understanding, pretty tight when it comes to libel, it is less restrictive, i.e. more favourable to the plaintiff, in other jurisdictions.

If Jacobs chose to go to court as you suggested possible – would he have to make pubic her real identity? I don’t imagine you could take any legal action using her pseudonym. Whatever you think about hypnosis as a tool for memory recovery making public a person’s name is seriously anathema to any researcher and don’t forget Jacobs would have signed an agreement not to reveal her identity. So there’s another moral/legal issue right there.

Regards

 

[Paul Kimball]

If Jacobs chose to go to court as you suggested possible – would he have to make pubic her real identity? I don’t imagine you could take any legal action using her pseudonym. Whatever you think about hypnosis as a tool for memory recovery making public a person’s name is seriously anathema to any researcher and don’t forget Jacobs would have signed an agreement not to reveal her identity. So there’s another moral/legal issue right there.

Regards

Yes, of course he would have to sue her by her real name. But she would have voided any right to confidentiality by now - you can't libel a person and hide behind a cloak of anonymity. As for it being anathema to Jacobs, if he's really been defamed, then he shouldn't have any qualms about going after her - but it makes for a convenient excuse not to, I suppose.

Anyway, let's try and move away from this one case, which none of us are really qualified to comment on, because we undoubtedly do not have all of the details, and let's try to move back to the general topic of abductions, and the validity of the methodology employed by Jacobs, Hopkins et al, and their conclusions.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

I suspect that the legal claims in both directions are far from slam dunks (whether under Pennsylvania or New Zealand law), that the relevant extradition treaties cover only major criminal felonies so appearance cannot be compelled, neither has material assets for seizure in one another's countries, and each would be somewhat embarrassed by what may come out of a public trial ("yes, your Honor, I study human abductions by aliens from Zeta Reticuli"; or "yes, your Honor, I had sexual congress with a large Grey").

Net result? A lot of drama on our very own Paracast Forum but no trial in any court of import to settle the issue in a deliberative manner.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I suspect that the legal claims in both directions are far from slam dunks (whether under Pennsylvania or New Zealand law), that the relevant extradition treaties cover only major criminal felonies so appearance cannot be compelled, neither has material assets for seizure in one another's countries, and each would be somewhat embarrassed by what may come out of a public trial ("yes, your Honor, I study human abductions by aliens from Zeta Reticuli"; or "yes, your Honor, I had sexual congress with a large Grey").

Net result? A lot of drama on our very own Paracast Forum but no trial in any court of import to settle the issue in a deliberative manner.

I suspect that you're right about neither side having a slam dunk, but you wouldn't need an extradition treaty for a civil matter, and I just don't see any criminal behaviour here.

As for being embarrassed, I think the shame train has left the station for both Jacobs and Woods a long time ago. Choo choo...

I suggest both parties contact Colonel Kal Korff, who is an expert at lawsuits... or at least threatening lawsuits.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

I suspect that you're right about neither side having a slam dunk, but you wouldn't need an extradition treaty for a civil matter, and I just don't see any criminal behaviour here.

As for being embarrassed, I think the shame train has left the station for both Jacobs and Woods a long time ago. Choo choo...

If I remember my legal procedure correctly, they may be able to sue in their home country under civil law without the other being present at trial, but if the other doesn't have any assets in the jurisdiction to attach then the whole trial is somewhat meaningless. Interesting case study involving civil procedure, international law and choice of law/conflicts of law, in addition to basic tort & defamation. It has been a while since I thought of this stuff . . .