Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility

Peter Robbins, who described himself on the Dec. 17 Jimmy Church 'Fade to Black' show as a former assistant and confidant to the late Budd Hopkins, told Church that David Jacobs recently provided Retired Col. Charles Halt with a copy of a tape recorded regressive hypnosis session conducted by Hopkins many years earlier on subject Larry Warren. Robbins framed the circumstances, about which Warren expressed outrage earlier this month, as a misunderstanding on the part of Jacobs.

This blog has previously explored issues central to the ethics of UFO research. They include how abduction researchers have dealt with in the past and continue to deal with witness confidentiality. The story of the leaking of Larry Warren's audio-taped session(s) to Charles Halt continues this exploration. Let's begin with a summary of some of the players and what was stated on recent podcasts.   

Dec. 10 Martin Willis Podcast

Larry Warren and Col. Charles Halt are central figures in the Rendlesham Forest incident, or RFI. Peter Robbins, in addition to his association with the late alien abduction icon Budd Hopkins, was Warren's co-author for the book, 'Left at East Gate: A First-hand Account of the Rendlesham Forest Ufo Incident, Its Cover-up, and Investigation'.

The RFI, which occurred during a three-day span in 1980, continues to intrigue the UFO community. It is indeed an extremely interesting case, riddled with implications ranging from paranormal occurrences to state-sponsored psychological operations. Higher profile figures of the RFI continue to be popular guests on podcasts. Bitter personality conflicts developed over the years among some of the players, including between Larry Warren and Charles Halt.

The late Budd Hopkins
Credit: Wikipedia
During a Dec. 10 podcast interview conducted by Martin Willis, Col. Halt made assertions with which Warren would later take serious issue. The colonel's statements carried significant implications about the confidentiality and ethics surrounding the treatment of hypnosis subjects, as well as direct reference to Warren, who participated in hypnosis sessions with Budd Hopkins in the late 1980's and 1990's. Halt broached the subject of Hopkins by stating that the two became "very good friends."

"He'd walk me through all the material he had, some really remarkable stuff that you guys would love to get your hands on," Halt asserted during the show with Willis, further stating that he and Hopkins specifically discussed Larry Warren on occasion.

"I've listened to some of Larry Warren's hypnosis tapes," Halt added. "I have access to that."

Dec. 15 Don Ecker Podcast

On Dec. 15, Don Ecker of Dark Matters Radio published a show with guests Larry Warren and Sacha Christie. According to Christie's website, she is "an advocate for contactee care and protection," as well as a podcaster who is active with multiple UFO organizations.

Warren addressed Halt's allegations, summarizing the circumstances and voicing concerns about confidentiality, among other issues. Apparently not yet aware that it was Jacobs who provided Halt a copy of his taped hypnosis session, Warren stated, "Somebody provided a man [Col. Halt] - that is a longstanding, established adversary to me - private, confidential information that, frankly, only three people have ever heard: me, Peter Robbins and Budd."

Warren explained that since the death of Hopkins in 2011, David Jacobs has been the guardian of most or all of the tape recordings of Hopkins' regressive hypnosis sessions. That included some 600 hypnosis subjects who believed their testimonies would be treated in confidence.  

"David Jacobs has the archives - everything of Budd Hopkins," Warren continued. "I think Dave's an honorable man. I think Dave's an honest man and, you know, the confidentiality is so important, I wouldn't see any [betrayal] going on. It's kind of a career-ender, if that's a career."

Warren added that if he had been asked to grant Halt access to the tapes, he would probably have agreed, but that was beside the point. Peter Robbins would soon make public statements during yet another podcast that did not seem to fully fit with Warren's stance, and those statements will be explored shortly.

Warren went on to emphasize that proper protection and care for possible abductees was essential, adding that he was concerned about "personal tapes... from these people being given to absolute enemies without the permission of the tapee." Sacha Christie agreed that respecting the confidentiality of hypnosis subjects should be of highest importance. 

Hopkins conducting a hypnosis session
Credit: Wikipedia
"These tapes are of a really sensitive nature," Christie explained, "and all of the witnesses – all of the people who've been Budd's clients... I know of quite a few women, and one of them who has actually had sessions with Budd, who would absolutely hate the fact that David Jacobs has got [the tapes], because there are issues surrounding him, and whether they're true or not, this issue is trust."

"I know people that wouldn't be comfortable with [Jacobs]," Christie continued. "Now, people would and should have been consulted about what they wanted to have happen to [the tapes of their sessions], whether it be destroyed or given to them... or saved for future reference, etc."

"It's just been thrown out there with very little care about what the people, who it's about, are going to think and feel..." Christie concluded. "If that were me, I'd be horrified."

