Show Notes, David Jacobs, 27.

Listen to podcast here.

Martin Willis: All right, I’m on Skype with Dr. David Jacobs. http://www.ufoabduction.com/biography.htm How you doing, David?

 

David Jacobs: Fine, thank you, Martin.

 

Martin: And thanks for joining us, and you are a retired professor of history at Temple University, and are you still keeping active?

 

David: Well, yes, I am. I’m working on my books. I been claiming to do this for a number of years, now, and it’s very slow going, but I’m actually making pretty good headway with 3 books that I’m doing.

 

Martin: Well, I have listened to interviews with you, in the past, and I really appreciate the work you’ve done. I also appreciate your stance, because I felt, although you felt this way many, many years ago, when I started getting into this whole phenomenon, I also was rather skeptic of abduction, abductees, and all of that, and, but I always believed in Betty and Barney Hill. http://www.kathleen-marden.com/the-betty-and-barney-hill-ufo-experience.php I lived in the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area, and I always thought Travis Walton’s story http://www.travis-walton.com/ordinary.html was really solid, so I started becoming a little bit more open–minded, and that’s, kind of – can you, kind of, explain your beginnings in UFOs and how you, eventually, got involved in the abduction aspect?

 

David: Well, I got interested in the UFO phenomenon when I was an undergraduate at UCLA. This was back in the nineteen teens, and I, for some reason or another, I just got interested in it. I have no explanation for it. I never saw anything. I didn’t –

 

Martin: Wait a minute. Excuse me. Did you say the ninteteen teens?

 

David: Well, let’s just say the nineteen – mid–1960s. It’s all the same to me, now.

 

Martin: Okay. All right.

 

David: At – then I, you know, once I started reading in it, in ’65 and ’66, I – it really captured my imagination even more. By the time my wife and I went to graduate school at The University Of Wisconsin, in 1966, I was already, pretty much, obsessed with the subject, and, unfortunately, I inflicted that obsession on my friends in Wisconsin who, I’m sure, grew really tired, very quickly, in hearing me expound about UFOs. I remember thinking that the UFO phenomenon was going to – about to present itself. I fell prey to these, now I realize, wrongheaded ideas that they were going to land on The White House lawn, there was going to be a big, sort of, disclosure by the aliens, themselves, of their presence, and I remember thinking: yeah, it’s 1970, now. It’s 19 – this is the year it’s going to happen, the first year of the decade, 1970, and, pretty soon, obviously, predicting behavior of these objects, and what they’re going to do is an inexact science, to say the least, and, so, I – but I was very, very much into the whole world. By ’68 I had a become a “field investigator” for The Aerial Phenomena Research Organization, http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/APRO.html and I was actually knocking on doors and doing footwork and following up on cases in the Madison, Wisconsin area, in all, and the – and I just, sort of, kept with it, and, eventually, I round up – when I was starting to write my dissertation in history I was very much interested in social/cultural history, and I spent 6 months doing a dissertation – doing research for a dissertation about the image of women in very early film history, pre–1915, and I did 6 months of that all the while obsessing on UFOs, and, so I, eventually, went to another professor to work with, and I changed my dissertation to the controversy over unidentified flying objects, and wound up getting my PhD in that, only the second PhD ever awarded with an area of UFO studies in it, in some way, although the – that was in 1973, but the subject wasn’t about UFOs, itself. It’s – it was about how the society, and segments of the society, treated the subject, over the years, to get to the point that, by 1973, we didn’t know anything, at all, about UFOs, and why was that? Why did that come about? Why don’t we? And that book was, eventually, published by The University Of Indiana Press in 1975, so, since then, I just got – I kept doing it, doing it, doing, doing it. Barney and Betty Hill, interesting case, came about they’re abducted. Who knows? With UFO researchers you’re looking for patterns. If you don’t see patterns you’re not seeing anything, you know what I mean? You’re seeing something that is not, really, unusual, so UFOs had to fit into a pattern, and they did fit into a pattern. Same thing with abductions. With abductions if you don’t find a pattern there’s nothing to it. One case does not a pattern make, so Barney and Betty Hill were not contactees, the charlatans from the 1950s who claimed to take rides to the Moon, and to Venus, and to Uranus, and get the secrets of the universe, and, also, the secrets of their propulsion system. This was really, really big in the 1950s, particularly amongst charlatans, but also among serious UFO researchers, too. They, for some reason or another, it still escapes me, they were fixated on propulsion, but –

 

Martin: Speaking of propulsion, what’s that in the background I hear?

 

David: Oh, somebody’s mowing their lawn. I –

 

Martin: Oh, okay. All right.

 

David: I need a –

 

Martin: Thought it was a mothership, perhaps.

 

David: If you want to wait a second I can close a second window.

 

Martin: Sure, okay.

 

David: Here we go, walking to the window. I’m about to close it. I’m closing it.

