Asked and answered. Obviously I was concerned about it, but if that's something one routinely finds in UFO abductions, then we have to look at the underlying cause.
-
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
Standanista
Paranormal Maven
Well I agree with that, but that's a different issue to Jacobs revelling in it early in the interview. Anyway...
Don't know if he reveled in it other than reciting the case. I think you're putting more emotion in it.
Standanista
Paranormal Maven
He mentioned it twice.
Maybe he regards it as an important issue.
Standanista
Paranormal Maven
Important to him I have no doubt.
We've gone beyond the point of absurdity here. Let's move on.
Standanista
Paranormal Maven
Not absurd whatsoever. My point remains that you've let a bloke on the show who is more worthy of a criminal investigation than a paranormal one. However, I've made my point and yes let's move on.
Mulvaney
Paranormal Maven
I certainly would not frame the issue as being "DJ versus EW." Certainly we know a lot more about Jacobs methods since Emma Woods came forward and released audio tapes of some of the hypnotic sessions. It is my understanding that other Jacobs' subjects - such as Brian Reed -- have raised problems in regards to Jacobs, although I could understand why others may or may not want to come forward either in support of Jacobs or to raise questions about him. But the issue to me is DJ versus a body of knowledge and literature about the techniques he uses - and whether he has been transparent in making data available and corroborating it.
I have not had time to look at any of the emails from Woods that Jacobs has posted - between work, a daughter's birthday, kayaking trips, and other interests it is a matter of priority. Certainly, if Jacobs has waited this long to post new material relating to Woods, I am in no hurry. I am willing to listen to the crickets for awhile.
There are others who know Woods. There are others who are far more familiar with her history. And I am certain Emma herself can respond in whatever way she feels is appropriate. If the Woods story is now to be discussed, I would think that Clueless Wonder or Tyler Kokjohn would be interesting guests, not only on Woods but the state of ufology and what Jacobs has or has not contributed.
Last edited:
A key issue with the new DJ material is that it may disprove some of EW's contentions, simply because she never posted the full sessions and thus took things out of context. That doesn't necessarily make one feel warm and fuzzy about his approach, but if it tends to disprove her three main contentions, that would raise severe questions about her overall credibility. So, yes, it is very important that the new material be considered, particularly if you've spent any time at all looking over her site.
That is separate from DJ's methods or his conclusions.
That is separate from DJ's methods or his conclusions.
mrs. eccentric
Skilled Investigator
As I stated earlier on in this thread, i've judged DJ as a pestilence to the field and a hazard to his subjects' mental health since i read his first 'abduction' book back in the 1990's.
Gene said: "I haven't taken a side..." well, what is that saying - actions speak louder than words?
As Mulvaney said, "It is my understanding that other Jacobs' subjects - such as Brian Reed -- have raised problems in regards to Jacobs, although I could understand why others may or may not want to come forward either in support of Jacobs or to raise questions about him." That is my understanding as well. Even if they chose to come forward, apparently people may not get a hearing in the more popular venues.
Again, i am very glad to see that other posters are bringing information to this thread which sheds some light on the issues surrounding DJ's activities in this field. It is apparent that many people have had their minds made up (as have I, for lo these many decades) but people new to the subject will find some information contrasting to the party line in this thread and that is very heartening.
Gene said: "I haven't taken a side..." well, what is that saying - actions speak louder than words?
As Mulvaney said, "It is my understanding that other Jacobs' subjects - such as Brian Reed -- have raised problems in regards to Jacobs, although I could understand why others may or may not want to come forward either in support of Jacobs or to raise questions about him." That is my understanding as well. Even if they chose to come forward, apparently people may not get a hearing in the more popular venues.
Again, i am very glad to see that other posters are bringing information to this thread which sheds some light on the issues surrounding DJ's activities in this field. It is apparent that many people have had their minds made up (as have I, for lo these many decades) but people new to the subject will find some information contrasting to the party line in this thread and that is very heartening.
Two questions: Are EW's claims accurate, or is she omitting things that prove her basic contentions to be wrong? Second and third questions: Are DJ's methods proper for abduction research and are his conclusions plausible? You know my opinions on the latter. And that they continue to be distorted concerns me.
I wish I cared enough to be up2speed about all this, but quite frankly, I don't know why I would give-a-damn; where to begin and why bother to be bothered in the 1st place(?)
IMO: Objective abduction research started to die off w/ Mack. The field seemed in flux and publically-heralled cases disappeared from general public view. Then (w/ the passing of Hopkins), the subculture began to listen to the more neutral, grounded Kathleen Marden view. But, this left Jacobs (and the negative thinking-wing of our drama) holding that ever-popular, titillating 'evil alien' bag. Then we have 'ol 'Emma'. How tawdry and counterproductive.
'Nuf said: Anyone out there who cares w/ passion, please, do something/anything to help resolve this mess and somehow reestablish a kinder, more gentle space where we '...all just get along.' If so, and you're open for some guidance, suggestions and good ideas, etc let us know... In the meantime...abductions? ...Hmmm...
*meh*
DaveM
Paranormal Adept
I've been following this thread and it seems to have devolved into a tit for tat. Everyone seems to be locked into whatever side they have chosen and no one is going to budge. Many of the posts seem to be along the lines of getting the final word in on the David Jacobs issue. Perhaps it is time to move on to more pressing subjects.
Not a bad idea. I only hoped that people would look at the new DJ site and actually pay attention to what was presented there. If that doesn't change anyone's minds so be it.
Beyond all the distortions, my main position has always been to look at both sides fairly. Too bad that simple statement is so often misunderstood.
Beyond all the distortions, my main position has always been to look at both sides fairly. Too bad that simple statement is so often misunderstood.
Mulvaney
Paranormal Maven
Well, I went to Jacobs site and read the material on multi personality disorder - which to me is one of the more serious problems with how Jacobs dealt with Woods. I think it vindicates what Emma has been saying about it. If anything it was a little more shocking than I had thought it would be.
It seems Jacobs was implanting suggestions under hypnosis to try to protect himself - as this post-session indicates;
"D: So, so the obvious thing is to keep multiple personality disorder in your mind. You want to deflect them.
E: We’ve both got (laughs) we’ve both got the same disease. (laughs)
D: Right. You want to deflect them away from me though so that it makes it safer"
It seems Jacobs was implanting suggestions under hypnosis to try to protect himself - as this post-session indicates;
"D: So, so the obvious thing is to keep multiple personality disorder in your mind. You want to deflect them.
E: We’ve both got (laughs) we’ve both got the same disease. (laughs)
D: Right. You want to deflect them away from me though so that it makes it safer"
What you quote actually proves what you say is not correct. Read it again. It was a ploy, to "deflect" the entities who were after EW. Why do you think she laughed? Sounds like a dumb move to me, but still.
Mulvaney
Paranormal Maven
It's been interpreted both ways but I will grant your point on this. However, it is more than just a dumb move. To implant hypnotic suggestions of MPD is a serious issue. And the context Jacobs provides does not lessen it in any way. The transcript is consistent with what Emma reported.
But yes, the idea that evil abductors would be fooled by implanted suggestions and the advice to "think MPD, MPD, MPD" is also a dumb idea. And perhaps one reason why a historian should not be meddling in another person's brain.
But yes, the idea that evil abductors would be fooled by implanted suggestions and the advice to "think MPD, MPD, MPD" is also a dumb idea. And perhaps one reason why a historian should not be meddling in another person's brain.
Last edited:
We agree. But she also obviously agreed to it, even though she pretends otherwise on her own site.
- Status