Mod+ 230. Dr. David Jacobs Claims Academia Has Abrogated Responsibility to Investigate Alien Contact

Alex

Administrator
#21
Great interview, Alex. I really like where you directed the conversation...

Submitting for the record--

'Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects'
- Jacques Vallee
I get where you're coming from re Vallee... but then again, I'm not sure it really gets us very far... ok, it's all some kind of elaborate play created by being who's purpose, means, and nature we could never understand. but I do get the point... not sure what to make of it all. funny, but unlike the stuck-on-stupid debates discussed in 229, here we have some real debate/mystery :)
 

Alex

Administrator
#22
Jacobs is such an interesting man. I have great respect for his courage and intelligence. His book Secret Life was the first I read on the subject, and was a real mind-opener for me.

...

Though I suppose Jacobs also embraces some trusted colleagues, of which the late Bud Hopkins must be one. Am I correct about that?

...

Perhaps most of all, the fact that not a single of his clients has found their lifelong experience with abductions to be spiritually transforming is surprising and revealing. To be so involved with any aspect of reality for so many years, and not to be able to see the positive side of it, is a difficult way to live one's life.
agreed... very curious. undermines his position.
 

Alex

Administrator
#23
Btw does anyone know Macks position on this issue at the time of his death. It appears from Dr. Jacob that he had come over to his view at least part way.
I hope someone can shed light on this... from everything I've learned, it sounds like complete BS .
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#24
Here's a review of Jacobs' The Threat that I found even-handed:
http://www.gregsandow.com/ufo/Contents/Threat_Review/threat_review.htm

The reviewer had the same appreciative reaction as me towards the methodology chapter:
The book also has something else that's new -- a long, thorough chapter on Jacobs's way of working, the most substantial discussion I've yet seen in print from any abduction researcher about the methodology of abduction research. How do we know that abductees aren't simply suffering from dissasociative fantasies? How do we know they aren't prompted under hypnosis with leading questions, or that they're not confabulating? ("Confabulation" is a technical term that means, very simply, "making things up.") Skeptics, of course, have made these charges, and Jacobs answers them and others, in great detail. Are abduction stories caused by media contamination? If they were, says Jacobs, he would be getting reports of the dancing fat blue aliens in the film of Whitley Strieber's Communion, and he never has. Are abduction reports an example of false memory syndrome? No, says Jacobs, because, unlike people with this syndrome -- who believe in sexual abuse that never happened -- abductees consciously remember their abductions without being prompted by a therapist or investigator, and don't only report childhood events. They're also physically missing when they say they've been abducted, and can sometimes provide independent confirmation (from another abductee who was abducted at the same time). I do think Jacobs should present more proof of what he says -- how many cases can he cite of abductees who truly disappear, and what proof does he have? But from now on, any skeptic who writes about abductions without addressing Jacobs's arguments will stand revealed as irresponsible.

For the first time, too, at least in print, Jacobs takes issue -- again in careful detail -- with John Mack, Edith Fiore, Richard Boylan and other researchers who believe the aliens are benevolent. Jacobs, by the way, doesn't rule out alien benevolence. He's willing to concede that the alien plan might be in our best interest. He just doesn't see any evidence that this is so.
 
#25
Trancestate quotes Emma Woods:

"I was hypnotized to expect to be dominated by a "hybrid", saying that if I were to remember the "hybrid" having a conversation with me, that he would be the one who was in control and that I would be in a 'second class situation'."
Judging from these clips, that also describes the interactions between Jacobs and Emma Woods. Jacobs is the one who's doing the educating.

Anybody else see projection at work here?
 
#26
Thanks for all of your info, Doug. :) I will look into it.

