Mod+ 230. Dr. David Jacobs Claims Academia Has Abrogated Responsibility to Investigate Alien Contact

We're talking about serious ethical violations in a field of research.
First of all ethics are completely subjective. Second, even when we agree on what constitutes "ethical conduct" ( as we likely do) your response doesn't address the fact that the blanket approach is not conducive to knowledge seeking. Third, unethical conduct in a study doesn't automatically mean that the results are incorrect.

BTW On a tangent it is amusing that in at least one post I read, the writer mentioned ET acting in unethical ways. As if any of our ideas of ethics are some sort of universal absolute.
 
Really? So someone who performs a chemistry experiment ignoring all guidelines and causes an explosion is someone whose entire body of work is suspect? Such an approach is both inane and simplistic. It is also common. Yet it is not in keeping with knowledge-seeking. Open-minded knowledge-seeking means taking each study as it is and researching it. Maybe Jacobs did err/fudge/falsify with Woods. That means little about any other situation. Let's go further . . .even if a person has falsified everything in instances 1 - 7, it doesn't mean they did so in instance 8.

I agree with your general point here, Saiko.

Whatever weight should be given to the attacks, I think it would incredibly premature and unwise to dismiss Jacobs' work - and unfortunate if it makes people not want to read his books, for example. He may be on to something, whatever potential biases, shortcomings, etc.

Btw, I would have found it upsetting if Alex had decided to shelve the interview because of the controversies.

I think there are reasonable grounds for thinking that purely physical UFO phenomena don't make sense. As someone said, the 'experiments' don't make sense, given that the aliens must be vastly more advanced than us. If they know enough to know that we are almost compatible with them biologically (so that it makes sense to breed with us) surely they would know enough to create a clone from a single cell, and breed from that.

If they actually wish to keep their presence secret, they aren't doing a very good job, and conversely, if they want us all to know they exist, surely they could accomplish that rather better!

Hi David,

I would personally prefer to keep to the data (I understand in this field it may arguably be difficult-to-impossible to get a sense of what the data is) and let assumptions of what-can-and-can't-be-plausible/likely become secondary. That's a lot of what we encounter in the naturalism/materialism reactions to NDE and other psi research.
 
Last edited:
If they actually wish to keep their presence secret, they aren't doing a very good job, and conversely, if they want us all to know they exist, surely they could accomplish that rather better!

On this specific point, in The Threat Jacob's conclusion is definitely that the plan is secrecy. He goes on at some length to present the methods they use that point to that, based on his research, such as: preventing the abductee from remembering, separating the abductee from the group, injecting false memories, and hiding in some way the removal of the abductee. (He also provides reasons and analysis for why the policy isn't perfect.)

So there! It's potentially interesting stuff like this that makes it worthwhile getting this book. ;)

I planned to make this point later in a different post I wanted to bring up, but am I wrong in thinking that the whole idea of "abduction" doesn't just rely on Jacobs and Hopkins' work? Frequently enough, I seem to come across similar accounts in UFO documentaries that aren't the result of J & H's work. Also, and this is perhaps a more important point, some abductees remember similar experiences, or part of them, without having recourse to hypnotic regression therapy.

Jacobs also states this point: "In contrast to victims of false memory syndrome, abductees often remember events without the aid of a therapist. They can remember events that happened to them at specific times in their lives. They have always known that the event happened, and they do not need a therapist to reinforce their memories". (p. 39)

Like shared NDEs, the fact that something, whatever its nature, "actually happens" is also borne out by numerous cases where two or more people are simultaneously "abducted". (These facts are illustrated in the Canadian video case I presented earlier in the thread - there doesn't seem to have been therapy, and there were two people involved at some point.) Jacobs also adds the fact that "two people might be abducted together and can verify each other's presence during the abduction is additional proof of the phenomenon" (p. 60).

[Jacobs adds: "Approximately 20 percent of abductions include two or more people who see each other during the abduction events." p. 39]

I wonder if research/analysis has been done on abductee reports that are free from regression therapy. You'd get another distinct set of interesting data there to study and compare.

