From Jeremy Vaeni:
NOW PLAYING
Paratopia Episode 101: Carol Rainey & Dr. Tyler Kokjohn
www.paratopia.net
Just in time for next week's Paratopia Magazine launch, Carol Rainey & Dr. Tyler Kokjohn speak for the first time about their groundbreaking articles released 2 weeks ago. This discussion evolves into one of answers as to where abduction research goes from here and what it will take to make it scientifically legitimate. It will be an uphill battle but the struggle for the future begins here.
To keep up with Carol’s work, please visit: www.carolrainey.com
And be sure to check out Dr. Kokjohn’s informational youtube channel: rewinky
11 comments:
Listened to the podcast --the free portion, anyway-- and Rainey admits that the Mortellaro case unfolded as she and Hopkins were writing "Sight Unseen".
Yet she still agreed to put her name along her then-husband in that book. I'm sorry but I still find that troubling --even though I do happen to agree on many of her conclusions re. the problems with how abduction research has been carried out.
Don Ecker opened a discussion on the Rainey article at the Paracast forum, but by the time i found it and start to contribute in it, Steinberg got fed up with it and closed it --just when I did what he requested and read the whole statement written by Jacobs at his website, which still didn't convince me of the ethical approach he took with the Woods case.
I still can't believe Jacobs would think hypnotizing someone on the phone is OK. I would also like to know where was Wood's therapist when all this was happening. Jacobs said the therapist gave his OK to his hypnosis therapy; I do wonder: does Jacobs have that permission on a written format?
Having said that, the fact that this matter hasn't yet been taken to legal avenues should give us something to think about --on account of BOTH parties.
I would whole-heartedly welcome if someone like Dr. Kokjohn involves himself more into the abduction field. I enjoyed the article he wrote for the Paratopia magazine.
rpj, looking in from the outside into the relationships of others, always a shaky thing to do. Except to say, I can understand the dynamics and emotions of being married to someone, you love them, and the things you see your spouse do that you don't condone are not always so easily seen, so easily understood... I don't know, it's complicated. (I'm thinking now of a situation very close to me where, because of being so damn close to it, and not wanting to believe someone you trusted and loved could do such things, you simply don't see it for what it is for awhile..) (no, I don't mean my husband, :)--
All that aside, I think that it's possible Woods therapist was glad to step away from a UFO-alien-abduction scene, -- what professional academic scientific mainstream person wants any of that? -- and turn it over to someone who was willing to deal with it. After all, UFOs are still considered kooky weird by just about everybody.
I still haven't read the Dr. Kokjohn article. So many great things to read and podcasts to hear, so little time!!!!
"I don't know, it's complicated. (I'm thinking now of a situation very close to me where, because of being so damn close to it, and not wanting to believe someone you trusted and loved could do such things, you simply don't see it for what it is for awhile..) (no, I don't mean my husband, :)--"
Regan,
I understand, but things get even more complicated since Rainey emphatically states that she wasn't the wife that just "served the coffee".
She was directly involved in her husband's research --or so she says-- and with her background in scientific documentaries, it really is hard for the reader of her Paratopia article to understand *why* she didn't question Hopkins over his methods to check out the validity of his sources, and whether the people he was interviewing weren't just seeking attention from the father of abduction investigation.
In the interview she says she is sorry for all the damage she might have caused during her professional involvement with Hopkins. Does that mean she would be willing to donate all her royalties from "Sight Unseen" to an NGO or something?
I also noticed that the Paratopia article had a portion taken from Hopkins private mail. I'm not a lawyer or an editor, so i don't know if that is legally permissible --but it sure feels wrong.
OK, enough ranting. It will be interesting to see if Rainey manages to enter the UFO field with her own "light", rather than forever being referred to as "Hopkins ex". For her to do that it would be necessary to contribute with an original input.
...Something enirely different from her intended documentary on his former husband, I might add.
Hi Red Pill Junkie,
Dr. Jacobs’ statement about me on his website consists of a series of outright lies and distortions from beginning to end. I have provided audio recordings on my website that substantiate my allegations against him, and if you compare what he says on those recordings to his claims in his statement, it might help to illustrate this.
