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 advanced 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 past 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?

Unhelpful Hints: Deflection And Withholding Evidence In The David Jacobs Scandal

Unhelpful Hints:
Deflection And Withholding Evidence In The David Jacobs Scandal

by Guest Blogger,
Tyler A. Kokjohn, Ph. D.

Have You Seen Me Lately?

David Jacobs: MUFON’s 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award Winner

Dr. David Jacobs has been accused of serious wrongdoing involving a former research subject known as Emma Woods.  Some persons have deflected the charges by communicating there are additional factors to consider or they possess information confirming Dr. Jacobs is reliable and trustworthy.  Are these simply opinions regarding the personal attributes of Dr. Jacobs or is it possible that information now apparently limited to a select few persons could dispel the longstanding and specific allegations against him?

Recent sad experiences with Ata the “extraterrestrial” and the Roswell slides remind us initial appearances may be deceiving and to base our conclusions on the complete body of evidence.  If objective facts and rationales absolving Dr. Jacobs of allegations of misconduct against Emma Woods are known it is an extreme disservice to withhold them.  Hinting that such evidence exists is not sufficient and only serves to prolong an already protracted dispute.

Since it is difficult understand how the disturbing allegations against Dr. Jacobs could be effectively countered, it is essential that information be detailed in full and explained completely.  To document her charges Emma Woods published extensive audio recordings of her hypnosis sessions with Dr. Jacobs  (http://ufoalienabductee.com).  Demonstrating she altered these recordings to create false impressions would have immediately cast serious doubt on her version of events.  However, no evidence of tampering has been produced leaving us in a situation where the body of available evidence places Dr. Jacobs in an unfavorable light.  Justifying his own words and deeds appears to present a substantial challenge.

Participation in research programs may sometimes involve risks.  Accordingly, investigators are obligated to respect subject autonomy by providing prospective participants with information regarding the full purposes of the research and any foreseeable hazards before anyone agrees to participate.  In addition, researchers adhere to a general guiding principle of beneficence by preventing any harm to their subjects and ensuring their wellbeing through acting with forethought to maximize benefit and reduce risks (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html).

Dr. Jacobs discussed with Emma Woods the idea of acquiring a chastity belt to frustrate the alien hybrids she reported were terrorizing her.  It is difficult to reconcile this strange banter with either the practices of a rigorous scientific investigation or the core principles of informed consent and beneficence.  First, Dr. Jacobs’s chastity belt discussion plainly served no scientifically valid purposes.  Further, if Emma Woods had followed through with using a chastity belt, the reasonably foreseeable event would have been a vastly increased threat of immediate and direct physical retaliation against her.

Exposing the subject to increased risk without benefit is unethical. It is important to bear in mind that Dr. Jacobs had revealed his personal fears these hybrids terrorizing Emma would find him.  In light of that admission, any discussion that might increase Emma’s anguish and fears would have been scientifically unjustified, ludicrous and utterly callous.  Limited to communicating with Emma by telephone and physically located thousands of miles away from her, it is hard to imagine what protective measures Dr. Jacobs had in place if either his continued investigations or deliberately calculated provocations succeeding in further angering the aliens already reportedly assaulting Emma.

Emma Woods UFO Mag Cover

Emma Woods’ case against Jacobs gets UFO Mag cover story and then buried by his ufological friends/alleged researchers.

Whatever underlying purposes the chastity belt discussion served, the best interests and wellbeing of Emma Woods seem to have been decidedly secondary considerations.  The overall situation leaves an impression that Emma Woods was treated not with the full respect and concern due an autonomous individual, but as a strictly instrumental means to satisfy the personal curiosities and needs of Dr. Jacobs.  Someone will have to explain how this evidence is not what it appears to be.

Perhaps the chastity belt conversation was never intended to propose an experimental protocol for Emma to carry out, but was simply another ‘tactic’ used by Dr. Jacobs to throw the allegedly threatening mind-reading alien hybrids off his track.  Reconciling such actions with the researcher’s explicit obligations to prevent any harm to his subject while acting with beneficence and in accord with the spirit of ethical informed consent principles is impossible.  In no way, shape or form would it ever be acceptable for any researcher to use a subject in such a manner.

Could the chastity belt chat, false memory implantation tactics to safeguard Dr. Jacobs from threatening hybrids and dire intrigues have simply been ploys to keep a highly hypnotizable subject engaged and interested in continuing to feed him juicy copy for a new book?  Somewhere during this strange journey it appears Emma Woods the research subject was converted into an expedient mechanism enabling Dr. Jacobs to ensure his personal security or reach his eccentric goals.  Someone will need to explain how appearances are misleading and his actions were ethical.

When Emma Woods took her complaints to higher authority, Dr. Jacobs maintained he was only engaged in oral history taking and denied conducting research.  Clearly, his actions had no therapeutic intent or benefit, but squaring the deployment of hypnosis-mediated manipulations to implant false memories, requests to collect soiled underwear and additional statements made in an interview conducted several years later (The UFO Trail Blog, http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2012/04/bizarre-world-of-doctor-david-jacobs.html) with actions customarily associated with oral history taking seems impossible.  Someone needs to explain how that can be done.