However, I personally still want to be careful about making hasty conclusions through one person's report. I'm saying this without having gone through the material you posted yet!, but I think it's fair to say many abductees have been heavily traumatized and what may sometimes result from that I don't know. Maybe it's spin, but in his defense, there's this bit on David Jacobs' site:
http://www.ufoabduction.com/defamationcampaign.htm
Thanks for your reply, Ian. I'm familiar with David Jacobs' "Defamation Campaign" article. I'd also like to point out that, in the article, Jacobs does admit to having given Emma hypnotic suggestions that she was suffering from multiple personality disorder (he could hardly do otherwise, since his repeated suggestions to that effect were recorded):
If the situation Alice reported was true and actual “hybrid beings” were threatening her, I felt I had to try to protect her from them. And obviously if Alice's reports were true, I had to try to protect myself as well. If abduction research can be trusted, alien beings have telepathic abilities and know what people are thinking; therefore, protecting both Alice and myself was a major challenge.

I thought long and hard about what, if anything, I could do. I decided that one approach would be, during hypnosis, to give Alice ideas to think about that would throw "mind-readers" off my trail. I explained my thinking to her before I acted. Then at one point during a hypnosis session I told her that as a researcher I was interested not in abductions but in multiple personality disorder. I chose this because it is believable--the disorder has characteristics in common with the effects of abductions. I hoped that she would be able to keep this idea in her mind and convey it to her abductors, thereby relieving some of the pressure both she and I felt. At no time did I think that Alice had multiple personality disorder, and of course neither did she. She knew exactly what was happening and why.

In hindsight, I realize that Alice's reports of alleged alien threats and physical abuse resulted in a heightened sense of urgency that led me to act quickly, perhaps too quickly. As it turned out, the multiple-personality-disorder ploy I invented as a defense was useless. Although the ploy was an ineffective defense against her alleged tormentors, ironically it has become an effective weapon against me. Through selective editing and misleading claims, Alice has turned it on its head and is using it to defame me.
I have to ask, what kind of person would f*ck with a subject's mind in this manner? Would an ethical hypnotherapist or psychologist, aware of the inherent dangers of hypnotic suggestion, even dream of pulling a stunt like this? I think not. David Jacobs' stated reasons for doing so are no excuse, and only impugn his morality, IMO. If he really thought he or Emma were in danger, he should have aborted the hypnotic sessions immediately.

Incidentally, the current defamation article on Jacobs' site is not the original one, according to Emma Woods. She claims the first one contained more lies and distortions, some of which were toned down or eliminated after Woods pointed them out in print and in podcast interviews. For Emma's detailed discussion of both versions, see:

Rebuttal to Dr. David Jacobs

Emma is not alone in her battle to rescue her reputation from Jacobs' and his followers vitriolic defamations. She has many well-respected supporters in the UFO community. Here's a short sampling of articles written about her case, together with (mostly) brief extracts:

Emma and the Men of Ufology (Nancy Birne of UFO Magazine)
If she is acting, she is doing a fabulous job of it. Consistent, pleasant, sweet, compliant, reasonable. If she's a stalker, as various guys in the argument claim, well then. That's a foul thing to say. Can they prove it? Maybe with some leaked crazy letters or maybe some shrieking and wailing or threats on the various audio tapes that David Jacobs is said to have created?

I have read Jacobs's earliest response to the accusations way back when they were first examined on the Paratopia radio podcasts, and I watched those words in his official statement come right down off the web and change lickety-split whenever Emma pointed out his factual errors and omissions. So far, as Vaeni is wont to say: "He said; she documented."

Comment from Raymond Fowler on the Emma Woods article
Rather than conforming to the so-called party line critics should at least be open to the possibility that Emma is telling the truth and be willing to examine both sides of the question objectively. Hopefully UFO Magazine will continue to examine both sides of this case so other researchers and those who have read Jacob's books will be able to judge the truth of the matter on the basis of strong evidence. Thus far (based on the contents of the article) I am disappointed in the way Jacobs and reportedly how Hopkins have reacted.

Central Issues of the Emma Woods Case (Jack Brewer)
1) None of those who try to saddle Woods with psychiatric disorders are actually qualified to diagnose or identify such conditions.

2) None of those who accuse Woods of unacceptable behavior provide documentation of specific circumstances.

3) My personal experience interacting with Woods gives me no reason whatsoever to suspect her to be anything other than reasonable.

