Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Looking Back Along 'The UFO Trail'

As you read this, it is entirely possible that I am sitting at my laptop, surrounded by coffee cups and protein bar wrappers, writing my way through the homestretch of a forthcoming book. The book is about questionable activities conducted by a variety of (quite human) sources within the UFO community. 

That's largely what this blog was about in the first place, and earlier this year I decided to write more extensively on the topic. I can certainly empathize with those who find potential paranormal aspects of the UFO phenomenon interesting, but I reached a point where I was kind of like, "Wow, never mind the aliens and entities, is anybody paying any attention to what those people are doing?!"

So as I hunt and peck my way to the final chapter, I'd like to share a few of my favorite posts here at 'The UFO Trail'. Perhaps that might help new readers get a good idea of what I write about, as well as provide long time readers a review of how we got here. I appreciate you all.

The Ozark Con

In 2012 I attended the annual Ozark UFO Conference. Subsequent blog posts continue today to account for four of the top ten all time most viewed posts, as indicated in the sidebar to the right. By the way, that first line of posts in the sidebar, the ones with images beside the titles, represents the most viewed posts since the blog was launched in 2010. The next group, "Most Viewed Posts This Week," represents the most viewed posts during the previous seven days.

After attending the Ozark Con, I did a three-part post titled, 'The Bizarre World of Doctor David Jacobs: An Interview and Review'. Part One consisted of an interview conducted at the con with Dr. Jacobs, in which his positions were established on alleged alien abductions, supposed ET-human hybrids and related topics. Part Two included summaries of critical review of Jacobs' work previously published by qualified experts. Part Three contained new and exclusive critical review provided by retired engineer and scientist Frank Purcell and microbiologist Dr. Tyler Kokjohn. 

Obviously, the posts continue to attract web traffic, which would not be particularly significant to me if it were not for the fact the primary sources consistently include search engines. I find that rewarding in that I interpret it to suggest that people seeking legitimate information on the subject matter are directed to posts which the contributors and I composed for just that purpose.

Ironically, however, interviewing David Jacobs was not the main reason I flew to Missouri to drive to Arkansas to meet a speaker at the Ozark Con. Interviewing one of ufology's most popular CIA consultants, Col. John Alexander, was actually the primary reason I went, yet, after agreeing to the interview by email, he declined to be interviewed when I arrived and approached him in person. Nonetheless, I described the circumstances in 'John Alexander, Contradictions and Unanswered Questions', and I felt I presented issues of interest adequately and reasonably. I thought it was a fair, informative and balanced piece.

Since those 2012 interactions with the colonel, I have emailed him on occasion and requested he comment on various issues. Sometimes he directly addresses my questions and sometimes he does not, and I have come to interpret that to be par for the course. Similar experience was gained while composing and exchanging emails with the subjects of such posts as 'Lyn Buchanan: Military Intel and 'Alien Abductee'' and 'The Interesting, Eventful and Incredible Story of Commander C.B. Scott Jones'

Investigative Posts

My growing interest in connections between ufology and the intelligence community hit full stride with a series of posts that began with 'Leah Haley on Alien Abduction: "It Doesn't Happen"'. After corresponding with Haley for a couple of years, I drove to Pensacola, Florida one weekend in March of 2011 to interview her extensively. A former rather high profile alleged alien abductee, Leah revised her interpretations of her experiences to conclude that aliens had not been involved whatsoever, and that she was actually the target of covert human experimentation.

Did I mention
the Eglin expedition?
I covered significant parts of her story in a series of posts and interpreted there to be several fascinating aspects of the saga. I also felt that some members of the UFO community, while vehemently criticizing Haley's research and interpretations, were consistently missing a glaringly monumental point of the story: Actions and accountability of researchers and organizations involved were at issue no matter what the explanations may have been for her reported perceptions.

Haley's case was substantially mishandled by researchers who represented themselves as qualified to help her, and the story was riddled with issues of exploitation and questions of whether the welfare of the witness/research subject was prioritized. Moreover, the circumstances were not isolated incidents. All of that was apparent and relevant regardless of what it may ultimately have collectively indicated. Exploration of Haley's case, the related issues and the resulting series of posts included 'The Carpenter Affair: For the Record'.