The Carpenter Affair

After Sacha Christie voiced her concerns, host Don Ecker informed listeners that such betrayals of trust between investigators and witnesses had precedence within the UFO community. Ecker alluded to the Carpenter Affair, a series of events during the 1990's in which John Carpenter, a Missouri social worker, hypnotist and MUFON director of abduction research at the time, provided data from case files of some 140 possible abductees to controversial ufology philanthropist Robert Bigelow. The 140 subjects were neither asked nor informed about the transactions that included a reported $14,000 in cash payments made to Carpenter. This resulted in some people defining the circumstances as covert selling of the case files. The events and what many interpreted as their cover-up by MUFON were reviewed rather extensively by 'The UFO Trail', including the post, 'The Carpenter Affair: For the Record'
Robert Bigelow
Credit: Wikipedia

A central recurring issue, and as more recently implied by Christie and Ecker, was that such ethical shortcomings did not appear to be isolated incidents. Moreover, not only was the treatment of hypnosis subjects being called into tremendous question, but so was the reliability of the so-called data being promoted as well. Researcher Gary Hart directly addressed the circumstances in a formal complaint of Carpenter's actions he filed with MUFON in 2000 and with the State of Missouri in 2001. It was discussed at 'UFO UpDates List' prior to the discontinuation of the once popular e-list. 

In the complaint, Hart quoted an unnamed individual that he referred to as "a well-known researcher" who stated that "everyone does it." Hart wrote:
It is unknown how far these inconsistent actions or structures have spread. It has been stated by a well-known researcher that "everyone does it" referring to selling files. This "everyone does it" statement was also applied to having sexual relations between researchers and abductees. [John Carpenter's] situation may just be the tip of the iceberg!
I know firsthand that some MUFON State Directors fail to follow ANY of MUFON's organizational, structural or ethical guidelines and the state structure is rendered totally unresponsive to the wishes of the general membership in those states. Make no mistake: this is a prescription for the unethical and unprofessional treatment of witnesses, MUFON members and the defrauding of the general public and the fact that this provably already occurs because of the MUFON Board of Directors' lack of control or guidance over situations demanding such is not unexpected.

John Carpenter informed 'The UFO Trail' during an email interview conducted in early 2012 that he was not the only investigator who considered pursuing the types of arrangements of which he came under fire. 

"Other researchers were approached with the same proposal," he wrote, "and some of them may have shared data, too." 

Carpenter was subsequently offered opportunities to explain the statement in more detail and directly address specifics of his allegations. He chose not to elaborate further.  

More Correlations

Carol Rainey is the former wife of the late Budd Hopkins. They co-authored 'Sight Unseen: Science, UFO Invisibility, and Transgenic Beings'. Rainey has in more recent years asserted that substantial scrutiny is warranted concerning the research protocols and ethics of abduction researchers in general, and of Hopkins and his associates in particular instances.

Informed of the allegations leveled by Col. Halt - that Hopkins shared case data with him - Rainey explained in a Dec. 22 email, "My take, based on ten years of observation, is that Budd had no problem with sharing confidential info with people he invited into his privileged space [his studio], including playing segments of abductees' hypnosis sessions for the guest."

Boxes of Hopkins' research materials
awaiting relocation in an unsecured hallway
accessible to strangers entering the house
Credit: Carol Rainey
Rainey added that she doubted Hopkins would readily hand over audiotapes to be taken out of the studio by an interested party, and had nothing in particular to say about Halt, but was certainly clear that she did not find the colonel's comments about Hopkins to be surprising. She explained that following Budd's death in 2011, his colleagues, primarily David Jacobs, Leslie Kean, Peter Robbins and Jed Turnbull, sorted his UFO material. Portions of his work were boxed and stacked for a couple of weeks in an unsecured hallway in Hopkins' New York house until the boxes were relocated. The boxes were adjacent to a tenant's room and individuals unknown to anyone living in the house would often come and go. During those weeks, bags of letters from potential abductees and other Hopkins' research materials were piled on the public street curb for garbage collection the following morning - circumstances one would not interpret to demonstrate assigning particularly high value to the material and its security.

Rainey is well known for her critical assessment of the work of Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs as contained in her 2011 article, 'The Priests of High Strangeness: Co-Creation of the 'Alien Abduction Phenomenon''. The piece included information relevant to the Emma Woods debacle, a case Jacobs attempted to handle that became such a minefield of disturbingly questionable actions on his part that many ufology icons continue to avoid and censor its discussion. 

