October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

[dyingsun]

As much as I have trouble with Dr. Jacobs unspoken conclusions, 'Emma Woods' seems to be mentally..well unstable. My opinion is only formed from the 'public domain' media, so..

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

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.

What I'm saying, Gene, is the fact that Emma Woods was a troubled individual and behaved erratically is not what's in dispute here and is irrelevant to the core issues that myself and others continue to raise - Jacobs' unprofessional conduct and methods during their long-distance hypnosis sessions. Jacobs, in his so-called rebuttal, does not address any of the most damning claims made against him that stem from the recorded sessions made public by Woods. As for Jacobs' defense of "taped excerpts used out-of-context," please point me to where Jacobs has released tapes to prove that claim. Oh, right, he hasn't. Apparently, we are simply to trust him, as you apparently do, that if he were to release the full set of recordings of his Emma Woods sessions it would exonerate or explain his wide scope of unprofessional behavior. I think we can surmise rather accurately why Jacobs hasn't released any audio to support his dubious claims over the last 5 years, it will only serve to make the unprofessional hole he has dug for himself even deeper.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I have suggested to Dr. Jacobs that he release full recordings so there's no doubt of the context. I understand he's working on doing just that, and that these recordings will be posted, though I don't know precisely when. I know a little about this, but I have not heard all the recordings. I don't have the patience anymore, really, to go through all the permutations.

But when a full record is out there, and I hope it's soon, people can decide for themselves what really happened. Don't assume that the passage of time signifies anything other than someone having other priorities.

Again, I don't agree with his conclusions or even his research methods. I just want everything to get a fair hearing.

 

[Mulvaney]

I read what Jacobs has to say and I am even less convinced by his methods.

Jacobs was dealing with a very vulnerable person. It seems clear that he was using regressive hypnotic techniques - from both the Woods material, the Brian Reed material that provided some corroboration, and what Jacobs has described. Even if the audio tapes Woods has posted is only part of the story, he was leading her with suggestions of abduction and sexual abuse; under hypnosis he stated that she had multiple personality disorder (an interesting conclusion for a historian to make), not to mention the chastity belt and underwear. His own words make that clear. None of that is appropriate regardless of the context.

Jacobs states he was illegally recorded. Jurisdictions vary. As I understand New Zealand law, it may not be illegal under the circumstances here. Federal law and 38 states would permit it. It would take a lot more research and I have more pressing matters to deal with in regards to my clients under California law, but it is certainly not as clear as Jacobs maintains.

Woods is important - certainly her material cannot be separated from the body of Jacobs' work. But as Clueless Wonder points out, it is the byproduct of his methods and not the nucleus. Using hypnotic regression under such circumstances is fraught with danger.

In what one expert described as the worst malpractice case he had seen, a patient named Roma Hart claimed her therapist instilled the belief that her family was involved in a Satanic crime-ring, and that Hart had been forcibly impregnated by extraterrestrials and gave birth to a hybrid infant. She was put on the verge of suicide. Her lawsuit was settled. But I am not sure if there is any distinction between the methods that were used there and what Jacobs uses to collect data.

We have seen these methods play out in a number of contexts, without corroboration and without research to support it. We have seen it give rise to mass hysteria. The anecdotes Jacobs collects do nothing for ufology. And if I were Woods, I would have reason to be angry.

 

[Mulvaney]

Again, I don't agree with his conclusions or even his research methods. I just want everything to get a fair hearing.

In that case, will you have guests that can offer a fuller critique of Jacobs?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We've done some of that already.

 

[Burnt State]

Gene, I really don't get this. People had come to a kind of truce over the Paracast-Jacobs interview situation. You didn't want to challenge over Emma Woods and forum members held to the general injustice of the situation given the poor methodologies, abuse of power, and the salacious aspects of Jacobs who repeatedly demonstrated on the show his obsessiveness with issues of sexuality relating to his clients, from stalking them in the night with cameras, and his repeated mention of clients' sexual dynamics, to his giddy delight at describing his first hypnosis session with a woman describing her first incidence of childhood sexual abuse, which is how you also named it on ATP. Chris O'Brien rang in on his honest views of the situation which helped to quell some of the membership disgust. You might not really have a full appreciation of the historic situation here following the departure of Kimball as a friend to the show and the general Ufological wedge that is the Woods-Jacobs affair. While many ultimately accepted that he was on the show, even though many were offended at the very thought of this guy getting airtime given his more than questionable history, others are downright disturbed by the whole situation and many question their sponsorship of Paracast+ over this related pro-Jacobs sentiment.

