UFO Silencers target researcher Isaac Koi

[Sentry]

One of the most annoying things is when someone makes a drive-by post to for some spam or promote their agenda. Could this post be any different?

I tried to quit Ufology months ago, cutting down to just one pack a day. Just lighting up one when I really needed it. Recently, a friend was hit by a bus, and (for now) I'm back on the pipe. Please, my brothers and sisters, allow me a moment for a street sermon.

Although my sins are many, my friend, Isaac Koi is like a ufological saint, or at least physician, abiding by the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm." He's posted here at the Paracast forums frequently. His agenda? Promoting the preservation and sharing of UFO history.

Partnerships and organizations and corporations are meant to transcend the individual and combine the strengths of each to form something greater. Not all recipes go as planned, and sometimes the cake falls. Ted Roe and Erica Lukes (both former guests of the Paracast) are founding members of the International Association of UAP Researchers or IAUAPR. At this point, my hands are shaking, and i begin to direct you to the linked article.

In phenomenal circumstances that seem anomalous, defying all reason, Isaac Koi became a villain.

If you dare, read the biased portrayal of events in the link below, and seek the truth for yourselves.
Read it while you can, before the Silencers bring it down. Open the door, the truth is in there.
I can say no more, only cry from the deep caverns of the deros that every word is true.

Erica Lukes, Ted Roe and the Attack on Isaac Koi

 

[Sue]

Attacking koi is illogical and seemingly inexplicable; his archival work will probably be one of the most important things future ufology knows about the contemporary era, while I suspect beWitness will end up being beneath notice. His personal identity is irrelevant; the work he's done for ufology stands on its own merit. I have to question the understanding or sincerity of anyone who claims otherwise.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I wasn't aware Erica was part of this. Live and learn.

We mention Isaac on After The Paracast this week. I understand what it feels like to be attacked unjustly, and this has to stop.

 

[Han]

For what it is worth:

I don't know Isaac Koi, I have seen various posts by him on this forum, and in general he posts information rather than "comment".
What I am trying to say is that: if he wants to stay anonymous that is fine by me, because he is providing information not "authored" by himself.

As for roe: I believe the closest I ever came to being banned from this forum, was during a discussion about "language" in Ufology.

lets just say I am not a fan of roe, because of how he conducted himself whilst talking to me.

the behaviour outlined in Sentry's post came as no suprise, it just confirms what I thought already.

 

[SRL+]

Koi posted volumes of useful information on just about every half-decent saucer website. The other day I was searching for NARCAP, and noticed it had disappeared. For Ted Roe to align himself with anyone associated with MUFON was poor judgement to begin with. It sounds as if Roe is unaware of what Koi represented in actually assisting Roe in a roundabout fashion. In fact, when Roe was engaged in a heated forum discussion here a few years back, Koi assisted in calming the waters.

Although the silencers may have managed to silence Koi for now, at some point he may be able to find new life under another pseudonym.

Unerringly, it seems as though Ufology embraces a knack for its own self-destruction. In Roe’s particular instance, via Erica Lukes.

 

[Randall]

Erica Lukes, Ted Roe and the Attack on Isaac Koi ...

I've crossed paths with Roe ( here ), and the ensuing exchange led to the only time I've ever been banned here. He ended-up getting quite upset when I pointed out what seemed to me to be hypocrisy in NARCAP's image management strategy that IMO threw ufology under the bus. Roe's counterpoint, consisted of comments like this, "We owe you, and ufology in general, nothing. There is no reason for us to abandon image management ..." . We don't need to revisit all that, but the link is there if you want to review the drama.

On Koi, I do recall quite innocently pointing out that his rationale for using a pseudonym didn't really hold water, and that it contributed to stigmatization of the field. I asked why we should simply assume without sufficient evidence that he's a barrister in the UK. I also plugged in a couple of basic anagrams and possible solutions for his alias and came up, purely by chance, with someone who was being accused of some crime, and I made the point that this is an example of how using a pseudonym could backfire.

As a consequence, I was accused of attacking Koi by saying he was a criminal. That is of course not what I was doing, but it does reveal how on top of contributing to the stigmatization of the field, the use of a pseudonym can cause problems one would never expect, not only for one's self, but others as well. I imagine that even saying this will somehow get interpreted by somebody as an attack ( when it's not ). It is simply an observation, and one would think that anyone truly concerned about the field would want to eliminate these kinds of problems rather than perpetuate them by hiding their identity.

So although Roe has a point about Koi hiding behind a pseudonym, NARCAP uses exactly the same rationale to hide behind their personalized pseudonym ( UAP ). We all know UAP is simply a euphemism for UFO. What funny games people play ... lol

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Long and short of it is that we really shouldn't care why Isaac is using a pseudonym. He has done good work, and now the actions of others may prevent him from doing anything more.