Since I'm quoting so profusely from this book, I'll give it a plug:
http://www.amazon.com/THREAT-Revealing-Secret-Alien-Agenda/dp/0684848139/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385169972&sr=1-1&keywords=the threat
 
Last edited:
Since I hadn't read any of your posts in this thread, I don't know what prompts your seeing yourself in my post.

What you said was:
I wish greatly that people had commented about what was in the interview rather than bringing up all sorts of peripheral stuff to try and support their own preconceptions.

I commented on something that wasn't in the interview (the Woods case) as a result of checking out Doug's links. Ergo, your comment was directed at me and anyone who commented on anything you deem "peripheral" that wasn't in the podcast.

In general, your position is weak: take it to its logical conclusion, and people should refrain from posting information highly relevant to what interviewees say simply because they (interviewees) don't mention any such information casting their claims in doubt. We wouldn't get very far in discussions if we couldn't bring forth objections that interviewees themselves hadn't raised, now would we?

My point is that before this podcast, I didn't know Jacobs from Adam, and based on what he said, was quite favourably impressed. Then I investigated Doug's links, which raised serious doubts in my mind. He's not like John Mack, who was a qualified psychiatrist and would never have dreamed of telling someone she had MPD purely as a "tactic" to prevent (as Jacobs thought was happening), threatened attack by hybrids. It was immensely damaging to Woods and evidence of lack of compassion, not to mention commonsense (it's obvious that his webmaster, "Elizabeth", was a hoaxer and he should have been able to detect that). In general, his behaviour in the Woods case appears to have been appalling. If you didn't read it, I urge you to check out Doug's link (from p. 34) here:

http://www.noufors.com/Documents/Bo.../UFO Magazine - Vol. 24, No. 1 Issue #154.pdf

The case is also mentioned by Carol Rainey, Budd Hopkin's ex-wife (Hopkins was peripherally involved in the Woods farago) in Doug's other link:

http://paratopia.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/paratopia-mag_vol1_1-15-11.pdf

What can I say? Jacobs appears to have been venturing a medical diagnosis he knew to be bogus without a medical license. The man's a historian, for heaven's sake, and an apparently gullible one at that. He makes strong claims in the podcast, and by all accounts had wanted to publish a book on the Woods' case before the incident kicked off. Listen to the recordings Doug posted. He appears to have treated Woods shabbily and unprofessionally. I feel very sorry for her and am disgusted that he and others appear to have blackened her name and motivations to maintain his credibility, which is close to zero with me now.

He and Hopkins are prominent proponents of the "literal" abduction narrative, and I was prepared to give him a fair hearing, but he appears to have blotted his own copybook. I have much more respect for John Mack, and am wondering whether the aspersions Jacobs cast on Mack have any veracity whatsoever. It reminds me of politicians who spout fine-sounding platitudes for years and then are revealed to be liars and hypocrites in one seminal event. Do we believe that those politcians are guilty of only the one infraction? No. We think that if they did it once, there are probably other cases we haven't heard about.
 
Just one more opinion weighing in: I found multiple problems with Jacobs. His voice, tone, everything was suspect to me. And his answers and opinions on things seemed too pre-set and kind of rehearsed in a way that really brought forth that "stuck in a certain mindset" thing . . . which seems odd, because of all things, why would one have to become attached to a certain frame of mind with AA? That is, of all phenomena this would seem the easiest area to be able to say, "I'm just not sure; I just don't know."
 
yea, good questions Keith... but the problem is that we could extend it with a zillion more, each taking us in a different direction... e.g.
1. are they us?
2. or, are they related to (or the creators of) us?
3. how many different kinds of "they" are there... how many different programs/agendas?
4. what about these persistent (I mean, really, really persistent) reports about gov involvement?
and how about a really big one..
5. what is there relationship to the white light thingie (i.e. God)?

Hi Alex, I know. I like 1 and 2 esp. But also with our civilization there's all this complexity right? Science, technology, culture. So there should be "something else" maybe like this going on but at this "other" level (levels?) and so we get on to your 3 about programs/agendas some of which could involve us (the "abduction" program) but our present culture/groupthink precludes or scares the heck out of anyone thinking about it or developing it. I liked your "white light thingie" definition of God - made me laugh!

Sorry can't comment on 4 as haven't looked. A lot of folks above are making some interesting related comments though...
 