- A real hard look needs to be taken at the protection of human research subjects who work with self-described ufologists, especially as it relates to supposed investigative techniques that throw critical thinking under the bus and ignore American Medical Association policy.

- Outright lies have been told and promoted about Woods' actions and circumstances, tactics comparable to defense attorneys attempting to defame the victim to deflect attention from what their client, the criminal, actually did.

- Woods consistently communicates clearly, expressing herself well and providing specific documentation of her points, while her detractors level unspecific accusations lacking verification and substance.

- Jacobs clearly tries to lead his research subjects to predetermined points. The well is so tainted it should be capped.

- Jacobs, at best, made some extremely poor errors in judgment while interacting with Woods.

- If Jacobs or any of the rest of the witch hunt gang would ever present any actual evidence, as defined by the professional research community, of alien abduction and of which they chronically and falsely claim to possess, they would have no need to conduct such public relations campaigns as have become the norm.

- Woods had some interesting experiences. Anybody remember those: interesting experiences?

- Woods has every right to discuss her case and the related abuse as long as she so chooses.

- By any definitions, it is irrational and unreasonable for others to suggest Woods should silence herself and cease discussing her own case and related abuse while they, no less, continue discussing both her and her case. To suggest such is simply unreasonable.

Abductology Implodes (Robert Sheaffer)
In hindsight, this outcome was inevitable. As anyone who ever tried to have a rational conversation with either Hopkins or Jacobs can attest, the two men are extraordinarily smug, self-righteous, even pig-headed. They are correct, you are wrong, and probably stupid as well: it's as simple as that. (I never got a chance to chat with Mack, apart from a quick "hello, how are you?" in passing. The circles he moved in were far too rarefied for me to enter.) In their own circles, each is a god, more or less, and one doesn't question superior beings. There's truth in the old Biblical saying, "pride goeth before a fall." When someone smugly thinks he is invariably correct no matter how foolish his pronouncements (somehow Sylvia Browne comes to mind), sooner or later the Foolish Factor will grow so large that even many of his sycophants won't be able to ignore it.

Wither Abductology? John Mack was struck by a car and killed in 2004. Budd Hopkins has been publicly humiliated by the shocking expose of his foolishness written by his ex-wife. As for David Jacobs, if there were a contest for "stupidest and most humiliating statements," he would be a strong contender. No doubt UFO abduction claims will trickle on for a while, but it's clear that Abductology, as practiced by the Troika in its heyday, is now considered even by many pro-UFOlogists to be an embarrassing chapter in the history of UFOs that should be forgotten as quickly as possible.
Doug
 

Alex

Administrator
#27
Thanks Alex, that was very interesting, something I’ve been thinking on-and-off about since the 1970s...Not the same with Billy Meier.
Hi Rod... I realize I'm only responding to a tiny piece of your post, but wasn't Billy Meier shown to be peddling photos with fishing line exposed? or am I missing part of the story?
 

Alex

Administrator
#28
I have to ask, what kind of person would f*ck with a subject's mind in this manner? Would an ethical hypnotherapist or psychologist, aware of the inherent dangers of hypnotic suggestion, even dream of pulling a stunt like this? I think not. David Jacobs' stated reasons for doing so are no excuse, and only impugn his morality, IMO. If he really thought he or Emma were in danger, he should have aborted the hypnotic sessions immediately.
agreed. and where the heck does he get off diagnosing multiple-personality disorder. I asked my wife about this since she's a PsyD and longtime clinical therapist, she was not only stunned by the inappropriateness, but added that this kind of diagnosis is very, very rare... not the kind of thing you hand out to someone after a few phone conversations.
 

Alex

Administrator
#29
I'm familiar with David Jacobs' "Defamation Campaign" article...
on the other hand... and as I mentioned in the intro to 230... I'm not willing to throw all of Jacobs work out the window... especially since no one else has the guts to go where he's gone... and double especially because all of the detractors are coming at this from some kind of goofy anti-hypnosis thing (Nancy Birnes, UFO Mag editor, comes to mind... she thinks ALL hypnosis has an underlying sexual pervert angle!)
 
