From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:22:22 -0800 Archived: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 06:37:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Hopkins & Jacobs [was: Paratopia PodCast 55] >From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:11:59 -0600 >Subject: Re: Paratopia PodCast 55 >>From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:15:10 -0800 >>Subject: Re: Paratopia PodCast 55 >>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:33:40 -0600 >>>Subject: Re: Paratopia PodCast 55 >>>>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> >>>>To: To: <post.nul> >>>>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:28:34 +0100 >>>>Subject: Re: Paratopia PodCast 55 ><snip> >>J' accuse! I recommend, strongly, interested parties listen to >>Paratopia's podcast 55 for Scott Lilienthal's comments on the >>hideous pitfalls and dangerous, damaging effects of non- >>professionals using techniques like regressive hypnosis on >>vulnerable subjects, to read Rainey'sarticle, and to visit "Emma >>Woods" website to listen to the "Jacobs tapes" and then decide >>for themselves just who is committing fraud and hoaxing the >>public. I am disgusted and deeply disappointed by the likes of >>Hopkins and Jacobs, and they need to be called to account for >>their actions, in a court of law if required, to acknowledge and >>be compelled to change or abandon such manipulative and >>destructive practices from here on out, in my humble opinion. >>They bring extraordinary discredit and oppobrium to the entire >>endeavor of real ufology, and should be stopped. They deserve no >>tributes or honors, just justice. >This is the kind of thing that needs pursuit in a situation >where there is already so much ready discredit, ready, eh? Why >would we bring "extraordinary discredit and opprobrium to the >entire endeavor of real ufology," anyway but to provide for for >the facilitation of an, at least, _suspect_ status quo. We won't >do it for Morton or Hoagland... how can we justify it for Jacobs >and Hopkins? >Ufology and Abduction research would be irreparably damaged? >Nonsense in the first place, and as it stands, perhaps >justifiably so, in the second! Remember that it is the UFO >compelling research and interest in same... not we small women >and men explicating in its regard. The moment our attention >starts to waver the UFOs provide, on their own, for another >Illinois, Stephenville, Iran, Phoenix, Rendlesham... well, I >really could just go on and on here, eh? >My heart goes out to Budd Hopkins, whose hull breach is >decidedly self-inflicted out of his own hubris... even as I >stand askance and akimbo with regard to David Jacobs, whom I >loved, but then I listened to the tapes... heard him blithely >throw a woman under a psychological bus for his own convenience >when it looked like she might have a mind of her own, IMO... >among other unsavories. >The emperor's naked when you can see nothing but skin, eh? Well, gee, Alfred, I'd hate to see what happens to anyone you _disagree_ with. Oh, yeah, I had that experience once. It just happened that minor imbroglio resulted in certain policy changes to the UpDates list, as you may recall. Perhaps I'm taking a stronger stance against Hopkins and Jacobs than you feel comfortable with, but I do think this is important and needs saying. Be that as it may, if I interpret your always unique and rather elaborate phraseology, you don't think that the cases of Jacobs and Hopkins bring discredit or negative effect to ufology itself, am I correct? If so, I just have to say I quietly disagree. Hopkins is among the most well-known UFO or abduction researchers around, with Jacobs and Mack somewhat secondary. But, let's face it, the perception or I guess you could say, public relations angle as perceived by the general public I would argue is quite important, in the sense that such shenanigans create a continuing negative impact on the perception of UFO research in general, and it seems that relatively few are willing to speak up and just call a spade a spade. After looking fairly thoroughly into the affairs of Hopkins and Jacobs of late, I have little sympathy for them. What's worse than Morton or Hoagland is that both Hopkins and Jacobs, in particular, engaged in pyschologically manipulative practices which, at some point, and as pointed out by both Rainey and "Woods" quite clearly, they must have known were both damaging to their subjects on possibly a permanent basis and yet they continued, and thus were both lying to others and themselves, at least on a public level, about the efficacy and objectivity of their research methodologies and findings, both of which are now clearly suspect and need to be examined at the very least. Morton was finally caught out in his cons, and faces the legal consequences. I really wonder if Hopkins or Jacobs will face the same level of resultant investigation. Yes, there are others who could and should be inducted into the UFO Hall Of Shame for whatever point that would serve, but I guess that part of my repulsion to the antics and deceptive practices of Hopkins and Jacobs in particular are based on the fact that they were defensively trying to protect their small part of the turf they occupied at the expense of other human beings in a manner that begs to be investigated and hopefully, as a result, not continued or replicated by others, even though it may be too late to prevent this syndrome from continuing. Hoagland is easily dismissed. Just read one of his books, or check out his website. He transparently discredits himself very handily. Hopkins and Jacobs, however, have left people with real beliefs and memories of horrific, supposed alien abduction experiences which will haunt them, hundreds of them at least, for a very long