After 5 Years, David Jacobs Almost Leaves Me Speechless

“Just the fact that the first sentence is ‘In 1994 I worked with Allison, whose hybrids were forcing her into sexual services’ should disqualify him from having any tangible connection to reality or common sense.”

–Tim Binnall on David Jacobs’ entree “The Chastity Belt Session” from his website,

Above is the link to a page David Jacobs put out to answer some of the charges made by Emma Woods. It’s so thoroughly, awesomely a train wreck that I have no interest in picking it apart for fear that David or his lackey might read the critique and change it accordingly. Then again, he is such an obvious narcissist, probably not an issue.

I know many of you are going to ask me what I think of the site. My answer is, what do you think of it? We’re all reading the same thing, right?

Put it this way: OJ Simpson wrote a book called If I Did It. David Jacobs just released a website that might as well be called, I Did It.

If you want a proper and concise couple of critiques, check out what Jeff Ritzmann has to say here:

And Tyler Kokjohn’s impressions below.


“It is unethical and cowardly to hide in fear behind a research subject.  It is gut-wrenching to recognize his callous indifference to Emma’s situation as he ponders using a chastity belt to anger the abductors.  It is appalling to hear him act like some sort of therapist implanting hypnotic suggestions, not for his patient’s benefit, but to serve HIS needs. It is astonishing that he would basically confirm he contaminated subject testimony because a central tenet of his book is that we should believe what he tells us because it was independently arising information.

“So tell me–because I have trouble with this part–which aspect of any of this is consistent with the activity of only taking oral histories, the defense he used to escape Emma’s charges to Temple University?  David Jacobs has been caught in his own web of lies.”


Again, use your own common sense here. All David Jacobs has done is released longer versions of the hypnosis sessions Jeff and I thoroughly deconstructed years ago, as if to say, “See? I’m exonerated because I’m releasing these this time.”

That’s what delusional narcissists do.

It’s all out there now. And I’m sure Emma Woods will have her say and correct whatever lies and omissions she sees in Jacobs’ site. But really, it doesn’t matter. It’s nit picking and frankly, although Emma is the reason for this and the person he’s trying to keep the focus on, she’s no longer the center of it. To expand on one of Tyler’s points, you have a man in David Jacobs who goes on show after show, writes book after book, claiming that he does not contaminate his subjects with knowledge about hybrids/hubrids/aliens/or each other. And by his own transcripts we see and hear him doing the exact opposite. He is literally creating this Dungeons & Dragons story by blab-blab-blabbing to his subjects about each other and his fears and these hybrids… and then putting them under hypnosis and–like magic–retrieving the scripts of the stories he just told.

Again, he thinks this is his defense. He’s. Not. All. There. Folks.  He wants to make this about Emma, “diagnose” her with mental illness, and claim she took him out of context. You would have to be mentally deranged to buy it, defend it, and not want to get him help.

So again, here it all is for everyone to see. Five years later. Now, are you, the audience, going to put up with this? Even if ufology is just entertainment to you, do you let it go because “hubrids” makes you giggle? Remember that for every laugh you have at David Jacobs’ whacky theories there is quite possibly a human being whose mind he has altered through hypnosis to believe that whacky theory. According to him, there are people who believe they are being attacked and manipulated by hubrids. If so, it is because–by his own demonstration–they now have false memories of this courtesy of the man to whom they turned for help.

It’s not fun and games. Perhaps it’s a crime, we may never know. Certainly, it’s unethical and needs to be stopped.

Boycott this man’s “work” and that of his staunch defenders.

Please spread the message.

No more.

David Jacobs Wants Scientists To Take His Work Seriously. A Scientist Does Just That.

The Unrecognized Revolutions
by Guest Blogger,
Tyler Kokjohn, PhD.

A Review of Walking Among Us: The Alien Plan to Control Humanity by David M. Jacobs


walking among usThis new book by Dr. Jacobs reports his recent findings regarding the alien abduction phenomenon.  Extending the themes he developed and published over an almost 30 year career in abduction work, both the material as well as some prominently featured abductee testimony will probably seem familiar to some readers.