In her YouTube video, '1996 Symbols Revealed as Evidence of Alien Abduction', Rainey hears Hopkins' claim that the symbols had never been made public and that he was releasing them for the very first time for her to shoot and include in her film. He tells her that the very similar symbols in his scrapbook were sketched by abductees and these were the only "alien" symbols ever seen during abductions. In actuality, Rainey later explained in voice-over, she had seen Hopkins show the symbols in his studio to dozens of people, including journalists, television producers, other UFO researchers and even abductees from his own support groups. Rainey made a convincing argument that not only was data contamination a virtual given, but that data was being misrepresented by Hopkins as more significant than was actually the case.

In the documentary excerpt on YouTube, we hear Rainey, off camera, ask Hopkins, who is digging through a box of collected drawings, to show the camera a more complete sample of what he has in the box of alleged "alien" symbols. He has been pulling out only examples that resemble what he has already predetermined are the authentic samples of alien writing.

Hopkins replies, on camera, "No, I want to stack the deck here."

Rainey's later voice-over states that she knows of hundreds of abductee symbols that don't match Budd's cherry-picked ones at all. Nor do they match those of other abduction researchers.

Rainey maintains a YouTube channel where she has posted a number of short films that cast doubt upon Hopkins' objectivity as a researcher. Her films rather commonly receive negative comments from his faithful supporters. One such commentary prompted Rainey to compose an open letter to the UFO community after the individual repeatedly referred to Hopkins and another deceased investigator as "saints."

Such fanaticism can be further observed in what has become an ongoing series of edits and revisions on the Budd Hopkins Wikipedia page. The Hopkins faithful repeatedly editorialize their interpretations of the man and his perceived accomplishments, while refusing to observe and abide by Wikipedia citation policies. As a result, the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia team has consistently worked at posting fact-based information while editing the page to keep it in compliance with established guidelines. 

Dec. 17 Jimmy Church Podcast

The proverbial pot came to a boil on the Dec. 17 episode of Jimmy Church's 'Fade to Black'. Guest Peter Robbins attempted to explain to listeners that he delved into Col. Halt's allegations and concluded that it was David Jacobs, the current custodian of the Hopkins archive, who supplied Halt with a copy of one of Warren's hypnosis sessions due to a misunderstanding. Those who wish to explore Robbins' specific statements are encouraged to listen directly to Church's show, particularly from approximately 1:32:00 to about 1:48:00 or so. A summary of the circumstances, as Robbins explained them to Church, is provided below.

Larry Warren, a reported RFI witness, became a hypnosis subject of Budd Hopkins. Sessions occurred from approximately 1987 to at least 1995.

Robbins stated that, in 1995, Warren requested a hypnosis session with Hopkins in order to explore not an incident in the Rendlesham Forest, but Warren's reported interrogation the day afterward. Robbins observed the 1995 regressive hypnosis session.

According to Robbins, the transcript from that particular session was included nearly in full in the book, 'Left at East Gate'. Intentionally omitted from mention and publication were the names of four men that Warren, while under hypnosis, identified as present. Robbins stated that during the hypnosis session, he and Hopkins looked at each other with much shock as Warren described the presence of the men.

Skip ahead to about a year and a half ago. Robbins said he was at that time thinking back about the four men but could not remember their names. He additionally told Church and his listeners that he asked Warren, but Warren could not recall the names either. Robbins informed David Jacobs at that point that he would like to receive a copy of the tape of Warren's 1995 hypnosis session with Hopkins.

Jacobs replied to Robbins that he could certainly give him a copy, but, prior to doing so, Jacobs would prefer that Warren provide a release. This is where the misunderstanding reportedly began to take shape.

Warren provided Jacobs a written release that, according to Robbins, read, "Hi, David. It's been a long time. Peter told me to contact you re Budd's tape with me concerning Rendlesham etc. and indeed I give you permission to release it and use it in any way. Also, I extend same to Peter Robbins. Wishing you and yours all the best, Larry Warren."

David Jacobs
Credit: Jack Brewer
Skip ahead further now. Robbins stated that quite some time later, in early October, Halt emailed Jacobs and requested a copy of apparently the same tape. Jacobs reportedly then provided Halt a copy due to the wording of Warren's previous release, specifically the phrase, "use it in any way."

Several questions arise. Some are obvious, like wouldn't the standard answer to a request such as Halt's be, "no," until one is contacted by the hypnosis subject? Another reasonable question would be shouldn't one just ask a hypnosis subject about releasing a tape of their session, rather than searching through files and emails to see what they may have said during some unrelated previous situation?   

Why didn't Halt just say he got a tape from Jacobs in the first place if he and Jacobs believed it was all above board? And, even if so, what about Halt's remarks about Hopkins sharing data with him?

We might also consider that, based on Warren's statements on the Dec. 15 Don Ecker podcast, Warren obviously did not perceive himself to have released the tape to Halt, much less anyone who might have happened to ask, as Jacobs rather questionably interpreted it. Also, Robbins made a particular point to explain the sensitive nature of the circumstances surrounding the four names at issue, circumstances that Warren had shown no concern about at all, at least not publicly. 