 

Martin: So, where were we going just –

 

David: So, the point is, is that I was not a great believer in abductions. I mean, it was UFOs were the end all and the be all. This is where The Air Force entered in. This is where The CIA entered in. This is where Presidents had this – statements about them, form time to time. This is where scientists like it. Nobody looked at abductions. Nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, and I certainly wasn’t going to, because UFOs was where I was centered, although The Barney/Betty Hill Case was interesting, no doubt about it. It’s wasn’t until 1982, when I met Budd Hopkins, http://ufoevidence.org/topics/BuddHopkins.htm that I became interested in the abduction phenomenon. He sucked me into his lair, and I remained there, ever since, and Budd and I became very, very, very close friends for the rest of his life, actually, so Budd and I, kind of, worked in tandem. We did not – we shared the same abductees, from time to time, especially if they moved to Philadelphia or moved up to New York, but we shared information, mainly. That was the key thing, trying to figure out what is going on, here? How can we address this? And what kind of state – what kind of assumptions can be made? And all that. However, historians work not – they work alone. History is a lonely field. You work alone, primarily, in history. Every once in a while there’ll be 2 historians who write a book, but 99% of the time it’s all – a singly authored study, and, so, that’s, basically, what I did. I worked alone in this field for a long, long time, and still working in it, from time to time, although in recent months, in the last year, things have slacked off considerably, for me, I think, mainly because I’m retired, now. I need to do these books. I don’t follow up on people who write to me, unfortunately. I’m sorry, for everybody out there who might be a victim of me, and, so, I’m elderly, now. I’m an old man, now, and I know I got to get these books out of my system, and once that’s done I’m going to hang up my brains, and I’m just going to watch television, and I’m going to be happy.

 

Martin: Well, that’s good. At least we’ll know what happened to you, so –

 

David: Right.

 

Martin: – that’s good. I want to know what kind of issues has doing what you’ve done caused you in your academic profession? Has it caused you any trouble?

 

David: Well, let’s put it this way: yes.

 

Martin: Okay.

 

David: This is not a subject that you want to deal with in academics. Academics can be fairly closed–minded, especially when it comes to being abducted by little beings from outer space. That just doesn’t make it into the academic world. It doesn’t make it in intact. Let’s put it that way. The problem is is that most academics understand instantly, or faster than instantly, a whole range of psychological issues that could allow people to present with abductions. I’ve been abducted. They know about hypnosis. They know about psychological problems. They know about all sorts of things that can account for this – picking things up in popular culture. They get it right away. They understand the whole spectrum. Therefore, to say you’re an abduction researcher means, automatically, that you’re an idiot, because you’re not researching anything that is actually real. You’re researching a combination of different fields of things, you know, for a sociologist, a massocenation, or whatever it is, and, therefore, your judgement is called into question, and you’re really not a legitimate academic, basically. There’s something wrong with you, and that’s the way people who do this kind of work, in academics, are treated. Now, when I say that, there aren’t a whole lot of people, in academics, who do this kind of work.

 

Martin: That’s right.

 

David: In fact, there are none who do hypnosis with abductees. There used to be some, but, unfortunately, they got old, they retired or in couple of cases they died – heart disease, and cancer and things like that, and, now, I was left as the only one, I think, and I’m not sure, maybe some people are doing it on the side that I don’t know about, but I think I was the only one left. As a result, rather that – and my first book was straight history, The UFO Controversy In America, http://www.amazon.com/The-Controversy-America-David-Jacobs/dp/0253190061 but when I published Secret Life, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671797204/internatiocent04 and then The Threat, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848139/internatiocent04 which – it was certainly considered not history. Now, I had tenure, and the tenure system, which is now under serious attack throughout the country, unfortunately, without tenure I would not have been able to do this within an academic setting. Tenure protected me from being fired, outright.

 

Martin: Wow!

 

David: So, if people say: well, tenure’s no good, it’s go to go, they don’t know what they’re talking about. It protects academic freedom. That’s what it was set up for, and that’s what it does do, so, but, in fact, it stopped my career, basically, in its tracks, and the way the academic world works is if you’re an assistant professor that means you’re a professor without tenure. You have not received tenure, yet. If you’re an associate professor that means you have tenure. You were granted tenure by the board of trustees of Temple University, already recommended by The Chair, The Dean, The Council Of Deans, The Provost, The President and, then, The Board Of Trustees, and they’re the ones who grant tenure, and that is what happened in 1981, for me, and then I published The Threat, I mean, Secret Life and The Threat, and the next step up is full professor. That means that you have national recognition in your field. A full professor is, like, is the end step. It ‘s wonderful. It’s great. Everybody wants it, and, of course, I wanted it. That’s – that would never, never happened, and, when you retire at Temple University, you have a way of retiring with Emeritus status, that is to say meritorious service, and, technically, you’re still on faculty, then, see? That means you have all sorts of privileges that you can use the faculty dining room, you can do this, you can do that. You can – there’s all sorts of privileges you get, ’cause you’re still on faculty, but I was not granted that, either, and that was the, sort of, the final cut, and it left me with a certain amount of bitterness, but, at the same time, I, you know, I walked into it eyes open. I knew that this was going to have a deleterious effect on my career. I knew that this was not good, and the situation is as follows: people would call me up, graduate students in history and in other areas, sociology, psychology, and so forth, who want to do – a dissertation involving UFOs or abductions or – and I just tell them to stay the hell away from it.

 

Martin: Yeah, well, let me ask you this. If could start all over, again, turn back the clock, would you take the same path?

 

David: Yes, I would. One does not get the opportunity to make a contribution in something that is, potentially, of overwhelming importance, and the work I would have done, in history, would have been important for historians, and maybe even change the way we look at the past, a little, tiny bit, but nothing approaches the importance of the abduction phenomenon, especially, the – and the UFO phenom, which, in my opinion, are one in the same thing, and to be an academic working in this really was something that was not unique, but there were very few people who did that, and so, I had this opportunity, and I took it. I mean, I – my priorities, in terms of making a contribution, I think, are greater than my priorities for my own particular life.

