Ray Stanford has a photo of the Socorro craft & Martin Willis has seen it and is impressed but...

[IsaacKoi]

That's all old history in the forum. All of that was brought forward a number of times now in this forum, so much so that many have agreed to stop attacking Chris O'Brien because of Standford's "colourful" past and just let sleeping dogs lie. A Bridge Over Troubled Water and all that sort of thing, so many don't bother poking at the old wounds.

Okay, thanks.

(I've previously read several other threads on this forum discussing Ray Stanford but will have another look to see which issues have already been raised. From what I've seen so far, some (but far from all) of the relevant issues have been briefly outlined).

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Wasn't DissectionStalker banned for posting to this thread? Am I about to be banned too?

And how do we know you aren't DissectionStalker in another guise? I won't tell our members what our examination of your Internet breadcrumbs reveals, for the sake of your privacy. But there is a personal conversation opened for you. It's time you give us a response so we can talk about various matters.

And, yes, we do protect a member's privacy. We don't post a member's real name or location if both are hidden in the member profile.

 

[technomage]

What is "Internet bread"? Is that something like Joe Simonton's pancakes?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Breadcrumbs.

 

[Burnt State]

I think Honey-Pot has posted reasonable questions and statements. I wouldn't think he deserves any kind of censure.

Agreed. A lot of Honey-Pot's material has been invaluable here and presented often in a reasonable manner.

As to issues of identity I'm not sure how much that matters. People could be running multiple identities he just to satisfy one's borderline personality's ever changing moods. Tone and attitude is everything as far as I'm concerned.

But it's also not everyone's sandbox either which is the reality of it all, Honey-Pot, so you should post around elsewhere as well, as your skeptical positions are an important part of the functional tension in Ufology. The parallels between the Roswell Slides and this thread and worth noting in terms of promoting ideas without evidence, but claiming you've got the smoking gun.

Warning: Rhetoric Ahead

Isn't everyone tired of that Ufological meme? And shouldn't we be as critical of those kinds of claims as The Paracast show often promotes? What does more damage to Ufoology, the critical voice or The Roswell Slidegate approach?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Agreed. A lot of Honey-Pot's material has been invaluable here and presented often in a reasonable manner.

As to issues of identity I'm not sure how much that matters. People could be running multiple identities he just to satisfy one's borderline personality's ever changing moods. Tone and attitude is everything as far as I'm concerned.

But it's also not everyone's sandbox either which is the reality of it all, Honey-Pot, so you should post around elsewhere as well, as your skeptical positions are an important part of the functional tension in Ufology. The parallels between the Roswell Slides and this thread and worth noting in terms of promoting ideas without evidence, but claiming you've got the smoking gun.

Warning: Rhetoric Ahead

Isn't everyone tired of that Ufological meme? And shouldn't we be as critical of those kinds of claims as The Paracast show often promotes? What does more damage to Ufoology, the critical voice or The Roswell Slidegate approach?

Your right that this person can and does add to the conversation. But that was never why he was banned multiple times. Maybe we disagree on acceptable discussion. If it's ok with you, in the process of making your case, to personally attack the other then that's our difference. I've read many things here I didn't agree with but didn't feel compelled to take the person down for it. Personal attacks ARE NOT necessary to make your point. Nor is shutting a person down by stalking them from thread to thread. Nor is attempting to make another person feel stupid for their conclusions or questions. As to HP's claim of censorship, how about his form of it? I've stayed away for awhile now and will go off again, but couldn't help popping in to say the obvious. But I find it sad that no-one said it before me. Dunno, maybe I'm wrong here, maybe you guys like this kind of "in your face" convo. Maybe you like him taking Stanford's charactor down and your cheering him on in the background. But if that's true, it's low level fruit to be had here.

 

[Burnt State]

Your right that this person can and does add to the conversation. But that was never why he was banned multiple times. Maybe we disagree on acceptable discussion. If it's ok with you, in the process of making your case, to personally attack the other then that's our difference. I've read many things here I didn't agree with but didn't feel compelled to take the person down for it. Personal attacks ARE NOT necessary to make your point. Nor is shutting a person down by stalking them from thread to thread. Nor is attempting to make another person feel stupid for their conclusions or questions. As to HP's claim of censorship, how about his form of it? I've stayed away for awhile now and will go off again, but couldn't help popping in to say the obvious. But I find it sad that no-one said it before me. Dunno, maybe I'm wrong here, maybe you guys like this kind of "in your face" convo. Maybe you like him taking Stanford's charactor down and your cheering him on in the background. But if that's true, it's low level fruit to be had here.

i found the HP approach to be a positive incarnation for the most part though, i don't always agree with some of the approaches and you point out approaches in general that are entirely uncool and you'll receive no argument from me on that point, Heidi. i agree that personal attacks are never necessary. critiquing the ideas is what matters.

as for taking Standford's character down i've posted multiple times about him from his colourful history, to acknowledging his positive contributions to multiple fields, scientific and otherwise. and i also understand his mentorship role for Chris O'Brien and can respect that. i never laugh from the side only out loud and that's usually obvious. this thread is a cautionary UFO tale, as many of the claims to having proof often are. have they ever been anything else?