#30
Doug, I too want to say thank you for what you posted. The Carol Rainey piece was especially revealing.
Thanks Robert. On George Hansen's site there is an article cowritten by him that lends support to Carol Rainey's suspicions (assertions? -- I've been up all night and day with these critical posts and I'm too tired to remember now.) that Linda Napolitano (aka Linda Cortile) hoaxed Budd Hopkins. (For those who haven't already seen Rainey's bombshell article, Napolitano's story formed the basis of Hopkins' book Witnessed; The True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abductions.)

Here's the article:
A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction of Linda Napolitano

ABSTRACT: Budd Hopkins has made a number of public presentations of a purported UFO abduction case with multiple witnesses. The primary abductee is Linda Napolitano, who lives in an apartment building on the lower east side of Manhattan (New York City). She claims to have been abducted by extraterrestrial aliens from her 12th floor apartment in November 1989. It is claimed that three witnesses in a car two blocks away observed Linda and alien beings float out of a window and ascend into a craft. One alleged witness was United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar. It is also claimed that a woman on the Brooklyn Bridge observed the abduction. Linda has reported nose bleeds, and one X-ray displays an implant in her nose.

To date, Hopkins has provided no full, detailed written report, but he did publish a couple five page articles in the September and December 1992 issues of the Mufon UFO Journal and made a presentation at the 1992 MUFON symposium. We have made use of that information as well as records from other presentations, and we have interviewed the abductee. A number of serious questions arose from our examination. The case has many exotic aspects, and we have identified a science fiction novel that may have served as the basis for elements of the story.

Several prominent leaders in ufology have become involved, and their behavior and statements have been quite curious. Some have aggressively attempted to suppress evidence of a purported attempted murder. The implications for the understanding of ufology are discussed.
For me, the most fascinating part of the article is the section that deals with a rather large number of correspondences between Napolitano's abduction report and a (then) recently published science fiction novel, "Nighteyes":

A POSSIBLE LITERARY BASIS FOR ELEMENTS OF THE STORY

This case is quite exotic, even for a UFO abduction. Government agents are involved, the UN Secretary General is a key witness, Linda was kidnapped in the interests of national security, concerns are expressed about world peace, the CIA is attempting to discredit the case, and the ETs helped end the Cold War. The story is truly marvellous, and one might wonder about its origin. We wish to draw the readers' attention to the science fiction novel, Nighteyes, by Garfield Reeves-Stevens. This work was first published in April 1989, a few months before Linda claimed to have been abducted from her apartment.

The experiences reported by Linda seem to be a composite of those of two characters in Nighteyes: Sarah and Wendy. The parallels are striking; some are listed in Table 1. We have not bothered to include the similarities commonly reported in abduction experiences (e.g., implants, bodily examinations, probes, etc.). The parallels are sufficiently numerous to lead us to suspect that the novel served as the basis for Linda's story. We want to emphasize that the parallels are with discrete elements of the case and not with the story line itself.


Table 1 - Similarities Between the Linda Napolitano Case and the Science Fiction Novel Nighteyes


* Linda was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise apartment building in New York City.

Sarah was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise apartment building in New York City.


* Dan and Richard initially claimed to have been on a stakeout and were involved in a UFO abduction in during early morning hours.

Early in Nighteyes two government agents were on a stakeout and became involved in a UFO abduction during early morning hours.


* Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan.

Wendy was kidnapped and thrown into a van by Derek and Merril.


* Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by someone in a van.

Vans were used for surveillance in Nighteyes.


* Dan is a security and intelligence agent.

Derek was an FBI agent.


* Dan was hospitalized for emotional trauma.

One of the government agents in Nighteyes was hospitalized for emotional trauma.


* During the kidnapping Dan took Linda to a safe house.

During the kidnapping Derek took Wendy to a safe house.


* The safe house Linda visited was on the beach.

In Nighteyes, one safe house was on the beach.


* Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd Hopkins about her abduction.

Before her kidnapping, Wendy contacted Charles Edward Starr about her abduction.


