F
Fcseven
Guest
That story about sitting five hours in a car waiting for an alien hybrid to get home with cameras and binoculars is why I love ufology so much.
-
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!
October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
- Status
We are paying attention to the concerns. But that won't make us shy away from a controversial guest. We asked Friedman about Jacobs, by the way.
Sometimes I don't want to name someone because they don't deserve the publicity. I do that from time to time on my tech blog.
William Strathmann
Paranormal Adept
Jacobs has no license as a mental health professional to revoke, and that should be cause of great concern. Caveat Emptor. His lack of credentials has to be emphasized. Thus, I was, and am, a bit surprised that John Mack's name was not mentioned on the show, nor as yet in this thread. Wiki:
[T]he BBC quoted Mack as saying, "I would never say, yes, there are aliens taking people. [But] I would say there is a compelling powerful phenomenon here that I can't account for in any other way, that's mysterious. Yet I can't know what it is but it seems to me that it invites a deeper, further inquiry."
Mack noted that there was a worldwide history of visionary experiences, especially in pre-industrial societies. One example is the vision quest common to some Native American cultures. Only fairly recently in Western culture, notes Mack, have such visionary events been interpreted as aberrations or as mental illness. Mack suggested that abduction accounts might best be considered as part of this larger tradition of visionary encounters.
His interest in the spiritual or transformational aspects of people's alien encounters, and his suggestion that the experience of alien contact itself may be more transcendent than physical in nature—yet nonetheless real—set him apart from many of his contemporaries, such as Budd Hopkins, who advocated the physical reality of aliens.
Mack noted that there was a worldwide history of visionary experiences, especially in pre-industrial societies. One example is the vision quest common to some Native American cultures. Only fairly recently in Western culture, notes Mack, have such visionary events been interpreted as aberrations or as mental illness. Mack suggested that abduction accounts might best be considered as part of this larger tradition of visionary encounters.
His interest in the spiritual or transformational aspects of people's alien encounters, and his suggestion that the experience of alien contact itself may be more transcendent than physical in nature—yet nonetheless real—set him apart from many of his contemporaries, such as Budd Hopkins, who advocated the physical reality of aliens.
For me, Jacobs' theory has to be weighed against Mack, who presumably could have come to the conclusions that Jacobs holds, if the testimonial evidence really supported those conclusions. That John Mack did not come to those conclusions, would, to my mind at least, diminish anything Jacobs says to speculation. That might have been a point to have raised during the interview.
On the other hand, Travis Walton does not come across as someone traumatized in his youth, and he seems to have maintained his story over the decades. I think he was involved in a real event that was partially witnessed by others. His abduction narrative seems to align with what others say, yet I am not convinced he was taken to an "orbiting spacecraft." All this to say that, in agreement with Mack and Jacobs, something "real" is occurring, but one ought not rely on Jacobs to tell us what it is.
Rizla
Paranormal Maven
"We are paying attention to the concerns. But that won't make us shy away from a controversial guest. We asked Friedman about Jacobs, by the way."
Yes you are, and it's appreciated.
I'd love to hear what Stan had to say about this issue. If you get Stan off the MJ-12 stuff, he can actually be very interesting. Even if you don't agree with Friedman (I don't, on anything!), it's extremely hard not to like him. I used to spar with him in 'Smear, and he was always a gentleman. I imagine he still is.
Yes you are, and it's appreciated.
I'd love to hear what Stan had to say about this issue. If you get Stan off the MJ-12 stuff, he can actually be very interesting. Even if you don't agree with Friedman (I don't, on anything!), it's extremely hard not to like him. I used to spar with him in 'Smear, and he was always a gentleman. I imagine he still is.
I'm also glad the discussion is calming. Feel free to continue to argue for and against Dr. Jacobs' theories. But we have to be civil about it, without the personal attacks. Focus on the issues and we'll get somewhere.
You'll be interested in what Stan has to say about efforts to monitor abductees.
You'll be interested in what Stan has to say about efforts to monitor abductees.
William Strathmann
Paranormal Adept
Do you think sometime Gene you might be able to invite Tyler Kokjohn as a guest, who could surely add a few wise words about genetics, as well as scientific protocols for leading-edge investigations?
Chris knows him. I'll ask him to follow up.
Mohawk
Paranormal Novice
I completely agree. I was appalled when in both the interview and the After the Paracast show Chris adopted a mock stupid voice when putting words in Dr. Jacob's mouth. It was disrespectful, unprofessional and childish. I expected better from Chris.
I also expected better from Chris when he was dismayed at Dr. Jacob's contention that the tiny cameras Chris is so enamored of won't work because the abductees turn them off before they are abducted. Why would they do that, Chris wondered. If Chris had read Dr. Jacob's book before the interview, or given the matter a bit of thought, the answer would have been obvious to him--the aliens, with their mind reading and mind control capabilities, are aware of the cameras and are directing the abductees to turn them off. What if the abductees had no knowledge of the cameras? Would that work? Yes, possibly, but how exactly would that be arranged--Dr. Jacobs sneaking into the abductee's homes and installing hidden cameras that record people, without their knowledge, in their bedrooms? Great idea. What could go wrong with that?
That aliens can read and control our minds is a pretty bold claim, but there's really nothing new about that. That, along with much else in Dr. Jacob's book, has been a central theme of tales of abduction since Betty and Barney Hill. If what Dr. Jacob's was reporting were radically different from what has come before, it would be suspect, but instead it corroborates much of what has come before. I find this compelling.
And if aliens can control our minds, how do we know they're not controlling Dr. Jacob's mind? Or Gene and Chris's? Or mine? Or everybody's? Sure it's far-fetched, but what isn't in ufology?