What you said was:


I commented on something that wasn't in the interview (the Woods case) as a result of checking out Doug's links. Ergo, your comment was directed at me and anyone who commented on anything you deem "peripheral" that wasn't in the podcast.

Whoa!!! Ouch! I'm really surprised! With that sort of utterly flawed analysis and conclusion, I'm glad I didn't read your posts. And while I have no reluctance about being "caustic" that's not what I'm doing here. In fact, I'll ask that you think it through again and see how off track you went.
 
I must say, Dr. Jacobs began his interview well, but then he became uncomfortably rigid and dismissive, and unfortunately John Mack isn't about to refute his assertion that John Mack became disillusioned with his own approach, which concentrated on non-physical explanations of this phenomenon.

There seem to be two approaches here:

1) We are dealing with beings from outer space.

2) John Mack's approach, which was that this phenomenon is somehow part physical, part mental.

Dr. Jacobs seemed to want to dismiss the evidence that more mental versions of this phenomenon exist - e.g. using DMT - or cases where the victims report communication by ESP. However the problem is that neither version of the UFO story is accepted by conventional science, and it doesn't make much sense to throw out part of the data to get the answer you want!

I think there are reasonable grounds for thinking that purely physical UFO phenomena don't make sense. As someone said, the 'experiments' don't make sense, given that the aliens must be vastly more advanced than us. If they know enough to know that we are almost compatible with them biologically (so that it makes sense to breed with us) surely they would know enough to create a clone from a single cell, and breed from that.

If they actually wish to keep their presence secret, they aren't doing a very good job, and conversely, if they want us all to know they exist, surely they could accomplish that rather better!

I admit that UFO phenomena baffle me, but I do wonder if human ideas can, if thought about by enough people, produce some sort of physical manifestation. In this case, the ideas would have come from SF literature/films.

David

Hmmmm . . . .

So you wonder if human thought can produce physical manifestations of the sort where people disappear for hours and reappear miles from where they started. Nope. Is there non-physical actions that can manifest that? Of course. Seeing that all physical is a manifestation of non-physical consciousness that's clear.

I think there are reasonable grounds for thinking that purely physical UFO phenomena don't make sense.
"make sense" is irrelevant and continues to be a popular trap. The idea that what "makes sense" is a constraint on actuality is ridiculous. It leads to inane conclusions like the one you mentioned about the "experiments. "

There are far more than the two perspectives you mention. Other dimensional terrestrials and other-dimensional extraterrestrials being just another two.Move beyond the standard human viewpoint on what constitutes physical creatures and the perspectives increase exponentially. Physical states that are far less solid or that are fluid (shiftable) from apparent solidity to non-solidity.
 
I hope someone can shed light on this... from everything I've learned, it sounds like complete BS .
It makes no sense that Mack quietly "changed his mind" given the fact that his family and friends continue investigations into consciousness via the John E. Mack Institute. Have you tried contacting Mack's former research associate Dominique Callimanopulos? She is listed as one of the board members of the John E. Mack Institute.
http://johnemackinstitute.org/board-of-directors/
 
He and Hopkins are prominent proponents of the "literal" abduction narrative, and I was prepared to give him a fair hearing, but he appears to have blotted his own copybook. I have much more respect for John Mack, and am wondering whether the aspersions Jacobs cast on Mack have any veracity whatsoever. It reminds me of politicians who spout fine-sounding platitudes for years and then are revealed to be liars and hypocrites in one seminal event. Do we believe that those politcians are guilty of only the one infraction? No. We think that if they did it once, there are probably other cases we haven't heard about.

me too... still hoping someone will dig into this and get to the bottom of it... very much agree... if he's wrong about Mack (I kinda think he is) then not only is his credibility further diminished, but one has to wonder if there is some other game at play as well.
 
Alex: Thanks for your reply to my reply. You wrote:

Hi Rod... I realize I'm only responding to a tiny piece of your post, but wasn't Billy Meier shown to be peddling photos with fishing line exposed? or am I missing part of the story?