Picking up essentially where his last book, The Threat, ended, Dr. Jacobs dives in with a briefly sketched background providing sparse citations to help any readers new to the topic acquire a broader perspective.  The new book is not a scientific treatise; his analyses and conclusions are insufficiently detailed, uncorroborated and based on erroneous approaches.  The descriptions of methodology are likewise perfunctory, often little more than reassurances to readers regarding his knowledge and superb skills at rooting out the truth behind the alien abduction mystery.  Revolving around Dr. Jacobs so tightly, the book leaves an overall impression of him as an isolated, arrogant investigator dismissive of the ideas of others and disinterested in exploring new opportunities.


The Limitations of Anecdotal Evidence

Dr. Jacobs has based his claims entirely on anecdotal evidence; the retrospective and uncontrolled reports of abductees sometimes, but not always, obtained through hypnotic regression.  From this he arrives at sweeping deductions regarding the physical attributes of the aliens allegedly abducting humans, their biological natures and interrelationships, intentions and innermost thoughts.  Anecdotal evidence is useful and used in scientific investigations.  Unfortunately, such accounts on their own are considered preliminary; useful for generating new hypotheses for testing, but not taken as sufficient to constitute validating evidence on their own.  Despite his assertions, receiving multiple, consistent eyewitness accounts is no guarantee the reports are accurate descriptions of physical reality.  For example, multiple witnesses may see and describe in virtually identical terms a roadway water mirage appearing on a sunny summer day.  Such an apparition can even be photographed.  No matter how many unequivocal, emphatic and entirely consistent anecdotes are in hand, even combined with photographic images this body of evidence is in no way sufficient to prove standing water is physically present on the roadway just ahead of the observers.  Someone has to corroborate that deduction using other means. 


Subject Selection and Evidence Evaluation

A mainstream scientist seeking to publish provides explicit details regarding how the data used were selected, analyzed and validated.  Contrary to these norms, Dr. Jacobs provides no independently assessable indications as to how the subjects featured in this book were selected or offers more than a superficial description of their attributes.  It is not even clear how many total subjects Dr. Jacobs investigated over the years since a single abductee with exceptional abilities (see discussion below), Betsey, provided accounts of 100 events.

However, Dr. Jacobs does explain that these 14 abductees were featured in the book “because their experiences best elucidate the end-point phase of the abduction program and demonstrate new and chilling aspects of the alien agenda.”  Essentially, this statement signals Dr. Jacobs cherry-picked the facts he preferred out a large body of testimony to make his case, a surefire route to succumbing to confirmation bias.  Relying on the specially selected testimony of 14 subjects extracted from a total pool of 1,150 abduction events raises questions as to whether his sample is truly representative of the larger group or could be used to reliably discern emerging trends.

The book index references 72 total separate sessions with abductees with 32 of them (44%) from Betsey alone.  Three subjects, Betsey, Allison and Paula, accounted 67% of the reports used in the book.  One half of the abductees contributed information drawn from single sessions with one, Phil, for whom I was able to find no session listed.  Claiming he evaluated new information such as this with the utmost caution and only considered it confirmed if and when repeated in other testimony is hard to square with fully half of the published information coming from single-session accounts.  The reader is left to wonder about critical details such as how often the core data he used had been repeated by others independently, how frequently new material had to be repeated before it was deemed confirmed evidence vs. coincidence, how many points of similarity constituted hearing the same new evidence and why the material he selected could be used to confidently decide what was really going on while leaving out almost all of the other evidence he had received.  How often was testimony from Betsey revealing new information confirmed by additional testimony from Betsey herself?  Was a new fact repeated once given less weight than a fact that was repeated more than once?

Heavy reliance on the small set of subjects sharply constrained the evidence time frame as well.  The bulk of the data featured in this book is rather dated.  A quick tally revealed 70 citations represented material extracted from sessions Dr. Jacobs conducted 8-12 years ago and 7 sessions that were held 16 years or more in the past.  Eight accounts were the most current, being 3-7 years old at the time of publication.  Dr. Jacobs suggests he is finding evidence of an evolving alien program.  Do sessions with abductees conducted more recently still bolster the findings from the past?  The fact that his sessions were conducted so long ago actually offered an apparently overlooked opportunity to determine if his results were repeatable.  He could have examined testimony from more recent sessions to see if he obtained independent and more current confirmation of the once-new facts he had discovered years ago.

