October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

[Gene Steinberg]

The Woods issue has already been dealt with as of several years ago. There's nothing new to report; we had hundreds or thousands of messages about it here, and emotions were high. I am expecting that Dr. Jacobs will provide a more detailed response, but until that arrives, it's a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mulvaney]

We are vigilant. We gave Jacobs a far tougher than he got anywhere else. He's been on lots and lots of shows, but only one show led him to feel he was being "badgered."

If I were thinking about going to a conference, Jacobs (and several other people) might be the dividing line for me, since I would not want to be paying for any honorarium given.

I don't think the same consideration applies here. We have someone who received a lifetime achievement award from MUFON Pennsylvania. Who has now been on Art Bell twice in recent days. And someone who believes that insect alien hybrids are a threat might at least make for some degree of entertainment, even if I find that his methods are dangerous.

Along the same vein, I would not pay to hear anyone involved in the Roswell Slides, and would have stayed away from the last MUFON conference for that reason if other matters had not precluded it. But if you ever had the chance to interview Maussan it could be very interesting.

I might have asked a few other questions, including about some of the things Emma Woods has posted in reviewing his book, but if Jacobs really thought he was being badgered, it's a good sign. So I'll probably take a deep breath and renew my subscription.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

One does not need to be a phlebotomist, nurse or doctor to be able to successfully draw blood from someone. I would not equate drawing blood with using hypnosis in terms of difficulty and scope etc but in my humble opinion, one does not need to be a qualified psychiatrist/psychotherapist to use hypnosis to obtain memories from someone. If someone does employ controls and methods to help weed out confabulation and perhaps more importantly, gains experience from practice and more practice, then it is perfectly feasible for people like Dr Jacobs to gain worthwhile results.

I rush to say that I have always been extremely wary of the whole abduction idea, though I remain undecided overall. It is the scale suggested that bothers me the most. But my point is that in our culture, unless you have an MD, you are often labelled a quack. There are countless people in countless professions who are self-taught or otherwise gained knowledge through a non-standard means. Being a shrink or medical doctor does not mean you would make a better abduction researcher, and maybe not a worse one either. Letters after a name can indicate much, but not everything and more importantly, a lack of letters after a name does not imply a lack of ability or lack of knowledge, especially if someone has actually done the work, over and over.

One concern I might have is if a psychotherapist etc from the 'mainstream' encountered an abduction story unfolding, they may just assume it complete fabrication, or confabulation simply because they do not even believe UFOs exist. I am not in any way against members of the psychiatric profession but considering how poorly the UFO topic seems to be viewed by mainstream science/academia, it does not bode well for members of such to start researching abductions because how could their prejudice not come into play?

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I gave in and have been reading Walking Among Us on my kindle.

He presents his case coherently and with academic precision. It is certainly well written. Unfortunately, the old standard applies: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hypnotic regression in my opinion does not constitute extraordinary evidence.

It is an interesting read, however. If only he'd call it science fiction, he'd win the Hugo award for sure.

 

[LatentCauses]

Just wondering: How many of you have actually read his book?

Never mind Dr Jacob's stuff - try Dr Karla Turner's books on abductions if you really want a good dose of the creeps. Hard to find now but the PDFs are floating around online.

 

[Burnt State]

in my humble opinion, one does not need to be a qualified psychiatrist/psychotherapist to use hypnosis to obtain memories from someone. If someone does employ controls and methods to help weed out confabulation and perhaps more importantly, gains experience from practice and more practice, then it is perfectly feasible for people like Dr Jacobs to gain worthwhile results.

There's certainly a question as to whether or not anything of possible use could be retrieved by the inexperienced and the untrained as seen in posts at the top of the thread from reputable and legitimate experts in the field that identify hypnosis as not a substantial or effective method to retrieve accurate memories.

One concern I might have is if a psychotherapist etc from the 'mainstream' encountered an abduction story unfolding, they may just assume it complete fabrication, or confabulation simply because they do not even believe UFOs exist. I am not in any way against members of the psychiatric profession but considering how poorly the UFO topic seems to be viewed by mainstream science/academia, it does not bode well for members of such to start researching abductions because how could their prejudice not come into play?

But we have heard from a much more sensible investigator into abductions, Chris Rutkowski, that there are unbiased psychiatrists and psychologists whom he works with on his cases and they have produced functional results for people. Keep in mind Jacobs is not here to help or cure people of anything. He just digs into their past sexual traumas to advance his wild theories. David Gotlieb is another clinician who gave over a decade to anomalous experiences, working with people in a professional manner and worked to establish safeguards and guidelines for working with people who believe they have had anomalous experiences.

A professional is non- judgmental and should be able to assist regardless of their belief systems. So, question: if you had a daughter who told you she's feeling like she's been experiencing sexual trauma at the hands of aliens, who would be your first choice to send her for some care and assistance - David Jacobs or a recommended local psychiatrist? In fact what help do you think Jacobs could offer her if any, based on what we know about him from interviews and his ideas in his books?