It is important to understand that my former therapist did NOT give permission for Dr. Jacobs to conduct hypnosis with me.
My former therapist had been retired for several years by the time that Dr. Jacobs offered to conduct hypnosis with me. He said that as he was no longer my therapist, that he could NOT give approval for it, and that he could NOT advise me on it. Dr. Jacobs is fully aware of this.
Dr. Jacobs has deliberately misled people to believe that he obtained my former therapist's permission to conduct hypnosis with me in order to try to cover himself for having conducted hypnosis with me over the telephone. It is one of numerous lies that he has told.
In regard to legal action, that is something that I am currently investigating. The process will be complicated, and there are many issues to consider, that involve many people.
I should point out that in 2008 I filed a complaint with the Temple University Institutional Review Board, and in 2009 I filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Human Research Protections. So I have certainly been taking steps to have this matter formally investigated, both by Temple University and by the the government department that oversees human subject research.
I think that Carol Rainey went through a proceess of coming to understand that there were problems in Budd Hopkins' research. It was not something that she just realized overnight.
She describes in her article how she raised questions with Budd, but how he did not listen to her, how she gradually became disillusioned and stopped attending meetings of Budd's IF Board, and so on. It was a process over time.
Hello, Emma. Once again thanks for answering some of my questions. I hope you get the chance to check out the answer I left below in the previous thread (and sorry for mezzing the first paragraph).
The thing you state about Jacobs not having a permission from a certified therapist is most troubling. Though, to be fair, it raises both the question of why he chose to proceed with the hypnosis regressions with you (since he states this is contrary to his standard procedure)-- as well as why you would submit yourself to his hands so blindly, without the appropriate go-ahead from a psychiatrist.
I'm a complete neophyte when it comes to the matters of the law, yet I feel that this battle that has been fought over Internet forums, podcasts interviews and radio shows should proceed where it seems to belong: in a court of law, where both parties will be able to face each other and state their case.
In the end one of the most annoying things about this whole business, is that it patently displays how hopelessly isolated and diminutive the UFO community really is. The claims that have been made would have caused a major uproar and engaged the attention of the media had it happened anywhere outside the tinfoil-wrapped bubble of UFOlogy.
It has also shown some of the major flaws of the field: One, that it has a really *really* short-span memory, and cases or people who at the time were proven to be frauds or charlatans, are eventually found by a new wave of enthusiasts who read the old books and are bound to make the same mistakes of their predecessors.
The other mistake, which was pointed out by Dr. Kokjohn in his article, is that in this field investigators act like Bengal tigers, always protecting their little patch of jungle, and never considering things like anonymous peer-review, or asking for second opinion with other colleagues --often for fear of losing the "exclusive case" that will generate another book meant to fill the insatiable curiosity of people like me.
UFOlogy has been an intellectual passion for me, for a very long time (I'm not a Ufologist, nor should I never dare to call me a researcher, I'm merely a student).
However, I'm more than aware that *I* have the luxury of walking away from it any time I want. Whereas there are people who are living with this phenomenon 24/7, and they cannot get away from it anymore than they can get away from themselves.
It is my sincere hope, that for the sake of those people, this will frontier we call UFOlogy starts to learn from its mistakes.
Saludos,
RPJ
Hi Red Pill Junkie,
I suspect that Dr. Jacobs chose to proceed with the hypnosis with me simply because he wanted to. I think that is the main criteria that he uses when making judgments in his research.
In regard to myself, I did not consider that I was submitting myself blindly to Dr. Jacobs' hands. He presented himself to me as an academic researcher and expert in the area. He is a professor at Temple University, and he led me to believe that I would be a research subject of Temple University. He got me to sign a form citing Temple University which said that I was participating in scholarly research, and which had a Temple University telephone number on it that I could call for further information.
I believed that I was becoming a research subject of a professional academic researcher conducting scholarly research under a university. You cannot be any safer than that.
Later, Temple University told me that the form that Dr. Jacobs had me sign was “unauthorized” by them. In my opinion, he perpetrated a fraud on me by doing that.
I am investigating legal action. However, I hope that the field does not look solely to legal action to sort the issue out. It may be that I am not able to take legal action for any number of reasons. Who knows.