 

Martin: Wow!

 

David: Now, just to follow up on this last thing that I was saying, when graduate students call me up I tell them to stay the hell away from it, because the following things happen. If they work in a subject other than UFO cults, UFO religions, or the psychology of people who see UFOs, which everybody does – if you look at academic press books they’re all related, in some way or another, or most of them are, anyways, to UFO religions, UFO cults, popular culture and UFOs, you know, but not addressing the UFO or abduction for some – phenomenon, per se. There is one book, by Susan Clancy, http://www.ufoabduction.com/clancyreview.htm that does it. It is the world’s worst book.

 

Martin: I was going to talk to you about that, and what your opinion was of her work.

 

David: It’s factually incorrect, on the one hand, and just stupidly done, in my opinion, and I certainly don’t want to upset her by saying things like that. That’s just my opinion. I have – I’ve already upset her in a number of other ways, but it’s just not a very good book. It was – the problem is the book was not edited. It was not refereed. They didn’t send it to me, for example, where I would have ripped it apart, and made it into a better book, but they decided not to do that, and Harvard University Press published this book, raw, without any serious person looking at it, and it came out – it was horrible, just horrible, and not horrible because she’s a skeptic. That’s just fine. It was horrible because, as I said, it was just incorrect. Her facts were wrong, things like that.

 

Martin: Yeah, but, you know, being in print it’s out there, and a lot of people are going to take that path of believing her.

 

David: Oh, but the damage – it upgrades her career, and it does damage, but here’s the problem: if you do write a book that confronts the subject you will never get a job in academics, and the reason is: if you find that there’s something there, like Susan Clancy, if you find something is going on, something is happening, you’re just reinventing the wheel. Everybody knows that’s the case. What kind of a dissertation is this? It’s common knowledge that people are not being abducted. You will never get a job. If you find out that there’s – that something, indeed, is happening, that people are being abducted, you are nuts. You will never get a job in academics. Susan Clancy never got an academic job, a tenure–track position, nor did Brenda – oh, now I can’t remember her name, not Brenda Dunn, but a woman who wrote a book for The University Of California Press called The Lure Of The Edge. http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520239050 As far as I know she never got a job, either. It was a – and that was not a bad book, even though it was skeptical. It just, you know, it’s – you – so I tell them wait – go into something else. Wait ’till you get tenure then move into UFOs, and abductions, but it’s not going to happen for you, otherwise. It pains me to say that, but ethically and morally it’s – I have a feeling that I just have to tell people the – what the downside of this subject is, and it’s mainly downside. There isn’t a whole lot of upside to studying the abduction phenomenon. Not a whole lot, at all, in fact, none.

 

Martin: Wow! Well, let me ask you a question. Oftentimes you hear about the commonalities in these abductions, and this is under hypnotic regression. Let’s just take an example. If you interviewed someone, say, in The United States, and then you happened to interview someone in, say, Africa, have you had commonalities with these two types of situations?

 

David: They all say the same thing. This is a phenomenon that cuts across all ethnic lines, all religious lines, all national lines, all economic lines, all intellectual lines, all educational lines, all everything lines, all racial lines, whatever it is it cuts across it, and, in fact, I did have a guy from the West African country of Mali who said the same thing as everybody else. I had a woman from India said the same thing as everybody else. People – I have a person from Lithuania, people from Latin America. It does not matter. We have people who are MDs, PhDs, LLDs, psychiatrists, psychologists, university teachers, etc. They all say the same thing as people who’ve dropped out of school, early on, and could never hold a job, and that sort of stuff, all say the same thing. Those are your patterns. Without that we wouldn’t be talking, Martin.

 

Martin: Yeah, now, when you say this is there any way that these people can get knowledge of what a typical abduction is?

 

David: There used to be no way, whatsoever, and when I wrote Secret Life I would say that 75% of the information in that book had never been made public. Then, when I wrote The Threat, a large percentage of it, maybe another 75%, had never made – been made public, maybe 50%, then, just to give debunkers their due. I will now be – I’m, now, writing another book where a large part of it has not been made public, but the – in a way it’s – a lot of people say this, that they’re picking it up in popular culture, it’s in the media, it’s everywhere. Actually, it’s not, and most people who come to me are more than acutely aware of 2 things. They don’t want to be led in hypnosis. In the first place, they’re scared to death of hypnosis. They think that I’m going to – first thing, I’m going to burrow into the private areas of their personal lives, something that I have – I’m not interested in, and something that, once they do the hypnosis the hypnosis the first time, they realize – never going to happen, but, so they don’t want to be led. They don’t want to be led. They’re afraid of it. They don’t know what hypnosis is, and they don’t want to pick up things. I should say, they don’t want to be led by me, and they don’t want to be – they don’t want to pick up things in popular culture and then say them back to me, as if it happened to them. Virtually everyone knows that. They’re all aware of it. They – when they come to me they, sort of, know what they’re getting into, and they know hypnosis, and they’re frightened of it, and they’re wary of it. After one session, when they realize hypnosis means they’re just – and the way I do it they’re just relaxed, and they’re thinking about the unbelievably stupid questions that I’m asking them, and whether they should even bother to answer them. They know they are in control, and they’re not in some sort of trance. This is a misnomer, if there ever was one, and there’s ways to find out whether people are vulnerable to suggestion. People said: even if you say the word uh–huh as somebody says something, and you say uh–huh, it spurs them on to false memories. Well, I have never, ever found that to be the case, not even once. However, I have found that there are some people who will be led. You can put a – an idea in their mind, directly, and they’ll pick up on it, and I have put into place controls which militate against that, and, if somebody can be led, I am excruciatingly careful, and, oftentimes, I – well, they have to tell me things that everybody else has said, and not knowing whether other people have said those things. That’s the critical event. Also, if somebody tells me something for the first time it’s not evidence, it goes on the back burner, unless I’ve known this person for years and years, and they, themselves, are aware of what is happening, like this has never happened to me before. I don’t know what to make of it. You know, in other words – and I know that they’re trustworthy, I’m very careful on their testimony, but, by and large, it goes on the back burner. I wait for other people to say the same thing who are unaware of it. You put in misleading – deliberately misleading questions. I know if people ever looked at a history transcript they’d see me asking off–the–wall questions, but they’re deliberately done to see whether the person will bite, see whether they’ll say yes to it. There’s a whole list of questions that I ask like that, especially in the first couple of sessions, and one of the questions I used to ask, years ago, was: when you look on the floor, as they’re walking in the object, people report seeing a parquet floor. You can see that parquet floor, can’t you? A parquet floor is wood that’s placed at odd angles to each other in, sort of, squares, and the – there’s never been a case of that. Ever. So I say that –