Yes, very possibly –a glance at Wikipedia gives a fairly extensive idea of the exposure, but if it was a hoax (and it surely was) it sounds to me like a very sophisticated one, and I doubt whether a one-armed Swiss farmer could have done it on his own, especially the way experts were found who gave an air of great mystery to Meier’s extra-terrestrial metal samples, etc. –at first.
But let’s go back to the 1970s or 1980s when Billy Meier “burst into the headlines.” For me it would have been about 1985 –I watched a TV program about him. At the time I said something to the effect that, well, it sounds quite convincing –even though one of the visitors looks a bit like his wife (by the way, Wikipedia quotes her as saying that it was actually an acquaintance of theirs). But at the time I said that even if was all a hoax, I quite liked the story he told.
The story was, if I recall, that visitors from another star cluster were telling humble Billy that Earth was in trouble –the population explosion, nuclear weapons, pollution, etc. All the problems that have been rolled out since about the end of World War Two, although these concerns go back to the 1920s and 1930s and perhaps even earlier. Yes, I thought at the time, Billy Meier’s done a clever thing there, finding a way of drawing attention to these problems at a popular level.

He had his devotees around him –I wonder what happened to all those people. But let’s very briefly turn to the story he tells about Earth. So concerned were the Extra-terrestrials with human over-population that Meier came up with a set of “humane” measures for combating it –see: http://theyfly.com/On_Overpopulation.html

I won’t go into this. Suffice it to say that I have already written about overpopulation on this site and you can have a look at it if you want. Basically, what’s been happening for several decades has been a slowdown in population growth to the point where absolute population growth has gone negative in certain regions and countries. Whether this has anything to do with “measures” of any kind or whether it has more to do with human reactions to the globalized growth of the system (the decline of the nuclear family and migration, for instance) I cannot say –I tend to think the latter is more important, and certainly more important than received wisdom would have it.

But getting back to the main point, we find that after 30-odd years even Billy Meier’s story about the human dilemma has holes in it and the remedy that goes with it –never mind whether he faked the close encounters of a third kind. I don’t think many people would have seen that in 1985. More of us believed in it then, even if we doubted the theatricals. I don’t know if you get this point, but it seems to be very important.

Now, today, the story has changed (probably not Billy’s; but the Top of the Pops story). A parallel: thirty-odd years ago, when a terrorist attack occurred, the groups responsible generally claimed it. You knew from their lips who did it –or who was supposed to have done it (even if this wasn’t true, and sometimes –or maybe more often than sometimes –the intelligence agencies were responsible, but the IRA, say, was happy to say it was them). Nowadays, that’s not so much the case. Al Q’aeda didn’t claim the 911 job (not immediately anyway) and this typified what was to come.

So, nowadays, ETs are from who knows where and are here for who knows what purpose? They don’t look human, although they usually seem to have a head, body, two arms and two legs (we aren’t yet ready, I guess, for invisible entities or cloud-like beings). And they do nasty things to people.

Am I saying the story is “just made up”? How can I? But we seem to believe now, today, that Billy Meier’s tales were an invention, whereas then, in the 1970s-80s, they weren’t so easy to see through as they are now (even if Jacques Vallée and others dismissed the whole thing at the time) –just turn to Wikipedia (no Internet in those old days) as I noted earlier.

Ah, but the present story has a cast of thousands. How can you get all those people involved? Well, I don’t know. But I didn’t know how Billy Meier did his things in the 1970s. However, science has advanced quite a bit since then. The CIA has been experimenting with “truth” various drugs. We now have Photoshop as a spin-off, I suppose, of a far more sophisticated program. They are talking about “invisibility cloaks” –obviously developed for military purposes. And a host of other new or not-so-new scientific developments… Oh, I hear someone saying “I don’t see how invisibility cloaks would help to get people to believe they’d been abducted.” It’s just an example, you know, of where science is going –thanks to the embrace of the military-intelligence-industrial complex.

Robert Hastings tells us a more cheering tale involving extra-terrestrials –their appearance at nuclear weapons bases to interfere with America’s nuclear war-heads –where they do seem to be doing something to help mankind. And yet Hastings has assembled a large number of military people to testify to seeing these events. I like that –I believe that. However, if this is a hoax it wouldn’t be the first time a large group of soldiers had been assembled to tell a lie. Back in 2008, an article appeared in the New York Times, “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand”:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all

It shows how retired officers have been used to shape media coverage of terrorism. From this article we read:

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse –an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
I’m not saying Hastings is a hoaxer or proxy to a hoaxer. And moving from the idea of deliberate lies by men who are “only doing their duty” to civilians who tell us a story that may have got into their heads by foul means, not fair, is obviously a long step to take, not just technologically. But the story they tell is one of our times. And it is sophisticated watchable theatre.

