UFO Silencers target researcher Isaac Koi

[mike]

Below is just one example of the lunatic fringe.

Lunatic Fringe -Aliens - UFOs - Space by Sherry Shriner

Or

The Watcher Files: UFOs, Aliens, Reptilians, Secret Government Black Projects - Sherry Shriner

Be sure to read her article on soul scalping and celebrity vampires

I personally would not want anyone i worked with thinking i was in any way associated with this sort of bat shit insanity.
Issac knowing that this sort of whack jobbery is part and parcel of the UFO genre, Chose to protect himself ,His career and his family from this aspect of Ufology by contributing anonymously.

The stigma is real, and in certain circumstances can be harmful to ones career. He did his best to insure himself against the liability this aspect of Ufology represents.

Its not for Ted or anyone else to insist he conform to their views and dispense with that insurance.

 

[Randall]

Stigma is a mark of disgrace that sets a person apart. Negative attitudes create prejudice which leads to negative actions and discrimination.

I'm following.

Why should the onus be on Isaac to to the honorable thing

Honor is an onus that is on everyone, Koi is no exception.

At the expense of his career and family's security

We don't know that's really the case, but like I said before, the paycheck is beside the point to me. Now if Koi is actually in China or some radical country where real harmful consequences are a realistic possibility, then that would be another story. But even in those situations, not being fearful would certainly speak to the courage of whoever does defy the repression.

When its Ted whose engaged in intimidation and harassment.

I've exposed Roe's faulty reasoning before and it only got me banned. Do I really need to demonstrate I'm not afraid to get banned again ... lol.

I guess its easy to trivialize the effects of such stigma, When its not you who will have to wear the consequences of it.

We don't actually know the consequences here, but either way, trivializing the effects is far better accomplished by hiding and failing to take a stand.

Its not your identity, Your livelihood, Your family Ted is threatening, Why then do you think you should dictate the terms of the actual victims response ?

I don't think I should dictate the terms of the "victims" response. Nor am I sticking up for Roe. I did however make some valid points. Why should those be simply dismissed as irrelevant when they speak to the heart of the issue?

 

[Randall]

Does it matter if you took the train, bus or chauffeur driven Limousine? we are all at the same "event" .

Maybe it's more about the journey and less about the destination.

 

[mike]

I don't think I should dictate the terms of the "victims" response

And yet you've done just that, Over and over.

You've insisted over and over that there would be no consequences for him and that he should adhere to your personal version of honour and take a stand.

We don't actually know the consequences here

On the criminal charge of intimidation, The prosecution does not have to prove the victim felt fear, Only that the perpetrator meant to cause fear.
In a court of law the consequences are in the threat itself, Not any effects they might have on it's target.

 

[mike]

I did however make some valid points. Why should those be simply dismissed as irrelevant when they speak to the heart of the issue?

Like you did with the Hawking quote ?

 

[mike]

We don't know that's really the case

That's what he says in his own words IS the case, of course we can easily put this whole discussion to bed by simply saying he's a liar.
If that's your position fine. We are done here.

 

[Randall]

And yet you've done just that, Over and over. You've insisted over and over that there would be no consequences for him and that he should adhere to your personal version of honour and take a stand.

No I haven't insisted or dictated that Koi should anything. I've said that we don't know what the consequences would be because we don't know the actual situation, and that for me ( personally ), honor and respect for freedom from repression would take precedence over most jobs, except where the consequences could literally be life threatening. I have also said I would applaud the decision for Koi to come forward, but that has to be Koi's decision. I hope that is clear enough for you.

On the criminal charge of intimidation, The prosecution does not have to prove the victim felt fear, Only that the perpetrator meant to cause fear.
In a court of law the consequences are in the threat itself, Not any effects they might have on it's target.

I don't believe in intimidation, and the whole point I'm trying to make is that one should stand-up to it.

That's what he says in his own words IS the case, of course we can easily put this whole discussion to bed by simply saying he's a liar. If that's your position fine. We are done here.

