October 18, 2015 — Dr. David Jacobs

[Gene Steinberg]

He's only saying that these two weren't qualified to counsel sexual assault victims.

 

[kruggutter]

The truth is that Emma Woods, and some of the people supporting her, have a long, documented history of verbally abusing
other people. I've documented many instances of this at the Case Related Hate Mail section of the Linda Cortile Case website.
These people appear to get off on the abuse. That such ongoing unprofessional, ugliness is condoned and participated in by
Emma Woods only serves to reinforce what David Jacobs has been conveying about Emma Woods all along. In my opinion
it is a clear case of smearers of a feather flocking together.

That being said I think there is room for many interpretations of the masses of data put forward pertaining to this Emma Woods
situation. There is nothing wrong with anyone disagreeing about it or having concerns about it. The Emma Woods situation is
a grey area (no puns intended) if there ever was one. Simple black and white positions are not applicable if one is to fully digest
the evidence.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Every producer of content, whether for television, radio, the Internet, or whatever, has a choice to make about what to program. When I was doing my first documentary, for example, on Stan Friedman, I interviewed Steven Greer, who was a big deal at the time (2001). After talking to him and doing my research, I decided to leave him on the cutting room floor, because he would clearly have undermined the credibility of the film. I have made similar decisions over the years. That's what a responsible producer does.

Never has anyone deserved to be relegated to the cutting room floor more than David Jacobs.

 

[kruggutter]

In early 2011, shortly after I published a lengthy rebuttal to a factually flawed article released by Carol Rainey, Paul Kimball took it upon himself to write a brief, disparaging blog, in which I am named personally.

Kimball claimed that an orchestrated campaign of personal attacks and propaganda that went beyond reasonable criticism had been launched against Carol Rainey. In his blog he presented two YouTube videos (both long since dead). The first video criticised Carol Rainey’s claims, the second video attacked her outright with a distorted mockup of her face, making her appear as though she had a forked, reptilian tongue.

I posted one comment under the first video. The reason I did so was because another commenter at that first video was confused as to which internet podcast and forum was responsible for endorsing Carol Rainey’s claims. In the one comment that I posted in reply to the confused poster I told them which internet podcast and forum was the one responsible for endorsing Rainey’s claims. In that comment I also told that commenter the name of another internet podcast and forum which I personally believed was superior in quality and credibility compared to the one that was supporting Rainey’s claims. I stand by what I told that commenter.

Upon seeing that I dared to make a comment under the first YouTube video Kimball indicated in his blog that he presumed I personally endorsed the contents of the second inflammatory, ad hominem attack YouTube video made about Carol Rainey. Apparently commenting on Apples can be perceived as endorsing Oranges for Mr. Kimball.

Kimball’s blog mentioned nothing of the contents of the rebuttal that I wrote which disproved a series of Rainey’s claims. His sole charge against me was that he presumed, not proved, that I endorsed an ad hominem attack video against Carol Rainey. He based his presumption on the fact that I had posted a comment on an independent YouTube video in order to provide information to a person commenting at that video.

Despite the nature of Kimball’s attack on me as being personal, unfounded and wholly irrespective of what was proven in my rebuttal, his casual smears were more than enough to convince some of the posters at his blog. Posters who went on to call me misguided and an attacker of Rainey and her supporters. It would appear that in the blogging age, unsubstantiated smears from anyone about anyone, are perfectly permissible, and pass to some viewers as critical discourse.

 

[paraschtick]

Burnt State: you might find the following useful on Emma's website. In an article by Carol Rainey (ex-wife of Budd Hopkins) that is posted as a pdf on Emma's website, she talks about the case involving "Dora" whom Budd worked with even though he knew that she had been given an assessment by a psychiatrist as being a person with a traumatic history of sexual abuse. After this assessment, Budd continued to work and do hypnosis on her for about three years. Budd did and Jacobs does like to work with, and exploit people with false and real traumatic memories no matter what they are it seems.

Article here: https://emmawoodsfiles.files.wordpr...ts-of-high-strangeness-paratopia-magazine.pdf

 

[Paul Kimball]

Emma Woods was banned, and Sean Meers is still here. 'Nuff said.

 

[kruggutter]

[Personal note: Oh, and krugguter. I know who you are ... Sean. If this ever comes to court, you will be seen as an accessory, an accomplice. Nice thought, eh? Oh, and how's the weather like in Oz? Probably sunny, eh, mate?]
ps the really funny thing about the new website is that they (Jacobs in association with "Sean Meers" aka kruggutter) can't even get the transcripts right. You might want to go and give them the once over, again, guys .What a shower !...

