October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

[ChrisJohnsen]

Although I do not agree with Dr jacobs views, should we attack his contribution to the show? If we attack the Paracast and it's hosts for putting on those we do not agree, then by proxy we are asking for censorship. If we believe in censorship then so can it be true that should any government have information on things that may not be in the public domain, then they can say we are not ready for that information to be made available. I believe we should give even the most outlandish of so called researchers who make definitive conclusions a platform, so that their research can stand or fall on its merits.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Sure, why have standards? Looking forward to future Paracast episodes featuring follow up visits from Michael Horn, Paola Harris, Sean David Morton, Phil Imbrogno and Stan Romanek, to name just a few.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Although I do not agree with Dr jacobs views, should we attack his contribution to the show? If we attack the Paracast and it's hosts for putting on those we do not agree, then by proxy we are asking for censorship. If we believe in censorship then so can it be true that should any government have information on things that may not be in the public domain, then they can say we are not ready for that information to be made available. I believe we should give even the most outlandish of so called researchers who make definitive conclusions a platform, so that their research can stand or fall on its merits.

Please forgive this lengthy one but I think this is the last thing I have to say here. You've brought up some critical points regarding show history. There's a turning point here with this episode and so I gotta say this piece...

I agree with your sentiment that people working in the field should be evaluated based on their own merits and categorized accordingly. However, the show has also established a lot of precedents regarding who should not be named. Does the show then already practice censorship? The show practices separating the signal from the noise. The show avidly promotes the notion that some people deserve no mention so as to not validate them in any way and to effectively deny interest in these nameless ones (sounds Lovecraftian doesn't it?) so that they can not profit or develop an income from shoddy and irresponsible research.

Abduction researchers certainly walk fine lines around promoting ideas of value or harm. I can't think of any other areas of Ufology that is more contentious than this one because it is tied specifically to the issue of sexual trauma, and then it also has to be acknowledged that we are often talking about child sexual abuse as well, according to the narratives. In the discussion around this being a generational experience there is even more disturbance here at work. Some abduction researchers have claimed on the show to be victims of abduction themselves and then in turn claimed that their own children were also being abducted. Without much proof I would call that child abuse. Does that deserve promotion?

In the discussion around generational abduction, well, we also know that sexual abuse also travels generationally. So in my mind there is an enormous bit of responsibility that is being taken on when we validate and promote discussion around abduction research and sexual trauma. Do such researchers deserve promotion if they are delaying, twisting and/or not healing people who have suffered sexual trauma? At what point in time does paranormal speculation crossover into the reality of unique human experiences that need special attention? And who bears the responsibility of what is being promoted when what is at stake is the well being of people who have been harmed so deeply. Should their real story take precedence over a theory or should it be silenced in favor of a theory? As pointed out above by Latent Causes, the lack of transparency in the evidence demonstrates that the theory apparently takes precedence over the voices of the mostly women involved.

Now as a final consideration, just setting all the controversies regarding Budd Hopkins aside, there is no question about it but the most inflammatory piece of abduction research involves David Jacobs and Emma Woods. From the discussion so far it seems that this forum is unable to determine guilt or innocence, but there are facts that have been presented by one side and like Bill Cosby, there is "No comment" from the other side. So it's not really a dead issue at all; it is a burning issue in the history of abduction research and asks deep questions about how you go about responsibly reporting about this area of ufology, or if can you even legitimize it at all. More importantly what are the responsibilities involved in giving a voice to one side only of this controversy. Does Emma Woods or David Jacobs deserve to have their name spoken, or should his become one of the nameless ones, using the standards of the show that is? That question is what is challenging many to consider whether or not to continue their financial support of the show. And many feel much stronger than that. People want guidance and people expect moral judgment.

Finally, this is not something that should be left only at the doorstep of The Paracast, as many promote Jacobs all over the place without any investigation of their conscience at all. On ATP, for those who do not hear that show, there is in fact a clear refutation of the methods used by Jacobs, and Chris makes clear and sensible statements regarding why he would never wade into this territory of human trauma, and Gene also placed emphasis on the issue of sexual trauma with his first case. So should Jacobs deserve to have his name spoken on the show again? It is a turning point issue IMHO.

Sayonara.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

...and to effectively deny interest in these nameless ones (sounds Lovecraftian doesn't it?

That is so awesome.

 

[Rizla]

"Why don't you do something constructive with your limited time.
Besides insulting the show's host and taking the piss out of the forum."

Touché. You're absolutely right. I was angry and posting out of anger, I was furious, sorry about that. This is Gene's show and his board. I didn't mean to be a jerk, nor take the piss out of the hosts. I think Burnt State, as usual, said above everything far better than I could. There are issues here that are not going away, and the whole topic swirls with weird emotion. There's something about this topic that brought out the worst in me. I stand by the issues I raised, but the tone was all wrong.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

"Why don't you do something constructive with your limited time.
Besides insulting the show's host and taking the piss out of the forum."