Robbins framed the relevance of the four names in a context that allowed him to point out that it would be very irresponsible and unethical of Col. Halt to pursue or publicly discuss the men. Perhaps it might be worthy of much deeper emphasis than Robbins chose to give it that Col. Halt would be in no position to do such things if Jacobs had never given him the tape. 

Further Questions

David Jacobs was emailed and offered an opportunity to provide comments for consideration in this post. In a Dec. 26 email, he replied, "Budd Hopkins was an absolutely conscientious protector of people's identities and testimony. Without that safeguard, one cannot do ethical abduction research. As Peter Robbins correctly explained on [Jimmy Church's] show, Larry Warren allowed me in writing to send the tape of his session with Budd Hopkins to anyone."

I replied and asked Jacobs, given that we now know he misinterpreted Warren's intentions, and that Warren did not wish to authorize release of a tape to Halt or anyone who might happen to ask, why Jacobs would not have simply contacted Warren directly about Halt's request. Jacobs did not immediately reply and, as of this post, no further emails were received from him.

Does the UFO community sincerely believe, as implied by Robbins and Jacobs, that Larry Warren should be blamed for the failure to keep his taped hypnosis session secure?   

Why didn't Jacobs simply ask Warren if Halt should be granted access to Warren's tape, rather than allegedly relying on wording contained in an informal release Warren composed over a year earlier during an entirely unrelated matter?

Do David Jacobs, Peter Robbins and others who promote the use of hypnosis as a memory enhancer not have protocol in place that includes properly worded release forms and that prevents such alleged misunderstandings? A form obtained from Carol Rainey and previously used by the now dissolved Intruders Foundation, of which Hopkins was executive director, may offer further insight.

The form (pictured right) was used to obtain consent from potential hypnosis subjects to allow Hopkins to publish information collected via hypnosis and pertaining to UFO experiences. However and concerning confidentiality, it is clearly stated that Hopkins will not release information identifying the witness, their family or employer "unless [the witness] specifically request that he do so."

While the form may or may not have been presented to Larry Warren, it nonetheless provides insight into the spirit of witness confidentiality policies as portrayed by Hopkins. Jacobs reportedly uses a similarly worded form. In Warren's informal release quoted Dec. 17 by Robbins, it is obvious that Warren did not "specifically request" that his regression tape and the identifying information contained therein be released to anyone other than Robbins, as asserted by Jacobs as an explanation for why he provided a copy to Halt. In addition to such considerations, the Intruders Foundation form also leads us to question what specific confidentiality policies we should expect to now apply to the Hopkins archive, as well as who is liable for the uniform and fair application of such policies. What recourse is available to former hypnosis subjects?      

Any way one chooses to look at it, and even if we are to fully accept the chain of events as described by Peter Robbins to Jimmy Church, we have a concerning situation from many perspectives. The breach of trust with the hypnosis subject is but one. 

Consider further, please, that four men were reportedly named by Larry Warren during a 1995 regressive hypnosis session that carried implications of covert psyops, and the men may, in reality, have no demonstrable involvement whatsoever in the hypnotically retrieved story. Nonetheless, their names were allegedly included on a tape recording that those entrusted to protect and hold in confidence were unable or unwilling to do, for whatever reasons. What's more, the self-appointed authority figures do not even demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant issues as identified by Sacha Christie, Carol Rainey and others. We can largely only speculate as to the extents the four men in question and their families might have their community standings effected and what negative repercussions they are at risk of experiencing, all on account of unreliable information gained via hypnosis in the first place. Reasonable arguments can be well made that untrained individuals should stop acting out their biases under the guises of conducting investigations via hypnosis, and that the collective UFO community should stop enabling it.

The blame game can continue, yet the fact of the matter will remain that the taped regression sessions of Larry Warren as performed by Budd Hopkins, observed by Peter Robbins and now in the care of David Jacobs were not secure. Nor are the audiotapes secure of other individuals who may not be fortunate enough to be defended by Peter Robbins. Any way one chooses to look at it, the people charged with protecting the privacy and emotional well being of the hypnosis subjects – and those named during their sessions - failed to do so. Again. 


Special thanks to Andy Russell for the tip. 

Contact Jack Brewer, author of 'The UFO Trail', through his blogger profile.


  1. UFO Trail has consistently followed up on issues of abduction researcher's protocols and ethics. One can only hope that the spirit and intent of such persistence will flower, over time, into a field where critical thinking is the norm.

    1. Ethics and critical thinking.

      Two very interesting concepts that were lost on you as you sat by Budd's side. Not once during his life did you step up to higlight these issues. Post his death you cant stop telling people how terrible Budd was.
      Funny how that worked itself out. Then again if insiders that stayed quiet never came forward how long would the lack of ethics stay hidden?
      Interesting concepts indeed.

