Monday, April 20, 2015

Babies And Bathwater / Torches And Pitchforks

The Late Budd Hopkins and still corporeal David Jacobs:
who, what, where, why, ...but... how!


By Alfred Lehmberg... (from UFO Magazine).


Wow—I just had an annoying thought as regards hypnotic regression and the potential value of the tortured evidence obtained thereby! Oh don't start the sneering invective yet and, others, put the Champagne back in the ice, of needs, eh? It remains that a few interesting points may have slipped through gauntleted Klasskurtxian* fingers. That's where we start.

Do we discard a potential evidence like moldy coffee grounds out of hand? Of course not! That would be wasteful where it's not ludicrous. Thoughtlessly void a data body growing for decades with nothing to replace it but isolationist anger or a misplaced sense of piqued betrayal? That seems preposterous where it's not regressive—even pathological. We need not consider how unscientific this reflexive dismissal must seem to be.

See, along with the torches and pitchforks presently endured by a culturally betrayed, governmentally obfuscated, and institutionally shortchanged ufology—forgetting the good persons involved with same—a witch-hunt is prosecuted presently where adjacent if proverbial "infants" are insistently included, along with their decidedly putrescent bathwater, for reflexive discharge. Behold, a baby potentially discharged with bathwater... heave! One clearly hears the baying of outraged wolves!

At issue is the debated value of any evidence obtained by hypnotic regression, itself, though assuredly the persons extracting the information alluded to in the manner described. They come to be that dark glass through which we must observe. Feel dread for dirty infants. Why?

Some of these metaphorical "infants" regarded sign on, queue up, or put themselves down to be discharged, themselves, out of some errant fidelity! Consider Budd Hopkins' inexcusable support of David Jacobs after the, seemingly clear, and wholly unprofessional behavior of David Jacobs.

Additionally, using a science-less sample of few more than one, some worthy stalwarts and provoked contrarians—forgetting klasskurtxian skeptibunkies smelling blood in the water— proclaim that "Abduction Research [God] is dead"! All insight gained from the anecdotal evidence obtained by hypnotic regression is rendered, irretrievably, moot! Consider the crack Paratopia Crew and their Episode #55 featuring anti-hyp regressionist, Dr. Scott Lilienfeld. "[God] is dead" proclaim Jeff and Jeremy. They make a good case if not wholly air tight.

Consider Anecdotal Evidence. Sir and madam! Not wholly "valueless."

...Arrive at Hypnotic Regression? Madam and sir! Heresy, I know, still... not remotely "valueless."

I flash-back that I had characterized to myself a huge regard for Hopkins, Jacobs, and the late John Mack, even as it was, and is, affected by a problematic and incompetently used hypnotic regression... used as a "tool." More on that in a minute. See, I suspect all my "hero worship" is understandable given the provenance of the time in which I was very tangentially associated with all three in the middle of the last decade. I had a very close involvement with an alleged abductee once important to all three.

The self-styled abductee's name was Jim Mortellaro. All four of us, if the reader allows: Mack, Hopkins, Jacobs, and myself were duped, to one degree or another, by this man. What follows is a link to that adjacent story as illustrated by Budd Hopkins:

As the preceding link shows, a result of this very firsthand if humiliating experience, and produced while these events were unfolding before 2004, I spent a good deal of time, at the time, with satisfying communications on the phone with Dr. Jacobs and Mr. Hopkins. These communications regarding the subject of "wtf!" as it related to Mortellaro, UFOs, and aliens—were subjects discussed in detail. I had spoken earlier, at some small length, with Dr. Mack at a Project Awareness Conference in Florida in 1996. I developed a significant appreciation for these guys...

I found these men beyond my reproach at any rate—relevant explorers sincere, objective, and intrepid. Brave, even. At the start these were ethical soldiers in a righteous fight! I've some experience with soldiers and fighting. The battle was lost.

See, I suspect I'm not an infallible judge of human character, Sir or Madam, but as a decorated career military officer I was an Acting Commandant for a time or Senior Trainer, Advisor, and Counselor for a key Officer Candidate School in the United States Army. I am a former Master Army Aviator and Senior Flight Examiner/Instructor, and I graduated Summa from an accredited University in Troy, Alabama with a teaching credential. I don't believe I'm an entirely credulous person, eh?