So unless you are trying to play a Tricksterish card here by resuscitating an almost dead thread that many smoked a peace pipe over, I don't get why on earth you would point to the Jacobs' rebuttal. If he has evidence to contrast or vindicate himself with then certainly it would have come out years ago. This is not something he needs to fumble around about and eventually produce. It's not like he's trying to do rocket science here or remember the excessive digits of pi for god's sake. Everything he says on his site was read by everyone last week and dismissed already. It is strictly his opinion and his negative characterization of Woods with zero proof. At least she is posting unequivocal evidence of his sexual harassment of a client who has revealed sexual traumas to him through the audio recordings. If you have a defence for that let's all hear it loud and clear without any of this promise of supposed contextual revelation that will somehow answer to his oh so nonchalant request for her used underwear to be sent to serve his fetishistic desires along with his suggestion of the nail studded chastity belt that he could send her and then they could whisper about it together over the phone. Just what other side of reality are you pointing to and why? It certainly looks like you are trying to defend him when you are usually so hardline about what evidence looks like. He's got opinions about history and she has recordings of actual history.

You slammed the twins for their pathetic methodologies and claimed Greer should not be mentioned so as not to induce promotion of him, the same with Romanek, Horn and Meier. So given what everyone else on earth knows as fact about Jacobs' misdeeds, misdirections, and downright abuse of clients and outright distortion and erosion of a sensible and scientific approach to ufology why on earth do you continue to defend this guy? Are you trying to encourage conflict, clean the Paracast house of the anti-Jacobs members? Just what is this all about? Because many are more than confused here. You could have let sleeping dogs lie so why bother bring up Jacobs' pathetic attempt at excuses for sexual harassment?!

The fire has been duly stoked. Why is the only question. Why point to the cardboard excuses?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I have made it clear I don't support Jacobs. And I don't support lynchings either.

Has it ever dawned on you that Emma Woods may not be revealing all the relevant tapes?

I am willing to wait to see both sides of the issue because I do not trust EW to tell us. But it is up to Jacobs to release his full story. My patience is thin.

I also think we've been aboveboard in allowing a full discussion of the topic. But not the excesses.

And I don't take kindly to members who threaten to cancel Paracast+ memberships because I won't do it their way. We have always put on controversial guests.

 

[Burnt State]

Burn the cardboard I say. Time for the effigy previously suggested.

 

[Burnt State]

What other tapes do we need to hear? Could there be worse things he said? He said what he said and those are clear facts. He does not defend that. There is no possible defence for his sexual harassment. Whether or not Woodw was unstable calling him at all hours is irrelevant and only speaks more deeply to the precarious situation Jacobs entered into with a client that he exploited and who has suffered past sexual trauma. It's despicable his treatment of her.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

You mean the tape where he and EW frame the multiple personality disorder session? Oh yes. She didn't post that one.

Let's just say I know that one exists.

He says the recordings are out of context. He needs to release those other recordings to keep from losing more of what goodwill he has left.

As I said, my patience is wearing thin. It's in his court.

 

[Mulvaney]

Mulder in his 80's.

Based on the recommendations in another blog, I just watched an x-files episode from season three: Jose Chungs 'From Outer Space'. I have to say that it sums up everything about the state of ufology better than anything I have ever seen. The MIB, Hyneck, Vallee, abductions, confabulation under hypnosis, close encounters, military. Disinformation. Conspiracy. More disinformation. Or perhaps, as the episode states, it comes down to the difference between experiencers and abductees. With great foresight, a little bit of Jacobs, with Bigfoot thrown into the works. Or perhaps it just seems like foresight because the conclusions of the episode mirror what we know today. We are exactly in the place that the episode leaves us.

Since that episode says everything about the abduction scenario better than what I could ever say, it is time to leave this thread. At least until there is new information. Jacobs has taken too much time for what he has offered, and perhaps that time is better spent waiting for the next smoking gun from Roswell.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Based on the recommendations in another blog, I just watched an x-files episode from season three: Jose Chungs 'From Outer Space'. I have to say that it sums up everything about the state of ufology better than anything I have ever seen. The MIB, Hyneck, Vallee, abductions, confabulation under hypnosis, close encounters, military. Disinformation. Conspiracy. More disinformation. Or perhaps, as the episode states, it comes down to the difference between experiencers and abductees. With great foresight, a little bit of Jacobs, with Bigfoot thrown into the works. Or perhaps it just seems like foresight because the conclusions of the episode mirror what we know today. We are exactly in the place that the episode leaves us.

Since that episode says everything about the abduction scenario better than what I could ever say, it is time to leave this thread. At least until there is new information. Jacobs has taken too much time for what he has offered, and perhaps that time is better spent waiting for the next smoking gun from Roswell.

Charles Nelson Reilly, FOR THE WIN!