    2. Normally I wouldn't respond to any dumb thing Chip has to say, but this particular dumb thing illustrates the catch 22 for Carol. She DID step up and highlight these issues while he was alive. In fact, she handed him her Paratopia Magazine article to read before we ever published it. In fact, he had a chance to comment on it and he did. And for that she was attacked by the lazy hero worshippers for doing this to poor Budd because he was dying.

      But you illustrate the fact that she can't possibly win because if she had waited until he passed away, the valueless troll squad would have attacked her for that. Carol has stated time and again that hearing the Emma Woods story was the whole reason for the timing and that she wanted Budd to have a chance to defend himself. She did what was fair by him.

      Would it have been nice if she'd felt motivated to say something earlier? Sure. For us. But what does she get? If she's still married to Budd she loses her husband, her friends, she gets crapped on and ostracized. If she's divorced, she gets called the bitter ex wife, loses her friends, gets crapped on and ostracized--pretty much what happened. It was only in seeing Emma be victimized by David and, to an extent, Budd, that she felt it was worth facing those challenges.

      If anyone doesn't respect that, then they aren't being honest with themselves as to what they might do and when. It's easy to be the hero in your head. When the situation arises in real life, let's not pretend you're automatically that hero, everything else be damned. But then that's the difference between a Carol Rainey and a Chip Plescher: one hasn't done anything brave to help advance ufology or, you know, basic human decency. The other is Carol.

    3. Thanks for your gallant defense, Jeremy. Much appreciated!

      I'd like to add to your comments that Chip, who knows me not one whit, also seems to have no idea what the dynamic is like inside a marriage. Even when the two people go back and forth between themselves about what is being done, or what should be done about some issue at hand, there is generally an attempt to keep those differences contained to the space shared by the two married people. To present a loyal, unified stance to the public. After all, isn't that one good reason why people marry - so that there's always somebody in your corner?

      I was wholeheartedly in Budd's corner during our marriage, until what I was seeing before me caused cracks in my support.

      Chip makes both an intrusive and violating assumption. He implies that he knows what I did or did not _privately_ address with Budd, inside the confines of our home. Long before our split, long before Emma came along, I was speaking up repeatedly _to Budd_ about Budd's credulousness (to address just one issue) which was leading him into publicly parading around on radio shows with hoaxers. I also spoke up - to my husband and privately - about the ethics of having a single hypnosis session with someone, allegedly showing him that he'd been abducted by aliens, a deeply disturbing concept, and then Budd never, ever following up with the person. Never returning calls to over a dozen phone messages left by the traumatized man.

      So please, Chip, you utter stranger, do not tell me what I failed to perceive while "sitting by Budd's side." Very telling little phrase you've used, by the way. The wife in her proper subsidiary role, sitting quietly, oblivious, stupidly chewing her cud.

  2. Excellent and Jack, you are one of the few people bringing these issues to the attention of UFO Land. I've linked to your piece. Thank you.

  3. Oh, my God, I did not know that Hopkins passed the tapes of his hypnosis sessions on to Jacobs. I thought he would have left them to Leslie Kean to safeguard.

    I feel sorry for Hopkins’ subjects. Jacobs is the worst person ever to be trusted with protecting client confidentiality. He has a history of utter disregard for protecting his own subjects’ privacy. I have him on tape telling me information about other subjects that identified them, including their real names, professions, and so on. I know he has also betrayed my confidentiality.

    Both Larry Warren and Peter Robbins are naive if they think it was just a “misunderstanding” on Jacobs’ behalf. For their sake, I hope they wake up and get with the play on that score. Jacobs has no regard for subject confidentiality (or welfare) when it suits him.

    Contrary to what Larry Warren may have been led to believe, no amount of betrayal of subjects’ safety and confidence has been a “career-ender” for Jacobs. He has gotten away with behavior like that scot-free for decades, for a number of reasons.

    Dr. Jacobs is not an “honorable” and “honest man”. I would invite Larry Warren to go through my website, listen to the recordings of Jacobs on there, and then compare them to the statements that Jacobs has made. He might then understand just how dishonest Dr. Jacobs can be when it suits him.

    I know from personal experience just how open and vulnerable one is under hypnosis. The tapes are extraordinarily personal, not just to the subjects concerned, but also to their families, and to anyone else mentioned on the tapes.

    Perhaps if Peter Robbins thinks seriously about the amount of subject confidentiality betrayal Jacobs has almost certainly done in his presence, including about myself, perhaps that, together with Jacobs’ release of Larry Warren’s hypnosis tapes, might make him to start to see things differently.