 

[Wade]

If Issac posted more about any theories and gave his opinions and if I was in the field I perhaps would be a little concerned about him using a pseudonym and maybe question it a little but being that he tends to acquire and post information for posterity by others that has been around for awhile I can't see why anyone would be concerned about what name he posts under.

If Ted should happen to read this ifaic Isaac's contributed a hell of a lot to this field than you have and you really need to pull that stick out of your ass lest it get too deeply rooted.

 

[Randall]

Long and short of it is that we really shouldn't care why Isaac is using a pseudonym. He has done good work, and now the actions of others may prevent him from doing anything more.

Why shouldn't we care?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Unless you feel — or you can prove — that someone is up to no good, they are entitled to their privacy. Authors and actors use "stage names," and we have accepted that, although the real names of most actors are generally well known before long.

 

[Han]

Why shouldn't we care?

If you were accused of a crime, would you want your lawyer/barrister to be openly active in the field of Ufology/Paranormal?

I can't speak for any other country, but I can assure you that in the UK this wouldn't go down too well.

I have no evidence that Koi is a "real" barrister, but I also have no evidence that he isn't.

As far as I can see he is sharing documents, and not "creating" them, I don't understand why the "provider" of the information is an issue in this particular instance.

He could be a barista, but he still has a right to privacy: if he feels it is necessary to protect his livelihood.

I would feel very differently if he was saying: "I am a (barrister/DR/Scientist etc) and you should listen to me because I am a (barrister/DR/Scientist etc)" without providing credentials.

 

[Randall]

If you were accused of a crime, would you want your lawyer/barrister to be openly active in the field of Ufology/Paranormal?

The answer to that depends on his work. but let's face it, no judge is going to get away with assuming that a legal argument isn't valid because the author has an interest in UFOs. It's ridiculous.

I can't speak for any other country, but I can assure you that in the UK this wouldn't go down too well.

I seriously doubt that it would even become an issue in the first place, and I don't think that UFOs are on any Bar Association's list of no-nos. Can you honestly imagine a prosecutor trying to object to evidence because the attorney for the defense has an interest in UFOs. Please. That's just nonsense.

I have no evidence that Koi is a "real" barrister, but I also have no evidence that he isn't.

So then why believe it? Maybe if he was a barrister in some country where an interest in UFOs would be seen as an offense against Allah or whatever, and could get your head chopped off, I could see the point there. But the UK? Come on. They're nowhere near that level of crazy.

As far as I can see he is sharing documents, and not "creating" them, I don't understand why the "provider" of the information is an issue in this particular instance.

The issue isn't that he or she, whatever the case may be, is providing documents, it's that using a pseudonym contributes to the stigmatization attached to them. Perhaps there are sound reasons for anonymity, but I don't think the one being given is one of them.

He could be a barista, but he still has a right to privacy: if he feels it is necessary to protect his livelihood.

Sure. But having the right to do something and doing what is right are two separate issues, and because we don't really know the truth, we don't really know which way it actually is. We only know the stigmatization is further entrenched.

I would feel very differently if he was saying: "I am a (barrister/DR/Scientist etc) and you should listen to me because I am a (barrister/DR/Scientist etc)" without providing credentials.

I think that is implied even if it's not stated. Lastly, check this guy out: About Mark Anthony | The Psychic Lawyer® | The Psychic Attorney® | Biography | Public Speaker | Medium | Grief Healer | Mark Anthony The Psychic Lawyer ®

 

[mike]

The thing is this genre has some polarized extremes. You don't need to be at those ends of the spectrum to become tarred with that brush though.
I remember finding out someone i worked with was a closet Raelian
Raëlism - Wikipedia
Of all the people at work he could have exposed himself to, I should have been with my interests and experiences open to the revelation, And yet my initial reaction was to be taken aback a little.

Isaac will go down as being on the right side of history, His contribution to the genre is a valuable one.

I've had very close dealings with the legal profession, And while its true no magistrate could hold his interest in UFO's against him in an individual case. The profession itself can very very catty and judgemental of its own kind. Any dirt can become juicy gossip. The stories i could tell you.........

I used to have lunch at the local pub every day with the court solicitors, court registrars and local practitioners and they were always talking about their colleagues. Sexual peccadilloes, drug abuse, gambling problems, You name it if it was nasty, It was fair game for gossip.

It would absolutely have a bad impact on his career, If he were to be seen to be associated with the "lunatic fringe" UFO genre. Which is still how conservative people view it.

The legal profession is Very conservative.

If he is a barrister, Then being outed would in my opinion be a bad thing for him. Solicitors bring a barrister to a trial to add a certain weight to their team. That persons reputation is important in the circles they travel in.
It makes no sense to me, but the reality is two party's go to court, they both hire solicitors to represent them. If one brings a barrister they have an advantage, Don't ask me why but that's the way it goes down
If one bring a barrister and the other brings a QC, The team with the QC has the advantage statistically.