* Budd Hopkins is a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in New York City and an author who has written books on the topic.

Charles Edward Starr was a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in New York City and an author who had written books on the topic.


* Linda and Dan were abducted at the same time and communicated with each other during their abductions.

Wendy and Derek were abducted at the same time and communicated with each other during their abductions.

* Linda thought she "knew" Richard previously.

Wendy "knew" Derek previously.


* Dan expressed a romantic interest in Linda.

Derek became romantically involved with Wendy.


* Dan and Richard felt considerable vibration during the close encounter.

During the UFO landing in Nighteyes there was much vibration.


* Photographs of Linda were taken on the beach and sent to Hopkins.

In Nighteyes, photographs taken on a beach played a central role.


* The letter from "the third man" warned of ecological problems and potential harm to world peace if there was interference.

Wendy was racing world disaster in Nighteyes.
In addition, Carol Rainey posted some videos on YouTube that she had planned to use in a critical documentary about Budd Hopkins and other alien abduction investigators. I guess the documentary never got funded. Anyhow, I think the videos do a decent job of exposing Linda Napolitano's and Budd Hopkins' lies, thus undermining their credibility. In addition, Rainey claims that Napolitano received something like 20% of the profits from Budd's book sales of "Witnessed". The videos are in the top two rows of Rainey's user page:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Dali27/videos

Doug
 
#31
on the other hand... and as I mentioned in the intro to 230... I'm not willing to throw all of Jacobs work out the window... especially since no one else has the guts to go where he's gone... and double especially because all of the detractors are coming at this from some kind of goofy anti-hypnosis thing (Nancy Birnes, UFO Mag editor, comes to mind... she thinks ALL hypnosis has an underlying sexual pervert angle!)
Yes, but Jacobs himself addressed the problems with confabulation in the interview, using words to the effect that hypnotherapists without a background in alien abduction don't stand a chance at detecting it. I agree with him that confabulation is a huge problem in hypnotic regression, and it would be nice if his techniques at spotting it worked as well as he claims. But after researching the Emma Woods case and listening to the hypnotic session recordings, I can't help but believe the only confabulations Jacobs doesn't catch are the ones that conform to his preconceived story line.

About the "goofy anti-hypnosis thing", did you know that hypnotically refreshed memory is not allowed as evidence in Canadian courts of law, nor in the courts of most states in the US? Did you know the British UFO Research Organization (BUFORA) banned its use by investigators in 1988?

There's a mountain of evidence out there that shows that hypnosis improves memory recall to a degree, but it also engenders confabulation, and in almost all cases, it's simply not possible to distinguish between the the two. And that's with responsible, ethical hypnotherapists doing the job. Now, as far as I can tell from my research, the only folks who consistently assert that confabulation can be successfully spotted or eliminated are the ones in the alien abduction, LBL and past life industries. It seems to me that before we pat David Jacobs on the back for going where no man has gone before, we should first demand reliable evidence of this assertion from controlled and peer-reviewed studies. Put these people to the test and find out once and for all who's right or wrong. To accept their assertions without doing so is unscientific, in my view.

Doug
 
Last edited:

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#32
It seems to me that before we pat David Jacobs on the back for going where no man has gone before, we should first demand reliable evidence of this assertion from controlled and peer-reviewed studies. Put these people to the test and find out once and for all who's right or wrong. To accept their assertions without doing so is unscientific, in my view.
I agree with this to an extent. I'm viewing all such material coming from such sources as possibilities only. But whether it's Jacobs or JC Chabot in the LBL podcast, I find they still make good points, worth serious consideration, regarding hypnotic regression as a possible empirical tool, when competently and carefully done. Before hearing/reading them, I wouldn't have thought that such discriminations were possible in such a field, and I find their arguments at first glance convincing - although I agree you can't have anything approaching an acceptable level of "certainty", unless systematic research is done.

Also, in the case of past-life & LBL regression, we can at least compare the results with other sources about the "afterlife" and examine correspondences or dissonances. With alien encounters, we don't have the same advantage.