At a point in 2013 in which I felt well on my way to immersion in what can be the tar pit of researching alleged alien abduction, mind control and the associated players, I decided to ask those for guidance who had cannonballed into tar before me. Sharon Weinberger, Nigel Watson and Mark Pilkington graciously fielded my questions for Parts One and Two of a post titled, 'Ethics of Exploring the Fringe'. I am very grateful for the valuable time and attention they shared while offering insights on issues ranging from responsible reporting to state-sponsored deception operations. 

I continue today to weigh the contributions they provided when deciding the most appropriate ways to frame stories, interact with witnesses and similar dynamics that are ever relevant when writing about topics in which the author is destined to become the target of passionate criticism. It is simply an inherent part of the process, and here's something I learned: The more accurately you explain what you're finding out, the higher your chances may become of being mistaken as a punching bag by angry and disappointed people who never really got a handle on the meaning of the term, "don't shoot the messenger."

My interest in the Leah Haley case and its related issues of exploitation contributed to my interest in the work of Emma Woods and Carol Rainey, speaking of shooting messengers. I subsequently did an investigative piece titled, 'Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility'. Just recently was 'MUFON, Sham Inquiry and the Woods/Jacobs Scandal'.
Other investigative efforts that I thought turned out pretty well included Parts One and Two of 'MUFON, Science and Deception'. Another was 'MUFON, GEIPAN and Transparency'. The three posts put the Mutual UFO Network, its activities and the often conflicting statements of its representatives under the microscope.

I thought one of my better posts was 'Psy Ops and Mind Control: Then, Now and the UFO Community'. It was an exploration of the manners ufology and dark, covert aspects of the intelligence community are at times conclusively linked, while at other times just minimal degrees of separation apart.

About three years ago I did a post called 'Open Mic Night', in which I invited several ufology personalities of diverse interests and beliefs to comment on their interpretations of the most constructive directions the genre could take (None of the contributors, by the way, recommended sending a crew to Mexico City to serve up some deceased people's Kodachrome slides as evidence of an alien presence, which raises the value of their stock in and of itself). More recently was 'UFO Community Members Weigh in on Dubious MUFON Speakers', in which I requested comment from select individuals on MUFON booking speakers who promote the Roswell Slides. Also at issue were investigators invited by the organization to speak who promote such lore as the existence of ET-human hybrids, yet those so-called investigators seem to invest much more effort in impeding collection of forensic evidence than facilitating it.

I have more favorite posts but I'll stop there. I like most of the posts, of course. I wrote 'em.
Like many bloggers and writers who devote resources to ufology, this did not have anything to do with livelihood. Not by any stretch. I'm just a guy who was interested in the subject matter, asked around about some topics, and subsequently came to feel I had some things to say about them. 

In addition to blogging, I eventually began composing word files about those things with the intention of committing them to book form. Sooner than later I'll upload it to Amazon where you can obtain and read it if you'd like. I'm hopeful it will be considered an informative and interesting effort. 

Keep an eye on this blog, find me on Twitter @TheUFOTrail and/or email me to keep informed of progress. Your interest is appreciated. Thank you.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

MUFON, Sham Inquiry and the Woods/Jacobs Scandal

Recipient of MUFON PA
2015 Lifetime Achievement Award,
Dr. David Jacobs
Retired historian, author and investigator of alleged alien abduction Dr. David Jacobs will be presented a lifetime achievement award at an upcoming conference conducted by MUFON PA in Philadelphia. Jacobs is also the keynote speaker for the October event. In a bio on his website, Jacobs purports to be "a strong advocate of strict scientific and ethical research methodology," and MUFON purports via its mission statement to be dedicated to "the scientific study of UFOs for the benefit of humanity."

Well, I'm always up for some good strict scientific info on UFOs, so hot damn! This outghta be great, right?


I emailed MUFON Executive Director Jan Harzan and MUFON PA State Director John Ventre and asked permission to pose a few questions. For the sake of accuracy and context I will share an August 8 email exchange, rather than summarize it, that subsequently occurred with Ventre. I will then present what I interpret to be significant points of interest. 

The Email Exchange

My initial email read as follows:

Hello Gentlemen:

Jack Brewer here from the blog, 'The UFO Trail'.

