The Ballads of Emma and James

[trainedobserver]

All over the world people are going to continue to seek out hypnosis, and continue to request it.

Well, I think the only responsible thing for leaders in the UFO community to do then is to mount an educational campaign that highlights the dangers and controversy surrounding its use, which is apparently what is happening to some degree.

You understand that I sympathetic toward people who find themselves in this situation. I just happen to think that they are being done a disservice by alien abduction researchers and the ufo community at large.

 

[ArchieBedford]

You understand that I sympathetic toward people who find themselves in this situation. I just happen to think that they are being done a disservice by alien abduction researchers and the ufo community at large.

By "alien abduction researchers" (I know about 40 individuals who might qualify) and the "UFO community at large" you're talking about amateurs who are doing their best to understand something by committing their own time and their own money, for little or no reward. Far better to campaign against officialdom and the established medical fraternity for blatantly turning a blind eye to the issue and offering these people no alternatives, don't you think?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I've really had enough of the "show" vs. "show" nonsense.

Then tell that to the two boofheads at Paratopia. They seem to be the ones promoting it, as evidenced by Jer's vlog. It's not just the one i posted, he has made several others where he continues his rant against Gene. By the way i agree that the show vs show stuff is nonsense whether it be Paratopia vs Paracast or both vs Coast 2 Coast vs Binnall, ad nauseum.

Archie is right. Taking Vaeni's advice and googling hypnosis and you get a plethora of information equally for and against. In other words you find what opinions you wish to support your argument. Just because Hopkins and Jacobs may be in over their heads when it comes to the correct application of hypnosis, doesn't mean that all practitioners of it are dodgy. If hypnosis was not considered a valid tool for treatment its use would have been banned a long time ago and not just for alleged alien abduction cases.
Jacobs and Hopkins may be victims of their own agendas in that they immersed themselves in an idea so deeply that there was no real way back for them without loss of reputation or credibility. We see it all the time in this unregulated minefield.
Equally obsessive is Emma Woods. Some questions need to be asked of her and her therapists role in this.
1. At what point does she take responsibilities for her actions?
2. She worked with Jacobs for a number of years. At what point did she feel that it was all crap? After 3 years?
3. Was she ever really hypnotised?
4. Can you be really hypnotised over the phone or by Instant messaging?
5. Why did her former therapist suggest Jacobs without any real research of him?
Controversy has surrounded Jacobs and Hopkins since the nineties so there is plenty of information on the both, including their credentials.
6. If you were a therapist would you let a patient or former patient be hypnotised by a History professor?
7. The therapist knew that Jacobs was doing hypnosis over the phone and IM, did he ever suggest that it was not a good idea?
Apparently (I'm paraphrasing) he had said that he thought that it "was unlikely to be harmful due to the long period of contact between the two prior to the hypnosis." This seems to be a strange statement for a professional to make.
If you go to her site you find an extensive chronical of nearly every facet of her life. Posting her medical histories from birth till now. Even to the point where she has self diagnosed herself with a sleep disorder. She apparently had spent more than 10 years in therapy with thrice weekly visits to her therapist for a range of problems including the abduction scenario.
While i feel very sorry for her or anyone who has problems enough to keep them in therapy for that long, she, according to her therapist and the opinions of other Mental health professionals, had no psychological problem that would prevent her from functioning normally, so to speak. One then wonders why a seemingly intelligent person with no obviously incapacitating mental condition would take so long to work out that Jacobs was full of
crap, if indeed he was.
Whilst it seems that "Emma" is a victim in this case we really only have one side to the story, as Jacobs and Hopkins have been relatively quiet about this case. The danger seems to be as always, if you are going to elicit help from people in a very marginal and unregulated field such as Ufology then you need to do some homework.
The fact that Hopkins and Jacobs are being dragged through the mud comes as no surprise either. Their critics have been gunning for them , as i said previously, since the nineties. If Carol Rainey is to be believed (and until any formal rebuttal from Hopkins is delivered) then Both Hopkins and Jacobs are victims of their own obsessive foolishness as is , in my opinion, Emma Woods.
I think it may have been a case of an obsessive patient meeting an equally obsessive researcher.

 

[ArchieBedford]

One then wonders why a seemingly intelligent person with no obviously incapacitating mental condition would take so long to work out that Jacobs was full of crap, if indeed he was.

That's an easy one. She worked out Jacobs was full of crap immediately after he told her he could no longer work with her, because her five-times-a-day telephone calls, including in the middle of the night, were driving his family nuts. She was demanding all his attention and time, and telling him he should concentrate solely on her case and neglect other people who wanted to work with him.

