Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Will You Ask the Right Questions When the Time Comes?

David Jacobs, PhD, will be a guest speaker tonight, Tuesday, November 15, at MUFON Los Angeles. This has bloggers such as Jeremy Vaeni and Regan Lee outraged the retired historian continues to be taken seriously in any capacity whatsoever of abduction research, going as far as suggesting a boycott of MUFON.

Considering the well documented chain of events that took place between Jacobs and his former research subject Emma Woods, the outrage is quite understandable. For further details about his confirmed abuse and extremely questionable actions that took place, see UFO Magazine, Paratopia and Emma's website, among any number of such places.

A Word About the Mutual UFO Network

We should all take notice of a 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation, claiming to be dedicated to the scientific study of UFOs, that repeatedly conducts activities that directly contradict scientific methods and critical thinking. MUFON has a direct responsibility to present the public with scientific and credible information, at least according to its mission statement, yet repeatedly and blatantly shirks such responsibility. The shirking of responsibility is demonstrated in Filer's foolish files, any given symposium speaker line up and, most recently, providing Jacobs a platform to pedal his unsubstantiated and grossly premature conclusions.

Certain MUFON leaders making a laughing stock of the scientific process and contradicting objective investigation is nothing new to the ufology landscape, whatever the reasons may ultimately be for such occurrences. Such occurrences leave each of us within the UFO community a choice, however; a choice that challenges us to inventory our own qualities, and decide our own extents of integrity, objectivity and sincere desire to know the truth.

Dr. Tyler Kokjohn

Dr. Tyler Kokjohn is a professor of microbiology and author of the article, Tainted, Toxic and Taboo: A Scientist's Assessment of Alien Abduction Research. He is an active participant in Project Core, an initiative designed to produce accurate and objective data about reported paranormal experiences, and he recently created the short film clip, Alien Abductions in Black and White, which I will provide below.

Dr. Kokjohn is well experienced and professionally qualified to provide relevant questions as contained within the video. He challenges us, the UFO community, to demand accountability of our leaders and speakers.

I agree with his implications that if a self-described researcher desires to present guesses or preferred beliefs, correctly identifying them as such, it is simply up to the audience as to whether or not they might choose to attend and eventually agree. However, if a researcher asserts himself as an authority on a topic such as alleged alien abductions, and attempts to convince an audience that he has conclusive evidence to support his extraordinary claims, the issue arguably becomes if the audience members have the integrity and courage to request professional authentication for the claims.

As Dr. Kokjohn so aptly points out in the video, it is common practice within the professional research community to openly share information such as research methodology and personnel. Disclosing such details as data gathering methods, data analysis and identification of facilities involved are also simply par for the course in professional research protocol. It is entirely reasonable to request such information from those claiming to conduct research, much less claiming to be in a position to provide fantastic conclusions.

Do we have the integrity and courage to hold those accountable for such information that try to sell us their unsupported and premature conclusions? We must each make that choice.

I have no particular desire to suggest people boycott MUFON or the outlandish 'researchers' the corporation so commonly supports. I do have a desire, however, to inspire you to make your own choice about what you will do when the time comes to decide if you will ask the right questions. What you choose to do is up to you, and it has a lot to do with whether or not you sincerely want the truth.


  1. There is no question that DR. Kokjohn is right on the money. I had *NO* knowledge that such genetic experiments could verify pregnancy several decades after the event! That's incredibly good news and will hopefully give all those of us interested in the truth of this matter, the forearmed mental prowess necessary to thwart the charlatans perpetuating the confusion. I just want to (again) THANK the truth bearing direction that you have forwarded this matter within Jack. Dr. Tyler Kokjohn deserves a hearty standing ovation for his willingness and interest in this matter. It is with qualified professionals such as himself that the real truth will be documented and validated so that the rest of us truth seekers might understand what this phenomenon truly holds and consists of.

  2. Regarding Kokjohn's youtube videos - specifically the one about pregnancies. Though it's interesting latest technology may determine if a woman has been pregnant, that might not mean much in bolstering or debunking claims of mystery pregnancies (ie. alien abductions ect.)

    As an example there is the possibility (or side effect) of embryos fertilized and living for a few days and then spontaneously aborted from an IUD. [This also can happen naturally, without any birth control involved.]

    IUDs (particularly the older models) would ideally make the uterus unsuitable for sperm (the copper worked as a spermicide). The back up of the IUD though, if fertilization did occur, was to make the uterus an uninhabitable place for it to attach (the effect of copper again).

    So, after a few days of an embryo traveling down the fallopian tubes into the uterus, unable to attach ,it's then expelled because of the inhospitable enviornment. It was technically a pregnancy, though only of a few days.