 

Martin: Oh, I see.

 

David: – this is usual. This is what people see. People say: no, I don’t see any parquet floor. I’m sorry, but I don’t see it. The floor I see is smooth, and it’s grey, and it looks like it’s made out of metal, or whatever it is, and I had one person, once, who said: yes, I can see the parquet floor. I knew I had to be very, very careful with this person. This was back in the 1980s when I was still beginning, but it’s, actually, it’s extremely rare. It’s – now, does that mean that people will say things that are not true? No, it doesn’t mean that. I mean, people will say things that are not true all the time, especially in the first session, less so in the second session, less so in the third session, and much less so in the fourth session, and then – and sometimes nothing, but, in fact – in other sessions, but, in fact, most people confabulate. They say things that they think are true. They’re not lying. They think that they are seeing whatever they are describing, or what is happening to them is actually happening to them, or what the aliens are saying to them is actually being said, but I have learned, by looking at, oh, about 1500 abduction events, or whatever it is, 1200 abduction events, that there is something called confabulation. It takes place in certain specific areas, and I can identify it very quickly, thank god. I was burned enough in the early days to learn quickly that I had to be very, very careful. The key thing, though, is that I have worked with people who, like I said, are psychiatrists, and psychologists, people like that who know all these things, also, and who are very, very, very careful in what they say to me. Even then, they will confabulate, and the reason for it is because the abduction phenomenon, itself, plays with people’s imagery, and it plays with people’s memory, and they have to get used to filtering out themselves, and understanding what is actually happening and what is not. The hardest thing to do – it – confabulation comes in a bunch of different areas, but the top 3 are: number 1 – description of aliens. This is especially true in the first session, which is why you get people like James Harder, http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/jamesharder.html years ago, who would get up in the 1992 MIT conference on abductions, and say that there are over 200 different aliens visiting Earth. His evidence was from abductee testimony. The answer is: that’s not true. The answer is: the – here’s this confabulation. People can confabulate all over the place in the first 1 or 2 sessions. That’s number 1 area. Number 2 area is interpreting alien speech, or telling me what the aliens are saying describing alien dialog. The aliens told me, and then you just fill in the blank. Now, the problem, here, is if all communication is telepathic, and it is and always has been, if all communication is telepathic, with aliens onboard the object, and telepathy means that they’re hearing something in their mind, and they are in a altered state of consciousness, as it is, so that they’re passive onboard this object, so they can’t run, they can’t come up with a gun and blow somebody’s – little alien’s head off, or something like that, they’re passive, what’s to prevent them from hearing their own thoughts, in their minds, and assuming it’s coming from the outside, from an alien? And the answer to that is: nothing prevents that. They do it all the time. It’s number 2 on the list of confabulation, so when people say: the aliens told me, and then they just fill in, it’s up to people who understand this phenomenon to be exceptionally careful with that. Aliens, sometimes, do say things, and so do hybrids. They say things, too, and it can be trusted, but there’s a specific and certain way that they talk, and if they – if I don’t hear that it becomes very suspicious, to me, so that’s number 2, and the third area is interpreting alien motivations, goals, and purposes. Most abductees have no idea why they’re there, and if they – and they describe instruments that are – might be used on the machines, and I’ll – and you’ll say: well, what do you think that this machine is for? Oh, well, it’s looking at my bones. There – it’s looking at my bones. The answer is: they don’t know that. They’re guessing, ’cause the – unless the aliens specifically tell them that the technology they’re using is doing such and such then there’s no way they can know. They just – they’re just guessing, even though they think that they’re guessing correctly they’re not, usually. Oh, they might be, but usually they’re not, ’cause we’re looking at very different kinds of technology, here, so, and then there’s a lot of other areas, too, so hypnosis is tricky. Now, having said all that there are incompetent hypnotists out there, usually with religious, spiritual, New Age transformational, sort of, agendas who have something in mind about what the abduction phenomenon is, and they are certain that they are right. When an unfortunate victim comes into their office for hypnosis they will, specifically, try to interpret what they are – what the abductee is saying in a religious or spiritual or transformational way, and there’s a lot of other areas that go in here, too, to conform to their own ideas of what this phenomenon is rather than be dragged along, kicking and screaming, as I have been, to the area – to what is actually happening, and not fulfilling any idea of what I might have, and not caring one whit about my sensibilities about it. That’s the proper way it should be, but for these other ones people come out of a hypnosis, and they think: oh, my god. These are wonderful light beings, and, you know, there was music of the spears, and we danced to it. I danced with the aliens. Oh, my god, it was so wonderful. Well, I have never heard that. Ever. Not even close. Neither did my colleague, Budd Hopkins, ever heard that, and, between the two of us, maybe we looked at 3000 different abduction events, never, ever heard that. That’s not a good sign, ’cause you’re looking for patterns, you know, and all that. Then you have to look at the hypnotist. That’s the problem.