I'd rather you didn't put words in my mouth. I'm not accusing Koi of lying because I have no evidence that he is. Neither am I attacking him or sticking up for Roe, and like I said before, if the subject is "done" then close the thread. Simple. We all move on. There's no fair reason why I should be singled out here.

 

[Han]

Would be grateful if everyone here:

Does Isaac Koi have a right to remain anonymous?

 

[mike]

I'd rather you didn't put words in my mouth. I'm not accusing Koi of lying

Actually you did.

Besides that, we don't even know Koi actually is in law.For all we know, Koi wanted to be taken seriously in ufology and put on the barrister persona to gain credibility, then by hiding behind the veil of fear of stigmatization, nobody would question it. Or maybe his story is true.

He has stated for the record he is a Barrister, Yet you try and make a case he's lying about that to gain credibility.

I think perhaps you are too close to the subject to be able to form an objective opinion on Isaacs predicament . For you Ufology is serious business, You know there are aspects to it that are serious and worthy of research. But most of Joe public isn't as deeply informed as we are.
For them their exposure is peripheral, Movies about aliens IE: make believe and fantasy. Adverts like the one below.

And news items on slow news days complete with smirking presenters and X files music in the background.

Now as a computer salesperson your primary customer is your employer, That is to say you are selling them your skill in sales for a weekly wage.
A bricklayers labourer sells his physical strength and stamina.
A graphic designer/Artist their creativity.

A lawyer, Especially a Barrister is selling Trust.
Their clients may be facing up to life imprisonment, They have to Trust they have hired someone who is their best chance of helping them avoid that.

Anything that erodes that is going to effect their career.

No one hires a barrister because they want to, They do it because they need to.
You simply can't compare a sales job where customers walk into the store of their own free will, to clients who have to hire an advocate because they face serious prison time.

When you are forced to place your utmost Trust in someone you want to know they are Trustworthy.

I remember the horror i felt once when just prior to being put under anesthesia for an operation the anesthesiologist told me that it was her first night at clown school that night and she was excited. (Patch Adams was all the rage, and many wanted to be clown doctors). I can tell you i wanted to get up and run away.

Joe public has a peripheral view of Ufology, and its usually heavily steeped in the giggle factor, Anal probes etc etc
A barristers clients need to be able to trust their advocate is a serious and sober person.

Where a sales person may be able to wear the stigma of being outed as a UFO nut, a Barrister cant. Its not a matter of moral philosophy, Of taking a stand. Taking a stand wont cost a sales person much. It could easily cost a Barrister their career.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I received the following message from Ted Roe, courtesy of Erica Lukes. I have not followed the ins and outs of this matter beyond Sentry's blog and some of the responses. I'm merely the messenger here, and I have no further comment to make about the following:

Colleagues, Friends, Detractors,

I am going to be very direct with all of you, please read carefully.

Isaac Koi has said he is quitting UFOlogy because I threatened to out his true identity. Isaac Koi, Gilles Fernandez and others have promoted this fallacy widely for the past several days.

I have asked Isaac Koi, Gilles Fernandez and others, to provide the screenshot evidence that I threatened to out Isaac Koi. That evidence has not been presented because it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist because I didn’t do it.

Three days ago I posted a public statement denying that I threatened to out Isaac Koi’s true identity. I said, emphatically, that I have no intention of outing Isaac Koi and that doing so would be unethical and ethics matter to me.

Isaac Koi and Gilles Fernandez and others continue to promote this idea that I threatened to out Isaac Koi even though they refuse to present any evidence that I actually did so and while ignoring my assurances to the contrary.

This matter arose when I questioned the veracity of using an anonymous researcher as a reference in a conversation with Chris Rutkowski on Eduardo’s UFO Disclosure page. I pointed out that nobody knew who Isaac Koi is and that it was interesting that so many people allowed someone that doesn’t operate transparently to oversee their research and information.

Gilles Fernandez, as he is known for doing, posted an abusive and defamatory post on the UFO Pragmatism page highlighting his disdain for my opinion about Isaac Koi and for me in general.

I defended myself, as I am known to do, with reasonability for those who are reasonable and disrespect for those who are disrespectful.