Would it be okay if I email you a few questions about the upcoming MUFON PA conference in Philadelphia and include your responses in a blog post? I would particularly like to obtain information about the selection process resulting in Dr. David Jacobs as the keynote speaker and recipient of a lifetime achievement award as described in the following link:

Thanks for your consideration,

The UFO Trail


Below is John Ventre's reply and the subsequent exchange between the two of us with minor edits for grammar and clarity.


I already answered that question on the UFOinfo forum and don't plan to do that again. There are 3-4 antagonist haters on that site that ruins it for everyone else.

If you are writing an objective article then I will reply.


My response:

Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with your forum post, but perhaps you will offer responses to the following items at your convenience:

Who was empowered to select Dr. David Jacobs as a recipient of a lifetime achievement award?

What was the criteria used to select a recipient? 

Given the MUFON mission statement of dedication to scientific study for the benefit of humanity, would you please explain specifically what methodology employed by Jacobs was identified as scientific? What makes it so?





I select the speakers for our 3 Pa conferences which you can view at www.mufonpa.com. I have read approx. 30 UFO books in the past year as I try to figure out the origin of the Grey abduction phenomena. The only 3 names referenced multiple times in these books are Mack, Vallee and Jacobs. I was surprised that Kathie Marden who heads up MUFON's abduction research was never mentioned. I tried to book Vallee who said he no longer does conferences and Mack is no longer with us. We also try to recognize a veteran in the field with a lifetime achievement award. In the past, we recognized Stanton Friedman, Linda Moulton Howe, Bill Birnes and Travis Walton. We are also recognizing Loren Coleman at our Pitt Conf in Nov. I also don’t theme my Pa conferences and offer a variety of speakers and topics including Bigfoot and the paranormal etc. You also need to know that MUFON states operate fairly independent of HQ so these were my decisions. Jacobs was a pioneer in this field when there were few. Jacobs and Hopkins basically wrote the book on regressive hypnosis and many of their techniques are still used today. For critics who say he had no formal training, I say he has a PhD and there was no formal training in this field when he started. I think Jacobs is highly qualified and I say to the critics that you can view it as an Elia Kazan 1999 Academy Award. You don’t have to like the man or his methods but his contributions to Ufology stand. I for one absolutely agree that the ETs are not here to help. That is Jacobs' message. I have a different view on who they actually are and you can read all about that in my new book, "Case for UFOs" in September. . . . . .

John Ventre


Thanks, John, and I understand that you would obviously be tolerant of Dr. Jacobs' methodology, else you would not have offered him a lifetime achievement award - but that does not address my inquiry about scientific study. 

So I would pose the question this way, please:

Did you identify any of Jacobs' methodology as scientific, or did you decide you were not concerned about his lack of practicing scientific study?

Also, would you please offer a quote or two on how you resolve your choice of Jacobs as an award recipient with the Emma Woods scandal?

If helpful, here is a page containing specific quotes and recordings of interactions between Jacobs and Woods during hypnosis:

Would you please explain, specifically, how you reconcile such statements with presenting a lifetime achievement award from a purportedly scientific research organization?





State conferences do not follow the same criteria as the yearly Symposium. They can be informative, entertaining or instructive. I once had a punk rock band perform a UFO song for us at the end of the conference. I thought it was great. I read Bill Birnes' take on Jacobs and Woods years ago. That’s for the courts to decide, not me. By your logic, we should condemn NASA and the US space program because we recruited NAZI scientists and Wernher von Braun. Not my place. Jacobs has contributed much to the field and is one of the few voices who doesn’t believe abductions are for our benefit and "They" are here to help us. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood were never really great actors but they won academy awards for their body of work.

Be sure to send me a link to your article.


I sincerely do not mean to be overly aggressive on the point of scientific study, John, but you are arguably evading the question. 

Did you or did you not consider sound scientific research principles as criteria for potential lifetime achievement award recipients?

Would you please explain your stance on the Emma Woods scandal in relation to bestowing David Jacobs with an award?

Those do not seem like unreasonable questions to me. If you disagree, I am more than willing to quote any explanations you might care to provide as to why the points are not valid or are unreasonable.