Touché. You're absolutely right. I was angry and posting out of anger, I was furious, sorry about that. This is Gene's show and his board. I didn't mean to be a jerk, nor take the piss out of the hosts. I think Burnt State, as usual, said above everything far better than I could. There are issues here that are not going away, and the whole topic swirls with weird emotion. There's something about this topic that brought out the worst in me. I stand by the issues I raised, but the tone was all wrong.

You are freaking awesome
That is so the perfect way.
That made my night, I hope your example is noticed. I like to prod people into looking for their better way, but I'm very sassy. I'm so psyched when people get what I'm pushing.

 

[dyingsun]

The 'jittering' in Doctor/Prof. , (what is he ?) Jacobs voice..well, no proof, no case. Waiting for our next extinction event on Hallow's Eve..

 

[Rizla]

"I like to prod people into looking for their better way, but I'm very sassy."

LOL. Good work, seriously. Sorry to lose my temper like that! Thanks for the reality check. (What you're pushing is pretty damned good)

 

[len1867]

Having read one of Dr. Jacobs' previous books I found the show very entertaining, and his conclusions very interesting - once you accept his train of thought. It would seem like the intent is not to take over but to assimilate into our reality of which they can't do without our physicality. This may or may not be evolutionarily beneficial to us but it is without our consent (no different than how we treat animals). The premise is no less viable than any other I've heard on the show or even our religious beliefs.
I will agree that researchers deeply involved in these cases may not adhere to the scientific process as they respond to familiar situations across experiencers.
What I do find strange is tha I get th feeling that this subcategory of investigation is not as accepted by the forum group. Step back and look at ufology and it all seems pretty ridiculous - except for the fact that people are experiencing something, and lives are being disrupted. I was particularly surprised by Chris' interaction with dr. Jacobs; on an earlier show I was floored by Chris' experiences and although he chastised Dr. Jacobs' methodology he offered no assistance with his expertise (Chris may be in denial).
Jean, you and Chris do an excellent job and you are an objective and impartial host , but the show is mostly historical/anecdotal - it would be great if a portion of your show could cover realtime investigations.
Keep up the great work!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ron Away]

You are freaking awesome
That is so the perfect way.
That made my night, I hope your example is noticed. I like to prod people into looking for their better way, but I'm very sassy. I'm so psyched when people get what I'm pushing.

You should change your name to Colt 45 (The peacemaker)

 

[Mulvaney]

What I do find strange is tha I get th feeling that this subcategory of investigation is not as accepted by the forum group. Step back and look at ufology and it all seems pretty ridiculous - except for the fact that people are experiencing something, and lives are being disrupted.

In this instance it is the method of investigation that has historically disrupted lives. I don't have any problem if Jacobs wants to develop a theory about insect aliens hybrids - although I always thought it was a reptilian faction causing most of the trouble (excepting of course Prince Nagadraconius). But the type of investigation that Jacobs has adopted has led to deep disruption, to put it mildly.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Sure, why have standards? Looking forward to future Paracast episodes featuring follow up visits from Michael Horn, Paola Harris, Sean David Morton, Phil Imbrogno and Stan Romanek, to name just a few.

Oh my, such passive aggressiveness! But, umm, you forgot Ray Stanford...

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...Finally, this is not something that should be left only at the doorstep of The Paracast, as many promote Jacobs all over the place without any investigation of their conscience at all. On ATP, for those who do not hear that show, there is in fact a clear refutation of the methods used by Jacobs, and Chris makes clear and sensible statements regarding why he would never wade into this territory of human trauma, and Gene also placed emphasis on the issue of sexual trauma with his first case. So should Jacobs deserve to have his name spoken on the show again? It is a turning point issue IMHO.

FTR, I have NEVER agreed fully w/ the approach that Gene utilizes of selectively not naming a person, place, case or issue i.e., the person or case that "shall not be named." Although I can see the rationale for this when it comes to OBVIOUS hoaxers and charlatans, when it is applied to scenarios, i.e, the "Roswell slides," or specific cases, i.e., "Emma Woods," this does not constitute good journalism IMO... Sorry Gene, but that's my opinion. Granted, the whole EW debacle/controversy was more than covered by the Paracast in the past but, IMO this should NOT have been a free-pass for this past week's episode w/ Jacobs, and I can see why several here have voiced indignation concerning this editorial policy. I agree w/ Burnt that this example i.e., EW strikes directly at the heart of an important issue that has always dogged so-called "abduction" research. It's obvious to me that this is a sensitive area of so-called "research" that is best served by the mental health and/or the behavioral science community. I don't care if you have a history Ph.D or have the best of intentions, these self-proclaimed "abductees" appear to be victims of deep, psychological trauma and IMO they would best be counciled by accredited mental health professionals—not artists and history professors.