Emma Woods was banned, and Sean Meers is still here. 'Nuff said.

And who are you Kimball? A person whose approach is as pseudoskeptical as Emma's supporters. You, and the rest, get off on the abuse.
You don't care about the quality of abduction research because you've never done anything to help such research or those involved in it.
You're out to use whatever you can to push your own agenda.

 

[kruggutter]

Burnt State: you might find the following useful on Emma's website. In an article by Carol Rainey (ex-wife of Budd Hopkins) that is posted as a pdf on Emma's website, she talks about the case involving "Dora" whom Budd worked with even though he knew that she had been given an assessment by a psychiatrist as being a person with a traumatic history of sexual abuse. After this assessment, Budd continued to work and do hypnosis on her for about three years. Budd did and Jacobs does like to work with, and exploit people with false and real traumatic memories no matter what they are it seems.

Article here: https://emmawoodsfiles.files.wordpr...ts-of-high-strangeness-paratopia-magazine.pdf

Rainey never produced Dora to corroborate her (Rainey's) claims. Doesn't matter though does it? You can smear away with unproven claims.

 

[paraschtick]

Do you really think it's wise to threaten me? How dare you accuse me of being a criminal. Knowledge works both ways friend. Why don't you and Emma think about that?

Ha! I nearly snorted my coffee out through my nose then! So then, Sean, are you in possession of knowledge, from Dr. Jacobs about his research subject, Emma who he guaranteed confidentiality with? Because, wouldn't that just be a tad unethical from a supposed ethical researcher like Dr. Jacobs? Non?

 

[Paul Kimball]

And people wonder why "ufology" is considered a laughingstock within the broader culture, if it's even considered at all.

 

[kruggutter]

Ha! I nearly snorted my coffee out through my nose then! So then, Sean, are you in possession of knowledge, from Dr. Jacobs about his research subject, Emma who he guaranteed confidentiality with? Because, wouldn't that just be a tad unethical from a supposed ethical researcher like Dr. Jacobs? Non?

I think Emma deserves to become famous. I think you're telling me you want Emma to become famous? And you can't be famous with a pseudonym.

 

[kruggutter]

I think Emma deserves to become famous. I think you're telling me you want Emma to become famous? And you can't be famous with a pseudonym.

Maybe I should make a rule, everytime Emma or one of her supporters mouths off about me online, Emma becomes famous. It sounds like a good rule to me.
If she thinks she can do to me what she's done to Jacobs she has another thing coming.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Maybe I should make a rule, everytime Emma or one of her supporters mouths off about me online, Emma becomes famous. It sounds like a good rule to me.
If she thinks she can do to me what she's done to Jacobs she has another thing coming.

And here we see the "debate" reach its nadir, as Sean Meers threatens Emma Woods. All without sanction, it appears.

 

[kruggutter]

Ha! I nearly snorted my coffee out through my nose then! So then, Sean, are you in possession of knowledge, from Dr. Jacobs about his research subject, Emma who he guaranteed confidentiality with? Because, wouldn't that just be a tad unethical from a supposed ethical researcher like Dr. Jacobs? Non?

And here we see the "debate" reach its nadir, as Sean Meers threatens Emma Woods. All without sanction, it appears.

It's not a threat, its a promise. And she'll have you and Paraschtick to thank.

 

[kruggutter]

So go on, keep pushing me.

 

[kruggutter]

[Personal note: Oh, and krugguter. I know who you are ... Sean. If this ever comes to court, you will be seen as an accessory, an accomplice. Nice thought, eh? Oh, and how's the weather like in Oz? Probably sunny, eh, mate?] ps the really funny thing about the new website is that they (Jacobs in association with "Sean Meers" aka kruggutter) can't even get the transcripts right. You might want to go and give them the once over, again, guys .What a shower !...

This is exactly the kind of rubbish these discussions always descend into. The discussions start out normal enough, with people offering varying points off views, then out of the blue someone comes along insults you personally (and threatens you personally based on Paraschtick's comment) and then makes all sorts of baseless presumptions about a person's involvement in a matter.

I've never made a secret of my identity, nor do I care. It's no big reveal. The collective courage of anonymous online abusers is nothing to be feared because it doesn't exist. Still how can I possibly be concerned about whether or not someone online said something mean about me. Should I get some tissues and have a cry about? Or should I see it and treat it for what it is, meaningless, anonymous abuse.