Jacobs says this is the only time in 30 years he has ever initiated a break with working with anyone - a very exceptional circumstance for him. After that, it was easy for Emma to quickly come to the conclusion, after three years, that she must have been "abused."

Please research Borderline Personality Disorder, in detail. You'll soon get it.

---------- Post added at 06:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 AM ----------

Their critics have been gunning for them , as i said previously, since the nineties.

Yeah, odd that none of the other people working with abductees and writing books, even the more flaky and questionable ones like Dolores Cannon or Mary Rodwell, come in for much criticism. I think this is probably because critics are lazy, go for the most prominent targets they see and don't even bother to research the subject properly, let alone interview other investigators or review their published work to see to what extent it corroborates or contradicts the hypotheses of their chosen easy targets.

The fact that possibly less ethical or capable researchers, working with hundreds of suspect abductees, seem to completely escape any kind of scrutiny or criticism is a sad reflection indeed on the critics of Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs, and certainly does the field a profound disservice.

 

[jjflash]

Great posts, trainedobserver. I have a personal appreciation for your objectivity and attention to the bigger picture relevant issues.

From the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis (ASCH) website:

Important Notice Regarding Hypnosis and the American Medical Association

...The Presidents of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis (ASCH) and the Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (SCEH) have received a communication from the American Medical Association (AMA) that raises issues of concern for all three organizations. At the request of the AMA, we are publishing the following notice through our Newsletters in order to bring this important information to the attention of all our members...

The American Medical Association (AMA) has brought to the attention of both the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis (ASCH) and the Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (SCEH) that many individuals using hypnosis, some of whom may be members of one or both Societies, may be making the inaccurate statement that hypnosis is approved by the AMA as a legitimate therapy for medical or psychological purposes. The Societies have been advised by the AMA that this statement is inaccurate...

Since the AMA had rescinded its policy about hypnosis, and members of the Societies must be accurate in their presentations about hypnosis, it is not appropriate for members of either ASCH or SCEH to state that the AMA recognizes or endorses hypnosis for any purpose...

ASCH and SCEH join hands in urging their members to respect the concerns raised by the AMA by reviewing any promotional materials used in their practices and, if they discover statements which misrepresent the current stance of the AMA, making appropriate corrections. ASCH and SCEH also urge all members who teach hypnosis to review their teaching materials and take steps to insure that the current stance of the AMA toward hypnosis is represented accurately in their educational endeavors.

https://www.asch.net/Public/AMANotice/tabid/277/Default.aspx

Some points that I think are relevant:

- Hypnotherapy and regressive hypnosis are not synonymous, and neither are endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA) as effective memory retrieval tools.

- Non-ordinary states of consciousness, such as induced through hypnotherapy, eye movement and desensitization reprocessing (EMDR), and similar such techniques that can be administered by select mental health professionals indeed have therapeutic purposes, but are not intended to be used for memory retrieval. The mental imagery induced is for therapeutic purposes only and is not taken literally when conducted in traditional circumstances related to psychotherapy.

- People may proceed at their own risk that choose to volunteer to be subjected to hypnosis by parties that may or may not have minimal certifications or mental health training, but should be advised that the activity is by no means necessarily an effective memory retrieval tool.

- Individuals may proceed at their own risk that choose to administer regressive hypnosis (with or without certification) as a memory retrieval tool, but they indeed have an ethical and moral obligation to make the research subject well aware of their qualifications or lack thereof, that the activity is by no means necessarily an effective memory retrieval tool, and that the activity is, in fact, not endorsed by the AMA for any purposes whatsoever, much less for memory retrieval. To do otherwise is, by any definition, negligent. To do otherwise while publicizing, promoting and advertising that factual evidence has been established is, by any definition, the actions of either a liar or an incompetent.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

The problem still remains. How do people who feel that they have experienced "missing time" or some kind of memory block deal with this dilemma? Especially since qualified professionals seem to rarely venture into the realms of Ufos and abductions apart from, sadly, the late John Mack. Regardless of the stance taken by the AMA people will still seek out those who they think can help when all traditional methods have failed. And as evidenced by the AMA ...
"People may proceed at their own risk that choose to volunteer to be subjected to hypnosis by parties that may or may not have minimal certifications or mental health training, but should be advised that the activity is by no means necessarily an effective memory retrieval tool."