 

[Azz7092]

Some strong claims on this episode not that its beyond the realms of possibility i remember Derrel sims saying similar to what Dr Jacobs was
saying about all Alien races working toward one goal and he called them "Mid Level Management", but to say that there Abductees teaching Hubrids to Shop and to fit in is a Bold statement to say the least, i wonder if any of the Hubrids been taught the Art of War for example ?
thats also needs to be addressed, i know its probably far fetched but in my eyes this could have very serious repercussions .
Also who paid for the Hubrids rent in some of these apartment complexes ? did the Abductees help out ? or was it paid for by some other means?.
I'm sure i read somewhere that some of these beings could not control humans if they were for example full of rage and anger,
i did enjoy this episode was very interesting maybe Dr Jacobs and Sims should get together.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Based on the recommendations in another blog, I just watched an x-files episode from season three: Jose Chungs 'From Outer Space'. I have to say that it sums up everything about the state of ufology better than anything I have ever seen. The MIB, Hyneck, Vallee, abductions, confabulation under hypnosis, close encounters, military. Disinformation. Conspiracy. More disinformation. Or perhaps, as the episode states, it comes down to the difference between experiencers and abductees. With great foresight, a little bit of Jacobs, with Bigfoot thrown into the works. Or perhaps it just seems like foresight because the conclusions of the episode mirror what we know today. We are exactly in the place that the episode leaves us.

Since that episode says everything about the abduction scenario better than what I could ever say, it is time to leave this thread. At least until there is new information. Jacobs has taken too much time for what he has offered, and perhaps that time is better spent waiting for the next smoking gun from Roswell.

MY FAVORITE X FILES EPISODE. In fact, the only episode that readily comes to mind.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

What other tapes do we need to hear? Could there be worse things he said? He said what he said and those are clear facts. He does not defend that. There is no possible defence for his sexual harassment. Whether or not Woodw was unstable calling him at all hours is irrelevant and only speaks more deeply to the precarious situation Jacobs entered into with a client that he exploited and who has suffered past sexual trauma. It's despicable his treatment of her.

BRAVO! Since common sense defense of Emma Woods on this forum has always been shockingly low (starting at the top), I applaud you enthusiastically. This was a huge issue for me, which lead to my previous banishment from the forum. Gene graciously let me return (with my $50 one year membership). But Gene just doesn't get how important this issue is to a lot of intelligent people. Personally, I will NOT be renewing my membership for 2016.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I have suggested to Dr. Jacobs that he release full recordings so there's no doubt of the context. I understand he's working on doing just that, and that these recordings will be posted, though I don't know precisely when. I know a little about this, but I have not heard all the recordings. I don't have the patience anymore, really, to go through all the permutations.

But when a full record is out there, and I hope it's soon, people can decide for themselves what really happened. Don't assume that the passage of time signifies anything other than someone having other priorities.

Again, I don't agree with his conclusions or even his research methods. I just want everything to get a fair hearing.

Yes, Jacobs has other priorities like watching TV, as he mentioned as one of his favorite activities.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

As much as I have trouble with Dr. Jacobs unspoken conclusions, 'Emma Woods' seems to be mentally..well unstable. My opinion is only formed from the 'public domain' media, so..

Hey! Long time no See. You were one of the more voracious David Jacobs defenders when this story broke years ago. Anyone strongly defending Emma Woods (like me) found themselves BANNED from the forums. Ah, such good times. Yes, I would not doubt that Emma Woods was/is mentally ill. So was I at one time with clinical depression and anxiety. I had extensive therapy and medication that has put all this far in my past. But I fear I would become mentally ill if I put my trust in David Jacobs, only to have false memories implanted in me (she says that although she now knows they are false, they still rule her subconscious mind). I listened to ALL the tapes by Emma Woods. (Gene, it really is worth your trouble). David Jacobs is manipulative, controlling, cruel, and outright "insane" on those tapes. Who in their right mind would implant a false memory that someone has multiple personality disorder simply to fool hybrids so they would leaev him alone? This man is one button short of a strait jacket.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

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.​

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.

As someone who actually knew John Mack, since I took my abduction experiences to him, I can say that he held a much more positive view of an alien presence. I jokingly said to him once that he seemed to consider them Green Peace Environmental Activists. He laughed. My visits with him only lasted about 6 months since the costs were prohibitive. I had to fly from California to Boston for each session. It was very worthwhile to me then. He was a kind caring man.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

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.

I don't see how you can say that. Let's face it. The Clueless One and Jeff Ritzmann broke the entire Emma Woods case on their now-defunct podcast called PARATOPIA. You were all once good friends but had a major falling out. I remember when it wasn't very safe to mention either man's name on this forum! I hope that the source of this story does not preclude you taking it seriously. I know that there were critical articles to Jacobs' response in UFO MAGAZINE. I know that people read his response and there were formal rebuttals on-line. I read them. Many people did.