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

The aliens can control our minds. I feel like people have walked past this. They can make you do anything, wipe your memory, etc. why bother infiltrating? It's why I'm disinclined to accept his theories. Perhaps the reports of the abductees are accurate, but Jacobs' tangential theories are the parts I find outlandish.
I mean, totally possible, but why am I supposed to accept this.

 

[Vimana]

I gave in and have been reading Walking Among Us on my kindle.

He presents his case coherently and with academic precision. It is certainly well written. Unfortunately, the old standard applies: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hypnotic regression in my opinion does not constitute extraordinary evidence.

It is an interesting read, however. If only he'd call it science fiction, he'd win the Hugo award for sure.

Hi Chuckleberry- I'm glad that someone has started reading the book. One of the reasons I was so interested in this episode was that Purchase Question- I stood in the local bookstore and held "Walking Among Us" next to "The Divine Spark". (Graham Hancock edited this, lots of essays on psychedelics/creativity)

After listening to the Episode, I feel I made the correct choice (Divine Spark). But I do want to hear more about "Walking Among Us" because of Jacobs past work being of high quality.

I recently was disappointed by Tim Good's latest book so I value any information on whether to "buy or library" any given book. They ain't cheap so the more we can do to inform each other is valued.

Thanks!

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Well, well. Please forget everything I said that seemed semi respectful of David Jacobs. I am now at a point in his new book in which he reports that he conducted hypnosis sessions with someone (a woman named Betsy) over, guess what? INSTANT MESSAGING!

Yes, he claims to have hypnotized someone over an instant messaging service, and he uses the information derived from this activity as EVIDENCE to support his case!

Astonishing isn't the word. I'd have to make it an adverb: astonishingly asinine is closer.

Vimana: library. I want my 11 dollars back.

CBF

editorial correction: he doesn't claim to have hypnotized her over instant messaging. Instead, he says they've had so many hypnosis sessions together that Betsy can at will place herself into a state that allows her to remember whatever happened to her. Hah hah HAH! I think Dr. Jacobs, poor soul, has lost his marbles. If that is a personal attack, Gene, I apologize, but I'm reading his book, and there's no other explanation that makes as much sense. The poor man is nuts.

 

[Vimana]

I had a feeling this would would be the case Library it is! Thanks again friend!

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well, well. Please forget everything I said that seemed semi respectful of David Jacobs. I am now at a point in his new book in which he reports that he conducted hypnosis sessions with someone (a woman named Betsy) over, guess what? INSTANT MESSAGING!

Yes, he claims to have hypnotized someone over an instant messaging service, and he uses the information derived from this activity as EVIDENCE to support his case!

Astonishing isn't the word. I'd have to make it an adverb: astonishingly asinine is closer.

Vimana: library. I want my 11 dollars back.

CBF

He's done it over the phone as well. Remember, to him hypnosis is a relaxation technique. You aren't being put into a trance, but relaxing. I suppose that's the reason he feels he can do that.

My only encounters with hypnosis occurred when I was very young and I tried it out on some neighborhood friends. One subject appeared to go under, and we got him to give up smoking cigarettes for a few weeks until his friends continued to egg him on. That essentially undid my efforts.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Gene, I made one small correction to what you posted there. See last paragraph of the post you quoted.

 

[Vimana]

I would like to experience Hypnosis, because I'm someone who learns best by experience. I'm no stranger to altered states and I wonder wherein that realm hypnosis falls. I'm not sure where, or with who, such an experience could occur. But I'm interested in understanding that state of mind and what it means to experience it.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Yes, it's interesting, isn't it? I have experimented with it a little, hypnosis. I listened to CDs by a Dr. Brian Weiss that functioned like hypnosis for past life regression. It was a fascinating experience. I had also experimented with so-called astral projection and with trying to initiate lucid dream states. The experiences of hypnosis and astral projection seemed nearly identical to lucid dreaming. I called both "wake-induced lucid dreaming."

 

[LatentCauses]

This thread has been all over the place - Dr Jacob's credibility ( whether he even has the academic credentials that he says he has!), whether he mistakenly believes the things that he writes, the utility of hypnosis, whether authors are motivated to write inherently incredible things in order to obtain book sales - just a few examples of this rambling, and at times quite vitriolic, thread.

But I come back to my earlier point - what can any of it possibly matter when no one is allowed to see the primary data that Dr Jacobs uses to reach his conclusions? Where does any of it take us?

None of the broader issues specifically covered in this thread, or in abduction research generally, get any assistance from a life's work that shuts the audience out from the transcripts of the questions that he asks, and the answers that he gets in response from the most important person in the whole process - the witness. We are being asked to not only take Dr Jacobs word on what he is told, but to assume that there is an evidentiary premise for his radical conclusions. And that is not science, or anything resembling it. Imagine a prosecutor in criminal proceedings asking a judge to take his word for the fact that there is a witness who says that the accused is guilty!!