Somebody failed Emma Woods then. Even back when she began with Jacobs, where were her professional Mental Health officials and their cautionary advice then? Maybe instead of marginalizing those who seek memory retrieval via hypnosis, the AMA could recognize the importance of this area and do more to assist those seeking treatment rather than leaving it in the hands of the practitioners themselves in a kind of self regulatory minefield. Unfortunately, it seems, the AMA and other organisations do not know what to do or say about people who suffer these types of ailments especially when normal psychological and psychiatric methods have failed the individual.
In other words the AMA does not dismiss Hypnotherapy as a therapeutic tool, only when it comes to memory retrieval and regressive hypnosis. It then leaves it up to the relevant practitioner to be honest and above board in their dealings with the patient.
All the more reason to do your research when it comes to seeking help in any area of Ufology or the paranormal.

 

[Keiko]

- Individuals may proceed at their own risk that choose to administer regressive hypnosis (with or without certification) as a memory retrieval tool, but they indeed have an ethical and moral obligation to make the research subject well aware of their qualifications or lack thereof, that the activity is by no means necessarily an effective memory retrieval tool, and that the activity is, in fact, not endorsed by the AMA for any purposes whatsoever, much less for memory retrieval. To do otherwise is, by any definition, negligent. To do otherwise while publicizing, promoting and advertising that factual evidence has been established is, by any definition, the actions of either a liar or an incompetent.

As someone who did a few sessions with Dr Jacob's I can tell you he made me aware of all of these points before beginning, perhaps with the exception of the non-endorsement by AMA. However, I took that as a given so I don't feel there was a need to discuss it. Hypnosis as a tool for retrieving memories of possible alien interaction??? Hardly AMA territory! The validity of hypnosis for memory retrieval is controversial, this is very easy to find out in about 5 minutes by doing a google search on it. This was discussed at length before beginning as were the glaringly obvious risks - confabulation and cultural contamination being the most obvious. I'm not so convinced by the argument that people want to please the hypnotist. Lying in bed in the dark of night...trying to make sense of experiences you've had...do you really think you give a *5$" about what some old guy thinks (no offence to DJ intended :) So knowing all that do you want to give it a try? Some do, some don't.

And that's the way it should be in a free society. People are then free to critique and discuss too and decide on the evidence or lack thereof. But from what you have said above, in my experience, DJ has not been unethical (which is not to say I agree with or am convinced by all his conclusions but that's not the point.)

 

[Lauren Jones]

Check this out.

I think Jeff and Jeremy are doing some good work. I disagree with some of their perspectives on the abduction phenomenon. For instance, Whitley Strieber seems to have had a big influence on their overall philosophy and I think Strieber is a complete fraud. That being said, there's not enough critical thinking in this field and their commitment to deconstructing the abduction-hypnotic regression paradigm has elevated the discussion in my opinion. Just my opinion...

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I think Jeff and Jeremy are doing some good work. I disagree with some of their perspectives on the abduction phenomenon. For instance, Whitley Strieber seems to have had a big influence on their overall philosophy and I think Strieber is a complete fraud. That being said, there's not enough critical thinking in this field and their commitment to deconstructing the abduction-hypnotic regression paradigm has elevated the discussion in my opinion. Just my opinion...

I don't know, I personally find myself moving over more and more to Emma's side as time goes on. Jacobs not even attempting to defend himself isn't helping matters any. As far as Vaeni and Ritzmann go I just wish they could lighten up the rhetoric. They can be so abrasive sometimes, especially Vaeni, that it's easy to find yourself arguing for the other side just because you don't like them. A few hours ago I stumbled on a long forum thread at another board (Not Paratopia either) where Vaeni and several other paranormal radio personalities were going at it in a way so vicious and juvenile that it had me in awe. Seriously, these guys were throwing scathing personal insults at one another like they were under the impression that a cash prize would be awarded to whomever could be the most vile. Is this the new face of UFO research? I certainly hope not.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In fact Jacobs has defended himself on his site, and is reportedly working on a more detailed version. Whether you agree with him or not, you can't claim he's said nothing.

As to the allegations from Budd Hopkins' ex-wife, remember he is quite ill, and probably won't answer for a while. The timing is curious.