But the events took place, and I have provided substantial evidence of them. Dr. Jacobs has failed to provide any reasonable answer or defense to date which he would be perfectly capable of doing if there were any.
In regard to where this issue is debated, I think that it is not only appropriate for it to be discussed in the field of Ufology, but that it is absolutely essential that it is. I think that it is only then that the field will be able to understand it, and to put safeguards in place so that it does not happen again.
I think that you are absolutely right about how isolated and small the field is. I suspect that the stigma of the subject area pays a part in it as well.
Hi, Emma.
"I believed that I was becoming a research subject of a professional academic researcher conducting scholarly research under a university. You cannot be any safer than that."
This is IMO a very critical aspect of the whole issue. One which I've already written about in other forums.
There are researchers, and there are therapists.
A researcher's goal is to study and analyze a particular phenomenon. To make observations and conduct experiments.
A therapist's goal is —first and foremost— the treatment of a patient. To propose a carefully selected methodology in order to facilitate the healing of the people under his care.
There are researchers, and there are therapists. Can a person be both?
I raise the question, because far too many folks that stumble upon the books of these abduction investigators have gone knocking on their door. Most of them do it (I assume) not because they are looking to be included in the anecdotes recounted in yet another abduction book; but because they are afraid, and seeking help
And both these gentlemen have opened their doors to those traumatized people, and like it or not they turn into something of a counselor for them. They encourage the abductees to join group sessions; to hear other persons tell similar stories; to make them feel they are not alone. This might have an impact on the way the abductee relates and interprets his personal experiences.
But on top of that, these investigators have been liberally using hypnosis regression to "recover" hidden episodes of the abductee's life. Now, these researchers are not qualified psychologists or psychiatrists; they may not be prescribing psychotropic drugs to the people under their care, but to think hypnosis cannot be as potentially damaging to a person's psyche as chemical drug is IMHO too reckless.
So this is the thing: what's the main goal of these researchers when doing these procedures, and is it reconciled with an experiencer's best interest?
They (the researchers) seem to claim that the act of "uncovering" the hidden memories related to the abductions brings about a healing process of relief to the experiencer. I do wonder: is that always the case, and is it enough for them?
Hi Red Pill Junkie
I think that you are absolutely right that the issue of whether a researcher is a therapist or an investigator is a crucial one.
In my own case, Dr. Jacobs told me that he could help to find out what was happening to me, and to assist me in integrating it into my life. By doing that, he was very much acting like a therapist. He later even said to me that he was like peoples’ therapist (although the form that he had me sign said that he was not a psychologist.) At the same time, he was ostensibly acting as a researcher getting data for his investigations, and he led me to believe that I was going to be a research subject of Temple University.
Temple University managed to avoid being investigated by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) over the issue by making a case that Dr. Jacobs was not conducting research, but that he was just taking “oral history”, which is exempted from OHRP oversight. So that is a third question: was he just taking “oral history”? In my opinion he clearly was not.
There are so many issues still to be sorted out in regard to this research/therapy/”oral history”. The bottom line is that human beings are involved, and are being hurt, and it is important that the issues are addressed and procedures put in place to protect experiencers.
"So that is a third question: was he just taking “oral history”? In my opinion he clearly was not."
Jeez, that is such an ambiguous term, that I feel we're getting back to the Clinton years —sorry, I need to crack up a few jokes once in a while ;)
"The bottom line is that human beings are involved, and are being hurt, and it is important that the issues are addressed and procedures put in place to protect experiencers."
I can agree 100% with that.
Procedures must be established and put in place; because the ironic thing is that if people are not put first, then these investigators would then be (unwillingly or not) acting with the same lack of compassion as the allegedly nefarious alien entities they claim to have uncovered.
With regard to falling one way or another as it pertains to the trust and idiosyncratic credit one has for his fellow human being and then the sad and hurtful dissolution of same... I offer that Ms. Rainey ended her relationship and reports negatively precisely _because_ she began to see forest for trees... the same thing happened to me regarding Mortellaro.
http://www.alienview.net/morty.html
Yeah -- long, but it's the whole story and there must be some truth to it; I report myself as acting like a real mouth-breather.
Post a Comment