    If any of Hopkins’ hypnosis subjects are reading this, I would advise them to take whatever steps they can to ensure that Jacobs does not betray their privacy. He is not a safe guardian of sensitive material.

    Jacobs’ statement that Hopkins was “an absolutely conscientious protector of people's identities and testimony,” is a lie. Jacobs himself told me that that Hopkins did not take care of his subjects correspondence and files properly, and that they were stacked in piles around the place. He said that this included material relating to public figures who would not want their identities known. I think I have Jacobs on tape telling me this, and if I find it, I will put it on my website.

    Later I came to understand that Jacobs was just as bad. He announced to me one day that he sent the tapes of my hypnosis sessions to another subject of his, Elizabeth Smith, to transcribe, but that she had not transcribed them. He had not asked my permission, and did not make attempt to get them back from her when she did not transcribe them. I had to repeatedly ask him to get them back from her.

    After I ended my association with Jacobs, I was contacted by another subject of Jacobs, Brian Reed, who also had tapes of my hypnosis session that Jacobs had given him, without my knowledge, to transcribe. Jacobs just left them with him as well. God knows who else has my extremely personal and private hypnosis tapes.

    The UFO field needs to seriously wake up and start to address the issue of research subject confidentiality. The whole issue of John Carpenter, and perhaps others, selling hypnosis tapes, Jacobs making a mockery of human subject protection and confidentiality, and Hopkins’ lack of care for his subjects’ letters and files, among other things, is just not good enough.

    1. Emma I'm glad I saw you post here. Larry actually commented about you wondering what your position would be on this when I shared this article on my fb page. Obviously you were the person I was alluding to in the broadcast with Don Ecker. We talked quite a few years ago I don't know if you remember. It was when I was just starting out trying to find some answers. I was going to have regression but after hearing horror stories I decided against it. I have never had regression thankfully although the opportunity has arisen, I declined.

      There are so many issues that need addressing here. Its truly a shocking lack of care and respect.


    2. Hi Sacha, yes I do remember you. I am glad that you chose not to go the regression route.

      I was speaking recently with Marie Kayali, who was hypnotized by Dr. Jacobs a year ago, and had a bad experience. (Our conversation is here, if you are interested https://www.youtube.com/user/ContacteeMariek/discussion).

      I hope one day issues like these will not arise. In the meantime, highlighting them to the best of our ability is the best we can do.

  4. Replies
    1. Nice to be properly quoted instead of paraphrased muse babble.

  5. Thank you for your comments, ladies and gentleman. Your interest is appreciated.

    Also, I empathize very much with those of you directly involved in the subject matter. Emma, I hope you find it helpful to know that I think you and Carol Rainey collectively gave the genre the most realistic, practical and verifiable account of what has taken place ever published.

    I appreciate each of your work. I also appreciate the many contributions made by so many of you who work hard to navigate the community and review the related circumstances in sincere and reasonable manners. Thank you.

    1. Thanks, Jack. I greatly appreciate your meticulous research and articles. Ufology is lucky to have you.

  6. "I hope you find it helpful to know that I think you and Carol Rainey collectively gave the genre the most realistic, practical and verifiable account of what has taken place ever published."

    Undeniably. This is obvious even given alleged conflicts of the "Woman scorned" and the "Psychotic Harridan." See, _25_ "Women Scorned," and "Psychotic Harridans" assassinate the character of one Bill Cosby, even now. We've an _apt_ parallel here.

  7. Problem #1 is referring to these men as researchers. What they are is friends with a shared, somewhat profitable, hobby. There are no research protocols or ethics. Ufology is not a discipline. They, I am sure, are as taken aback that you bothered to look at this and write about it. Out of all of them David Jacobs knows about protocols and ethics for taking oral histories, yet his abuse and mockery of the system are well-documented. Anyone here think he would try to get away with this as a historical researcher? Anyone here who doesn't suspect he had a completely different set of standards when submitting work for peer review and/or as a Temple University professor?

    So why didn't he bring those strict ethics into his abduction "research"? Simple. He didn't have to. It wasn't research. It was socializing and book writing. It was fame and martyrdom. Whatever other gratifications it was, it was not research.

    Now go down the list of names. An actor. An artist. A whatever. No science. No standards. No cares in the world.

  8. I listened to the interview of Peter Robbins' on Jimmy Church's radio show. The article above comports completely as to what was said on the show. I, too, had similar questions when listening to Robbins 'defend' (in a manner of speaking) Jacobs' reasoning behind handing the Warren tape over to Halt for Halt's review.

