Is Answering David Jacobs Worth The Effort?

running from hybrids

Artwork Courtesy of John Randall

Once again David M. Jacobs has released his final word on the Emma Woods allegations. Her allegations have stayed consistent for the last what? 9 years? Yet his answers keep evolving. So now we’ve got the FINAL final FINAL word, which he will inevitably edit once she again shows him to be a con artist.

Or is he mentally ill?

Or is it both?

Or does it matter?

Here’s my question: We all know it’s one of the two, right? Sane people can’t take him seriously when he says, “I know this is going to sound crazy, but….” and then launches into an explanation of how he put a number of subjects under hypnosis and told them they had multiple personality disorder, which is what he’s studying, so that alien/human hybrids would read their minds and leave him alone. No, it doesn’t sound crazy, it sounds like bullshit–but it may actually be crazy, if he believes it.

Add to that his further defense that they’re laughing about it as he’s saying it so it’s all okay. Apparently we’re to overlook the lack of internal logic to his story–that alien psychics will read his subjects’ minds and take seriously that he is a multiple personality researcher. The problems with the story–and with what he is actually doing–don’t end there, they begin.

Sane people get that, right?

And when he defends using hypnosis over the phone because other credible hypnotists do it–we all get that no credible hypnotist uses hypnosis for memory retrieval anymore, yes? I mean, do we even need to argue over phone hypnosis when those same credible researchers he’s invoking would never use it for memory retrieval, over the phone or otherwise?

So, his method is an abuse of science, an abuse of subjects, an abuse of power, an abuse of his (now former) trusted title of college professor. Need we revisit the particulars of his evolving excuses in this one woman’s case when these are the facts?

Need we keep reminding interested observers that when he says his friend(s) with psych degrees have diagnosed her as having an obsessive personality disorder that 1.) it’s impossible to diagnose someone you haven’t met and 2.) if they are friends, they’re likely listening to him whine and then saying, “Yeah, David. She sounds obsessive” the way supportive friends would, psych degree or not? But that was almost a decade ago. I wonder what they would say now having heard the audio of not only their hypnosis sessions but their “break up” phone calls  as well. I am certain that anyone with a degree in psychology would–as any regular friend might–recommend he get serious help after hearing him in that context.

David Jacobs is either a con man or mentally disturbed or both. What he is doing is fraud. Talking about his subjects’ cases with each other and then putting them under hypnosis to find out what “really” happened during missing time… or putting them under first, then talking about his other cases, and then retrieving the missing “memory”… is so self-evident that I need not finish this sentence to explain where I’m going with this. But, see, David Jacobs does. He prefaces it with “I know this may sound crazy, but…” and then says not things that sound crazy but things that are. Does he know the difference? Does it matter so long as we know the difference?

I’m done with this. But Emma Woods will probably answer all of the new, completely made-up nonsense Jacobs has released. My question, again, is… need she bother? If you would, kindly answer whether Emma, I, or anyone else need bother answering David M. Jacobs’ final/evolving answers heading into the year 2021.









3 thoughts on “Is Answering David Jacobs Worth The Effort?

  1. In my opinion, the methodology of David Jacobs is so flawed and irrational it doesn’t warrant review from academics or educated individuals, and that is the case entirely independently of the Woods debacle. I therefore appreciate those who have patiently taken the time to offer qualified opinions on Jacobs’ books and related material. When one adds the Woods case to the already concerning compilation of unsubstantiated assumptions gleaned from ill advised and long discredited investigative techniques, his conclusions seem the stuff of self-indulgent delusion if not outright hoaxing. It appears from all vantage points to be potentially harmful to those who participate, certainly unscientific and extremely ethically questionable. The competency of those continuing to implement or defend such methodologies should be called into serious question.

  2. I suspect it’s constructive to note that, forgetting skepti-bunkies, pelicanists, klasskurtxians, and other reflex-reductionist naysayers, less biased researchers have obliterated both Hopkins and his apparent heir, Jacobs, at all levels and indices, as soft-headed and credulous at best, or as controlling psychopaths, at worst. An aside, a credentialed John Mack seems to have remained untainted by any of the baggage infecting the other two, even given Mack’s tragic death years ago. It remains, “Somethin’s happening here… what it is ain’t exactly clear…” Our “watchers” incur a responsibility. They should be compelled by lawful means to live up to same. Sometimes it’s words are all we have.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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