This is one of the main reasons why I have never personally delved into the abduction phenomenon and is the main reason why I have remained publicly mute (for the most part) on the subject.

 

[stonehart]

FTR, I have NEVER agreed fully w/ the approach that Gene utilizes of selectively not naming a person, place, case or issue i.e., the person or case that "shall not be named." Although I can see the rationale for this when it comes to OBVIOUS hoaxers and charlatans, when it is applied to scenarios, i.e, the "Roswell slides," or specific cases, i.e., "Emma Woods," this does not constitute good journalism IMO... Sorry Gene, but that's my opinion. Granted, the whole EW debacle/controversy was more than covered by the Paracast in the past but, IMO this should NOT have been a free-pass for this past week's episode w/ Jacobs, and I can see why several here have voiced indignation concerning this editorial policy. I agree w/ Burnt that this example i.e., EW strikes directly at the heart of an important issue that has always dogged so-called "abduction" research. It's obvious to me that this is a sensitive area of so-called "research" that is best served by the mental health and/or the behavioral science community. I don't care if you have a history Ph.D or have the best of intentions, these self-proclaimed "abductees" appear to be victims of deep, psychological trauma and IMO they would best be counciled by accredited mental health professionals—not artists and history professors.

This is one of the main reasons why I have never personally delved into the abduction phenomenon and is the main reason why I have remained publicly mute (for the most part) on the subject.

As a New Zealander I find the Emma Woods situation a little embarrassing, please rest assured we are all not that crazy
On a more serious note even when I first started getting into the topic of UFO's I was always a bit dubious about the abduction phenomenon, now this is not to say I tar all with the same brush it just seems fairly obvious that suggestion and conformation bias would muddy the waters.

 

[Rizla]

"Granted, the whole EW debacle/controversy was more than covered by the Paracast in the past but, IMO this should NOT have been a free-pass for this past week's episode w/ Jacobs, and I can see why several here have voiced indignation concerning this editorial policy."

Bravo, Chris. There are issues here and you're thinking about them, not dodging them, and that is greatly appreciated.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Oh my, such passive aggressiveness! But, umm, you forgot Ray Stanford...

Believe me, I was tempted! But that bell has been rung enough in the forum, even though you broke your pledge, yet again, during the Jacobs episode to no longer mention Stanford on the show. Most of us with Stanford issues realize you just cannot help yourself. ;-) Instead of Tourette's Syndrome, you have Stanford's Syndrome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

Believe me, I was tempted! But that bell has been rung enough in the forum, even though you broke your pledge, yet again, during the Jacobs episode to no longer mention Stanford on the show. Most of us with Stanford issues realize you just cannot help yourself. ;-) Instead of Tourette's Syndrome, you have Stanford's Syndrome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Really?

 

[stonehart]

Stanford's Syndrome

sounds painful

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

sounds painful

To many Paracast listeners, it is. ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[len1867]

Why not champion the development of standards/protocols/ methodologies through the show and encourage the subject matter experts (guests) to work together to create them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ron Away]

FTR, I have NEVER agreed fully w/ the approach that Gene utilizes of selectively not naming a person, place, case or issue i.e., the person or case that "shall not be named." Although I can see the rationale for this when it comes to OBVIOUS hoaxers and charlatans, when it is applied to scenarios, i.e, the "Roswell slides," or specific cases, i.e., "Emma Woods," this does not constitute good journalism IMO... Sorry Gene, but that's my opinion. Granted, the whole EW debacle/controversy was more than covered by the Paracast in the past but, IMO this should NOT have been a free-pass for this past week's episode w/ Jacobs, and I can see why several here have voiced indignation concerning this editorial policy. I agree w/ Burnt that this example i.e., EW strikes directly at the heart of an important issue that has always dogged so-called "abduction" research. It's obvious to me that this is a sensitive area of so-called "research" that is best served by the mental health and/or the behavioral science community. I don't care if you have a history Ph.D or have the best of intentions, these self-proclaimed "abductees" appear to be victims of deep, psychological trauma and IMO they would best be counciled by accredited mental health professionals—not artists and history professors.

This is one of the main reasons why I have never personally delved into the abduction phenomenon and is the main reason why I have remained publicly mute (for the most part) on the subject.

I agree with most of what you've said Chris.I would like to add that as a child of 6-7 I had your typical abduction experiences.As I got older I experienced sleep paralysis which mirrored what I experienced as a child.I wasn't really abducted and I wasn't abused sexually or emotionally.Our minds are amazingly complex and even the best trained psychologists are guessing about what goes on in some cases.So any self taught hypnotist or therapist throws up huge red flags for me.