    My sense is that Peter Robbins is an honest/ethical researcher, but I also sense he may be somewhat naive when it comes to his defense of both Hopkins and Jacobs. Quite honestly, I have never met either Jacobs or Hopkins (although I spoke with Hopkins very, very briefly in a phone conversation back in 2007). What research I've done on both these gentleman leads me to suspect their work may have not been as ethical or methodical as it's been believed.

    I wondered, when listening to Robbins' defense of Jacobs, why on earth Jacobs didn't just CALL Warren and ASK him if it was okay to transfer a copy of the Warren tape to Halt. Why is it that Robbins feels the need to defend Jacobs' behavior in this respect? Can't Jacobs speak for himself? Or has he spoken on the record about this Warren/Halt tape manner and I've just missed that...

    At any rate, I feel the article above does indeed ask a few very good questions and makes quite a few good points in summary.

  9. I'm going to put this question here, under this article, because I don't want my question to become lost in the shuffle.

    I have a question to put to you, Mr. Brewer, re: the article you wrote about the John Carpenter affair. In that article, you have inserted within the content of same, a letter written by John Carpenter to Robert Bigelow.

    I was appalled when I read that letter, because I found that Yvonne Smith, as well, was also collaborating at that time with Robert Bigelow. But yet, Yvonne's name was not included within the content of your article re: John Carpenter.

    Why is this, may I ask?

    I ask this for a couple of reasons. One, I've found when speaking to a few others about the Carpenter affair, that they weren't aware that Yvonne Smith had been collaborating with Robert Bigelow (along with her buddy, John Carpenter). When I pointed this out to a couple of these individuals, they were rather appalled.

    I have to say I was shocked when I read that letter, because in the not too distant past, I had been speaking to Yvonne about my own case. She knew of my hesitations in sharing ANY of my private material with anyone in her field. I don't trust many people, including those in the field of ufology, but she assured me she was a lone wolf in her field of research and that she was not in any way involved with MUFON or any other 'group' of researchers.

    But there was her name in that letter. Granted, a letter written back in 1996, but just the same, she clearly was involved with Bigelow/Carpenter at the time and chose, rather sadly, to not disclose this fact to me when I first started speaking with her.

    Needless to say, I'm no longer in touch with Yvonne. It saddens me that experiencers don't really know who to trust in this particular field of research. I read that 'someone' in ufology stated that "everyone is doing it,' i.e., meaning experiencers' stories, audio tapes, etc., are all on the chopping block ready for sale. That sickens me to my core.

    There are 'some' experiencers who have ties to various agencies and REALLY have to be careful re: what they share with some of these researchers. Given the rather sloppy work I've seen displayed in this field, it's no wonder many of us have to suffer in abject silence and try to deal with our issues on our own because we cannot trust anyone in this field, for whatever the reason.

    1. Hello, and thanks for your interest in the posts. I hope the following will help with your question and concerns, as well as bring some other readers up to speed who may not understand the circumstances as well as you.

      In the post, 'The Carpenter Affair: For the Record', a number of documents were included that were obtained from sources such as Gary Hart and Leah Haley. Hart was a principle investigator of the Carpenter Affair when it first came to public awareness, and the docs obtained from him were included in the formal complaints he filed with MUFON and the State of Missouri. Haley was one of Carpenter's hypnosis subjects, and docs obtained from her were also included in Hart's formal complaint.

      In one of the docs provided by Hart, Carpenter thanks Bigelow for payment and suggests that he and Yvonne Smith would conduct future work for Bigelow. You asked, I interpret, why I did not emphasize Smith's relationship with Carpenter and Bigelow more than I chose to do.

      The answer to that would be because I do not know the specifics of what Smith allegedly agreed to do, and it apparently occurred after Carpenter was already transferring abductee-data to Bigelow. I make intentional efforts to present info accurately and in proper contexts, so I try to avoid adding speculation to what are too often already muddled circumstances in which the parties seem to attempt to conceal what has been taking place. I do not know the specific nature of what these people were doing. As a matter of fact, we don't really know why Bigelow ever bankrolled any of it in the first place.

      I am of the personal opinion that a great deal more research is justified into the activities of many of those representing themselves as investigators of alleged alien abduction. If we have learned nothing else, we have learned that the circumstances are often misrepresented, and obfuscation seems to be standard operations.

      I hope that helps answer your question. Basically, I try to effectively separate facts from speculation, and I try to cite sources and quote people accurately so readers may draw their own conclusions. Thanks again for your interest.

  10. Thank you for addressing my concerns/questions. I wondered if the 'redaction' of Yvonne Smith's name from the article itself was simply because you didn't have enough information at that time in determining precisely what Yvonne's role in all of that may have been, but I would ask why you simply couldn't have stated as such within the article itself.

