Emma Woods Has Read David Jacobs’ New Book. Uh-Oh.

David Jacobs’ latest work of hypnotically co-created claptrap hits stores tomorrow. But Emma received an advance copy and wrote to some folks about it, me among them. I thought her raw impressions along with Jack Brewer’s and Tyler Kokjohn’s responses really said it all. They’ve kindly allowed me to cut and paste their private emails here. Sometimes I think the unedited response is best, don’t you?

 

FROM EMMA WOODS:

Hi,

I just got Jacobs’ book in the mail. I pre-ordered it on Amazon, and it looks like they sent the pre-ordered ones out early.

Jacobs has included a few things from my hypnosis sessions in the book, but without saying that it was me. Otherwise, he has not mentioned me in the book. (Although I’m still waiting to see what he puts on his website when the book is officially launched.)

The book has whopping lies spread throughout it, which is not a surprise. It also has glaring omissions.

The biggest omission is that Jacobs has left out any mention of having IM conversations with the hybrids, being under threat from them, going on the run, making an agreement with them, the addresses and photos he has of their apartments and houses, and so on. He has also left out that Elizabeth saw him on a UFO. Plus he does not disclose what he told Brian, which was that the hybrids had “found” him. It is as though all that never happened.

I have Jacobs on tape telling me about how he sent the transcripts of the hybrid IM to Leslie Kean. He also thanks Kean in the book for encouraging him with it. The great irony is that Kean is all about disclosure. And yet, she and Jacobs are hiding the most monumental develpoment in all of human history: direct contact between a human and alien hybrids through IM.

If Kean and Jacobs were on the level, they would hold a press conference and release the hybrid IM transcripts to the scientific and academic communities, and to the world, as a matter of the highest importance. Kean could use her considerable connections to get it into the mainstream media. Jacobs says often that he is an academic and has to go where the evidence leads, even if it embarrasses him. He no longer has a job to lose.

Obviously, Kean knows it is garbage, and so does Jacobs. He was going to release it, but perhaps feels he can’t now after I made the backstory public.(?)

The upshot is that Kean, the champion of disclosure, and Jacobs the academic who goes where the evidence leads him, are keeping the hybrid IM secret from the world.

Although Jacobs does not talk about the hybrid IM in the book, he actually uses content from the hybrid IM in the book. Except that he pretends it is what Elizabeth told him, rather than that the hybrids told him.

Kean is backing a man who she knows produces garbage research. Jacobs is putting out research he knows himself is garbage, and adding layers of lies to it to try and make it work.

Jacobs also sanitizes his research subjects’ bios. He uses quite a bit of Brian Reed’s hypnosis sessions in the book, and does not disclose that Brian Reed has said he does not think it is real. He also does not disclose that both Allison and Brian thought that Elizabeth was lying. He does not disclose that Elizabeth confessed twice to lying about everything. He also leaves out that Bernard cut off all contact with him and never spoke to him again.

Jacobs also claims that he he did not do hypnosis with Elizabeth on IM, although he did, and even Brian talked about that.

He also does not disclose that he did hypnosis by phone. One of the subjects in the book lives in Ireland, and Jacobs probably hypnotized them over the phone, or on Skype. But he does not mention that.

Jacobs implies that he is “competent” in hypnosis. He says that he does not lead or suggest, and is careful not to influence people. It is bare-faced lying on his part.

Jacobs does not provide the real transcripts from people’s hypnosis session. Instead, he paraphrases them, but in a way that makes it look as though it is what they said verbatim. He covers himself for this by saying that he does not provide the back and forth between him and the subject, and tidies it up, while keeping what they said unchanged. I am sure that the reason is because if he provided the back and forth between him and the subject, it would show him leading them and implanting the memories in them. So he provides paraphrased excerpts from their sessions instead.

Jacobs also trots out the same old lie about how his subjects did not know what the others were remembering, and that therefore the similarities are significant. He leaves out that he tells people directly, has them transcribe each others sessions, and holds meetings at his home where he keeps everyone updated.

I think Jacobs is trying to put distance between his book and my website. He has changed Elizabeth’s pseudonym to Betsy. Also, he calls the hybrid Jay, whom he had IMs with, Jamie in the book. He has also changed the name of the hybrid Ben to Ken. I suspect it is because he does not want my website to come up if people do searchers on those names.

Anyway, that is just from a cursory look through the book.

Take care,

Emma

JACK BREWER RESPONDS:

Hi, Emma,

I can empathize with your frustrations and anger with the book. I would say that I can understand, but, in all honesty, that really wouldn’t be true. I don’t understand what it’s like to have the kind of violation you experienced put on public display and then suffer attack for refusing to smile while you’re kicked in the face. I’m sorry that happened, I am glad that you embarked on the journey you did, and I appreciate the work you have contributed to the community. Thank you.

