• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Ask Dr. David Jacobs

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

If we did then most people would be agnostic or atheist. Religion and all forms there of to most degrees do enhance your morality, but then again so does most disney films. Here in northern Ireland it is more often to which tribe you identify with, as those who are the most ardent of their faith neither go to church or were baptised into it.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Gene, with all due respect, you should listen to those of us, like Chris Johnsen, who are loyal listeners... hell, I was about to tell you how great the show has been lately... I know I'm not alone in feeling incredibly depressed, at best, that you're giving DJ and his hybrid invasion theories a serious airing. There's a ton of material on the internet that can't be ignored. Did you ignore it? This isn't about people who worship EW, or D. Jacobs... this is about ethics and research and a bunch of stuff that can't be swept under the rug. Perhaps we're idiots, but we expect better from you.
 
You put him on your show as an expert. Enough f-in said. I can't believe you did it.

[Edit: the word "disgusted" comes to mind. Deal with that. Deal with people who might have paid for your p-cast plus who have "disgust" to deal with. Again, enough said.]
 
His reputation is not as checkered as you think. But I agree he's polarizing. We don't have a litmus test that we agree with all guests. Look at over nine years of our history.
 
I rest my case, Gene, and would suggest you look at a mere five years of history. You haven't answered anything about how horrible it feels to many of us. I could go into details, but why bother? You ban topics, which is your right, it's your web page... I stand by everything I stated above. I don't feel a single issue I brought up has been answered.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
His reputation is not as checkered as you think. But I agree he's polarizing. We don't have a litmus test that we agree with all guests. Look at over nine years of our history.
Click to expand...
Anyone who thinks that Jacobs' reputation has remain unsullied and intact after 2010 and the EW controversy has just simply not done their homework on the man. It's clear, Gene's got his blinders snugly attached to his head for this guy. Jacobs' questionable theories are NOT the issue. The Paracast archives are FILLED with crazy guests with questionable takes on various facets of ufology. If that's all he was about, then by all means, let him air them out on the show for you and Chris (and the forum) to dissect and discuss, that's what the show and forum is for. But as I've said repeatedly, that is not what is at issue here.

What ARE the issues are his unethical, unprofessional and dangerous methods with research subjects, as clearly outlined in the EW tapes. This history professor has absolutely no business delving into people's minds using hypnosis, or for providing therapy of any kind. Subsequently, he should not continue to be given legitimacy by any credible ufology outlets, including "The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio." A standard which, frankly, is more than a little tarnished after having Jacobs on the show. Having standards is easy, until you actually have to live up to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chris is totally right on this topic, which means, logically, he's gonna be banned. I really dislike this disdain for anything like the truth.
 
I realize the tapes are disturbing, but do you believe she hasn't withheld material that may present a more nuanced picture? I know this is mostly about the EW issue, but I have already explained that I have reason, explained in these forums, not to trust her. That doesn't mean Jacobs handled himself correctly in that matter. But I am concerned that people accept EW without question and don't seem to be listening to Jacobs' position as expressed on his site and elsewhere.
 
And you might want to read this post, from Sean Meers, who said he once believed EW, but when exposed to a full explanation and complete recordings of two of the most controversial EW/Jacobs sessions, changed his tune:

Dr. David M. Jacobs, Emma Woods and Me - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

I would hope that people who are favoring EW without question would at least make an effort to look at both sides of the issue before reaching final conclusions.
 
I'm intrigued. Meers doesn't believe EW but full on believe Cortile, who IMO has one of the most ridiculous abduction stories ever. So if Meers believes her, but not EW, I'd hate to see what EW's story is...
 
Both sides were under heavy scrutiny and while there are failings and bitterness on both sides it comes down to something far less nuanced: the old guard of Ufology felt the need to protect itself, namely Hopkins and Jacobs, because of questionable practices in relation to women they hypnotized when they have no clinical background in such matters. If these subjects went through high trauma then pursuing real therapy and not their kindly hand holding nor salacious suggestiveness should be tolerated. There's an abuse of power being critiqued in their relationship to these women. And when women point out abuses of such power they should be listened to, not silenced.

None of the supporters of these two men wanted to hear any of the criticisms of them even though everybody talks about how useless hypnosis is, in fact how dangerous it can be as a tool. Jacobs took that to an extreme for self-serving purposes and deserves no public forum except one where he is interrogated himself repeatedly over the actions we know he did commit.