Judging from these clips, that also describes the interactions between Jacobs and Emma Woods. Jacobs is the one who's doing the educating.
They definitely sound very problematic. This goes beyond leading.
 
Last edited:

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#33
and where the heck does he get off diagnosing multiple-personality disorder.
We should be careful to note that Jacobs says he was doing this as a ploy:
I felt I had to try to protect her from them. And obviously if Alice's reports were true, I had to try to protect myself as well. If abduction research can be trusted, alien beings have telepathic abilities and know what people are thinking; therefore, protecting both Alice and myself was a major challenge.

I thought long and hard about what, if anything, I could do. I decided that one approach would be, during hypnosis, to give Alice ideas to think about that would throw "mind-readers" off my trail. I explained my thinking to her before I acted. Then at one point during a hypnosis session I told her that as a researcher I was interested not in abductions but in multiple personality disorder. I chose this because it is believable--the disorder has characteristics in common with the effects of abductions. I hoped that she would be able to keep this idea in her mind and convey it to her abductors, thereby relieving some of the pressure both she and I felt. At no time did I think that Alice had multiple personality disorder...
http://www.ufoabduction.com/defamationcampaign.htm


But this doesn't change the fact that I agree 100% with this:
I have to ask, what kind of person would f*ck with a subject's mind in this manner? Would an ethical hypnotherapist or psychologist, aware of the inherent dangers of hypnotic suggestion, even dream of pulling a stunt like this?

This is in no way meant to excuse Jacobs here, but beyond specific individuals' possible moral failings, maybe we confront a potentially inescapable impasse between abductee hypnotist researchers who are, for example, historians and not clinicians (and who therefore may not be in a good position to recognize the psychological harm they may inflict), and researchers who are clinicians and because of their wanting to heal/treat may encounter a difficult-to-navigate conflict of interest between finding the truth vs. healing the person. (In The Threat, Jacobs cites different instances where Mack seems to be saying that finding the accurate account of what happened "plays a secondary role" (p. 53) to helping the patients integrate their recalled experience. That's the perspective of many psychotherapeutic approaches (the best one, IMO).)
 
#35
I have yet to read the entire interview but
In the abduction phenomena, people are physically missing from their normal environments when they are abducted. Police have been called, search parties have been sent out, kids hunt for their parents, parents hunt for their children during abductions.
Whoa!!! I didn't realize that was common. I'd begun to lean to starting to view it (yeah convoluted . but accurate) as a mostly non-physical experience. As a person's objective consciousness having an other-dimensional experience but their body (in this reality) not being involved.
 
#36
I found it quite the way most people work. Linearity of interest. I am never amazed anymore how the intellectual set is so extremely confined as to their knowledge..
I agree. (Yes I'm as surprised as you are that we're in agreement on something) Specialization is prevalent in our societies. There are of course some advantages to that approach.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#37
I'm getting towards the end of all the material Trancestate has provided on the Emma Woods case and what it may say about David Jacobs' credibility: the Rainey article, the mp3s, the long phone call audio clip. The mp3 clips I found both, as I said, way over the line of even "leading" as Bruce said, and ethically problematic. That said, I wouldn't (personally) jump to the conclusion that he's done this all his career. That wouldn't make sense of what he wrote in The Threat in 1998 and it's not like there's been tons of people coming out with accusations like this. (Working in this field, with traumatized people, with whatever past background they had, dealing in therapeutic settings where there is an investigative/empirical mission, dealing with subjectivity and experience, perhaps with a "therapist" who gets vicariously traumatized himself, it's bound to get messy.)

As Rainey ends her article, it's possible Hopkins and Jacob, working in isolation and for many other factors, get/got a little (or a lot) more rigid as the years went on. I also don't feel we get the full context in which those clips appears, and regarding the article Rainey is an ex of Hopkins, and I don't know what that says, but I'd want to be a little careful there (though she brings to light a lot of interesting facts). I've also seen many UFO abduction docs that don't involve Jacobs or Hopkins and feature similar accounts of missing persons, similar treatment by the "abductors", etc.