Alert readers will notice that Dr. Jacobs cherry-picked his methods as well as his subjects. He is vague on whether over the years abductees were hypnotized or just relaxed, raising concern that he did not treat each subject in the same manner.  In fact, the individual featured most prominently in the book, Betsey, was clearly an exceptional subject and Dr. Jacobs interacted with her in completely unique ways.  These differences are a clear red flag; the information from Betsey may not be comparable to the testimony he has received over the years from others which was acquired under rather different circumstances.  Dr. Jacobs did not address this concern.    


Dealing with the Confabulation Problem 

Dr. Jacobs noted the potential for confabulation, but did not fully describe his methods to recognize and mitigate it in his new book nor did the source he referenced, his previous book, The Threat.  How good is he at discerning truth from fiction in the accounts conveyed by hypnotized or relaxed subjects and how did he validate his procedures?  He mentioned testing subjects by asking ‘misleading’ questions, but does not offer details as to how that activity was reduced to a practice to accurately characterize and sort out his subjects.  If you ask misleading questions won’t some subjects be misled?  How exactly does he allow for subject suggestibility (as noted in The Threat)?  Was a single error grounds for dismissal or were subjects permitted to make several errors?  Where and how was the demarcation between confabulator and reliable narrator drawn?

A presentation given by Dr. Jacobs for the 2014 Contact in the Desert Conference now posted on YouTube may offer some insights as to how Dr. Jacobs parses evidence.  His criteria to detect confabulation involved recognizing and rejecting evidence such as abductee drawings that depicted spacecraft interiors with square door frames, entities with improperly proportioned heads and aliens wearing dark clothing or body armor.  There are multiple problems with his imprecisely targeted procedures, one of which is an error of circular reasoning commonly known as “begging the question.”  It is not possible to validate abductee-provided evidence through reference to ‘facts’ that are nothing more than unproven assumptions or beliefs about the phenomenon under investigation.  In essence this error left Dr. Jacobs with no valid means to differentiate truth from fiction.  Perhaps one reason he has noted abductee accounts are so similar does not reveal their intrinsic accuracy, but is simply the ultimate consequence of a systematic elimination of stories that do not conform to Dr. Jacobs’ idiosyncratic notions and self-referential standards of proof.  A critical factor indisputably common to every abduction account in this book is Dr. Jacobs in the role of final data quality evaluator.            


Testimony Cross-Contamination

Dr. Jacobs indicates he is skeptical of accounts that convey something new; that he did not elevate the information to the level of evidence until other abductees “…without knowledge of previous testimony…” [emphasis his] reported the same thing.  He does not reveal the criteria used to decide when reports were equivalent nor the numbers of reports required for him to be assured he had discovered a real pattern vs. noting coincidence. 

 But how did Dr. Jacobs ensure his subjects provided him with truly independent testimony?   Half of the abductee subjects featured in this book worked with him for long periods of time, 15 years or longer.  On page 258 of his 1998 book The Threat, Dr. Jacobs solicited readers having feelings they had been involved with the abduction phenomenon to contact him.  In such a situation those subjects clearly would possess knowledge of the previous testimony and his interpretations published in that book.  How did Dr. Jacobs document whether his 14 subjects, drawn primarily from his “corner of eastern Pennsylvania and a few other places,” had read his books or articles, looked at his International Center for Abduction Research website (, heard him on nationally syndicated radio shows such as Coast to Coast AM, attended one of his many lectures or watched them on YouTube, shown up at MUFON meetings or belonged to support groups to decide their testimony was reliably independent of what other abductees had been saying?


In The Threat Dr. Jacobs revealed that he received “thousands of calls and letters” from people disturbed by their memories, but does not detail exactly what sources led them to him.  Further, in his new book Dr. Jacobs notes that his subjects are in personal peril and “come to him out of a sense of desperation, driven to find a rational explanation for the seemingly irrational activities that have intruded upon their lives.”  Under such circumstances it is simply not believable that his subjects had failed to seek out more information on alien abductions or at the very least were familiar with the work of Dr. Jacobs.  In the case of subjects recruited through his appeal published in the final pages of The Threat, the situation is clearly more complicated.  The question for those subjects is not whether they had been influenced by other testimony, but how much other testimony they had already seen.  In addition, he did not indicate how he managed to keep his long-term subjects from becoming aware of the newly emerging evidence while he and others were actively promoting it in public.