 

Martin: Right. Since you started in the 1980s have you seen any consistent changes with what people are saying?

 

David: Yes.

 

Martin: Can you explain what they are?

 

David: Well, in the 1980s we heard the standard format for which Secret Life was based on. Take somebody up. Take their clothes off. Bring them into a room. Do this to them. Do that to them. Do this to them. Do that to them. Reproductive activity, taking sperm, eggs, implanting fertilized ova, taking – removing fetuses. Doing machine–type examinations, every conceivable kind of machine imaginable, and looking at babies, holding babies, dealing with babies, and then out. In the 1990s I began to hear more and more about the babies who are now growing up, and were toddlers, were – although Budd Hopkins’s book, Intruders, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intruders-Budd-Hopkins/dp/0345346335 had a toddler in it, and who are young children, and older children, and adolescents, and young adults, and adult adults, and not older adults, for some reason or another, and that still holds true, and so – and that was interesting, and I wrote The Threat based on hybrid–abductee interactions, to a large extent. Now, starting in 2003, approximately, I began to hear stories about hybrids that did not, necessarily – that were not taking place onboard a UFO, although some of the hybrid stories that I talk about in The Threat were also like that, but this was different. This was hybrids who had – who were now having activities with abductees. Going places, moving into apartments, and the abductees were helping them, and that was the major shift. Now, in The Threat I talked about something called The Change that these beings, hybrids and aliens, were talking about was coming soon. Over and over and over, again, I was hearing this, and I had no idea what soon meant. I didn’t know when it was going to happen, but they were talking about, basically, integrating into the society. That was the impression I got. In 2003 I realized that this was now happening, and that there was a process and a bureaucracy involved with this, as I – as more and more people began to say these things, and that’s what the book I’m just finishing up, now, is all about: the processes and bureaucracy of integrating into the society. How do you do that? What are the pitfalls of it? What are the problems that they’re having? All that sort of stuff, and that’s – in other words, there’s been change over time, and what I realized when I wrote The Threat was that this was not what I thought it was. What I thought it was, in Secret Life, for example, was this was a study. They were learning from us. That’s why they were abducting us. The Barney and Betty Hill. They examined them, didn’t they? Therefore, they were learning, and it’s obviously true. They were learning something. Then – and I held onto that for longer than I should have. Budd held onto that for longer than he should have, too, I must say, and, so I – and that was behind my brains when I wrote Secret Life, but, by the time I got to The Threat I realized that the study model, that they were studying us, learning about us, that it was educational, in some way, that that just wasn’t in the evidence. It was not holding. The more we learned about it the more we realized this was not the case. This was a program. A program with a beginning, a middle, and an end, and it was goal–directed. It had a purpose in mind, and that fit the evidence, and that still fits the evidence, and, so the question is, then, well, what is the goal? What is the purpose? And, well it is this – what these aliens and hybrids said, just straight out: well, soon we’ll be living with you. Soon we’ll be here, and we’ll be here, in the society, and that’s what I been finding out, and that’s what my book is – latest book will be about, even though I’ll probably have to have it printed up at the corner print shop, but, other than that, I’m going to publish it, in some way, and people will now know the latest in terms of the movement that I’ve seen in the abduction phenomenon.

 

Martin: If you had to guess why you would think they’d want to live with us what would your guess be?

 

David: That is the major question. I do not know. Abductees don’t know. Hybrids, who are moving in, don’t know. In other words, this is the jackpot question. Why is this happening? What is the purpose of this? And you have to remember this is a global phenomenon. This is not located on the east coast of The United States, or the west coast, or whatever. This is a global phenomenon. We don’t have a corner on the abduction market, and, so we don’t know that. Now, the interesting thing about that is that if this were a psychological phenomenon, and with abductions it’s either psychological, it’s emanating from one’s brain, for whatever reason, with psychiatric, or physiological, whatever reason it’s emanating from somebody’s brain, or it’s happening, one of the two. If this were psychological we’d know the answer, because people would make it up just like they’ve made everything else up. Why would they stop there? In other words say: well, they’re trying to bring world peace like the old charlatans used to say in the 1950s. They want to stop atomic war. They want to kill Communists. They want to bring world peace. They want to all join together in friendship, and sing Cumbaya, or whatever it is. There was a reason. There was always a reason why they were visiting us, here, but with the abduction phenomenon we do not know that reason. I wish I did, but I’m going to go to my shallow grave, one of these days, and not knowing, I think.

 

Martin: Yeah. Of all the debunkers that have debunked, or tried to debunk, the work that you’re doing why don’t you give an example of that situation and your argument against it?