IMHO so many of the issues are simply sterile, and largely a waste of time, until we get to see the data.

 

[LatentCauses]

I would like to experience Hypnosis, because I'm someone who learns best by experience. I'm no stranger to altered states and I wonder wherein that realm hypnosis falls. I'm not sure where, or with who, such an experience could occur. But I'm interested in understanding that state of mind and what it means to experience it.

Try past-life hypnotic regression. Was a very interesting experience. Still sitting on the fence whether it has any truth value, or was simply a recounting by my subconscious of a mish mash of previous life experiences. Interesting none the less, and worth a go.

 

[Rizla]

Gene Steinberg wrote:
"I presume the used underwear (edited to correct) was requested for genetic testing in search of alien DNA. It may seem kinky, but how else would you do it?"

ARE YOU SERIOUS, GENE????

I've read through the responses, and haven't heard a word about this statement.
Can you tell me, clearly, what on earth you mean?
Are you actually saying, you can't understand why a (hypnotized) woman, given the order to do such
a thing ("no fuss, no muss") might be pissed off at such a request, when she is under hypnosis, over the
phone?

Are you serious? How else would you do it, indeed... maybe with qualified people in any field, but certainly not
within the field of the Paracast... You, Gene, have gone off the deep end.

Either you have no experience with why a woman would feel weird that a guy would ask for this (while she's under hypnosis),
or you just don't care, which is a very very very bad trait in my book. I can't believe you wrote that.

Chris, I like your work very much. Gene, this is a disgrace and I can't imagine why you wrote the above.
Nevertheless, the 'net will note it forever. As the 'Brits would say, "very badly played."
Good night. Best of luck to your show. Lady (!) Luck is something you're gonna dearly need. K.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Most of what you wrote has nothing to do with what I said. So it doesn't warrant a response. I wasn't discussing whether the request was appropriate. Only why.

 

[Rizla]

I will ask you in another way: Do you want to be taken seriously, Gene? I only quoted what you wrote!

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

This thread has been all over the place - Dr Jacob's credibility ( whether he even has the academic credentials that he says he has!), whether he mistakenly believes the things that he writes, the utility of hypnosis, whether authors are motivated to write inherently incredible things in order to obtain book sales - just a few examples of this rambling, and at times quite vitriolic, thread.

But I come back to my earlier point - what can any of it possibly matter when no one is allowed to see the primary data that Dr Jacobs uses to reach his conclusions? Where does any of it take us?

None of the broader issues specifically covered in this thread, or in abduction research generally, get any assistance from a life's work that shuts the audience out from the transcripts of the questions that he asks, and the answers that he gets in response from the most important person in the whole process - the witness. We are being asked to not only take Dr Jacobs word on what he is told, but to assume that there is an evidentiary premise for his radical conclusions. And that is not science, or anything resembling it. Imagine a prosecutor in criminal proceedings asking a judge to take his word for the fact that there is a witness who says that the accused is guilty!!

IMHO so many of the issues are simply sterile, and largely a waste of time, until we get to see the data.

YES! Thank you. Very well stated.

To add some additional thoughts, let's be clear on what the definition of hypnosis IS, not what Jacobs' wants to redefine it as.

The definition of Hypnosis, also referred to as hypnotherapy or hypnotic suggestion, is a trance-like state in which you have heightened focus and concentration. Hypnosis is usually done with the help of a therapist using verbal repetition and mental images. When you're under hypnosis, you usually feel calm and relaxed, and are more open to suggestions. ~ Mayo Clinic website

Jacobs' uses the term "hypnosis" when he refers to interviewing his subjects. He makes these claims on his website, in his lectures and in his books. He does not get to re-define the term as a way to avoid controversy and accountability.

Some important questions:

1) Do a researcher's methods matter in this type of hypnotic regression research? Yes or no?

2) Given the researcher's own description of how he conducts his interviews with hypnotized subjects during his recent Paracast appearance, as well as in his books, (leading questions, misleading questions, sole decider of what is "true" or not from a subject's recollection under hypnosis, hypnosis sessions via phone, hypnosis sessions via instant messenger) do they not highlight that his methods are highly suspect, not to mention significantly biased, thereby effectively distorting and ultimately tainting all of the material collected?

3) Given the evident biased and questionable manner in which this information was collected and interpreted, does that not then cast serious doubt on the researcher's conclusions using said research?

4) If you, a friend, or a loved one were experiencing emotional issues that you thought might be related to some high strange event like alien abduction, knowing what you [should] now know about Jacobs' methods, would he be your first and best choice to get that person help in place of a trained professional therapist?

5) Finally, and to echo LatentCauses' well-articulated point, would not the airing of unedited recordings of hypnotic regression sessions with some of his more prominent subjects be a way to introduce total transparency into this research and ultimately confirm or dispel any doubt as to what, specifically, his behavior and exact methods are during these sessions? These sessions have already been written about extensively in his books, with the subjects referred to by pseudonyms, so posting unedited recordings should not pose any significant additional privacy issues.