    I remember when I had an IUD (copper-based) and had a few menstral cycles that were off by 5 to 6 days, followed by a heavier-than-usual cycle. My OBGYN ,at the time, matter-of-factly stated that I could have been pregnant for a few days but the IUD took care of it. [I've never claimed to have had 'alien'-related pregnancies, btw]

    ~ Susan

  3. Thank you, Jeff. I obviously agree this is an intelligent direction to go.

    Brownie, I interpret a primary issue (as addressed by Dr. Kokjohn in "Tainted, Toxic and Taboo: A Scientist's Assessment of Alien Abduction Research") to be the wealth of opportunities to collect DNA samples of alleged aliens if the experiences as reported by Jacobs are happening to people in a literal manner. Equally relevant, is why Jacobs and his peers do not address DNA tests themselves. Some might suggest we hold them accountable for expecting us to take their claims as factual while refusing to so much as even address why they do not swab any number of items, including alleged abductees themselves and their belongings, for DNA following supposed encounters. This will have to be adequately addressed, test results presented for public review and so on in order for such researchers to retain any serious credibility at all given the technology is now available.

  4. "I agree with his implications that if a self-described researcher desires to present guesses or preferred beliefs, correctly identifying them as such, it is simply up to the audience as to whether or not they might choose to attend and eventually agree."

    Hi, Jack.

    Your use of the terms "self-described researcher" and "guesses or preferred beliefs" carries a condescending, dismissive tone that was thankfully and wisely absent from Dr. Kokjohn's presentation.

    This doesn't negate the value of your commendable post, but it does hint of a bias favoring a social hierarchy (scientists up here; rabble down there) which has historically sanctioned, and continues to sanction, the use of Science as a monolithic bludgeon against people reporting UFO experiences.

    In any case, Kokjohn's message of engagement and thoughtful inquisition is simple, direct and profoundly important. Thank you for amplifying it.

  5. "...but it does hint of a bias..."

    That is because I AM biased against self-described researchers who prematurely and incompetently present their guesses and preferred beliefs as factual data (of which I most certainly categorize Jacobs). Why should I not be biased against such actions as perpetrated by Jacobs?

  6. Jack, Tyler Kokjohn has the opportunity to collect DNA samples from his Project CORE colleagues - Jeffrey Ritzmann and Jeremy Vaeni. Both are self-identified "experiencers" and at least one of them is having on-going encounters (discussed on their podcasts). There is also the trance-dance, which one has up on youtube, where he claims an intelligence takes him over and he involuntarily dances. I'm sure Kokjohn could instruct them how to collect and store swab samples and other materials to send to him as well as coming up with a way to test the trance dancing posession claim further.

    I definitely agree that abduction researchers should have pressed their research subjects to collect possible dna evidence,...go to the emergency room or one's doctor (to get medical documentation after an event),...save materials that may have been touched or stained (as Betty Hill saved her dress with the stains)...and to call the police to report an incident (again, documentation)no matter how embarassing.

    Jacobs, Hopkins and Mack grew increasingly fixated on sex and hybrids (interestingly Raymond Fowler did not, though he acknowledged reports of sperm and ova taking).

    Mack, as a psychiatrist, should have known better and sent all his research subjects for blood work-ups and genetic testing (some of his subjects claimed to be part-alien and married to aliens, traveling to alien worlds where they'd see their alien families ect.). Instead Mack plowed forward with his hypnosis sessions.

    Though I'd read Mack's books it wasn't until I saw a clip from a Canadian documentary on alien abductions that I realized how leading Mack was in his hypnosis sessions. There's one clip where Mack has a male subject under a "light" hypnosis and the subject is telling him that a female alien wants to have sex with him and he's horrified and repulsed. He's also married. He's obviously upset. Mack then argues with him "She wants to f*** you. What's wrong with that?" The man is stunned by Mack's question and manages to argue back with Mack - reminding him he's married and this is an alien on top of it all! So there you have Mack encouraging inter-species sex while his subject is under hypnosis.

    Having stated that about the Mack/Jacobs/Hopkins sex and hybrids fixation I'll play devil's advocate - there is the undeniable sexual/reproductive component and alien beings that appear to look more human than alien. This at least dates back to the Antonio Villas Boas encounter in Brazil (1957).

    Villas-Boas experienced some 'missing time' but remembered most of the alleged abduction. It involved him being forced to have sex with what would line-up with today's descriptions of a 'hybrid'. After the sexual exchange, she then patted her belly and pointed to the sky. Villas-Boas had to seek medical help after this event because of radiation sickness symptoms that lasted several days - all of which was documented.

    ~ Susan

  7. [Jack said] "That is because I AM biased against self-described researchers who prematurely and incompetently present their guesses and preferred beliefs as factual data (of which I most certainly categorize Jacobs)."