 

David: Well, you know, debunkers are ignorance–driven. The – that’s the engine. Ignorance is the engine which allows them to be debunkers, and, so they are very carefully ignorant. They make sure that they don’t ever learn about the abduction phenomenon, at all, and so, consequently, you have arguments against it, which rely, for example, on sexual abuse. There’s sexual abuse in children who repress it, and it comes out as having sex with aliens when they’re older. The answer to that is: there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that is true. There’s no academic evidence. There’s no papers printed on the subject, as far as I know, maybe there has been that escaped me, and it’ll be interesting to see one, if there was, but there’s no evidence that I can tell that that is the case, at all. Not at all. I’ve worked with people who were sexually abused. They know the differences between what they’re uncle did to them and what was happening in the other phenomenon. They know what – immediately, right away, there’s no question in their minds, and –

 

Martin: Isn’t that, pardon me, isn’t that Susan Clancy’s main argument?

 

David: Her argument is, partially, though she has a scattershot thing. She throws that in, I think, as I remember, now, I have to search my ever–diminishing memory, but I think her argument is sleep paralysis, to a large extent, because that was, sort of, de rigeur when she was writing the book, and popular culture. Betty and Barney Hill saw a show called The Outer Limits, which had small aliens in it, therefore, they saw, in their dreams, these aliens. Of course, Susan Clancy did not see the show, and she didn’t realize that there weren’t small aliens in it. There was only one alien in it, and he was big, he was – and she said: with wraparound eyes, and they didn’t have wraparound eyes. They were wraparound – they were large eye sockets, but they were normal looking eyes, interestingly, and she never saw the show. She just guessed. She went on what other people – other debunkers have said, and debunkers are almost – are always wrong. They don’t have – they have no knowledge, so they – that’s how they come up with their ideas, but there is sleep paralysis, which is, now, being presented, and the majority of the cases that I have looked at, it’s not a great majority, but it is the majority, take place when the person was not asleep.

 

Martin: Really? Wow!

 

David: Period. End of –

 

Martin: I’ve heard that. I’ve heard that, before.

 

David: Right. Not only that, but we didn’t even have any night – sleeping – person sleeping cases in the first several years of the abduction phenomenon. It was – Barney and Betty Hill were driving, and there were other people who were driving, and people were awake, and this and that, and then the – later on people began to say – then we began to realize, through hypnosis, that people were being abducted in the middle of the night, and didn’t even realize it, so here’s the thing about debunkers: they all do 1 of 3 things. Number 1: they don’t know the evidence. That’s the linchpin of it. That’s where it’s – that was – it rests there, resides there. That’s where it lies. Number 2: they know the evidence, and they just ignore it. That’s where the craziness comes in. They can’t believe the evidence. They ignore it. It’s no good, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That allows them to be ignorant. Number 3: they distort the evidence. Oh, he said this, but what he really meant was this, therefore, it’s sleep paralysis. He thought he was awake, but, actually, he was asleep. In other words, they just distort the evidence so – to conform to their own idea of what this is all about. Now, the problem, here, is that people are physically missing from their normal environments when they’re abducted. They come back with unusual, fully–formed scars on their bodies, something biologically impossible that I know, for an absolute fact, were not there the day before, because with one woman I did a session, with her, and the next day I saw her, and there were 2 one–inch scars on her hand, on each hand in exactly the same place, that were not there the day before, and they, also, are abducted in groups, where people can see each other being abducted, and, sometimes, confirm each others’ abductions, if they can remember it, or if they go to somebody who is a hypnotist who’s in connection with another hypnotist, and they can compare notes. Often, and sometimes, rather, people just see them on the ground being abducted, and are not abducted, themselves. Once you have that all psychological arguments, and remember it’s either psychological or it’s happening, all psychological arguments fall. They’re made mute, period. You cannot have a group of people seeing somebody being abducted, or being all abducted, themselves, all having slightly different experiences, and confirming each others’ abductions, unless they’re in some sort of criminal collusion, or whatever it is, to get some poor jerk, like me, to believe their story, and then laugh about it, to themselves, and never, ever, ever make is public. It doesn’t make any sense on any level for them to do that, and you have to remember, there, when people come forward with their stories they understand extremely well that there’s all downside to this and no upside. To say, as a high–functioning person who’s an MD, that they are an abductee, they have been abducted by people from another world, or whatever it is, is not a really good career move for them to make. It’s not going to help them in their practice. You know what I mean? It’s not going to help them with their friends, either, nor with their spouse, necessarily. It’s all downside. It’s no upside other than knowing what has been happening to them since they were children, because this is an intergenerational phenomenon, and it starts very early on, and goes all the way through until old age. At least it gives them some sort of closure about what in the devil has been happening to them, but it does not enrich their lives outside of it. They don’t make money off the deal, although one or two in the entire history of the abduction phenomenon have tried to, and it’s all downside, so that’s why really high–functioning people don’t come forward. I can’t get them to go on television. I’d say – and I want them to. I know it could be calamitous for them. It’s awful, and, sort of, we’re, sort of, encased in this world of wanting to tell the story, wanting high–functioning people, actors, actresses, politicians to come forward, and we know that’s never going to happen because it will destroy their careers.

 

Martin: Right. You mentioned, just a few minutes ago, about witnesses seeing someone being abducted. Now, I saw something, I was probably on Youtube a while back, where they – there’s claimed to be some surveillance tape of see – someone being abducted. Have you ever heard of anything like that?