At this point Gilles made a claim, a lie, that I threatened to out Isaac Koi and Isaac Koi declared he was quitting because of this lie.

I made an immediate statement assuring Isaac Koi that I would not do that, it wouldn’t be ethical, and I demanded that Isaac Koi and Gilles Fernandez and co. produce the statement from me proving that I threatened Isaac Koi.

So far, Isaac Koi, Gilles Fernanez and co., ignore my statements and continue to promote a lie while refusing to present the evidence of their claim.

The core of investigative skills involves the discovery and logical understanding of evidence and its rational presentation.

Isaac Koi and Gilles Fernandez and co have failed to produce any evidence of their allegation therefore they are lying.

Isaac Koi, Gilles Fernandez and co. are ignoring my assurances and failing to produce evidence of their claim that I threatened Isaac with exposure while attacking and encouraging others to attack my real and public name.

All while hiding behind an alias.

Is this ethical?

I ask again..... Isaac Koi and Gilles Fernandez and co, produce the direct evidence that I threatened to publicly reveal Isaac Koi’s real identity or publicly retract your lie and apologize.

Ted Roe

 

[Erica Lukes]

Curt Collins has posted an "article" about me that is composed of lies.
He seems very anxious to continue this negative situation while the rest of us want to get on to more positive pursuits.

It has been unfortunate to see the way this initial conversation was taken out of context and used to create this situation.
We have both received threats, we have been attacked. This type of behavior is not needed in this field.

Both Ted and I have stated publicly many times that we value the work of KOI. Please step back on look at this situation.

 

[Han]

Hello Erica, I agree when you say that there is too much bullying and ad hominem behaviour in the field of Ufology.

I have read the article I believe you are referring to: Blue Blurry Lines: Erica Lukes, Ted Roe and the Attack on Isaac Koi

In it I saw two screenshots of conversations:

"My guys were at the gepan workshop so there's pics"


&

"watch how I make these malcontents famous anytime someone searches their name."


If this is a genuine misunderstanding and things have been taken "out of context" what were the "pics" Mr Roe was referring to? (or rather who were they of?)

and who was he referring to when he said about making "malcontents" famous?

Or are you saying that Curt Collins "faked" those screenshots, when you say that his article is "composed of lies"?

I have immense regard and respect for "ethics" and think it would go a long way if the above comments made by Mr Roe, (if indeed he did make them) were explained by him, and allow us all to concentrate on more productive matters.

I would be the first to admit that I sometimes say things I regret, and there is nothing more frustrating than when something said is taken out of context, so for me at least, it would help me understand how this situation arose in the first place, if Mr Roe gave his explanation as to why he said the "alleged" things I read in Curt's article.

Thank you

 

[Tannhauser Gate]

It's after the fact but there IS an underlying threat to Issac's anonymity.

And for the record has anyone considered that perhaps Isaac Koi is just that...... A talking goldfish named Isaac who has an interest in ufology and from time to time wanders away from the safety of his fish bowl to collate, file and publish documents pertaining to the phenom at an almost savant and pedantic level?

 

[mike]

 

[Erica Lukes]

OK, so again there are comments here that are taken out of context. Perhaps if the entire thread was included you could see how the conversation went.

 

[Erica Lukes]

Have any of you seen what they have posted about me? Do any of you think that deaths threats are the way to handle things?

 

[Erica Lukes]

Harry, with regard to your question. Ted made the comments you are referring to because both of us were being attacked.

 

[mike]

Can i ask Erica, did Isaac send you death threats ?

I agree the whole story doesn't seem to be on the table, But reading Teds rebuttal it doesn't ring true. He says he never threatened to expose Issacs identify, but unless those screen shots are fakes, he most certainly implied he would. He had to know that the language and implications were likely to cause Isaac to fear exposure of his real life identity. (which they did.)

He seems to be hedging, On the one hand making all the right noises about ethics etc. But any reasonable person reading those screen shots would have cause for apprehension.

The correct and ethical reply to E Muller would have been "Don't you dare, under any circumstances" not "Don't do it.......Yet........" It's that yet that's the threat. It implies a sword of Damocles over his Isaacs head. This is reinforced with his further "If/Then" statement.