Also, I was expecting to find the long taped telephone call with Jacobs (I'm not quite finished with it - maybe it'll get worse as I finish it) a lot more devastating towards Jacobs. This is just a vibe I'm getting, and worth the little that it is, but from the tone and manner of Jacobs' voice, I'm not inclined to immediately condemn him (that's apart from what he did during some of their sessions), and I find his account (of having dealt with a very difficult person - whether she has a BPD or not [I personally tend to shy away from using those personality disorder diagnoses - people are too multi-faceted, changeable and context-influenced for those, most of the time, to apply] - and being completely overwhelmed by the troubles he's been with her) credible, and not inclined to immediately put all of my sympathy towards Woods. Sounds like it's complicated to say the least.

The expression of the return of (some) sympathy for Jacobs doesn't mean I accept his ideas. I have no idea whether his conclusions about what's going on are accurate, or whether his own work suffered to a severe degree because of his conclusions and biases, or if that sub-field is basically too messy and unsure to work with in the first place! I'm a little sensitive to someone of 30 years of experience suddenly having his entire life's work potentially dismissed because of a meltdown experience with a patient.
 
Last edited:
#38
On the page titled, "My Hypnosis Sessions with Dr. David Jacobs", Woods gets to the heart of the abuse she suffered while under his treatment:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120227...pnosis/information-hypnosis-david-jacobs.html

The whole page is worth reading, but here are a few relevant excerpts, along with links to the clips in question...
Doug, thanks for all the info. It's hard to know what to think. Woods comes across as intelligent and mentally balanced to me, but then Jacobs doesn't seem mentally unbalanced either. He obviously believes in the literal reality of alien abductions, and some might opine that in itself makes him unbalanced, but lots of people believe lots of things, some of them deemed very strange, and that doesn't make them unbalanced either. Once one believes something strongly, one acts in accord with those beliefs, be they true or false.

Did he lie to her? Who knows. There's an element of he said/she said, and it could be a case of two intelligent people both being sincere with the usual admixture of self-deception on both sides. That said, he appears to have had an enormous influence on her over the period they worked together, and contrary to his claim in the interview with Alex, he appears guilty of what he accused Mack of: that is, implanting suggestions, not to mention venturing a medical diagnosis though he is not a medical doctor.

Whatever, I do not feel reassured that Jacobs is an impartial, scientifically detached investigator. I also think that he wasn't sensitive enough to Woods' stress and didn't show her enough understanding and compassion: I felt he was too concerned with his own reputation and forgot that as an "expert" and a professional, he automatically assumes the major part of the responsibility for the way things went, and it should have been him bending over backwards rather than Woods to come up with some formula of words acceptable to both.

I certainly don't come away with the same confidence in his integrity as, say, in Mack's case. I won't go so far as to label him with skulduggery of any sort: but his work does seem flawed and suspicious to me, even if in his own way he is being sincere.
 
#39
After learning the details of the Emma Woods case, Jeremy Vaeni of Paratopia wrote an explosive expose about it in UFO Magazine:

Aliens vs. Predator: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods
(It starts on page 34.)

Carol Rainey, ex-wife of the late Bud Hopkins, read the article, and felt compelled to share her inside knowledge of Hopkins' work. If I recall correctly, she had originally planned to disclose the unsavory details at a much later date, but the vicious attacks on Emma Woods by Jacobs, Hopkins and their followers forced her to come forward in support of Woods. The article is a classic, and Rainey deserves much praise for her courage in speaking out:

The Priests of High Strangeness - The Co-Creation of the "Alien Abduction Phenomenon"

Incidentally, Carol Rainey has posted a comment to Alex's Skeptiko page, beneath the transcript. She wrote:

Doug
Wow, Doug. This further information casts Jacobs and Budd Hopkins in a more damning light than I was able to infer from listening to the recordings Woods made. I may have more to say later, but I'd just like to add a link to the video that Carol Rainey produced that she mentions in her article (with the initial working title Something Hidden):


Like I said, I may be back after I've watched the documentary...

Edit: sorry, this turned out not to be what I thought: it was an audio interview instead.
 
Last edited:
Top