Additionally—consequently, even—I'm not entirely dismissive of hypnosis as is currently popular—along with the singularly hated Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, when used by credible persons in a credible way. Also, I'm decidedly reluctant to throw the anecdotal "baby" out with the anecdotal "bathwater" as many seem spring-loaded to do, out of hand.

Consider the following. I suspect it may be possible that when one has no "tools," is discouraged "tools" by polite society, and then denied "tools" by a corporate-academia... maybe a "good" man will grasp and clutch at anything even remotely resembling a "tool," eh? Hypnosis and anecdotal evidence might resemble tools to the tool-less, reasonably. Even aspiring to the Honest and Ethical, I'd reach for such in a similar situation.

It remains; I once saw these men as the brave intrepid.

Current displayed behavior—they cannot believe they had ANY expectation of privacy—and apparent mindset of the two; however, while for the moment presuming "Emma Wood's" seeming bulletproof veracity, sadly clutters my earlier assessment. I'm entirely revolted, professionally and personally, with the late Hopkins and David Jacobs.

Reader! If even "Jesus" stole the chicken, "Jesus" stole the chicken! "Jesus" has to take the hard fall, even as his "Christianity" is besmirched. Truth though his heaven falls! Indeed, what has any value where justice is not served!

Hypnosis entirely Debunked, decidedly? No. A scalpel is a different thing held in the hand of a skilled surgeon as opposed to a serial killer.

I recall a renowned Dr. Benjamin Simon had a lot of success treating PTSD a result of messy combat (The disorder effecting Betty and Barney Hill) and hypnotic regression was a major tool, by learned report, improving the lives of countless shell-shocked and tormented soldiers so affected. Simon also treated Betty and Barney Hill, as mentioned, pretty much kicking off the "credible hypnotic genre," eh? It was the wrenching testimony of Betty and Barney Hill, as drawn out by hypnotic regression, that put the Abduction Enigma on the radar at all, I submit!

You know, it must be true... to be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be "certain," as regards smoke and mirrors, is to be ridiculous, certainly. In the current environment all we can do is use the tools available as honestly as we can.

But I come to bury, not praise. It remains, abduction research really takes one below the waterline and it has its own errantly fired and bloody torpedo to blame, at that!

Too, one can hardly blame sincere outfits like Vaeni and Ritzmann's Paratopia when abductions research's now fairly assessed ship's guns are turned inward and it fires, furiously, upon itself! One can only respect a cogent report on same. Didn't we all have some "records" and "supplies" on that ship we'll christen the Budd Jacobs?

The treatment of this "Emma Woods" by Dr. Jacobs—even if ... why, especially if she's crazy as an outhouse rat—she's likely not—seems demonstrably unconscionable, wholly unprofessional, and ironically psychopathic in this writer's opinion. "Treat as you would be treated and do no harm," reader, is switched out for its angry antithesis where "Emma" seems psychologically thrown under a bus for David Jacobs' pecuniary convenience after being, in a fashion, raped. Summing up, "Emma Woods" sure seems lucid to this writer.

Seeming infidelity needs to be addressed aggressively even as some concern must be given to throwing out babies with dirty water or some-such like thing. Sometimes, perhaps, the baby has to go, too. Will that be one of those things remaining to be seen? I hope so.

I'd always liked Dr. Jacobs... loved him even...

From the beginning he rang every good bell for me. He wasn't part of my four legged Ufological "quadrature" —Friedman, Hastings, Feschino, and Dolan... in no particular order— but, seemingly not filled with himself, he was up there with what I perceived as credible, thoughtful, with-it, and cutting edge, even apart from the problematic hypnosis "thing"... and this is remembering Betty and Barney Hill and the widely quantified successes (?) of Dr. Benjamin Simon mentioned above...

Dr. Jacobs, it would seem indeed, still has much to answer for.

Too, I submit Mr. Hopkins errs in suggesting that careers, reputations, and an entire ufological genre are imperiled from "outside." Ironically, this insulting assault only comes from within! One is hoisted, verily, on ones own petard. This is said forgetting entirely that the fruit of Hopkins' regressions shows a compelling similarity with regard to the reportage of disparate persons all over the globe! How can that be tossed out as irrelevant even remembering that Hopkins' big three cases are shown to be entirely bupkis and given fair evaluation?  Remains, there is something, something un-englishable, there, if evading light.