    I interpreted the context of the quote I initially cited as broader than, or, at least, not confined to, David Jacobs. No matter. The message is loud and clear: If the ostensible UFO/abduction experts are going to use Science as a fig leaf of legitimacy or validation, they can and should be challenged on those grounds. I agree - very strongly - yet, while reading the post, found myself wondering whether your verbiage constituted a kind of Freudian sneer at lay witnesses and/or experiencers. Maybe it doesn't. That's why I used the word hint.

    As a matter of fact, David Jacobs always impressed me as a histrionic, narcissistic Chicken Little who rather enjoys frightening people, including himself. And that was long before I learned of Ms. Woods' unfortunate fall into, and heroic climb out of, Jacobs' lair.

    I hold MUFON, ufology and the abduction porn industry in low enough regard that detailing my criticisms would require drilling permits, blasting caps and venture capital.

    So, how 'bout that. We have some things in common.

    I don't presume to know what's going on with the abduction phenomenon, but, in the interest of full disclosure (pun intended), I do self-identify as a contactee (multiple sightings, an unambiguous missing time incident and numerous high strangeness events). BTW, I was very skeptical of missing time, but when it happened to me, though brief, it became real very quickly. Strangest thing I've ever experienced, and I am not an unadventurous spirit.

    Anyway, it's a pleasure to make your virtual acquaintance. Good luck in your mission.

  8. Hi Jack! Brownie brings up the deeper point - test results always need interpretation. I feel that Dr. K sometimes understates the complications involved in collecting these samples, finding a lab to run the tests, then actually figuring out what the tests mean.

    Taking as a starting point that aliens can and do interbreed with humans in physical reality - how do we know that their DNA would be different enough from human to be detectible statistically? Chimps are much more different from humans than any alien, yet we share 99% of our DNA. How do we know how a species with which we can interbreed would 'show up' at the DNA level? If we can tell mules from horses, how do we know the same 'rules' would apply in primates? Different animals have truly wide ranges of diversity in how their DNA is configured - and we cannot assume similarity. FWIW, i personally doubt physical aliens are interbreeding with humans. But i'm not passionate about the topic either way.

    i am not a scientist nor any expert. However,in the the early 1980's i completed all the coursework for an undergraduate degree in archaeology, including coursework on physical anthropology and the new developments in genetics, including the 'genetic clock' in mitochondrial DNA. I completed these classes at UC Santa Cruz and UC Berkeley, with high marks.

    It is understandable, yet disturbing, that genetic science is presented as cut and dried so many times in various media. In reality, people are looking at fuzzy lines in jello, making judgements and running their results through mathematical mazes in an attempt to discern what these globs mean. Now it's becoming apparent that the environment has a big say in how/if genes express, on top of it all.

    which is a long way of saying that, while i heartily encourage swabbing and testing, i'll be very happily surprised if it clears up anything.

    i'm also surprised that you describe project core as '...an initiative designed to produce accurate and objective data about reported paranormal experiences...'. i think PC is very exciting and could be a rich source of material for people to analyze (if it's made public). But it's a collection of first-person accounts of remembered experience, with no safeguards against any trickery, hoaxing, no attempts at investigating memories for accuracy, etc.

    i don't fault PC for this - such an undertaking would be prohibitively expensive in every way. What they are doing as it is is quite ambitious. But i don't see the point in calling it something it ain't.

    Happy Saturday! steph

  9. I suppose some of us will just have to disagree on certain issues. I am of the opinion that some of your lines of reasoning are faulty, although I support your rights to express yourselves and hold any opinions you may choose.

    For those who wish to learn more about Project Core and decide for themselves what the initiative may or may not be designed to accomplish, further information may be viewed at:


    Arvin, it is a pleasure to make your virtual acquaintance as well. Thank you all for your interest.

  10. Hi Jack! thank you for the prompt response. re: PC. There's not much they can really do with answers to the 'twenty questions', because 1) where's the control group? and 2) there's no way to know if this group is at all representative of 'experiencers'.

    some NDE researchers have done interesting work in trying to get around similar issues by querying all people in a hospital who flatline (well, they have more specific criteria and stock questions). But there is no similar circumstance allowing 'capture' of UFO observers, for example.

    Again, i'm not at all faulting the PC for this aspect - it's extraordinarily difficult to get around. But touting it as 'objective and accurate' muddies the waters, imho.

    Thank you for providing a place offering a real opportunity for frank discussion of these topics. It's as rare as hen's teeth! :) Happy Weekend! steph

  11. After one clicks on the link that Jack provided to Tyler Kokjohn's latest Youtube video, you can find his other videos on his channel "ReWinky".