I read some years ago that someone had discovered crop circles were done with laser technology by one of America’s large auto firms on contract to the Pentagon (if I find the original story I’ll send it to anyone who’s interested). Exactly why they are doing this was a little unclear, but it may well be aimed at giving us the idea that aliens are here –to help or hinder as the case may be –that Earth is not in the hands of human beings any more or won’t be in the not-too-distant future. Blame can be reassigned. Was it Reagan or Mikhail Gorbachev who is said to have remarked at the Geneva Summit in 1985 how much easier it would be to unite the world if only there was an external threat by aliens. I don’t think it was the first time a leading statesman said this.

Overpopulation is not a part of the abduction story is it? However, there are indications that these particular aliens are doing something on the population front –hybrids, etc. Unlike Meier’s supposed “humane” measures, our minds are drawn in on something sinister. Are they preparing to re-populate the Earth? we might ask. After… the holocaust? When over-population is no longer a problem… Write out the words “Bush overpopulation genocide” on Google and you’ll get something like 7,760,000 hits.

John Mack was a compelling writer. I was visiting Britain in September 2004, and went to Dorset to the house lived in by T.E. Lawrence –it’s even possible I rubbed shoulders there with people from the conference he attended. The guide was very irritated when I brought up Richard Aldington’s name. Aldington wrote a highly critical book on Lawrence (published in 1955) –I don’t know what Mack thought of it. What I’ve seen of Mack’s thoughts on Lawrence would not seem to agree with Aldington (and who does nowadays?). But while Mack won a Pulitzer prize for his work, Aldington (during his life, a celebrated novelist, poet and translator, little known or recognized today) was hounded out of Britain and forced to settle for the rest of his life in France –by the Lawrence “establishment” in Britain –for his skepticism.

A view that seems to dominate Skeptiko is that the status quo is solely materialist. I don’t think so. The anti-materialist paradigm also gets support from the most arcane forces (led by some of the most privileged families in society) whose heads always seem to spring up especially during times of dire emergency.
 
Whoa!!! Ouch! I'm really surprised! With that sort of utterly flawed analysis and conclusion, I'm glad I didn't read your posts. And while I have no reluctance about being "caustic" that's not what I'm doing here. In fact, I'll ask that you think it through again and see how off track you went.

Flawed analysis? Off track? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
 
It makes no sense that Mack quietly "changed his mind" given the fact that his family and friends continue investigations into consciousness via the John E. Mack Institute. Have you tried contacting Mack's former research associate Dominique Callimanopulos? She is listed as one of the board members of the John E. Mack Institute.
http://johnemackinstitute.org/board-of-directors/

Hi, There is this from John B. Alexander's book, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities (2011), which I have. The Foreward is by Jacques Vallee.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ntry into the arena by Dr. John Mack"&f=false

It's the only reference to John Mack and David Jacobs in the book. He does also say "identifiable markers in the brain can be located that confirm that there is something physical to these events".

The reviews at the front of the book are tremendous and I have to say a book like this brings in all the main players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Robert Hastings...etc.

I must say that from the book (I'm looking at now) by John B. Alexander I refd. just above, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities (2011), Alexander praises the book by Robert Hastings, UFOs and Nukes, calling it "impressive" to do with the detailed information provided to Hastings by former military personnel. Also interesting is that "none of his [Hastings]sources had ever been questioned, reprimanded or threatened over their disclosure of encounters with UFOs" - from Dr. Alexander's book. Alexander also concurs with this, from his own experience.
 
Hi, There is this from John B. Alexander's book, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities (2011), which I have. The Foreward is by Jacques Vallee.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IaA8mZqhjPkC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq="the entry into the arena by Dr. John Mack"&source=bl&ots=rmDAMu-IPZ&sig=reWUiP0rwUlE4aDerY8Ww8AU63w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rcqQUv_VIMuThgfMy4CwAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q="the entry into the arena by Dr. John Mack"&f=false

It's the only reference to John Mack and David Jacobs in the book. He does also say "identifiable markers in the brain can be located that confirm that there is something physical to these events".