It remains; even the earnest rescue of those contributions is not justified if a result is Hopkins' forgiving guilt and malfeasance in the matter at hand. Not at all. If you "steal the horse" you have to "hang." It's the law and justified where the "horse" is required for the victim's survival... ..."hoisted," like I said.

...And like Iraq, where millions of persons were made to sacrifice their faith only on the irrational if public pique of a single disturbed person, George Walker Bush, it is suggested that, like GWB, Jacobs is "too big to fail," like the dis-accreditation of his brand of abduction research would bring the whole ufological "community" to a grinding halt? That's overweening at best.

See, the "other," the UFO occupant... if real... is the most important thing in human imagination. UFOs will still "fly," eh? ...And besides, there is much evidence that the "other," exists, extant.

No, I find ones very justified and pointed, if outraged, interest regarding these abduction community developments in no way mean-spirited, gloating, biased to debunkery, or canted to self-serving hypocrisy. It has all relevance, factuality, and appropriate compassion and concern for a real human being, even apart from the bald appearance of such things, eh? I have the feeling, too, the critics Vaeni and Ritzmann would reverse themselves in a second, data to the contrary presenting itself. That's only fair.

All this said, and speaking for myself, I got the distinct impression from Dr. Jacobs—now a seeming portrait of clueless incompetence, professional infidelity, and predatory malice—that the woman, "Emma Woods," had become a liability to him in some kind of pecuniary manner and he was trying to dump her like yesterday's garbage... all while eating professional cake and having it too, mind you. ...On balance, pretty unethical, mechanizing, and mendacious on any level one could care to name! Too, beneath all consideration and contempt.

I understate this even as I aspire to understand why. We may know "why," eh?

Yeah—but maybe "why" also presupposes an arrogance that it's a given readers will understand the answer when the answer's "greater light" only illuminates more suggestions of darkness and of darknesses greater still. Gotta grok some "what" before we tear off a chunk of "why," eh?

It matters not. See, a line is decidedly crossed; a monstrous betrayal seems perpetrated on levels streaming from the unethical through the mal-professional to the monstrously culpable perhaps! If I'd been the one to put my trust in Doctor Jacobs and he betrayed me as it seems he betrayed "Emma Woods," in other words threw me to the wolves of his patently engineered and self-serving concerns because alien "hybrids" were sending him threatening "instant messages" on the INTERNET... well, words fail, and I'd just have to punch him in the mouth.

I would have preferred better, regrettably, but I'm now only able to see Jacobs self-serving cowardice, again, beneath any concern, all consideration, and outraged contempt.

Where to from here?

It doesn't matter, I suspect, does it! That's in the hands of those beyond my pay grade. We will close with the "other," even if the "other" turns out to be our unlikely selves, and even as the destination is a complete and inexpressible unknown—unspeakable even.

We're still on the trip—a road-trip with friends and comrades if we wish it so, I submit. We owe each other more compassion and regard than has been displayed. Too, given the paucity of tools that we are allowed, perhaps it's not so much which tools are used but by how they are used, eh? It's a poor workman blaming tools, after all, anyway.

Closing, this writer suspects that it's up to the—far from valueless—baby, in this case, whether the baby has to go out with the bathwater, or the baby is remanded for more much needed washing. Indeed, wire brushes may be required before this is over. We've no one to blame but ourselves. Read on.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Canted Skepticism as practiced by the late Phil Klass and Paul Kurtz

3 comments:

Sacha Christie Infomaniac Housewife said...

Did you know Jacobs gave Vol Charles Halt a copy of Larry Warrens regression tapes which have been passed around. He also told Halt that Larry had multiple substance abuse issues which he announced live on air on the Jimmy Church show. How did he come to think this? In 1986 Peter Robbins had a private conversation with Jacobs out of concern for Larry who was going through a divorce at the time. He was concerned he was mobile without rails. Jacobs passed this on as if the conversation were merely a week old. Has Mr Jacobs apologised or made a statement of regret? No... David Jacobs can easily be recognised.. His backside is thrust skywards while his head is firmly planted in the litter tray of ufoology.

Guy Weddle said...

Vaeni and Ritzmann are just as repugnant as Jacobs

Alfred Lehmberg said...

...Well, maybe. But they're not purloining irrelevant panties, prescribing the use of medieval torture devices they can procure, nor are they suggesting to a rather nice and seemingly sane lady in a suggestible state that she is wholly psychotic and requiring serious psychotropic drugs... no, rather they exposed same, eh?