Red herring

Appearances may sometimes be deceiving.  If critical, perception-changing objective information relevant to the Emma Woods-David Jacobs dispute exists, withholding it is both a gross disservice to the unjustly maligned and an insult to the entire community.  Those who have hinted or asserted directly they possess superior relevant knowledge have a responsibility to explain why the evidence available to the rest of us is not what it appears to be.

Finally, Some Insight Into Steve Bassett’s Imagination

I AM smiling.

Just read Steve Bassett’s June 26th Paradigm Research Group newsletter. At least once a year–usually more–readers of these updates are treated to the near-promise that this is the year government disclosure of an alien presence on earth shall happen. And each year that does not shall happen. This has been going on for nearly 20 years. You’d think with a track record like that he’d be out of business. Personally, I think the aliens and the human government(s) are waiting for him to go silent before they disclose anything just to mess with him. The evidence of time is on my side.

Bassett normally skips out on the explanation for how he knows this is the year for the biggest reveal since Oprah’s “You get a car! And you get a car!” stunt, but today’s newsletter is exceptional. First, he tantalizes us the old fashioned way with a play right out of Steven Greer’s book:

Based on a number of politically related developments, PRG believes Disclosure is very close. A window has opened that could see the truth embargo ended this year, if not this summer, and a strategy is in place to seize that opportunity.

Here we see the term “politically related developments” with no details forthcoming. We’re being led to believe that PRG, which is short for Paradigm Research Group, which is long for Steve Bassett, has some secret knowledge. Perhaps he’s friends with a Beltway insider. All those years as the country’s only UFO lobbyist finally paid off. Or maybe it comes from a military whistleblower he passes notes with on a park bench in front of the National Mall. We cannot say and he does not disclose.

However, a mere three paragraphs later, Steve finally does the unthinkable: he lays his logic on the table, like cards in a lesser analogy involving poker. He writes:

… [C]onsider this: there is a space station orbiting the Earth. On this station are a number of extremely advanced cameras surveying space (to not have such cameras would be very suspicious and bad NASA PR). These cameras send live video back to Earth (also necessary). The live feed is viewable by people over most of the world on a massive electronic, interactive delivery platform using computers more powerful than those that ran the Apollo Program. Millions in this viewing public own powerful software tools allowing for the editing of these videos. The interactive delivery platform contains massive social networks with collectively several billion participants to which such edited videos can be delivered in seconds, and the delivered videos can be shared and reshared ad infinitum.

None of this technology existed when the extraterrestrial presence truth embargo was planned and initiated between 1947 and 1953, and would not exist for decades.

And then he closes his case with the cherry on top, having answered his critics:

Now, can you understand why a massive government disinformation campaign so successful between 1947 and 1991 could collapse in 2015?

I’m fairly certain he’s asking that rhetorically, it being an update newsletter and all, but it has an answer and isn’t rhetorical after all. The answer is no. No, because that doesn’t make sense in any way, shape, or form. If there are aliens flying around up there for cameras to catch, NASA will not be allowed to film them and show them publicly or on a live feed. That not having cameras would be a bad PR move doesn’t outweigh the need to cover up the greatest secret in human history. Plus, we’ve all seen those heist films  where the thieves switch the bank’s security camera feed to a prerecording so they can sneak past unsuspecting guards who look curiously at their screens going grainy for a second when the switch happens and are like, ‘Hmmm… That’s weird. Oh well. Must have been a solar flare hitting a poorly-shielded satellite, which sometimes causes service interruptions and other electrical anomalies. The hallways look clear. Everything’s fine. Guess I’ll get back to my Ramen Noodles and Sanford & Son.’ Or whatever security guards think.

Plus, what does he mean by “editing”? Maybe he means people can record and play back the live feed. The UFO obsessives can edit clips of Tang drops and dust particles on the window that they think are Galactic Federation of Light ships and harangue their friends and family who just want to see them get help. But of course they’re not the ones who need help–no! It’s the sheeple, man, the sleeping masses. Wake up, humanity! That ice is aliens!

I’ll give him that glitch in the explanation because it doesn’t affect the central point. The point is, the whole thing is stupid. It’s not Occam’s Razor, Bassett’s favorite principle, it’s justification. And it’s… uh… well, dare I say it’s completely lazy. This final glitch is unforgivable. His reasoning that NASA cameras will force disclosure by accidentally picking up space ships isn’t connected to the premise that disclosure is imminent due to political developments so secret even the disclosure movement’s mover who knows them cannot reveal them to us.

Now, can you understand why a massive government disinformation campaign so successful between 1947 and 1991 could collapse in 2015?

No. Now I can understand that you need to hire a continuity person to comb through your scripts. Or better yet, stop writing them. If an alien presence is ever revealed, trust me when I say you will be of no use in the situation. So sayeth your track record. And Occam’s Razor.