This seems like a classic case of kill the messenger. In no way am I convinced that everything Dr. Jacobs reports is for real, and the tough questions that have been put to him are valid and should be asked, but he is a sincere, serious researcher with a lifetime of work dedicated to ufology, and for that he deserves more respect than he received from Chris O'Brien.
Last edited:
Mr. Fibuli
Paranormal Adept
Wow. I got the total opposite take from the show.
To me it seemed like Jacobs was the condescending one.
And if memory serves, Chris even responded to that exact concern in the show.
Chris suggested surveillance then Jacobs balked at how it would be done/said it would be unethical or something...
Then Chris said something like guh-they'd sign a consent form-that he didn't mean B&E the party's home lol
Forgive me if I'm mistaken.
Waller
Paranormal Maven
No need to worry about O'Brien. What he puts out is what he will get back. Simple physics.
Dr. Jacobs may or may not have aggravated the disruption through his methodology, but he did not create the disruption. It existed for each experiencer prior to any interaction with him. My hope is that methodologies used in these cases become standardized and evolve in a positive way so that the focus can return to the subject matter.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Mulvaney
Paranormal Maven
It's hard to know Jacob's exact methodologies. Since he has not made the data (transcripts or tapes) subject to review, we only know what Emma Woods has posted on her site - similar methodologies to that have been researched for many years. I don't want to repeat the many studies that have been discussed or linked to in this thread. The research on using hypnotic techniques to uncover traumatic events can easily be found and it does not support what Jacobs is doing.
Whether the individual has already been disrupted - or the degree of that - depends on the case. I posted articles earlier about a woman who began therapy for an eating disorder and hypnosis convinced her (for a while) that she had been a member of a satanic cult who had committed horrendous acts. Others may have suffered trauma or sexual abuse but receiving memories of alien abduction, satanic cults, super-soldiers, and the like is a completely different type of disruption. And that disruption has sometimes extended to their families and others.
According to the upcoming experiencers conference, the mere interest in ufos or related phenomenon may well indicate you have hidden memories of an encounter. You don't even need to be aware of any disruption to have experienced it! But at bottom, I do not think there is anything in Jacobs' methods that indicates standardized methods can evolve. Given the amount of research done on similar methods, it is his burden to release data and corroboration to show that he is somehow different.
Last edited:
Smokingpug
Paranormal Novice
I just wanted to say thank you for your post. If Dr. Jacob's came out swinging a few times it was because it sounded like he was backed in a corner and double teamed. The episode started out rough with the talk about the "state of ufology" anyways. Take care.
Last edited:
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
BTW - love the Vinland flag
Well said; imagine that the only reason that we are are aware of the high strangeness is that a few of us are intolerant to being manipulated (not a comforting thought, but it has crossed my mind). I will visit Ms. Woods website and learn about her approach.
Appreciated the conversation Mulvaney!!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And read Dr. Jacobs' response. You want to get a sense of both sides of the issue.
International Center for Abduction Research
Unfortunately many of the people who support Woods haven't bothered to consider Jacobs' rebuttal, though I'd wish he'd flesh out the points that he regards as critical.
International Center for Abduction Research
Unfortunately many of the people who support Woods haven't bothered to consider Jacobs' rebuttal, though I'd wish he'd flesh out the points that he regards as critical.
Standanista
Paranormal Maven
I want a full-body, Velostat-lined, knitted Clanger suit. That'll keep David Icke out of my bedroom at night, I guarantee it!
I will check out Dr. Jacobs' website also - thanks!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
ChrisJohnsen
Paranormal Adept
It is ridiculous to claim Jacobs' post on his website presents a "rebuttal." Look up the definition of the word, please. He addresses absolutely NONE of the controversial issues Emma Woods has raised about the methods he employs and the conduct he exhibited. He spends the entire post simply painting her as just a crazy person out to get him. Implying that we cannot believe anything that comes from her mouth because of her behaviour. That's not a rebuttal, that's deliberate misdirection and character assassination.
Oh, but wait, there are AUDIO TAPES of their long distance hypnosis sessions you say? You mean we don't have to rely on "Crazy Emma's" own testimony but can hear for ourselves SOME of the unprofessional methods employed by the doctor? The ones he makes NO mention of in his so-called "rebuttal?" Those audio tapes, be they excerpts or not, provide the only transparent look into the behaviour and methods of Jacobs. The doctor makes no attempt to explain or defend his actions towards Woods contained on those tapes. So what is he rebutting?
Again, Gene, your continued defence of Jacobs is mystifying to me. The issue at hand here has nothing to do with a disturbed patient's behaviour. The issue at hand is the doctor's professional conduct and his controversial and unscientific methods. How many times does this need to be said by myself and several others in this forum?
"Garbage in, garbage out, Gene." ~ KK
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have the wrong definition of defending. I simply suggested that you look at both sides of the issue. Dr. Jacobs claims that EW has taken the recordings out of context, meaning that segments that may paint a different picture are being omitted.
He also describes a pattern of behavior on EW's part that is troubling. Are you suggesting that material is untrue? Do you regard that behavior as completely normal or is he lying about it all?
There's also an explanation about the so-called borderline personality disorder episode and the reasoning behind it. That IS a rebuttal. I'm not telling anyone what to believe. Just read both sides.
He also describes a pattern of behavior on EW's part that is troubling. Are you suggesting that material is untrue? Do you regard that behavior as completely normal or is he lying about it all?
There's also an explanation about the so-called borderline personality disorder episode and the reasoning behind it. That IS a rebuttal. I'm not telling anyone what to believe. Just read both sides.
- Status