[Note: Ventre soon sent three emails before I replied further. One simply stated, "Here’s a name I wouldn’t give a LT Achievement award to: Stan Romanek," another read:]

The main reason I want [David Jacobs] to lecture is that he and Whitley Strieber are the only 2 out there that have concluded that abductions are evil and not for the benefit of mankind. I agree. Most abduction groups are self-deluded with liberal metaphysical beliefs that "they" are here to save the planet or cure diseases. Hasn’t happened and won’t happen. Jacobs' message needs to get out. His message will do more good than focusing on the Emma Woods case. I believe many people thought she was unstable.

[Note: Wow. Is that implying that hypnotically suggesting MPD, instructing a woman to send her undergarments and telling her to wear a chastity belt, for examples, are irrelevant as long as "many people" think she is unstable? For whatever reasons, those many people seem to ignore that it was the same methodology as employed during the Woods case that Jacobs used with other research subjects to develop that message he markets. We'll come back to that in a bit. Another email, of which I opted to respond, stated:]


If you dig deep enough you will find something to critique on every name in this field. I am honoring his body of work just as I did LM Howe and Bill Birnes who I am sure you could critique also.

I think you are confusing my state event with the International MUFON Symposium which usually features 7-8 PHD level speakers. Emma Woods is not the deciding factor; his overall contribution is.


Just to be clear, John, are you suggesting that MUFON PA does not concern itself with the MUFON mission statement, and that you do not expect your lifetime achievement award recipient to conduct scientific study?

Is that a reasonable interpretation of your comments?



No Jack, that’s what you want to write. My award is for the person’s body of work and contributions to the field.


Okay, then would you please explain specifically what you identify about David Jacobs' "body of work and contributions to the field" that involve scientific study?

Is that not a reasonable question?

If not, why not?

[Note: No further emails were received from Ventre, and Harzan did not reply to the initial query.]

Sham Inquiry 

With scientific study for the benefit of humanity like that, who needs bias and exploitation?

Robert Sheaffer presenting at the
2012 Independent Investigations Group Awards
Sharon Hill of 'Doubtful News' coined the term, "sham inquiry." It is basically defined as non-scientific, often questionable research activities misrepresented as scientific procedures. The detrimental consequences can be numerous and severe. In the case of MUFON's ongoing assertions of engaging in scientific study, Robert Sheaffer of 'Bad UFOs' summed it up quite well when he recently suggested that maybe the organization should just drop the false pretense and acknowledge what it actually does.

"Perhaps MUFON should simply admit that it is in the business of providing people with titillating and exciting UFO stories, without worrying about whether they are true," Sheaffer wrote.

The issue is indeed relevant. MUFON PA and any other group are entitled to invite whoever they want to speak as guests and bestow awards upon them. However, if they invite figures who employ regressive hypnosis as an investigative tool and declare humankind to be under invasion by diabolical aliens and their sexually deviant hybrids, while providing no corroborating conclusive evidence and failing to demonstrate systematic research methodology, then they are not entitled to label their activities scientific. That would be the case whether they do so directly, indirectly or while evading relevant questions. 

Please allow me to emphasize the point as it seems to often be elusive: People are entitled to believe virtually anything they choose, as well as pursue whatever activities they want, as long as they fall within the limits of the law. They are not entitled to call any given activity scientific, however, unless it meets certain criteria. To do so, and conduct sham inquiry, is often an attempt to deceptively add unwarranted credibility to an activity and related agenda that otherwise lacks legitimacy.


The ethical implications are staggering. Emma Woods provided ufology with extensive documentation through audio recordings that David Jacobs conducted regressive hypnosis via international telephone calls (Ya caught that, right? ...conducted regressive hypnosis via international telephone calls?) in which the associate professor of history suggested she had Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). Both Jacobs and Woods were aware they were being recorded during the sessions. In one such session, Jacobs admittedly led and shaped Woods' statements about an alleged abduction in which she was sexually assaulted and used as what he termed the facilitator of sperm collection. In another hypnosis session he suggested she start wearing a chastity belt, the type of which he could select for her because they have them at a sex shop he frequented, he explained, and it would put a "kink" in the plans of hybrids allegedly committing ongoing sexual assaults (Yes, he literally said that). He additionally suggested to Woods during hypnosis sessions, according to the recordings, that she mail him her underpants - and to not think about it afterward. Is it just me, or is it difficult to fit such behavior into the context of strict scientific and ethical research methodology?

