Hypnosis Used Illegally. This Looks Familiar.

UFOLOGY

http://ktla.com/2017/01/18/disturbing-video-shows-attorney-apparently-trying-to-hypnotize-clients-for-sexual-pleasure/

Watching the news package in the above link about a divorce attorney who used hypnosis to sexually abuse female clients got me back to thinking about ufology’s own David Jacobs. Specifically, how he was caught on tape asking a female subject under hypnosis to send him her soiled panties and not remember she had done so. And at another time, offered to buy her a chastity belt with nails at the vaginal opening he found at a sex shop he frequented, to keep away rapey alien/human hybrids. He had convinced her such beings existed in her life through numerous hypnotic sessions conducted after telling her all about them from other subjects he had put under.

When Jeff Ritzmann and I exposed this those many years ago, there was a lot of resistance from within the ufological community. Friends stuck by him, of course, and some podcasting and radio people. UFO conventions hosted him. MUFON gave him a lifetime achievement award. It was an embarrassing wakeup call the likes of which might completely fall on deaf ears today, when we’ve got a president-elect who was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy and getting away with it because he’s famous.

From sexism to sycophants to friendship to preservation of a cottage industry that ran on many of the memes culled from alien abduction hypnosis–there was no shortage of reasons for people to turn a blind eye to Jacobs’ unethical behavior. But there was one excuse given–that even Jacobs trumped up a bit–that bothered me in that I couldn’t figure out if it was true or not. It was the notion that a subject under hypnosis is still in control because they are self-aware. If true, then she is allowing this to happen. It’s her dirty secret. This is how people give themselves permission to act out repressions that are taboo.

She wanted it. That old rapey chestnut. And the answer hadn’t come to me until watching the above video package. The answer is this: self-awareness and self-control are two different things. They are so intertwined that it’s easy to forget they can be pulled apart.

Ever take a psychedelic? Scream all you want from the back of your mind–you ain’t snapping out of it on command. Ever have a lucid dream where you think you have full control because you’re aware you are asleep, then find out you don’t? Ever struggle with sleep paralysis where you cannot even in waking consciousness will your own body to move? There are certain spiritual experiences where this is the case as well, such as talking in tongues, spontaneous movements–go down the list. You’re there and not in control. Why would we assume it is otherwise with hypnosis?

Clearly the police officers in that video did not assume it. And neither did the judge. Heck, even the man accused admitted to what he was doing. He didn’t blame the victims because he knew there were several and he wasn’t one of them.

Now apply this to other forms of mesmerism. Like television and dictatorial speeches. Sporting events. Mob mentality. Think how controllable we all are in masses if not individually. Some people most certainly let go their repression and act out in the right circumstances. But most? Not most. To say most is to ignore all of the hard work and dedication our own intelligence community has put into fostering hypnosis as a means of controlling people. (I say with a nod to the work of Jack Brewer.)

We have not and will likely not get legal justice in Ufology Land for all the damage done by numerous amateur hypnotists. What we are left with is ourselves and our responses to unethical behavior. It’s never too late to give up the sacred cows and change our minds with the facts. I’d argue that our response is our responsibility. In this, we are in full control.

Advertisements

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Supporting David Jacobs A Moral Question?

Joe Gooch has responded eloquently to David Jacobs’ self-destructive website dedicated to exonerating himself of unethical conduct in regards to former research subject “Emma Woods.”

Who is Joe Gooch? He’s an experiencer. He’s a human being. He’s not a talk show host. He’s not a researcher. He’s an observer of this fiasco, an outsider with no agenda. And watching him in the video below–watching how uncomfortable this man gets at speaking about the truly uncomfortable parts–the anger and despair boiling underneath the mature composure of his presentation reminds me why I care so much about this case: because in reality it is a simple moral question with a simple moral answer. It’s not about facts vs. other facts or spinning a story.

The David Jacobs case, as it should now rightly be referred, is about ethics and, beyond that, morals.

And so, anytime I see someone taking up for Dr. Jacobs who otherwise appears to be of sound intelligence, I don’t see a “We agree to disagree” situation, because there are not two sides. There’s right and there’s wrong. It is a black & white situation which reminds us that such still exist.

If you’re still taking up for David Jacobs, still think it’s a matter of disagreement or of critics attacking him, I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with you. There is no middle ground on this one. You’re the problem, too. Why that is, be it for money or a glitch in the brain or your upbringing, I cannot say. I just know there’s something magnetically off in your moral compass. Joe Gooch’s reactions here are real and they are normal and he’s holding back the way I don’t, so perhaps that’s more palatable than my evaluations. If so, give it a watch.

If you’re unfamiliar with the David Jacobs case, this is an excellent primer. If you’re familiar and feel nothing about it, or take Jacobs’ “side,” behold the basic human compassion you’re missing inside of you as exemplified here. That, because everything Joe is saying is factually accurate and it’s from David’s own website. All Joe is doing is listening, reading, explaining, and reacting with the normal amount of emotion such critiques provoke.

 

UFOLOGY