The reviews at the front of the book are tremendous and I have to say a book like this brings in all the main players.
The same John Alexander who used to be president of IANDS? So someone out there is interested in both consciousness and UFOs!

@alex.tsakiris Maybe this guy should be invited on the show?
 
I'll be a little disappointed in this thread and the follow-up, if some folks, including my many proponent friends, some of whom have already spoken up here :) (and it's cool we come at this with different perspectives, it goes to show the forum doesn't get dull if there's no from-the-ground-up "skeptical" involvement), don't end up engaging in a discussion of the actual abduction hypothesis material.

Maybe that's partly because of the interview. I find some/many Skeptiko interviews spend a lot of time addressing (important) issues around the topic, like paradigm perspectives and the dialogue between them or lack of it, and the reasons behind that, and sometimes less on the meat of the matter. Some will say the former is the meat. That's fine - I think those issues are part of what make Skeptiko unique and of high caliber, but I also would like to get into the actual content of the topic of the research.

I also understand that's partly because of the recent controversies over Jacobs, but as I said before and what Saiko is saying, that's not enough to dismiss the whole of Jacobs' work: we're getting partially side-tracked if we take the Emma Woods stuff, or a little comment Jacobs made at the end of the interview about Mack's last two years (to see a possible "agenda" there starts sounding a bit paranoid to me), or listeners' impressions of a closed-mindedness to psi on Jacobs' part in the interview without exploring Jacobs' work fuller - other interviews, books, etc. - and concluding it's not worth investigating. (Btw, I look forward to reading Mack's book and possibly others in this field and I don't for a minute believe I will find anything remotely close to an "answer".)

More to the point, with or without Jacobs, there's the abduction hypothesis and research around it itself. I think I brought up some interesting points here, and nobody's responded yet:
am I wrong in thinking that the whole idea of "abduction" doesn't just rely on Jacobs and Hopkins' work? Frequently enough, I seem to come across similar accounts in UFO documentaries that aren't the result of J & H's work. Also, and this is perhaps a more important point, some abductees remember similar experiences, or part of them, without having recourse to hypnotic regression therapy.

Jacobs also states this point: "In contrast to victims of false memory syndrome, abductees often remember events without the aid of a therapist. They can remember events that happened to them at specific times in their lives. They have always known that the event happened, and they do not need a therapist to reinforce their memories". (p. 39)

Like shared NDEs, the fact that something, whatever its nature, "actually happens" is also borne out by numerous cases where two or more people are simultaneously "abducted". (These facts are illustrated in the Canadian video case I presented earlier in the thread - there doesn't seem to have been therapy, and there were two people involved at some point.) Jacobs also adds the fact that "two people might be abducted together and can verify each other's presence during the abduction is additional proof of the phenomenon" (p. 60).

[Jacobs adds: "Approximately 20 percent of abductions include two or more people who see each other during the abduction events." p. 39]

I wonder if research/analysis has been done on abductee reports that are free from regression therapy. You'd get another distinct set of interesting data there to study and compare.

From what I understand, to take two well-known views, Vallée's thesis of the UFO phenomenon in general is that it's between the physical and the psychic, while Mack thought that encounters invite us to think of reality in ways that go beyond our traditional thought categories. I find all these views interesting. Maybe this is a sign of my naiveté and unlearnedness in this field, but could it be possible that any and all of these views may have some grains of truth to them - including perhaps the "abduction" one?

Jacobs points out, and this does not seem to be borne out only by his own research, that there are these facts to contend with: people going missing, the police being called, unexplainable scars, abductions occurring with more than one person, possible evidence of implants (people have reportedly sneezed weird objects out) (possibly to monitor thoughts?), unexplained anomalies in female abductees' reproductive organs pointing to potential hidden hybrid pregnancies, etc.

Alex, what do you make of this stuff? And Frank, Bucky, Ethan, Pollux, Chuck - are you guys out there? :)
 
Back
Top