 

[Lauren Jones]

I don't know, I personally find myself moving over more and more to Emma's side as time goes on. Jacobs not even attempting to defend himself isn't helping matters any. As far as Vaeni and Ritzmann go I just wish they could lighten up the rhetoric. They can be so abrasive sometimes, especially Vaeni, that it's easy to find yourself arguing for the other side just because you don't like them. A few hours ago I stumbled on a long forum thread at another board (Not Paratopia either) where Vaeni and several other paranormal radio personalities were going at it in a way so vicious and juvenile that it had me in awe. Seriously, these guys were throwing scathing personal insults at one another like they were under the impression that a cash prize would be awarded to whomever could be the most vile. Is this the new face of UFO research? I certainly hope not.

Take Emma Woods out of the equation and Jacobs' work is still insane.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

In fact Jacobs has defended himself on his site, and is reportedly working on a more detailed version. Whether you agree with him or not, you can't claim he's said nothing.

As to the allegations from Budd Hopkins' ex-wife, remember he is quite ill, and probably won't answer for a while. The timing is curious.

Yeah, I've read it. It would be nice to get more than that though. Quite frankly, my patience is wearing thin. The opposition's arguments have been better so far, even if that opposition tends to behave like adolescent asshats half the time. And it's not like I have any kind of vendetta against Jacobs. Shit, I was the guy that wrote the UFO watchdog entry that erupted in controversy (At the time I was completely, utterly, and wholly unaware of Emma Woods and her allegations). But in a nod to Jacobs I do think it's a little unfair that his name is getting dragged through the mud over this thing while her supporters feel it's perfectly fine for her to wage her bloody and never-ending assault under the full cover of anonymity.

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

Take Emma Woods out of the equation and Jacobs' work is still insane.

Yeah, I suppose you've got some inside track on what's really going on. The aliens or interdimensional beings or whatever they are come over to your home every Thursaday and tell you what's golden and what isn't. Move along.

 

[Lauren Jones]

Yeah, I've read it. It would be nice to get more than that though. Quite frankly, my patience is wearing thin. The opposition's arguments have been better so far, even if that opposition tends to behave like adolescent asshats half the time. And it's not like I have any kind of vendetta against Jacobs. Shit, I was the guy that wrote the UFO watchdog entry that erupted in controversy (At the time I was completely, utterly, and wholly unaware of Emma Woods and her allegations). But in a nod to Jacobs I do think it's a little unfair that his name is getting dragged through the mud over this thing while her supporters feel it's perfectly fine for her to wage her bloody and never-ending assault under the full cover of anonymity.

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------



Yeah, I suppose you've got some inside track on what's really going on. The aliens or interdimensional beings or whatever they are come over to your home every Thursaday and tell you what's golden and what isn't. Move along.[/

Perhaps there is nothing going on.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Perhaps there is nothing going on.

At the risk of being a broken record once again: If you can convince me there's absolutely nothing to the claims of the Hills, the Allagash 4, the Pascagoula witnesses, Kelly Cahill, and to a lesser extent, Travis Walton, I will give up entirely my 15-20 year interest in the UFO subject.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Jacobs not even attempting to defend himself isn't helping matters any.

There are reasons for this, Eddie.

One is that in 2007 Jacobs took the evidence of her vilification campaign to a number of professional psychiatrists to seek advice on how it might be stopped - especially the endless, intrusive day and night telephone calls to his family. Every one of them diagnosed classic BPD behaviour, slam-dunk, right down the middle, no grey area. They further advised that with such a BPD vilification campaign, the most effective strategy is to ignore it as any kind of response, no matter how effective, reasonable or explanatory, will be used by the BPD to fuel her campaign and escalate. So he has followed the advice of these mental health professionals and ignored her.

Another reason is that the campaign has always been confined to a few internet chat forums populated by a few dozen people at most, which counts for almost nothing in the real world. 99% of people out there (even those interested in this specific subject who read the published literature and directly correspond with researchers) have no exposure to it and remain unaware. Most abductees I talk to have never heard of this circus, as they don't hang out on internet chat forums - though almost all of them have read Jacobs' books and respect his work. A mistake we often make is to assume that internet chat forums or podcasts mean anything in the real world. With all due respect to Gene, they don't. People keep reading Jacobs' books, keep contacting him asking for help to understand what is happening to them: he has a long waiting list and can't even respond to everyone who contacts him. This EW business is simply a non-issue to everyone except a handful of people in the "UFO ghetto" who give it attention.

Why, in all honesty, should Jacobs bother with this rubbish? Well, one reason would be to address the tiny handful of people who care about it - like some of you guys. To that end, he reports he is preparing a much longer, more detailed account of the history of dealing with her, back before 2007 when she began her defamation campaign. Maybe this, when he publishes it, will clear things up.

Cheers

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So for now this thread is closed.