I think I will keep what I know about Emma Woods to myself. It's certainly within my power not to, but what's really to be accomplished by it? More attention to someone who lives on attention, of any kind.

 

[LatentCauses]

I thought I could ignore this thread for the troublesome, defamatory, opinionated piece of crud that it is, and that it might all go away – but unfortunately my phone incessantly buzzes with notifications of new posts.

The vitriolic little exchange exhibited on this and the previous pages demonstrates exactly what is wrong with UFOlogy in particular, and the study of the paranormal generally. It's little more than amateur punters given free license to say the first thing that comes into their head on topics that are way too complex, and in truth simply become an excuse for personal politics for people really bored with their day jobs.

Punters like us, and ultimately the podcasts that we listen to and the popular books we read, don't take these areas very far - now that is not to say that we can't have a little fun with our speculations and our opinions, but honestly, how about the integrity to recognise the fact that that is all they are? And to be reasonably polite to each other in the process?

I can't help but get the feeling that the hostile, and divided nature of discussions in these areas, and witness this thread, plays into the hands of those who have an interest in making sure that it goes nowhere.

Somewhere something is having a laugh at our expense....

 

[Ron Away]

Having lived with a victim of child abuse and having investigated sexual offences of all kinds in my professional life I can say without any doubt whatsoever that these things are real.
As a child,over a couple of years I experienced what could be described as nocturnal "abductions" by unknown beings,terrifying and disturbing at the time.As I got older and more knowledgeable I realised I was experiencing sleep paralysis and wasn't really being taken anywhere.So my problem with abductions is this.Infinite real evidence of the depravity of sexual predators, zero real evidence of alien abductions.So when someone like Jacobs comes along with his hubrids and then reveals in my opinion disturbing sexual traits in his narrative I revert back to my admittedly personal logic of real evidence.I don't need to point out any further where the evidence leads me.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I

I thought I could ignore this thread for the troublesome, defamatory, opinionated piece of crud that it is, and that it might all go away – but unfortunately my phone incessantly buzzes with notifications of new posts.

The vitriolic little exchange exhibited on this and the previous pages demonstrates exactly what is wrong with UFOlogy in particular, and the study of the paranormal generally. It's little more than amateur punters given free license to say the first thing that comes into their head on topics that are way too complex, and in truth simply become an excuse for personal politics for people really bored with their day jobs.

Punters like us, and ultimately the podcasts that we listen to and the popular books we read, don't take these areas very far - now that is not to say that we can't have a little fun with our speculations and our opinions, but honestly, how about the integrity to recognise the fact that that is all they are? And to be reasonably polite to each other in the process?

I can't help but get the feeling that the hostile, and divided nature of discussions in these areas, and witness this thread, plays into the hands of those who have an interest in making sure that it goes nowhere.

Somewhere something is having a laugh at our expense....

To me it's a fairly simple matter. Emma Woods was victimized by David Jacobs, and she continues to be victimized by his ever-dwindling group of supporters. It's not a ufological question to me; it's a moral one. There's a line, and people need to be judged based upon which side they choose to stand. That applies to the producers of content who give a platform to Jacobs.

And with that, I withdraw from this mess, having said what I wanted to say.

 

[kruggutter]

I thought I could ignore this thread for the troublesome, defamatory, opinionated piece of crud that it is, and that it might all go away – but unfortunately my phone incessantly buzzes with notifications of new posts.

The vitriolic little exchange exhibited on this and the previous pages demonstrates exactly what is wrong with UFOlogy in particular, and the study of the paranormal generally. It's little more than amateur punters given free license to say the first thing that comes into their head on topics that are way too complex, and in truth simply become an excuse for personal politics for people really bored with their day jobs.

Punters like us, and ultimately the podcasts that we listen to and the popular books we read, don't take these areas very far - now that is not to say that we can't have a little fun with our speculations and our opinions, but honestly, how about the integrity to recognise the fact that that is all they are? And to be reasonably polite to each other in the process?

I can't help but get the feeling that the hostile, and divided nature of discussions in these areas, and witness this thread, plays into the hands of those who have an interest in making sure that it goes nowhere.

Somewhere something is having a laugh at our expense....

What you say is so true, especially about unqualified commentary on complex topics. I also think what you concluded is true as well.
Does acknowledging and responding to baiting and personal attacks help steer such discussions from going anywhere meaningful? In
my opinion absolutely. The problem is drawing that fine line between defending oneself from attack and identifying and ignoring what
truly doesn't need acknowledging (baseless personal attacks).

I am all for civilised discussion, but at the same time I won't roll over if threatened or verbally abused.