But if you are going to talk about net effects I would point back at the Smoking Gun meme, the Roswell Slides fiasco and all similar Aztecian claims that all deserve to be cut to ribbons - that's not low hanging fruit, that's about asking Ufology to step up its game if it wants any respect. If Jim Moseley was alive I would hazard a guess that this sort of thing would be smeared all over the place. And there's a good reason for that.

 

[Honey-Pot]

This forum's official Privacy Policy needs to be changed before I'll respond to this demand. Now I'm being asked to reveal my real identity in order to participate here. Just because one person says I'm DissectionStalker does not mean I'm that person, nor does it mean I have to give-up my real identity to anyone here! I'm firmly against Internet Stalking and abusive Internet Doxing, and I certainly do not trust any forum moderator with my private information. No one should tolerate any such abuse. There is no legitimate or justifiable reason for any of these people to obtain this information unless some crimes or other legal justification is required.

Update your Privacy Policy Gene, so everyone can know the "benevolent dictatorship", Chris O'Brien's words, that is being run here.

Oh, and please quote me in this thread exactly where I committed the offense that I must be banned. Thanks.

Anyone that thinks what I wrote in a previous post, quoted below again, is "lame" obviously does not understand anything about the dangers of posting on the Internet to forums or other social sites such as this one. There are serious and real dangers!

Am I banned now? If there are no more posts from me, then I was banned for identity demands. Privacy protection is not respected for anyone here if this happens. It is extremely dangerous to be probed this way on the Internet. We are exposed to all kinds of criminal abuse and harassment, when our identity information can be known by moderators or other forum members here. Privacy must be respected and protected too for all concerned here. Beware. The dangers are real.

As I said before, I'm not here at this forum to troll this thread. I am attempting to do this: I already wrote the following... Until some new evidence is presented here... something that Goddard backs with some documentation about the distance proof or an original high resolution scan of the negative that is not enhanced or altered is released, then it is pointless to debate these issues. I'm out of this thread until something "real" that can be checked is presented.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Ah, sometimes trust is a fragile thing, right? Gene will change the languaging since you have made such a postured response to my overtures. FWIW, I am a professional and have have NEVER violated a request for anonymity. Talk to the frickin lawyers that made me go over every sentence of my first couple of books...

Those with nothing to hide have nothing to hide...

Whoever you are, you've elected to sanctimoniously hide inside your 'honey-pot' moniker and have completely ignored my several kind attempts at private communication. Since you signed up I've tried at least three times to establish communication. I asked you introduce yourself to me. Period. Privately.

You have been using proxy servers to obfuscate your location and (time & time again) you have totally ignored our sincere requests to introduce yourself to us. Everyone else I personally have asked over the past six years on the Paracast Forum has gladly done so. That said, I have no other recourse but to consider you as our latest troll w/ an agenda; someone who has no other purpose for posting here except to antagonize and belittle the show's threads, subjects and denigrate friends of the show—not to mention this show host.

Go find another sandbox to play in, or ask for a different assignment—whatever, thanx...

 

[Honey-Pot]

Chris, you also wrote publicly to me, I'm quoting you: "Welcome aboard! I like bees, and I like the honey. I appreciate your insight and you appear to be another welcome addition the insightful; PC Forum family."

I was also invited by you and others to be on the Paracast show.

Obviously, you changed your mind due to my posts to this thread. Please note: I had already attempted to exit this thread, because I said it was too poisonous a thread to participate in until some real evidence can come forward. Other people, not me, had reactivated and posted to this dormant thread, and that is what got my attention. I had no interest in posting here until I read several of the recent posts, which you know full well many posts before mine are not very positive towards Ray Stanford's claims. It seems only a few MUFON members involved in the Socorro presentations, which probably cost money to attend, and some other Stanford friends are upset by these posts.

You obviously are upset just by the very few posts I've made to this thread, so why pick on me? I'm an easy target being new here, so I'm to be sacrificed, made an example, as a warning to all others? I think your intimidation tactics have already worked effectively, repeatedly, but they were never needed considering I personally had left this thread before your involvement here. Your highly critical and dismissive troll message is loud and clear but unwarranted, imo. Plenty of reputable forum members have "liked" many of my posts to this thread, and they disagree with your attempts to cause me harm by banning or poisoning my reputation here. You have far too much hostility directed at people that post contrary to Ben Moss aka Socorro's claims.

I will repeat again... Until some new evidence is presented here... something that Goddard backs with some documentation about the distance proof or an original high resolution scan of the negative that is not enhanced or altered is released, then it is pointless to debate these issues. I'm out of this thread until something "real" that can be checked is presented.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris, you also wrote publicly to me, I'm quoting you: "Welcome aboard! I like bees, and I like the honey. I appreciate your insight and you appear to be another welcome addition the insightful; PC Forum family."

You conveniently forgot the the last part of my welcome..."Who are you? You know who I am, I'd welcome an introduction." I'm old school: I have little respect for people who feel they need to hide behind avatars. Using excuses like "privacy," or fear of work blowback or _____ (fill in the blank) are lame boy excuses and don't wash in my book. Introducing yourself after a promise of confidentiality is only a big deal when you have something to hide. When a forum moderator kindly asks someone to introduce themselves and is completely ignored, that sends a signal.

 

[Randall]

You conveniently forgot the the last part of my welcome..."Who are you? You know who I am, I'd welcome an introduction." I'm old school: I have little respect for people who feel they need to hide behind avatars. Using excuses like "privacy," or fear of work blowback or _____ (fill in the blank) are lame boy excuses and don't wash in my book. Introducing yourself after a promise of confidentiality is only a big deal when you have something to hide. When a forum moderator kindly asks someone to introduce themselves and is completely ignored, that sends a signal.

There seem to be two sides to this issue, both equally valid:

1. The Paracast says someplace: "Your personal information is safe with us. We will positively never give out your name and/or e-mail address to anybody else, and that's a promise!"
2. You say: "Introducing yourself after a promise of confidentiality is only a big deal when you have something to hide."

I believe that a person's anonymity should in most cases be respected, but I also agree that, "Using excuses like "privacy," or fear of work blowback or _____ (fill in the blank) are lame boy excuses and don't wash in my book.", and on that note I've been wondering about this "Isaac Koi" character recently, the name being a pseudonym for ... well who exactly? A Barrister in the UK? Not likely. Who knows? Maybe ( I - saac - ( zach ) - Koi ( Koy ) = Zachary McCoy ? ), suspected of raping a 19 year old girl ( link )?

If true, that would certainly be a reason to hide behind an avatar. But like I said. Who knows? There have been comments that the work done by this character should be judged on its own merit. That reasonable to some extent, but it also dodges the question of the real reason for anonymity. There have been plenty of legal filings under the FOIA by lawyers. I don't know of any who have been disbarred for having an interest in or even being legally active in ufology, and here's an interesting comment Exopolitics: Heyday for Lawyers!, not that we necessarily should put much stead in Komarek either. But then again who am I to talk ... LOL.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Goodness sounds like days of our lives move on iH.P and chill it's all about theories of learning . More crap happening in the World than tic for tac comments on material which most likely take with a pitch of salt (unless it's from credible eyewitness police, military (not made up ones like kk) officers, pilots , scientist and technology radar backup).

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Goodness sounds like days of our lives move on iH.P and chill it's all about theories of learning . More crap happening in the World than tic for tac comments on material which most likely take with a pitch of salt (unless it's from credible eyewitness police, military (not made up ones like kk) officers, pilots , scientist and technology radar backup).

Huh, I don't know about everyone else, but you lost me w/ that one...

 

[JeanLucPicard]

I liked this thread more when was about the photos

 

[Tannhauser Gate]

and on that note I've been wondering about this "Isaac Koi" character recently, the name being a pseudonym for ... well who exactly? A Barrister in the UK? Not likely. Who knows? Maybe ( I - saac - ( zach ) - Koi ( Koy ) = Zachary McCoy ? ), suspected of raping a 19 year old girl ( link )?

This kind of thing is why after three years of lurking on this site I don't engage. Isaac Koi is one of the more respected and level headed people on the internet (not just this site) in regards to ufology. I usually laugh off the arrogance and pretension of the paracast clique, it's amazing how people on this forum talk as if this is the only site discussing such things. But to call someone a child rapist is quite a stretch . Think I'll be dropping by a lot less

 

[Wade]

believe that a person's anonymity should in most cases be respected, but I also agree that, "Using excuses like "privacy," or fear of work blowback or _____ (fill in the blank) are lame boy excuses and don't wash in my book.", and on that note I've been wondering about this "Isaac Koi" character recently, the name being a pseudonym for ... well who exactly? A Barrister in the UK? Not likely. Who knows? Maybe ( I - saac - ( zach ) - Koi ( Koy ) = Zachary McCoy ? ), suspected of raping a 19 year old girl ( link )?

My dear friend, I've always respected your input here as much as anybody's but how on God's Green earth would you arrive at this conclusion? The leap required here is as broad as many a ufo "sighting," . To even bring it up as a joke is in poor taste and even if it were true, to out a person in public, especially without due diligence for this would ...and should...require a private conversation if you truly had your convictions and felt compelled to bring it up. At the very least maybe bring it up with the forum moderators. As it is it probably could be considered slanderous.

 

[Randall]

My dear friend, I've always respected your input here as much as anybody's but how on God's Green earth would you arrive at this conclusion? The leap required here is as broad as many a ufo "sighting," . To even bring it up as a joke is in poor taste and even if it were true, to out a person in public, especially without due diligence for this would ...and should...require a private conversation if you truly had your convictions and felt compelled to bring it up. At the very least maybe bring it up with the forum moderators. As it is it probably could be considered slanderous.

I brought it up because the issue of anonymity was raised, and the character known as Isaac Koi is using a pseudonym, allegedly because of concerns over stigmatization that might affect his ( if he is a he ) alleged professional standing, and because Chris made a comment about such reasons raising a flag. I agree. There is no slander here. No claims have been made against any identified individual. A theory about the pseudonym was put forth that seems reasonable given the nature of the pseudonym, which it just so happens does correspond to an actual news item that I did not manufacture, and there is no statement of certainty on my part that the two are the same individual, although I suppose that it is an unlikely possibility that Zachary McCoy might find his reputation improved somewhat by admitting an interest in UFOs, perhaps even find it useful as an insanity defense ... LOL.

 

[Randall]

This kind of thing is why after three years of lurking on this site I don't engage. Isaac Koi is one of the more respected and level headed people on the internet (not just this site) in regards to ufology. I usually laugh off the arrogance and pretension of the paracast clique, it's amazing how people on this forum talk as if this is the only site discussing such things. But to call someone a child rapist is quite a stretch . Think I'll be dropping by a lot less

You're missing the point entirely.

Whoever Isaac Koi is chose to use a pseudonym allegedly to protect his ( or her - whatever the case may be ) identity because of concerns that involvement in ufology might affect his or her professional standing. It took me about 5 minutes to attempt to decipher the pseudonym and do a Google search that resulted in the example used, and that should be of far more concern, because if I can do that, so can anybody. There's no crime in this, and because we don't know who the real person is there is no way for us to verify the truth one way or the other. That's just a fact. There's no allegations being made against anyone in particular. It is the use of the pseudonym that led directly to this situation, while contributing to the continued stigmatization of ufology.

In contrast, those who are open about their involvement in the field don't have to worry about these kinds of issues. It's easy for Chris or myself or Gene or any other known ufologist to prove they have no such allegations hanging over them because anyone who wants to do a background check can do so. Nobody is going to confuse us with the likes of Zachary McCoy or anyone else, including those who use fake names or credentials.

If you think that means you shouldn't drop by as often, I think your reasoning is entirely backwards. You know who we are. We don't hide our identities and we've have spent a lot of time in the field in one capacity or another. That is deserving of respect that contributes positively to the reputation of the field. I'm not saying Koi's work has no merit, just like I'm not saying Imbrogno's work has no merit. The issue isn't about content. It's about ufology, how it is perceived, how that perception supposedly affects people's reputations, and how the use of a pseudonym perpetuates that stigmatization.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

You're missing the point entirely. Whoever Isaac Koi is chose to use a pseudonym allegedly to protect his identity because of concerns that involvement in ufology might affect his professional standing. It took me about 5 minutes to attempt to decipher the pseudonym and do a Google search that resulted in the example used, and that should be of far more concern, because if I can do that, so can anybody. There's no crime in this, and because we don't know who the real person is there is no way for us to verify the truth one way or the other. In addition to that, the use of a pseudonym only adds to the continued stigmatization of ufology, and that doesn't add positively to the reputation of the field.

In contrast, those who are open about their involvement in the field don't have to worry about these kinds of issues. It's easy for Chris or myself or Gene or any other known ufologist to prove they have no such allegations hanging over them because anyone who wants to do a background check can do so. Nobody is going to confuse us with the likes of Zachary McCoy or anyone else, including those who uses fake names or credentials.

If you think that means you shouldn't drop by as often, I think your reasoning is entirely backwards. You know who we are. We don't hide our identities and we've have spent a lot of time in the field in one capacity or another. That is deserving of respect and contributes positively to the reputation of the field. I'm not saying Koi's work has no merit, just like I'm not saying Imbrogno's work has no merit. The issue isn't about content. It's about ufology, how it is perceived, how that supposedly affects people's reputations, and how the use of a pseudonym perpetuates that stigmatization.

I've decided that I have nothing more to say on it again. I've ended up playing the role of outing someone that keeps coming back with a new name. Don't want to play it anymore. May as well drop it Ufo, let the mods go back to sleep, all's good.