• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember, that EW came to him, not the other way around.

Long and short of it: He should not have gotten involved. He was not equipped to provide help, and disaster was in the wind.

Now how about considering what really happened to her? Was it UFO-related, or an issue involving some sort of abuse involving people of this Earth?
 
One more thing: Don't forget that EW has, since she began her vilification campaign against DJ, turned herself from a nobody into an international personality by playing the victim card. She has been on radio shows, written articles, and been the subject of extensive debate across the online world. I don't know if she has earned any money from any of these pursuits, but she is far from an unknown now. She's made herself into an object of sympathy.

So who is exploiting whom?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
How is he a predator if he requests evidence of sexual abuse?

I see him as misguided, perhaps wrong, but saying he's a predator because of someone's skewed interpretation of the interactions is unfair. His expanded version seems more about good intentions gone bad, and coping with matters he was unqualified to handle.

It's getting too extreme here. The issues you mention, if they have no UFO/paranormal connection, are important but not within our purview here.
Click to expand...
There's no way to prove anything DJ or EW have claimed. Is David Jacobs greasy? Yeah pretty much. Does it seem like something really greasy happened there? It seems not unlikely. Does pinning Gene Steinberg down and trying to get him to say that he agrees that Jacobs is a predator yadayada do any good? Seems fruitless.
CLEARLY Gene has been saying we don't know what happened in this particular situation and that he (Gene) is interested in the abduction phenomenon. I'm not speaking for Gene and I'm not his bodyguard or blindly sticking up.
Whenever I see people acting up I say something.:p It's just flogging a dead horse to keep at our good host at this point.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Remember, that EW came to him, not the other way around.

Long and short of it: He should not have gotten involved. He was not equipped to provide help, and disaster was in the wind.

Now how about considering what really happened to her? Was it UFO-related, or an issue involving some sort of abuse involving people of this Earth?
Click to expand...

How could we ever know what happened to her? The outcome did not please anyone and the underlying causes were long obscured by layers of hypnosis.

All we can do is to see if the research that Jacobs offers and the methods he uses holds up to scrutiny. The Woods saga (including the material posted by Jacobs) may offer a means to look at the methodology that is used, but it does not provide a way to understand anything beyond that.

If Jacobs wants to rebut the issues that Woods raises - or to state that the problems with her were an aberration of some kind - he should be forthcoming about his research methods - including the selection criteria that led him to develop his theories - and let the sessions he relies upon be fully reviewed. Ultimately, without corroboration we are left with questionable anecdotes derived from questionable methods.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
One more thing: Don't forget that EW has, since she began her vilification campaign against DJ, turned herself from a nobody into an international personality by playing the victim card. She has been on radio shows, written articles, and been the subject of extensive debate across the online world. I don't know if she has earned any money from any of these pursuits, but she is far from an unknown now. She's made herself into an object of sympathy.

So who is exploiting whom?
Click to expand...

Just when I think things are settling back down. A "vilification campaign," "victim card," and "an object of sympathy" are hardly neutral characterizations. I could interpret the situation far differently but that would not get any closer to understanding whether Jacobs offers anything of importance.
 
EW did not exist until she came out with her allegations, which were sent unsolicited to loads of people in the UFO community before her site went up. I got a lot of that material early on.

If she hadn't, nobody would ever have heard of her. Now maybe Jacobs might have used her case in one of his books, or maybe not.

I'm sure you've seen her site. It's carefully and maybe obsessively designed to maximize the impression that she was the victim of an unethical predator. Based on the material DJ has released, we have an expanded view of the interactions, and the material she has omitted from her site.

The conclusion about what she is doing is obvious.
 
Emotions are too high. Let's be positive. How about discussing the methods that should be used to evaluate abduction-type experiences?
 
Maybe we can leave it by agreeing that Emma was desperate at the time of the sessions and Jacobs was in over his head, using questionable methods under hypnosis. I think we agree that the combination could not have led to a good outcome for either.

Beyond that, the difference between villification and whistleblowing is a matter of perspective. The material I have read on Jacobs validates the most important problems she raised. Her reactions and response to the methods that were used are understandable.

I have not read the underwear and chastity belt material yet, but that does not go to the core of Jacob's research. Even if he had a basis for both - and Emma exaggerated the material - it does not change the central problems she raised.

As I wrote earlier, the issue is not Jacobs vs Woods. Jacobs needs to be addressed on the basis of his methods and conclusions that he draws from it. Since I can add nothing more than what I have said about those issues, I will leave it at that.
 