 

David: Yeah, I have, and there was a – not being abducted, necessarily. No, I haven’t seen that, but somebody, sort of, being at a place, and then not being in a place.

 

Martin: Maybe that’s the same one I’m thinking of.

 

David: Yeah. It was black and white. It was –

 

Martin: That’s right.

 

David: Yeah. I’ve seen that. The thing is this: with all the surveillance cameras around, and I would imagine there’s about 10 on every corner in the country, and every store, houses have them, now, too, they’re all over the place, you’d think we’d be seeing zillions of abductions all the time. The problem is is that, now here comes something that I first talked about in public – the first place I talk about this, in public, I think, in 1991 in Santa Barbara at a conference. The problem is is that people are rendered unseeable before they are – just before they are abducted, so when they go through a wall, or when they go through a window, or something like that, normally people cannot see them from the outside. Where the screw up is is when people can see them, like the Brooklyn Bridge Sightings. http://lindacortilecase.com/ That was a case, a witnessed case from Budd Hopkins, with Linda Cortile. Every once in a while there’s some sort of a mistake made, and that, I think Budd didn’t, but I think it was a mistake. He thinks it was a display. I don’t think so, but the fact is, though, that people can’t be seen. I had one person who was taken out of his dorm room in a – at a major east coast Ivy League university at 12 noon, and he could look down as he was floating up into this object, and see people walking not that far from him. Nobody was looking up in awe and pointing and screaming and yelling and running, or anything like that. They just couldn’t see him. Now, without that, there would be no abduction phenomenon. Without that ability to render people invisible, unseeable, I don’t care what phrase you use, there would be no abduction phenomenon, ’cause we know all the abductees, and we know how to prevent it. We’d figure out ways. That – so that’s a very important part. It is, of course, ridiculous. You can’t make people invisible. Unfortunately, that is what does happen, and we can’t get around it. We can’t get away from it. Maybe it’s a cloaking device. I don’t know what it is, but people cannot be seen when they’re taken. That’s why, when you see a person who’s there and then not there, the question is, in this video that’s been released: how many times a second did that camera take a picture? And was it a – in other words, we have to know about the camera. Was this smoothly done the whole time so that the person actually did disappear? And did the person reappear in the same place, essentially, a couple hours later? The camera’d still be on.

 

Martin: Right.

 

David: We don’t know about that, either –

 

Martin: Yeah.

 

David: – and who was that person? And was that person an abductee? ‘Cause if he wasn’t an abductee then he didn’t get abducted, and we can tell that ’cause it starts in infancy, and goes into old age, so there’s a lot of checks that have to be made, and investigations, none of which were done, as far as I know, so question – the answer to that video, then, is: gosh, I don’t know.

 

Martin: Yep, okay. Now, you just mentioned, just a second ago, about starts in infancy and goes into old age. Why would you suppose that is the case?

 

David: We don’t know why that’s the case, exactly. We know that there’s – that abductees have one thing in common, and thing they have in common is that their mother or their father was an abductee, before them, or both, so it’s intergenerational. Now, Budd Hopkins discovered this in the 80s, and it has stayed that way ever since. In other words, we don’t see exceptions to that for actual abductees. Sometimes there’s opportunistic abductions. For example, an abductee will be abducted when they’re driving with several people, and the whole car will be taken. The people are switched off. They’re, sort of, put to sleep, in a way, but, technically speaking, they are abducted, whereas all the other procedures for the normal abductee is done. Then they’re put back in the car, and they all arrive at their location an hour or two late. They can’t figure out what happened. Everything seemed to go smoothly, but the fact is, though, that this intergenerational quality is, sort of, an iron–like link, and it starts early on. It starts, we think, in infancy, because people have reported being abducted with their babies, and, when people say: my earliest abduction was at the age of 6, and 9, or my earliest abduction is at the age of 12, we know that that’s when they, first, are remembering something odd happening, and, before, their brain was not organized well enough to remember things like that, like people do not have complete memories of when they were 6 months old, so, and it goes into old age. Now, why this happens this way we don’t know. There might be a genetic aspect to it, which is what I’m leaning to, that, genetically, abductees have the ability to talk, and receive telepathic conversations, ’cause, with Grey aliens, all communication is telepathic. There’s no indication, whatsoever, that they have vocal cords, or that they make sounds. That’s a serious study, and, so that might be it. It might be just the ability to find out where they are. We don’t know. We just don’t know. We don’t know that, but we do know that there is this intergenerational link. That we know for an absolute fact, as much as I can ever say absolute facts in this area, so the point is, though, that, unfortunately, when they get married, and they – 95% of people don’t know that they’re abductees. When they get married to a non–abductee, and they have 2 or 3 kids, almost certainly the 3 kids will be abductees, so what you have is 1 abductee making 3 abductees, and then they make more abductees, you see what I mean? So it spreads throughout the society, and I think that that’s what is happening, in fact. I can’t – we did a poll, some 20 years back, and what it showed was that young people were having these experiences in greater numbers than older people, which makes no sense, because older people have had a longer time to have memories, to have bleed–through memories, to think things are odd, you know what I mean? If they’re 70 years old, and they look back at their life thinking: well, you know, a lot of odd things have happened to me, but when you’re 18 not a whole lot of odd has happened, unless you’re an abductee, and, so what we got was a spread of larger numbers of younger people were answering abductee questions on this. Nobody knew it was about the abduction phenomenon, but they were answering questions affirmatively that abductees were answering in our pre–testing at an 80% level, and non–abductees were answering at very, very, very low levels, 5%, 1%, you know, and they were answering at a very high level, so that shows you that’s spreading out in the society, I think.