So his reputation with the legal circle he works in is very important, perhaps not directly as it may relate to an individual case by case scenario, but most certainly in the larger context.

 

[Randall]

Unless you feel — or you can prove — that someone is up to no good, they are entitled to their privacy. Authors and actors use "stage names," and we have accepted that, although the real names of most actors are generally well known before long.

Being entitled to privacy isn't an answer as to why we shouldn't care. All things being equal, if we simply want privacy, then fine. But if we want privacy because there is stigmatization about something that shouldn't be stigmatized, then there's something wrong and I think we should care. The specific subject matter is irrelevant. It should just be stopped. So the question becomes, at what point does hiding contribute to the stigmatization and at what point does freely expressing one's interest become a positive force for change? Do we not have more admiration for those willing to risk their reputations to end stigmatization than for those too afraid to freely express themselves in the open? I don't know about anyone else, but I do.

 

[William Strathmann]

The issue isn't that he or she, whatever the case may be, is providing documents, it's that using a pseudonym contributes to the stigmatization attached to them.

This remark, coming from a web personality with 7K posts and the name "ufology," seems ridiculously hypocritical to me. Even if I go to your linked website, Murph, there's no way to know that "ufology" on the Paracast forum is J. Randall Murphy. It took me a while to figure that out. If I joined the Paracast today, I would not know who "ufology" is. So, Murph, since you didn't use J. Randall Murphy when you joined the Paracast forum, you have no justification criticizing others who use a nom de ufologie.

=======================[Editorial Note for Dec 7th]=======================

The issue isn't that he or she, whatever the case may be, is providing documents, it's that using a pseudonym contributes to the stigmatization attached to them.

Not sure that changing your online pseudonym the day that I posted this actually enhances the argument you make Murph.

 

[Randall]

This remark, coming from a web personality with 7K posts and the name "ufology" seems ridiculously hypocritical to me. Even if I go to your linked website, Murph, there's no way to know that "ufology" on the Paracast forum is J. Randall Murphy. It took me a while to figure that out. If I joined the Paracast today, I would not know who "ufology" is. So, Murph, since you didn't you use J. Randall Murphy when you joined the Paracast forum, you have no justification criticizing others who use a nom de ufologie.

Seriously, I don't hide my identity, and I didn't choose the avatar I had at the time to hide my identity either, but to openly support ufology, and I don't hide my identity on the USI site either. Plus I've been identified on the show by my name as well. Your comment is therefore extremely weak. Oh yes and I've been on a couple of other shows as well besides the Paracast. Honestly. If you think I'm trying to obscure my identity here ... that's actually laughable.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Randall please just drop it OK?

 

[Sentry]

The link below is included at the bottom of my article, but repeated here just to make sure everyone is aware of it. Isaac Koi presented the evidence documenting the entire episode and Ted Roe's comments are presented in their original context.

Ted Roe has released another statement claiming that he is the victim of an attack in an attempt to salvage his reputation, essentially saying, "he started it."

This document shows exactly the who, what, where, when and why of how it all happened.
Cross-referenced copy of Isaac Koi’s farewell statement

 

[CuCullen]

This entire thread proves, once again, why I tend to avoid this drama. People just can't seem to be dispassionate critical thinkers online, and there is always a troll or two to stir the pot. Ultimately, there are legitimate reasons to use a pseudonym online if for no other reason than doxxing is a thing, and personal safety is always an issue. I have *many* pen-names over many forums, and none of them are the same. Why would they be? Do I want every script-kiddie who disagrees with any particular comment to find out where I live and threaten me (which has happened to me a number of times, BTW) Who are we to even know if "known identities" are who they say they are short of actually seeing their ID cards in person to match a name with a face? Heck, I could even be Gene Steinberg on Reddit, and no one would be the wiser (j/k, Gene, but you get my point).

Overall, I am genuinely surprised that Ted Roe got involved or cast aspersions against Isaac Koi at all. I've known Isaac through his posts elsewhere for many years and he's done nothing but good work towards a more rational, scientific (and critically minded), UFOlogy.

Here is Ted Roe in his own words, (profanity redacted):

"I have..I'll ask.....Who the f*** is Isaac Koi and why won't he comply w the standards we do?"

Let me provide the only answer that matters. Mr. Roe, why do you feel it is necessary, given what we know about online security and identity, when the message (at least in this small case) would seem to be more important than the messenger?

Ugh. Sometimes, UFO people... Sometimes.

 

[Randall]

Randall please just drop it OK?

Drop what exactly? My right to respond to criticism that is either unfair or inaccurate? Please explain that.