Start with developing a set of standards to which abduction researchers can agree, rather than having lone wolves go out on their own and cope. I gather Kathleen Marden, a trained hypnotherapist, has done work in that area. But I worry about the use of hypnotic regression, which is of questionable reliability. Also, due to the sensitive issues that are sometimes involved, mental health professionals should at the very least be on hand during all or most sessions to assess the process and see where it's going.

At this point, though, I don't think it has been proven that abductions are physical and not internal experiences of one sort or another. Supposedly attempts to capture such events with cameras come up short, allegedly because the abductors are directing their subjects/victims to turn off the machines. Or maybe the cameras wouldn't show anything but people sleeping in their bedrooms.

It's also important to attempt to separate the abduction claims that may not be abductions at all, such as possible sexual abuse. Would the EW claims fit in that category?
 
I have said for years that protecting the physical and emotional health of experiencers should be the primary goal of researchers. One, because it is right, two, because that will create an atmosphere in which experiencers will come forward and share openly with researchers.

"Would the EW claims fit in that category?" IMHO, whatever investigation occurred was bollocksed beyound recovery. How on earth can we here on this forum ever know what happened, even with access to EW's privileged medical records? We can speculate til the cows come home, but we have no ground to stand on due to the shoddy 'research'. Which is one reason I held up DJ's actions as ones to avoid in future - they have resulted in miserable people and no increase in knowledge.

I take it you feel emotions have calmed down now? In any case i've got tasks to do, carry on Mulvaney, Burnt State, et al.
 
I agree with much of what Gene wrote about abduction research. I am very doubtful that regressive hypnotic methods can provide meaningful data, but at the very least there should be transparency, review, and corroboration. Respect and care are certainly important

I quoted Loftus earlier - although she was not writing primarily about abduction: "Each case must be examined on its merits to explore the credibility, the timing, the motives, the potential for suggestion, the corroboration, and other features to make an intelligent assessment of what any mental product means."

All of that is easier said than done. Particularly considering the state of ufology.
 
mrs. eccentric said:
"Would the EW claims fit in that category?" IMHO, whatever investigation occurred was bollocksed beyound recovery. How on earth can we here on this forum ever know what happened, even with access to EW's privileged medical records? We can speculate til the cows come home, but we have no ground to stand on due to the shoddy 'research'. Which is one reason I held up DJ's actions as ones to avoid in future - they have resulted in miserable people and no increase in knowledge.
Click to expand...
You make a good argument for dropping this case — for good! There's too much heat and emotions around it.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Don't know if he reveled in it other than reciting the case. I think you're putting more emotion in it.
Click to expand...
if you go back and listen to that sequence you can actually hear him getting excited and giddy about that retelling of the seven year old's sexual abuse event. he's the one with emotions of joy attached to it - the rest of us just remain highly disturbed by it all. never once does he express compassion or concern for these experiences of sexual trauma. but his retelling of his first time with a patient revealing her childhood sexual trauma left him breathless and excited. I can understand the ex-cop's concern. it was a low point.
 
Gene, the trouble with dropping it 'for good' is the lost opportunity to learn from mistakes. These exact concerns with using hypnosis in this area have been expressed since the late 1970's, but people kept brushing those concerns under the rug. It has not been a productive strategy for the field or the experiencers.

Whilst out and about i remembered "The Tujunga Canyon Contacts" by Ann Druffel and Scott Rogo. It's an excellent read as it outlines a very thoughtful, thorough, sensitive and fruitful approach to a cluster of alien encounter/suspected abduction cases. The investigators did make use of hypnosis, in conjunction with a number of other investigative techniques (ET^S: as well as medical/psychotherapeutic consultation), and the well being of the experiencers was always a paramount concern.

This book was published in the early 1980's (if memory serves).
 
Gene Steinberg said:
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.
Click to expand...
because you have brought this up many times, how Jacobs' new site explains it all away you might want to explain it for the rest of the audience as I don't see it. he is engaging in emails about collecting swabs of vaginal fluids and potential alien semen - I take it that's his intent correct? yet he has never once demonstrated any capacity to complete any scientific testing of any of his materials, and his lacklustre approach to documenting these human raping hubrids is weak at best. why would he not save himself loads of cash and identify a place in NZ where he could get things tested and EW could have the proof she needs that it's aliens magically appearing in her bedroom all the time? it's nonsensical. I don't see how anything he posted there excuses his desire for used women's underwear. I think Chris' not too subtle critical analogy on ATP regarding the Victoria Secret underwear sniffing was bang on. made me had a good laugh in the midst of all this tragic disturbance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top