As for the book, I suppose we fully expected it to be a fictional work presented as truth. I guess we expected Aloha Norton would leave out the bad parts. I would be quite shocked if he owned that he was using women’s names while emailing, conducted international telephone hypnosis and that his star witness, Elizabeth Betsy Cougar Mellencamp, threw her heart and soul into an IM scam on the son of another witness, only to have the young man reject the madness.

And ya know what’s important about that story, Emma? You.

Not Dave or Leslie or Brian or Aloha or fictitious doctors in Sweden that never existed. You.

You’re the important aspect of the story because you spoke up and gave Reed someone to contact for support. And when you spoke up it signaled Carol to dust off her files and publish the info therein. And it gave Vaeni, Ritzmann and lots of others, including this writer, stories to sink their teeth into in which the claimants were willing to do more than whisper in the shadows about what we knew was going on but couldn’t yet prove.

But one of the most important points actually rarely gets discussed, Emma: Jacobs intended to publish a book years ago, and he didn’t because of you.

When you took action, his material and plans went to hell. And when that happened, his plans of being the heir apparent to Hopkins went down the drain, partially because we live in an age in which news is old in a half hour, and you knocked his time table back years, but also because Rainey lit a fire to the legend of Saint Budd.

So the whole time frame and window of opportunity was ruined, and Jacobs can never get it back. He was poised to take the throne of head man of high strangeness, and by the time you, Emma, and Rainey explained the job description, no one respects it anymore. And he can never, ever get that back.

So whatever happens, it’s water under the bridge now, Emma. It’s over, and he lost.

Cheers,

Jack

TYLER KOKJOHN RESPONDS:

I must agree with Jack; Jacobs has probably spent years recalibrating his work after you (Emma), Carol, Paratopia and UFO Mag systematically exposed the situation.

Did I mention to you how peer review has a down side? You all provided important input and Jacobs received the message; he changed his tune.  In science we don’t have many situations like this, the idea of improved products is a community net good. Here the bastard seemingly slips away. And I put it to you that you now know you have the most important audience of all; David M. Jacobs.  And he cannot evade your public judgement of the merits of his work.

Building on Jack’s theme, you changed not only Jacobs’s timeline and content, but his basic method as well.  An unprecedented turning of the tables where a research subject challenges the so-called investigator.  And now I suggest you bring that process to fruition to finish him scientifically by a focused review of the contents of his new book.

I have not yet read the book, but based on your message it seems that Jacobs is in full obscurantist glory, notwithstanding Thomas Bullard’s enchantment with the meticulous methodology and impressive data.  There are times when data summaries do not suffice, this is one of them. At any time did he describe how he validates information and decides what aspects are used to create his evolving core story line?  Thirteen accounts selected out of over a thousand different subjects – looks like some heavy cherry picking of the data to me. He will have a hard time with these issues.

What were his conclusions?  Do we face hostile takeover?  Does he corroborate ANY of this independently? Or is it really a minor revision of the same story we have heard for years?  I predict that when we look at the offerings we will find them based on nothing much at all; a dismal obscurantist equivalent of hear-say evidence.  Once again, the dogged effort to avoid a Nobel prize.

Look carefully at what David Jacobs has produced. Tell the world what you see.  And Jacobs will know he has been exposed.

Tyler

I RESPOND:

Or can I just post the above exchange at jayvay and let the world in on this?

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Emma Woods Has Read David Jacobs’ New Book. Uh-Oh.

  1. Jeremy, thank you for posting the above. Like a slow-moving train wreck, I am both horrified and fascinated by the antics of Dr. Jacobs. Emma, thank you for standing firm in your vigilence.

  2. Yes – thank you Emma. I was once a “research subject” of Dr. Jacobs as well. Everything you are saying is 100% correct – and I appreciate your professional, firm, factual stance. It cannot have been easy going public, but you have truly done an amazing service to our community. I suffered for years with the belief that my experiences were evil/harmful/threatening — in no small part due to the “hostile takeover” storyline that he and others like him have been peddling. I now have a very different take on the phenomenon, and I feel vindicated and encouraged by the intellectually honest work that you and Jeremy have done. I am a research scientist btw – and I find these sorts of unsupervised hypnosis protocols appalling from both a scientific and ethical standpoint.

    • Thank you for your kind words, and for sharing your experience EarlGrey. I am glad that you too were able to see through the hypnosis, and now have a different take on it. There are probably many subjects of his who will never get out of it, which is so sad. It is good to hear about someone else’s experience. Thank you again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s