    I cannot begin to tell you how mortified I am to have found Yvonne Smith's name included within that letter from Carpenter to Bigelow. But hindsight being what it is, I can't say as though completely surprised to have discovered this. Immediately after reading about Yvonne's involvement, I contacted her and asked that she redact all my information from her files. That was it for me. I didn't trust most of these researchers to begin with. Finding this out, simply solidified my concerns.

    From my perspective, I will say this: These abduction events ARE REAL. They are as real as the keyboard I'm now using to type these very words. These events are frightening. Anyone who has ever experienced an abduction, knows what I'm talking about. To watch your own child have to go through something like this, is absolutely mortifying. I had to pick our own son up from an event in 2007. He went missing for over two hours when he should have been home. He is a very responsible/obedient kid. I'd asked him to call me when he got to the park after school and to come home before it got dark outside. He always complied...always. But not this night. Scared the absolute hell out of me when I couldn't reach him on his cell phone. When he finally called me, I was furious with him. But then when he told me where he was and what he was staring up at the sky at that time, I remembered IMMEDIATELY what had happened to ME as a kid. My heart was in my mouth when I drove the two minutes it took me to pick him up.

    I will never, ever forget that evening. My heart is in my nostrils whenever I remember that night. And we've had plenty of other events of this type happen to us as well.

    So folks in the field of ufology and those that choose to debunk it or what have you - please pull it together and use your hearts, your logic, your discernment and HELP those that truly could use the help. Quit the petty sniping with one another, quit using those podiums for your own ego trips and try to figure out what's going on. I don't have all the answers...no one does. But I do get completely disgusted when I read about all the sloppiness and ego trips that infiltrate this field. I really saddens me that I will never be able to trust anyone in this field. I know there are others out there that feel the same way I do.

  11. One more comment and then I'm finished...promise.

    I don't know who you really are, Mr. Brewer. I don't know your background/history, I don't know why you've involved yourself in this field of research/writing. My sense is you don't believe in the abduction phenomenon. Quite frankly, I wouldn't have believed in the abduction phenomenon myself, that is until the year 2004, when my life and that of my family's was turned upside down and sideways. We've never been the same since that unforgettable evening.

    I can't change what's been happening to us any more than I can change my height and the color of my eyes. I would be lying if I said these things hadn't happened to us.

    Perhaps more than a few skeptics/debunkers have experienced abductions themselves and rather than dealing with these events in a forthright manner, have chosen instead to disbelieve, with the hope that this disbelief/denial will somehow eliminate any or all of the residual chaos which inevitably ensues.

    Fear is generally what guides most of us here on this planet. Fear of the unknown, fear of something we don't entirely understand; fear drives us and imbues us with our own self-defense mechanisms when we can't push through out of that conditioned box we've all been inside re: so much of our lives.

    I know what it's like to experience the sort of fear that keeps you up at night; I know what it's like to have PTSD as a kid at the age of ten. I know what it's like to have to watch your own child suffer with his own fear when you've just picked him up and he's trying to figure out why he can't remember what happened to him at the park when it was daylight outside and that's the last thing he remembered.

    I know. Yes, it's hard to push through that fear. It's a primal instinct - self preservation if you will - to want to deny that which we don't feel we can really handle. But that's part of the challenge, I think, to push through that fear and confront head on with something we're not comfortable with.

    The incessant bickering and ego based agendas with this issue saddens me. There are so many individuals out there that are experiencing anomalous experiences, but yet they feel they have nowhere to turn for help. I've tried dabbling into this field myself, for some much needed guidance, only to quickly learn it's perhaps much safer and more secure for me, to try to learn to live with this on my own.

    So I would say to say debunkers out there - you 'may' end up having something like this happen to you, so be prepared. And when/if you do, welcome to the club. It's not exactly a fun club to belong to, but you'll learn more than you ever thought you would.

  12. this is the American army fighting like girls in a playground ,I'm wondering why people are scared of the American army. its obvious to me the shear size difference between their Army and the English Army must be why they won the English.

  13. Time and time again I hear a similar thing. The trauma associated with the experiences is often less than dealing with the aftermath. Yes – that means the UFO “community”. Whether it’s the amateur investigators (some of whom are with accredited organisations), self proclaimed hypnotists or the usual suspects associated with the UFO circus, we all have to start asking why that would be. I’m using the phrase “UFO enthusiasts” from now on. Allen Hynek was a UFO researcher, Jacques Vallee one might call a ufologist… most of the people you see around are hobbyist enthusiasts. Let’s remember that as they pronounce to the world exactly what is happening to us and make out that they really know what they are talking about.

  14. Strange how Ms Rainey and the others can talk about Budd Hopkins when he is not here to defend himself. Hopkins and Jacobs ARE and WERE the leading researchers in the Abduction area of UFO research. I know and knew them both and this it seems is a hatchet job by many jealous and vindictive people.