 

Martin: Now, would a skeptic’s or debunker’s opinion be the multigenerational part of it is because of influence of that parent?

 

David: Most parents don’t know that they’re abductees, at all.

 

Martin: Okay.

 

David: They think that they’ve seen religious figures, they’ve traveled on the astral plane, they’ve had dead people, their – where relatives come back to them in the middle of the night and say: everything is going to be okay, they’ve had all sorts of odd experiences, not one of which they would chalk up to being an abductee, and, when their little kids say: Mommy, Mommy, Mommy, these big people – big–headed people are coming into my room at night – taking me away, they say: there, there, there, no, no, it’s just a dream, just a dream, and they truly, absolutely, and 100% believe it was just a dream, so it’s the opposite of reinforcing. Oh, my god, you’re being abducted by Grey aliens. It’s the opposite of that from – for most families in –

 

Martin: How does that come out, then, that they were abducted, the older people?

 

David: Well, what happens is that I will ask a person: what about your Mom, or your Dad? Did they ever have unusual experiences? Well, my mother saw an owl, once, who stared into the window for 2 hours, and she was, sort of, riveted on its eyes, and my father once – and they’ll describe all these odd circumstances that the mother or the father has had. I’ve worked with mothers and fathers of adult children, not fathers, mothers of abduct children, I should say, and – of adult children, and then, in fact, they are abductees. They know it. They learned that – I take myself as a baseline. The only odd thing that has ever happens to me on a routine basis is I’ll forgot – I’ll forget to watch something on television that I wanted to watch. That’s my life, whereas abductees have lives filled with oddities that their friends don’t necessarily have, but they just incorporate them into – this is normal. This is how, and this is – I’m human, and this is just normal. Nothing’s wrong with me, and there isn’t anything wrong with them, either. They’re – but they’re abductees, and they don’t fully understand that. If you have a poll, and you find – you ask people if you’re an abductee, or not, about a million people will say yes. Those are the people who know. Probably anywhere from – probably from – anywhere from 2 to 5 percent of the public are actually abductees, from what we can tell, and that’s – I don’t know where 5% of 300 million is, but it’s a hell of a lot. 15 million people, minimum –

 

Martin: Yep.

 

David: – so – and, so we know that the vast majority of people who are abductees don’t know it. All abductees that I’ve talked to have had a parent that’s had odd experiences.

 

Martin: Wow, all?

 

David: All of the – yeah, they all do, and they all say: well, I think it comes down to my father, because he saw ghosts, he did, he saw this, he’s – he used to talk about that, and this and that, and, so it’s just – we just keep finding it. Not only that, they all have kids who are abductees, as well, an unbelievably sensitive area to go into, because it leads to guilt, and a feeling of unable to protect their children. Doing hypnosis with abductees is a very tricky and delicate business, and one must be very, very careful for all of those out there who might think of doing this kind of work. It’s – you’re delving into people’s private and personal lives, and dealing with them on a very human level that – it’s not easy to do. It’s, obviously, common sense, but there’s an awful lot of people who just are, kind of, like a bull in a china shop, and they – and when I deal with people their lives come first. The getting the information from them comes second. That’s the way I look at it.

 

Martin: Anything, in particular, you’d like to close this interview with?

 

David: Well, one of the books that I’m – that’s mainly written is a book about how to do hypnosis with abductees, and this is going to be a manual for – aimed at the therapeutic community, but therapists are not going to be involved with – they just – nobody’s interested in the subject, but, for those people who are interested, I hope to try to regularize the field, a little bit, so that telling them about the problems of confabulation, and how to get around it, and the problems of doing an event that a person thinks is a dream, and may not be, and sometimes is a dream, but – and if a person says A then what’s the answer that the researcher has to tell them? What’s the question, rather, that they have to say to them? And if they answer B then the – or C then they have to say something else, and I’m – kind of do it – doing it on a word–by–word level, a question–and–answer level to make this manual for how to do hypnosis with abductees, so I do want other people, who are serious, responsible people, hopefully in the academic community, but that’s not going to happen, and – because I don’t want to be out there, alone. There’s only a few of us.

 

Martin: Yeah.

 

David: There’s Carpenter, http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2012/02/leah-haley-case-john-carpenter.html there’s Yvonne Smith, http://ysmith.com/ there’s only a few of us, and I want other people to prove me wrong. Prove me wrong. That’s fine. I can live with that. That’s great. I’d love to be wrong. I have no ego at stake in this. I want to be wrong. Wonderful. Great. I’ll take it, so go ahead and prove it. Do this work, yourself, and, so hopefully this book will help that. This is the second book I’m working on.

 

Martin: And when do you expect that might be out to press?

 

David: Well, I figure that the market for this book is probably in the 10s and 10s, so I’ll have that one printed up, most likely, unless I can get some off–name press to publish it for me.

 

Martin: Okay, and where would someone find you, David?

 

David: My website is ufoabduction.com, and that’s just ufoabduction, singular, dot com.

 

Martin: Very good. Well, this has been really fascinating. You’ve been a great guest. Thank you so much.

 

David: Thank you for having me, Martin. I appreciate it.

 

Martin: So this is Martin Willis with David Jacobs, PhD, and that’s it for today.

 

The End

One thought on “Show Notes, David Jacobs, 27.

Comments are closed.