A ufologist supply store specializing in devices used to 
discourage sexual assaults committed by ET-human hybrids, 
or an adult novelty shop, depending on who you ask

John Ventre may have been correct when he suggested that some of Jacobs' actions might warrant attention from legal authorities and the court. To add some context, let's consider a recent case currently pending and allegedly involving extremely questionable use of hypnosis.

The law license of Ohio attorney Michael W. Fine was suspended pending further investigation when police recorded Fine apparently using hypnosis to manipulate a female client into participating in sexual acts without her consent. According to a November, 2014 complaint filed with the State of Ohio, "Jane Doe 1" reported that she discovered her clothing disheveled after meetings with Fine, and that she found herself unable to remember parts of their interactions. She reported similar memory loss following telephone conversations with the attorney. 

Eventually a police investigation was launched, and a warrant was obtained to record a meeting between Doe 1 and Fine without his knowledge. Police came out of hiding and intervened when Fine allegedly used code words to induce a hypnotic state, followed by issuing graphic sexual commands.  

Interestingly, a second woman, "Jane Doe 2," who reportedly did not know about the first woman, approached authorities with similar allegations about the same attorney. According to the complaint filed, Doe 2 stated that Fine urged her to allow him to teach her what he called meditation and relaxation techniques. She suspected she was being hypnotized for exploitative purposes, and reported experiencing circumstances similar to Jane Doe 1. Police therefore obtained corroborating testimonies from independent witnesses.

Expert opinion was provided to the court, including "scientific support for both the therapeutic and manipulative use of hypnosis," by clinical psychologist Dr. Ross Santamaria. He reported Fine's behavior to be in violation of professional protocols, and the complaint charged that Fine represented "a substantial threat of serious harm to the public." Dr. Santamaria explained that hypnosis can be used to manipulate individuals in immoral, unethical, illegal and inappropriate ways.

Back home in ufology, the license of clinical social worker, hypnotist and former MUFON Director of Abduction Research John Carpenter was put on a five-year probation period in 2001 after investigator Gary Hart filed complaints with MUFON and the State of Missouri, where Carpenter was licensed. The complaints cited a series of actions which became known as the Carpenter Affair, in which Carpenter provided copies of case files of 140 hypnosis subjects and possible alien abductees to controversial philanthropist Robert Bigelow in exchange for approximately $14,000. The subjects, some of which had paid Carpenter for his services, were not informed their files were copied and shared, and Carpenter went on to marry two of his former clients. MUFON failed to act on Hart's complaint. 

"Immediately after filing my MUFON complaint," Hart explained to me during a 2013 email exchange, "I was told in no uncertain terms that MUFON had no intention of taking the complaint seriously and actually doing an investigation, so I investigated the case further and made a proper report/complaint to the state licensing board."

Founding member of MUFON,
John Schuessler
When MUFON continued to enable the circumstances and left Carpenter in a leadership role, Hart submitted the complaint to the Missouri Division of Professional Registration, which handed down the five-year probation. Carpenter subsequently resigned from his position as Director of Abduction Research, according to the April, 2001 MUFON Journal, in which John Schuessler described Carpenter as vacating the position for "personal reasons and the need to spend more time with his career activities." The vast majority of the 140 and much of the MUFON membership never knew of the Carpenter Affair. The probation period placed on Carpenter's license as a clinical social worker was apparently successfully completed in 2006.

David Jacobs, in contrast to attorney Fine and social worker Carpenter, to the best of my knowledge does not hold any type of license directly compromised by his reckless hypnosis activities. It would seem reasonable to suspect that he and the late Budd Hopkins, his long time associate and fellow hypnosis advocate, avoided undertaking professional training, certification and accepting payment for their endeavors for the very reason of minimizing options of legal redress available to their hypnosis subjects.
Significance of the Woods/Jacobs Scandal

Ethical standards are prioritized among professional researchers for reasons in addition to valuing the safety of the research subject. While the subject's well being should certainly be prioritized, especially if your mission statement includes reference to the benefit of humanity, there is another very important reason ethics matter: They effect the quality of the research conducted and the subsequent accuracy of information reported. All games aside of evading accountability about scientific study and criteria for selecting award recipients, there are some very significant issues at the heart of the Emma Woods and David Jacobs scandal that should be addressed and resolved. Failing to do so calls into question Jacobs' other "research" offerings, as well as the judgment and motives of those who support his work.

For starters, the Emma Woods case cannot be surgically removed from Jacobs' body of work. The very methodology employed with Woods, and the resulting stories of ET-human hybrids having their way with human females, is what Jacobs built his entire thesis upon. The Woods debacle is the byproduct of Jacobs' method of operation, not the nucleus of the problem. It's a result of the problem and sham inquiry.

Ill advised activities and resulting unsupported assumptions were used to prop up more assumptions, each in turn misrepresented as facts, leading to a body of work in which the Woods case is but a reflection. Moreover, former Jacobs research subject Brian Reed corroborated the Woods complaints and leveled accusations of his own. Woods is not the isolated incident she is made out to be by Jacobs apologists. And if Jacobs was wrong about and/or retracted virtually everything he was going to write on her experiences, what does that suggest about the cases he continues to assure us are solid? 

Any way one chooses to look at it, Emma Woods is obviously and understandably very unhappy with the evolution of her interactions with David Jacobs, and he didn't fare so well himself. He was utterly ineffective in both mining credible data and assisting the witness. If we're willing to temporarily play along with the idea Jacobs even remotely believes the story he peddles, it becomes important to know exactly what chains of events led him to jump the shark. Both he and Woods were very unhappy with the outcome of the interaction, as well as many more people, so what, exactly, is he doing to correct his course?

That is relevant in identifying what actions Jacobs and other investigators should take to ensure they do not make the same mistakes again. If he and his colleagues are sincere about conducting research that bears reliable results, which is increasingly doubtful (if even a reasonable assumption) at this point, they must embrace critical analysis and peer review. To continue to fail to do so while seemingly hoping people will just stop talking about sham inquiry and the Emma Woods case suggests Jacobs and his supporters are much more interested in campaigning for their agendas and preconceived conclusions than conducting even reasonable research, much less scientific study as purported. It also suggests they are well aware that transparency and accountability would be devastating to David Jacobs, and, by association, the flailing alien abduction narrative of which they hitched their wagons.

Shouldn't we be asking what, if any, reasons remain at this point to reject the evidence presented by Emma Woods, Carol Rainey and others? Will Jacobs or any of his supporters ever actually address points raised by Woods and Rainey, rather than dismiss them out of hand with insulting and irrelevant stereotypes? After five years now, it appears not.

If we don't ask the relevant questions, we enable the problems, enable sham inquiry and continue to get more of the same: Entirely unsupported stories of aliens and ET-human hybrids, spun by self-described investigators promoted by a purported scientific research organization which consists of directors who, by all appearance, either do not understand or do not care about criteria of the scientific study they are entrusted to conduct and facilitate. In the mean time and if Emma Woods is any indication, women are getting called on the phone, hypnotized and subjected to suggestions they suffer from MPD, enlisted to discuss items sold at sex shops, and instructed to mail their unwashed underpants absent any afterthought, all under the guise of conducting strict scientific and ethical research - and then called crazy when they voice objections.



'Aliens Versus Predator: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods', Jeremy Vaeni

'The Priests of High Strangeness: Co-Creation of the "Alien Abduction Phenomenon"', Carol Rainey

'Emma Woods Files', the website of Emma Woods, in which the home page includes an audio recording of Jacobs' hypnotic suggestions of MPD

'The Woods/Jacobs Tapes and the 'Oral History' Falsehood', Jack Brewer, includes audio clips

Paratopia Episode 94: Brian Reed Vindicates Emma Woods, podcast interview conducted by Jeremy Vaeni and Jeff Ritzmann

'Unhelpful Hints: Deflection and Withholding Evidence in the David Jacobs Scandal', Tyler Kokjohn, PhD

Friday, August 7, 2015

Jeremy Vaeni on David Jacobs and Supporters: 'Time for Some Answers'

Jeremy Vaeni hosts 'The Experience', a popular show at 'Unknown Country'. He also maintains the blog, 'JayVay'. Back in 2010, he and co-host Jeff Ritzmann were producing 'Paratopia', a podcast in which the two extensively covered the scandalous handling of the Emma Woods case by author and investigator of alleged alien abduction, Dr. David Jacobs. Their coverage of the disturbing circumstances led to Vaeni's much read and discussed 'UFO Magazine' article, 'Aliens Versus Predator: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods'.  

Jacobs and his apologists persist in evading discussion of the relevant issues, while chronically implying there are extenuating circumstances that justify the conduct of Jacobs. Now, some five years later, they continue to fail to disclose details of any such circumstances, causing some to ask why the evidence should not be interpreted as it appears. The weekend of July 24, Jeremy Vaeni extended invitations to David Jacobs, Richard Dolan and Peter Robbins to guest on 'The Experience', account for their positions on the Emma Woods case and explain their related previous statements.

Permission was subsequently sought by 'The UFO Trail' to pose some questions to Jeremy Vaeni about the situation for a blog post. He cooperatively agreed. Following are the questions and his responses.   

'The UFO Trail': The reasons you would invite David Jacobs to guest on your show to discuss his actions with Emma Woods and his resulting stance on the issues are self-explanatory. Would you please summarize why you invited Richard Dolan and Peter Robbins to explain and account for their positions?

Jeremy Vaeni: I can concisely answer this by giving you the email I sent all three of them. It was this:
Aloha, Gents:
I recently watched yet another person on an internet forum defend David against the Emma Woods charges by citing a personal confirmation from Peter that he was to be trusted, as if there were some secret facts about the Emma Woods tapes/claims to which we are not privy. And then it occurred to me: it's 2015. Jeff Ritzmann and I brought this to the public in 2010. So where are these facts? What is the defense? It's been five years. 
Richard, you too have used this line, or one similar to it, in staving off the question of whether or not a soon-to-be lifetime achievement winner in ufology was on the level when he told a woman under hypnosis that she had multiple personality disorder, so that aggressive hybrids would read her mind about his belief and leave him alone. 
Another time, David, we hear you prescribing a chastity belt with nails at the vaginal opening to ward off--or at least anger--hybrid rapists who frequently attacked her. Was that the type of scientific rigor you've talked about practicing? Or is there more to the story that we've all been clueless about, left in the dark for five years?
Will any or all of you gentlemen come on my show and explain this once and for all so we can move on?
Thanks for considering. I look forward to hearing from you.
Jeremy Vaeni

Clearly, I didn't pussyfoot around the issue because they know who I am, so there's no point in trying to trick them into believing I'm not going to ask tough questions. Also, knowing that they will probably all reject the offer, I wanted to make sure that Rich and Peter at least once in their lives had to read about the chastity belt thing--because for all I know they're simply defending their buddy David without looking at anything. 

Now, I don't have to tell you everything that is wrong with the chastity belt scenario because it's self-evident. If it's not self-evident, then where is the information that exonerates it? And of course if it is self-evident, how is David Jacobs allowed to write another book? And get a lifetime achievement award from MUFON? This is insanity. 

At this point in history, David Jacobs should have been written off. He's the Bill Cosby of ufology. And if ufology is to be taken seriously as an area of research, even scientific scrutiny, then the David Jacobses of the world have to go. The only reason to keep him here is if the research angle of ufology is a ruse and it is simply one giant cocktail party. And we're the suckers paying for it. 

So yeah, I thought it was time for some answers.

Richard Dolan 2014 Facebook post in which he suggested "circumstances" about the Woods/Jacobs scandal were ignored when author Jeremy Vaeni wrote 'An Open Letter to Ufology', yet Dolan continues to fail to disclose details of any such circumstances. Dolan similarly called into question Carol Rainey's critical review of activities of some abduction researchers, yet Dolan consistently fails to actually address specific points raised by Rainey.

'The UFO Trail': What were their responses to the email?

Jeremy Vaeni: Not surprisingly, I haven't heard back from any of them. Well, actually a little surprisingly. I thought Peter Robbins, of the three, would respectfully decline and I figured I wouldn't hear from the other two. But I guess after five years of not answering the ankle biters, why change now? It's worked to an extent. I mean, they can't totally ignore everything we've done, as witnessed by the fact that David Jacobs now has to pretend that he's not doing hypnosis, he's doing relaxation techniques and then interviews. But even that was a smart move on his part because in the aforementioned conversation online where Peter was cited, the guy defending David Jacobs and hypnosis was saying that hypnosis doesn't implant false memories, it's really just a relaxation technique. So the bottom line with some people is that they will simply parrot their heroes rather than deal with reality. It's just a shame that so many of these parrots flock to ufology. Before you know it, this will be the conventional wisdom and we'll just forget the 80's and 90's where Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack and company all defended hypnosis as an excellent means to excavate buried memories. It wasn't a relaxation technique, it was this mystical guided tour through the mind allowing the subject access to memories fire-walled and denied by aliens. 

"So the bottom line with some people is that they will simply parrot their heroes rather than deal with reality."
To a certain extent, they can be forgiven as the jury was still out on hypnosis, at least in the 80's. But now there's enough data to state that no, hypnosis is not the magical cure-all for memory retrieval. In fact, it's quite harmful in a number of ways, not the least of which is that the subject is more likely to defend wrong memories as real than a non-hypnotized subject. That's powerful, man. That's certainly a contributing factor as to why there aren't more people stepping forward like Emma Woods did: because they still believe the fantasy.

'The UFO Trail': What do you think is most significant about the actions and statements of Jacobs, Dolan and Robbins?

Jeremy VaeniWell, I wonder if David Jacobs's actions don't imply that he's a sociopath. What person in their right mind, with a proper human sense of shame, gets publicly outed as a horrible, abusive researcher who, in the best case scenario he has laid out, sounds delusional--and sticks around? 

Retired historian Dr. David Jacobs
In David Jacobs's best case scenario, he is being chased by alien hybrids through instant messenger on an abductee's computer. And so, to his mind, someone like Emma Woods is crazy for not believing it anymore. That's the best case scenario! The worst case is far more devious. But in either case, I don't understand how he's allowed to tout himself as a legitimate researcher, and these other people--Dolan and Robbins--who also tout themselves as legitimate researchers defend him. This calls them all into question. 

You don't take that risk for horrible research. You take that risk for friendship. And you take that risk under the assumption that you're untouchable because your audience is so emotionally invested in you and your work that they'll just take your word for it. It's cynical. It's condescending. And for the most part, it's working. Through that lens, I'd say the most significant thing about their behavior is that they are doing exactly what they preach against with all this anti-secrecy stuff they go on about. They accuse governments and militaries across the world of perpetuating cover-ups and giving half-answers to critical ufological questions so as to keep us in the dark. They are behaving no differently than the very people they make a living and earn a trusted identity railing against.

'The UFO Trail'What is most important to be understood about the Emma Woods case and those who avert from its discussion?

Jeremy Vaeni: At this point, I think the most important thing to be understood is that she's not the only one. She's just the most vocal. She's an indicator of a much larger problem of abuse. The reason that's important is that here we are five years later and any time she opens her mouth publicly, a certain percentage of people are going to roll their eyes thinking, 'Oh, there's Emma Woods again. I wish she'd just get on with her life, already.'

But partly it's our fault as the interested public that she feels obligated to speak out. If we'd done our job and not gotten wrapped up in personalities or defending hypnosis without ever examining the scientific studies on it--as I was guilty of for years--no amount of cover-up by Jacobs's friends would be acceptable. Either Jacobs would have exited through the back door or others would have stepped forward in a bigger way. Brian Reed came forward, for example, but it was just the once. 

"If you're sick of ufology being treated as a fringe, crazy subject then stop reacting in fringe crazy ways to things that in any normal sense are immediately recognizable as abuse."
Really, though, how many times does he need to step forward? How many times does Emma? Or do I, for that matter? Or you? How many blog posts do you need to write on the obvious, Jack? What does it take to sink in so that we can all move on?

That's on the one hand. On the other hand, it's time for media outlets to stop promoting him. Give him the Cosby treatment. See, that's a normal reaction. If you're sick of ufology being treated as a fringe, crazy subject then stop reacting in fringe crazy ways to things that in any normal sense are immediately recognizable as abuse. Unlike Cosby, with Jacobs we can't even try to untangle the personal wrongdoings from the career. They are one. If one goes the other goes. And if we're brave enough to let hypnosis go on its own merits, well... then we have to start over. it's time to be brave enough to start over.

It's funny, you know? Rich Dolan's whole gig is that there's this secret breakaway society that isn't held accountable by the rest of us. 

Need I finish that thought?