    This is only my opinion but Kokjohn does himself no favors with the lame attempt of humor in his rap video, replete with red panties and other accoutrements, making fun of Jacobs. [Alien Hybrids Are After Me by ReWinky] Who is he trying to impress anyway? If you notice the thumbs-up vs. thumbs-down on most all of his videos, he's not succeeding. Frankly it makes me think of the old adage - 'If you lie down with dogs, you will rise up with fleas'. ;-)

    ~ Susan

  12. I've maintained that the archaic, outmoded "Scientific Method" is insufficient to handle a topic as ephemeral and illusory and alien abduction. The "scientific method" approved by debunkers is just as loaded with preconceptions, absurd assumptions and pointless wheel spinning as you claim Jacobs and his ilk to be guilty of. I'm reminded of Doc Brown in Back to the Future scolding Marty for "not thinking fourth dimensionally". It's pointless and silly to insist that the "truth" of this subject will be revealed by technology and thinking that's decades, if not hundreds of years old and thoroughly outdated. An approach ruled by a pseudo-intellectual, condescending self-satisfaction rather than an objective search for facts.

  13. Steph (tinyjunco)-

    You are absolutely correct in your assertion that DNA sample analyses will not be simple. Right now the entire explanatory model hangs almost completely on inference from hypnotic regressions. Given the serious implications, some corroborating evidence would be helpful in waking up humanity to the claimed threat. Genetic technology may now be able to provide some information.

    You are also dead on target about the possible quandry posed by the data. What will we find? Looking at chimpanzee and maybe even Neanderthal DNA (still controversial) it is clear that subtle differences in sequences and/or expression patterns can yield very different creatures. I would say if (IF) someone gets the data and we are able to consistently see no statitically significant differences between the human reference sequences, the hypothesis of genetic colonization is seriously undermined.

    Both you and Brownie point out important things to keep in mind and pitfalls to consider. I still say we need to try to root out the best data possible to comprehend the mystery of alien abductions. Genetic analyses may be a means to that end.

  14. "Taking as a starting point that aliens can and do interbreed with humans in physical reality - how do we know that their DNA would be different enough from human to be detectible statistically? Chimps are much more different from humans than any alien, yet we share 99% of our DNA. How do we know how a species with which we can interbreed would 'show up' at the DNA level? If we can tell mules from horses, how do we know the same 'rules' would apply in primates?"

    Is it ANY wonder that this Abduction phenomenon will remain a mystery? Look a what is written that I have quoted here. See anything WRONG with this picture? How about a complete lack of facts for starters?

  15. A long valued contact recently brought an article to my attention in the context of issues represented in this blog post and the resulting comments. In an article titled, "Strategy and Tactics to Manage an Alien Abduction or Unavoidable Alien Encounter," and posted on the UFO Digest website, author James Roger Brown explained, among other things, that, "Modified instructions for situations involving human abductors and hostage takers may be of some use dealing with extraterrestrial abductors." Brown further informed us that alien abductions are subject to include "robotic devices... operating under some type of programming and may or may not be able to make independent decisions."

    Such unsubstantiated assertions are certainly not difficult to find throughout UFO Land and were therefore not the primary reason the article was forwarded to me. The primary purpose my contact brought the article to my attention was to point out Brown asserted a purpose of alien abduction that some may find curious: "Extraterrestrial intelligence collection protocols of at least one alliance are based upon scanning your central nervous system to identify neural structures associated with specific skills and knowledge."

    Is this an indication that, after having painted themselves into a corner with the completely unsubstantiated hybridization claims, some self-proclaimed abduction experts may begin perpetuating a new, more nebulous purpose for the yet to be verified 'threat'? They are certainly creative enough and I suppose time will tell. I continue to hope that, whatever claims may continue to be set forth, we collectively ask a few simple questions that quickly clarify the substance, or lack thereof, of the claims.

  16. Jack wrote: "A long valued contact recently brought an article to my attention in the context of issues represented in this blog post and the resulting comments." - - -

    It would be polite and much more efficient if this person, who's read the post and comments enough to contact you to comment on his behalf, would simply post himself. Why hide? - the rest of us don't.

    ~ Susan Brown

  17. They did not "hide," Brownie. As I implied, the person and I have a long standing friendship and subsequently discuss a variety of social, political and ufological topics. As I directly stated and you chose to quote, they brought the article to my attention "in the context of issues represented" in this blog post and resulting discussion, not because of this blog or discussion.

    If Brownie or anyone else has anything specific they would like to ask me about my blog or networking activities, please feel free to do so. I do ask, however, that you form clear and direct statements and questions as opposed to indirect implications and accusations.

    If you, Brownie, or others have any comments about the actual article cited, Mr. Brown's, "Strategy and Tactics...," I encourage voicing your perspectives. I also encourage commentary on the article previously cited, Dr. Kokjohn's, "Tainted, Toxic and Taboo...," or on the comments provided here by Dr. Kokjohn. Any thoughts, anyone?