If Ted's case is that wasn't a threat, then he may as well piss on our shoes and insist its just raining.

It's clear from the tone of his rebuttal he has a problem with anonymous contributors to the field, And he's entitled to his opinion in that regard.

It's also clear he feels justified in dealing with the disrespectful by replying in kind. And he's entitled to take that approach.

But put together with the comments about pictures of the events, and making people famous in search engines, Its no wonder given the implications that a threat was perceived.

Internet trolling is nothing new these days,We've all been trolled and if we are honest i think most of us have indulged in it ourselves from time to time to one degree or another. But the implied threat to expose his real identity knowing full well that could destroy his career, Thus having a negative impact on his wife and children who have nothing to do with this is crossing a line.

Looking at those screen captures, I find it extraordinary that Ted would claim he never threatened to out him. The implied threat seems very clear to me.

So far I've seen evidence (unless those screen-caps are fake) That Ted and his camp have indeed threatened to out him, Ive seen none to support your claims of death threats as yet.

Not saying they didn't happen, But Ted insists that accusations without evidence is unfair and i think that dynamic goes both ways

 

[mike]

Harry, with regard to your question. Ted made the comments you are referring to because both of us were being attacked.

So your position is Ted did threaten to expose Isaacs real life identity, But that it was justified under the circumstances.

Have any of you seen what they have posted about me? Do any of you think that deaths threats are the way to handle things?

Most certainly not, And if you think those threats are serious in any way i encourage you to go to your local law enforcement office and lodge a formal complaint so it can be investigated and the perpetrator/s punished.

That aside i don't know much more about this. Were they before or after the threats to out Isaac ?. Were they made by Issac or someone else.

At the end of the day you have to deal with the behavior in a lawful way. If someone is trolling a facebook page, block them or complain to FB.
If someone is making threats of violence that you think are serious, Report it to Police.
The law does not allow for you to retaliate. There are provisions to use "reasonable" force in protecting yourself from an actual physical attack, But other wise the Law takes a dim view of vigilantism.

Insults, lies, verbal attacks are sadly part and parcel of the internet these days. You have to deal with them appropriately.
But once it crosses the line into the real world as this threat to expose Isaac did ....... That's not fair or reasonable imo.

 

[mike]

Here's the thing Folks,
I am of the firm mind that there will come a time in humanity's history where this topic will be recognized as the most important thing humanity EVER grappled with.

Are we alone ?

I highly doubt it.

Not only does this phenomena deserve our serious co-operative, collaborative study.
I think the phenomena itself wants it.

Its teasing us, It wants us to learn what it is, in our own time and on our own terms. I could write ten pages of text supporting this premise, But you all know it anyway.

There is NOTHING wrong with Anonymous participation, anyone who thinks otherwise is more focused on personality's than they are the phenomena itself.

We are each of us contributing to history here, Lets stay on the right side of it.

We all KNOW there is something to this phenomena, Its eluding us for reasons of its own. And I get that that can be frustrating.

But lets not turn on each other in that frustration.

Something IS happening, You wouldn't be here if you didn't feel that in your waters as the expression goes.

History WILL record that those of us who put our time and energy into this enigma were ahead of their time, were AWARE in a way so many were not.

We're asking the RIGHT questions, questions the phenomenon itself wants us to ask IMO.

Pursue your passion people, and support those who do it along side you. We wont find the answers kicking each other in our frustration.

If i am right in my guesses, the phenomena wants us to be more co-operative, less combative if its to ever make contact with our species.

If that doesn't happen first within our community of people who recognize the phenomena exists, then there is little hope it will ever happen.

Isaac wants the answers to this question, Just like we all do. All he asks is that his contribution be anonymous. A thousand years from now when this question has been answered. The fact that he put his time and energy into this with no expectation of personal recognition/acknowledgement will seem noble and selfless.

He can withdraw from the field if that's what he feels is best for him and his family. But history will record him thus anyway.

Everything we do is written indelibly on the very fabric of the universe itself, What the ancients called the Akashic records.

This infighting is not helpful or productive.