time if not forever. To me, that is a kind of blatant crime against humanity, and they need to be confronted by that fact, and made to both face up to it and admit that they have done things to vulnerable people who may or may not recover from their "treatment." And they knew what they were doing for a very long time, and, like a sociopath, apparently did not care, as they drank their own poisonous Kool-Aid in order to self-aggrandize and make money off their fraudulent and damaging efforts. They also have impugned and diverted legitimate abduction research by mythologizing it and fabricating narrow scenarios of threatening little gray aliens with big black eyes, ala Whitley Strieber original injection of this faux meme into our culture, and which Hopkins and Jacobs adopted and distorted for their own purposes. While I personally have never thought that the standard "alien abduction" scenario, in a physical sense, was likely, I do think there may be a kind of manipulation, in some rare cases, of some kind of internal way by potentially external forces or effects, both natural and perhaps in even rarer cases, from artificial external sources. But that remains to be seen, or truly investigated so far by most involved in this aspect of ufology, due to the propaganda and dominance of the scene by the use of regressive hypnosis by amateurs who have polluted the database. That does and has negatively impacted ufology in a very real way, and was done deliberately, at some level, as the cases of Hopkins and Jacobs amply show. What strides and progress could have been made in the effects of possible contact with potential non-human intelligence if it hadn't been hijacked and mythologized by the likes of Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack, and Strieber over the past 30 years? Now this aspect of research must start over, and will be perceived as even more marginal by the "legacy" of those named above due to their actions. So, ufology in general, and "abduction" research in particular have been deleteriously impacted and will be for quite some time. This is more than just "unsavory" or based in hubris - it is, IMO, criminal and psychopathic in nature and effect. Jacobs attempting to induce multiple personality disorder in "Emma Woods" by long-distance telephone contact and recommending prescription drugs for that in order to cover his own ass and have a basis to attempt to deny responsibility for his actions is simply amazing. Hopkins inability to discern Mortellaro's psychopathy, after all the evidence brought to his attention, means he did not want to know the truth, and effectively tried to prevent others from presenting it to either him or others. To me, that's simply crazy. It seems, if there's any margin of empathy for Hopkins or Jacobs, it can only be based in the apparent fact that they believed their own fraud, and became, over time, so psychologically and emotionally dependent on reinforcing their own confirmation biases, that they became detached from what most of us recognize as that little concept known as "reality." So, I do not think that either Hopkins or Jacobs were so very vicious or callous as to commit a deliberate or conscious fraud or hoax, per se, but they should have, if they had any moral or ethical qualms or genuine framework, have questioned them- selves at some point and changed their self-deceptive and delusional practices. But, maybe they got so far into their beliefs that they felt they could not turn back, since to do so would have been to deny and refute their very identity, reps, and source of income. It takes a strong and brave person to do that after a lifetime of following the wrong path, and it seems that neither Hopkins or Jacobs had that stamina and fortitude to act, as we all must in this field, as our own "devil's advocate" and challenge our potential biases and ideologies periodically. That, to me, is the greatest shame and misfortune of Hopkins and Jacobs - they are now acting as if they are the victims, and are being persecuted for their 'noble' goals, by those lesser than they, and who have only sour grapes or an axe to grind. By doing so, and accepting tributes and accolades from those who continue to support and believe (against all fact and logic) them means they are continuing to ridicule, refute, and victimize those whose lives they have already seriously damaged. And that is simply wrong, and destructive. It must be dealt with, although it will probably be comparable to Heracles' attempts to clean the Augean stables, what does it say about ufology if it is not done? I agree it should not affect honest, open, and objective UFO research itself, but as you and everyone else in the field knows, it seems sometimes, as in Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of it amounts to crap, as do most controversial subjects like ghosts, facile new age beliefs, bigfoot, etc., etc., but there does come a time when enough is enough, and a clear position needs to be taken by all seriously concerned about these issues, if only to help combat the public perception and generally taboo subject of abduction and UFOs in general. How can we just blithely go our own way, doing our own thing, pursuing our particular interests in ufology, if we don't make a stand and conduct peer review and vetting such affairs within our own sphere or community of interest? To not do so, IMHO, is a mistake, and in a sense, grants an unspoken pass to those who do step across the bright red line of appropriate process and procedure, and end up harming not only others, but us, the field, and ultimately, themselves. Just my 14 cents worth of opinion, of course. I'd be interested to see what others on the List have to say and think about these matters. Steve Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp