This is why I won't touch this case. It doesn't help us solve the abduction mystery.
Is it just me or is that a completely fucked up statement? You can read more such statements at the Binnall of America forum, here.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Just Crap
Really, people that claim to have been involved in UFOlogy for 25 years or more still think that they are going to solve some mystery? I don't think I have ever thought that and should I last in UFOlogy for 25 years I am positive that I will not think that then because I don't think that now. I quote Gene Steinberg on the Emma Woods case:
Is it just me or is that a completely fucked up statement? You can read more such statements at the Binnall of America forum, here.
Is it just me or is that a completely fucked up statement? You can read more such statements at the Binnall of America forum, here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I just received another of Gene's mass mailing where he states several claims of being victimized by several parties and asks for funds, which, on the surface of his claims I am to take on faith alone. Emma claims was victimized by Jacobs and Gene says it's her fault? Where does Gene's expertise come from? The ball is still in the air and yet he makes a definitive call. Does that apply to Gene, that he is the source of his own money problems? To me this has nothing whatsoever to do with the abduction phenomenon. It's sad and simply a mess within a mess, that is within a mess. I am glad that you spoke up in her defense. Jacobs like many, is in way over his head as he is no more qualified than you or I to practice
his quasi psychiatric quackery.Paul Kimball hit the nail on the head, it's equally Jacobs who has a major problem.
I mentioned his mailings. It has been over 6 months now that he has been sending those -- I would at least have the decency to stop (after a month at most) asking and at least try to get a job, any job - McDonalds would do. He seems to love playing the victim but doesn't want anyone else to make such claims.
There is no excuse for Jacobs. He was the one putting himself out there as a professional. Whatever the case with Emma, she was just looking for help.
I tend to agree with Steinberg, here. I listened to a big chunk of audio recordings of her and Jacobs, and 1. I have questions about this woman's mental status in general; and 2. Jacobs' credibility and motives also are extremely questionable, to say the least.
Really, there's so much BS involved in this, it's probably best to just hold your nose and walk away.
On another note, since Steinberg's moved to that new network broadcast format, I have been dismayed and offended by some of the show's sponsors. The show now seems to be airing to a political mindset that I don't share. In addtion, his broadcast literally hijacked my laptop and I had to uninstall and reinstall my browser to shut it off. I've since removed The Paracast from my bookmarks.
since Steinberg's moved to that new network broadcast format, I have been dismayed and offended by some of the show's sponsors.
I left primarily (although not exclusively) because of the network and the advertising, neither of which I support, nor wanted to be linked to. Still, Gene is comfortable with it, and he has a right to make a living, so more power to him. It just wasn't for me.
I really don't listen to the paracast very often and haven't since it switched to the Network. However, I know what types of ads they are since it is the same network that Alex Jones is on and that Rense used to be on. Unless Steinberg is personally doing ads for them there probably isn't much he can do about what they run during his show. Even shows on more normal networks can't do anything about what local affiliates or the network might run during their show.
My problem with Jacobs had nothing to do with Emma's mental status, if indeed she is as crazy as he now tries to make her sound (and I am not saying she is), he could have simply stopped answering the phone. He should have known he was not qualified to help her. In fact, it only makes it worse on his part if she is as crazy as he claims and he continued to engage in phone conversations with her.
Dr. Jacobs knows that I do not have mental health problems. He only began to say this after I questioned his conduct towards me as his research subject. I have been assessed by both my former and current therapists as being psychologically normal, and they are both qualified and in a position to make those assessments.
In regard to Dr. Jacobs' claim that I began to make frequent phone calls to him a few months after I became his research subject, he changed that statement after I made it known that I have copies of my phone records that have all of my calls to him listed on them.
Dr. Jacobs told Bill Birnes that he tried many times to break off contact with me while he was working with me, but that I kept coming after him. Anybody just looking at this claim from the point of basic logic will realize that there was no way that I could have forced him to work with me. It is a complete fabrication by him to try to cover up what he did to me by attempting to discredit me personally. I was the one who ended my working relationship with Dr. Jacobs. After I had done so, he told me that he still wanted to stay in communication with me. He became increasingly upset when I would not do this, and he sent me s series of emails asking to me to please communicate with him. I have sent some of these emails to Bill Birnes.
It is demoralizing to have to keep defending myself from the avalanche of defamation that I have been subjected to by Dr. Jacobs and his apologists, simply because I spoke out about his serious psychological abuse of me as his research subject. However, I will keep doing so, as I think that it is important that this abuse is not allowed to go unchallenged.
Uh... no. It's not just you.
It is abundantly clear to anyone with a remotely balanced rationality that Doctor (Immaterial) Jacobs picked the wrong person to insentiently _rape_ — psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually, eh?
How disappointed, then shocked and horrified he must have been to discover that the funnel he'd presumed was a trumpet all the time and a trumpet able to blow such a righteous and compelling note!
"It is demoralizing to have to keep defending myself from the avalanche of defamation that I have been subjected to by Dr. Jacobs and his apologists, simply because I spoke out about his serious psychological abuse of me as his research subject."
I reflect that some would say —remembering myself— that you "protest too much," ma'am.
"Too much," I suspect, is shamed code in this case for "too competently," "too eloquently," "too righteously," or "too well." Additionally, you would seem to see a wrong righted even as it is unfortunate that you must make yourself something of a spectacle, a spectacle to be embarrassed in a defense of yourself... that would be forthcoming in no other way!
...Know what? I'm betting that distracting and disingenuous little charge won't even raise its pointed little head, eh? Speaking rhetorically, anybody wanna take that bet? Step up!
Thanks Alfred. I appreciate it. You are so right that when you have been defamed in the way that we both have, you have to do what is necessary to defend yourself, even though it means going through the horror of what that entails. Otherwise, good people believe the defamation, and the perpetrators get away with it.
I suspect that, at least, we help preclude the next victim as hip-shooting psychopaths are put on notice that they will no longer be allowed foul and freewheel under the basket with impunity... they get a well deserved elbow in the eye.
I'll be swinging elbows until I get satisfaction. No mercy, eh?
Post a Comment