Abductee testimony independence is the heart of his book, but Dr. Jacobs did little to confirm this critical claim was accurate.  Worse, objective evidence has now emerged that flatly contradicts his assertion of subject independence and creates grave concerns over his basic methodology.  Interactions between the research subjects of Dr. Jacobs and testimony cross-contamination have been revealed by his former research subject, Emma Woods.  The evidence presented by Ms. Woods ( is devastating because it directly involves several subjects featured prominently in his new book and effectively demolishes Dr. Jacobs’s centerpiece claim to scientific validity – the assertion that these abductee accounts are compelling and must be taken as reliable sources of evidence because they were extracted from independently produced testimony.


 Archaic Approaches and Unacknowledged Revolutions

The late Philip Klass raised issues surrounding hypnosis in his book, UFO Abductions: A Dangerous Game, along with suggestions as to how to avoid or at least recognize confabulation and testimony contamination.  One of the practices recommended was to record all interactions with subjects beginning with the first moment of contact and continuing until all interactions, including any incidental chit chat are concluded.  There is no indication Dr. Jacobs followed such protocols and if he did how he used the information.  All readers get are assertions that Dr. Jacobs is a skilled craftsman.  The device of appeal to authority was rejected by mainstream science hundreds of years ago.

Revolutions in biological science and technology with critical ramifications for his research and far beyond seemed to have drawn no interest from Dr. Jacobs.  The Innocence Project ( was launched in 1992 when lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld recognized the potential of new forensic DNA-based technology to prove guilt or innocence objectively.  Their insight has shaken fundamental assumptions regarding the reliability of evidence underpinning our legal system.  Analysis of exonerations produced by the Innocence movement revealed that eyewitness error was the most prevalent factor contributing to hundreds of wrongful convictions.  These errors mostly involved sincere witnesses who were unfortunately mistaken in their recollections.  DNA analysis techniques provided a sobering confirmation that witnesses are fallible, memories subject to distortion by suggestive police methods or other information provided after the original events and may be influenced by the conditions under which the crime occurred.  Human memory is not a tape recorder; subjects do not necessarily register events precisely as observed nor can they recall them with perfection (

 In addition to revealing the fallibility of human memory, the extraordinary advances in genetic analysis technology offer a potential to corroborate critical aspects of several now longstanding claims of Dr. Jacobs.  For example, pregnancies, even those terminated early, leave genetic traces in the mother that might remain detectable for years or decades after the events.  That means abductees who reported missing pregnancies might still harbor viable cells from human-alien hybrids.  Presumably, Dr. Jacobs could still contact some of these subjects to see if they are willing to be tested.

Readers will notice that additional obvious opportunities to locate and test forensic evidence were overlooked by Dr. Jacobs without any comment.


“Betsey had so many sessions with me that she had learned to place herself back into the event and to remember consciously and accurately what had happened to her.”  

 Betsey became so adept at spontaneous recall of her interactions with aliens that sessions could be conducted without hypnosis and relayed to Dr. Jacobs via Instant Messaging.  Since many of Betsey’s reports were received within a few days of events and some on the same day, her situation presented unique opportunities to collect critical corroborating evidence.  Betsey reported she had visited an apartment used by aliens.  So, could she recall the address or could she have been outfitted with a phone with tracking software?  What scientist could resist discovering an apartment full of telepathic hubrids?  If Betsey was no help with finding the hubrid apartment, all she really needed to know was her own address because she was visited by hubrids in her home.

Much has changed in the world since Dr. Jacobs first began his investigation of the alien abduction mystery.  Revolutions in genetic analyses techniques have shaken our entire criminal justice system and are now transforming the practice of medicine.  Science is a building enterprise and with new discoveries often heralded by development of new technologies, scientists are constantly on the lookout for new tools.  However, Dr. Jacobs was totally silent on the revolutionary technologies that could corroborate his anecdotes with objective evidence, a telling oversight and an insult to the intelligence of his audience.  While technological revolutions change the entire world, Dr. Jacobs persists in spinning the same uncorroborated tales of fantasy.



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?




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,



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.




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.



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