If Ufology is to gain traction and respect then it needs to clean its house more thoroughly and set higher standards. Look at Ufology's flash points: Meier/Horn, Cortile/Meers, Romanek, Jacobs & those who forgive his public indiscretions. I'm not sure how much of a signal, or what kind of signal this is generating, but there's a heavy snow of static that is traveling on the line. So yes, in my mind, a show that is all about interrogating Jacobs over EW is the only show to do as it speaks to the heart of how problematic the abduction phenomenon is, especially following its two big defense initiatives for its two oldest proponents.

I don't believe a lot of what EW has to say bout her abduction experience but I would suggest that the chastity belt suggested by her hypnotist/therapist/sexual-adviser might have helped to twist matters further for her. There's a reckoning there that is needed.

If it's about brushing the past under the carpet then it's not forward movement at all. When Talbot was promoting Robbert the psychic manifester of cheap copied photos and other crop circle falsities, she was promptly taken to the cleaners for distorting reality. "Alien hybrids among us" is a dangerous reality to promote and if you can't see the kind of violent, paranoid outcomes that could arise from promoting such irresponsible theories then what kind of signal is trying to be generated here? Consistency is what wins the audience over. This is why there is reaction even before airing. This issue just has not been dealt with properly at all. Silencing it won't make it go away.
 
In terms of brushing things under the carpet, what about Jacobs' statements that EW did just that, and withheld segments of the session recordings that would put the controversial portions in the proper context? I would hope that Jacobs would release the full recordings so they can be judged fairly. Yes, it would be helpful to answer questions, although he has already done some of that on his site.

Hopkins and Jacobs accumulated a wealth of information about abductions that should be analyzed by others to put them in perspective. I wish that would be done.
 
As someone who had no interest in ufology or anything to do with it. I have learned quite a bit from the paracast and believe people who you would could consider as being crackpots should be allowed on the show. Then their theories can be put to scrutiny which I have heard Gene and Chris do so well. As I said I had no interest in ufology as I listened for a different reason but I have switched to taking more of an interest purely because of the paracast

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Gene Steinberg said:
In terms of brushing things under the carpet, what about Jacobs' statements that EW did just that, and withheld segments of the session recordings that would put the controversial portions in the proper context? I would hope that Jacobs would release the full recordings so they can be judged fairly. Yes, it would be helpful to answer questions, although he has already done some of that on his site.

Hopkins and Jacobs accumulated a wealth of information about abductions that should be analyzed by others to put them in perspective. I wish that would be done.
Click to expand...
Maybe she withheld moments that were too personal or too embarrassing for herself? That's relatively minor up against what was released. It does not take away at all from the much broader and central issue of ethics regarding Jacobs' approach. What many have a distaste for is the perception that someone who abused his power in an intimate, client/therapist - researcher relationship is getting not just a pass but support for his actions because he's not getting challenged for his actions.

What is worse is the ironic reversal of the situation, as if ufologists are being gang stalked as opposed to having to actually answer for their rather loose, and unethical procedures. The lobby efforts to exonerate these guys is its own ufological dilemma. Instead of actually investigating evidence and ethics the field gets reduced to he said/she said shenanigans. Now it's all about personality.

I agree that their data should be looked at more critically, but how do you work with evidence that is tainted by investigators who go into sessions with the firm belief that aliens are hybridizing with us, having sex with us, stealing our embryos etc.? Perhaps such biased materials need to be simply thrown out the door? Is it any more reliable than Meier or Van den Broeke?
 
I think Jacobs will explain that the conclusions followed the evidence, not the other way around, that he didn't go into abduction research to prove the presence of hybrids and alien sexual interactions.

Regardless, rather than concentrate on EW and its red herrings, Chris and I questioned Jacobs about his investigative process and what led him to his conclusions. When Hopkins and Jacobs got involved in abduction research, there were no ground rules. I doubt that there are today. They clearly had to make it up as they went along, and the process may be all wrong. But they also worked with hundreds and hundreds of abductees, most of whom are still around and quite possibly still available to be evaluated by others.

It may be that their testimony has been tainted by incompetent investigators. Or it may be that the investigators tried the best they could to record the experiences as accurately as possible.

The problem is that the EW controversy and the claims from Carol Rainey have tainted this issue, and it's best to set them aside and give the work of Hopkins and Jacobs a fair evaluation. Flawed I'm sure. But I hope there's enough there for others to pick up on their work, fix the problems, and help us figure out what is really going on.

So if you still believe Jacobs is all wet after hearing the show, fine. But at this point it's not what he could have done, or should have done, but whether his results have any merit at all. He does, by the way, provide an alternative view of the value of hypnosis, and it's not what you think.

Once you hear the episode, and the comments Chris and I make on After The Paracast, we'll create a new thread to discuss the issues. But no more demonizing, please. Let's be fair and let's figure out what is really going on with the people who report abduction experiences.
 
Back
Top