• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

BoyintheMachine

Paranormal Maven
Hey everyone,

I just wanted to let people know I was banned at the UFO Collective Google Group, which was supposed to be the continuation of UFO Updates. I was banned because I told a debunker that I wouldn't engage in a flame war with them and recommend they go to a debunking group. I had already been tipped off the day before that I was going to be banned by a guy there who said that he uncovered that the group owner and moderator had tricked everyone and the UFO Collective group is a debunking group. I asked him what he meant and he revealed that the owner and moderator supported CSICOP and The Skeptical Inquirer and that on his Facebook page he had them as well as other skeptic groups listed. So we talked further and it just started to click. We were all tricked into joining a debunking group.

My friend Micah attempted to post something in my defense and to warn people that it's a debunking group but Isaac Koi, the owner/mod/debunker has switched it to every message has to be approved by him. My friend's message will likely not see the light of day and he will probably be banned as well. So I'm going to post his reply here so that people can be made aware of the situation.


***********
Can Someone Please Answer These Questions?

1. Why does Isaac Koi, the group owner and moderator, have on his favorites on his Facebook page, "The Skeptical Inquirer (CISCOP)?" He also lists a couple of other skeptical organizations and sites. I think we both know the word "skeptical" here is code for debunker.

2. Why does Isaac Koi allow debunkers to post whatever mean-spirited things they want to say yet he banned a member who has been with UFO Updates since 2005 because he refused to get into a flame war? Why did Isaac Koi praise a debunker at the same time that he banned the member?

3. Why did Jeff Ritzmann attack Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs and Mr. Gammon for their views on alien abduction when he himself claims that an alien in a toga or robe gave him magical fractals? Why is Clueless Wonder, a debunker, quoting and using Jeff Ritzmann at his debunking UFOs blog, as if Jeff Rittzmann is now a debunker too? Does he not know about the magical fractals and that Jeff Rittzmann is not debunking alien abduction, but rather that which is different from his own claims of alien abduction?

4. Why did Jenny Randles criticize Budd Hopkins for using hypnosis and then turn around and try to bring NDEs into the mix? Is that supposed to make sense? I'm tired of these people here who think it's perfectly fine for them to criticize someone but that we shouldn't criticize them for their claims as well. Mrs. Randles, there is no connection between alien abduction and NDEs, at least not the kind that you propose and you are playing into the hands of the debunkers who are laughing at you for making their job easier. You are literally assisting the debunkers.

5. Why does Kevin Randle always pop his head up when someone is trying to debunk alien abduction? Why does Kevin Randle support the ETH on his blog but debunks pretty much everything and everyone in public elsewhere? When will Kevin Randle learn that his same arguments can be used to debunk his research into Roswell? Both alien abduction and Roswell are based on witness testimony. I'm just tired of Kevin Randle's schizo view of Ufology where he can debunk anything he wants but acts like his research is off limits. Debunker, debunk thyself! I know he didn't factor hardly anything into this discussion but he sure as hell popped up his head, like he always does, every time any one attempts to debunk alien abduction. It's like he puts on his bib, grabs his fork and spoon and comes to the feast. How very shallow and hypocritical of you. These same debunkers that you support will turn against you. You are not safe from their debunking. You are merely next.

6. This is 2014. Why are people talking about channeling aliens? Seriously. Why in the world must Ufology be combined with ghosts, boogyman, loch ness monster, and the paranormal kitchen sink? Why can't we treat UFOs as a separate subject until actual evidence is provided that it is connected to something else? The debunkers here are laughing at you. They want you to keep connecting UFOs to the supernatural. They love it. Because you are discrediting yourselves. That's why the debunkers only attack Mr. Gammon because he brought up the ETH. That scares them and so they have to attack. But as long as you people are combining UFOs with the paranormal then you are no threat to them.

7. Why do the debunkers here act like science is against UFOs and why are most Ufologists here anti-science? I swear if I read one more person claim that our science is completely wrong and we need to replace it with their whim of the moment I will unsubscribe. What in the world does the theory of relativity possibly being wrong have anything to do with UFOs?

8. Final question, why are we here on this list that is owned and moderated by a UFO debunker? Were we purposefully tricked and deceived? Did anybody know Isaac Koi was a debunker before this mess happened? A few of us have been talking about forming a new group as we do not agree that Isaac Koi should lead the continuation of UFO Updates. No debunker should. As Mr. Gammon pointed out, debunkers are not part of the UFO community anymore than atheists are part of the religious community. A debunker should never have a position of power over a Ufology group. I don't think people know just how deceptive debunkers are. A debunker will infiltrate a UFO group in order to bring it down. I think we've all let our guards down and joined this list not realizing that it was lead by debunkers. I strongly suggest that we need to take back our own power over the subject and create a new group where we are in charge.


Just for transparency purposes, I am a close personal friend of Mr. Gammon. Thank you.
*******

So I am posting this to let people know. These debunkers are really tricky and you have to be on your toes. I do support the creation of a new group, one not owned and moderated by a debunker. UFO Updates should not go out like this, being replaced with a debunking group. I just can't believe we were all tricked into joining.

-Jason Gammon
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
I'm sorry to hear of this.

Just so you know: I do have the ability to start up a new email-based discussion group here, with somewhat more relaxed moderation. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Just offering it as a possible alternative if enough of the original posters are willing to sign up.

If anyone wants to work with me on setting it up, let me know.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
The answer to all of those questions is the conversation is being controlled. The conversation about UFOs has always been controlled and guided by groups and individuals whose goals are not necessarily related to solving the UFO mystery. One of the most effective control instruments is labeling. The debunker, skeptic, and true-believer labels are as effective as the alien, U.F.O., and flying saucer labels in creating false divisions and roles that beg to be played out.

Raging against the debunker and the skeptic is counterproductive. Skepticism is essential and must be embraced. Debunking hoaxers, frauds, and charlatans is paramount and must be pursued at every avenue. "Believing" things about U.F.O.s should be avoided at all costs.

Aren't clubs where everyone cheers anything that confirms their views and condemns all that oppose them called religions or political parties? The first church of Ufology should shun the disbeliever and protest against the heathen? Should we convert the unwashed or wag the all knowing finger at them? No. At least I don't think so anyway. There is no "us vs. them" unless you choose a label and apply it to yourself.

I think the UFOlogical purist must recognize the need for a robust skepticism and standards of evidence while shunning beliefs about UFOs altogether. The us vs. them business being as counterproductive and useless as the notion that science should be abandoned for magical thinking.

P.S. People also get banned for being rude and presumptuous.
 
Last edited:

BoyintheMachine

Paranormal Maven
I'm sorry to hear of this.

Just so you know: I do have the ability to start up a new email-based discussion group here, with somewhat more relaxed moderation. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Just offering it as a possible alternative if enough of the original posters are willing to sign up.

If anyone wants to work with me on setting it up, let me know.
I think that's a wonderful idea and I would definitely support it.
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
I don't know Isaac personally, however I feel he has made significant contributions to the realm apart from skepticism. I didn't even know about the Google group continuation of UFO Updates. Actually, skepticism is a very good quality to have and maintain with respect to investigating the anomalous. You seem very opinionated to me. Opinionated about that which has NO solid meaning, context, or definition. For instance you stated, "there is no connection between alien abduction and NDEs"

I would certainly advise you yourself in a VERY friendly and polite manner to practice a more so healthy dose of skepticism, because frankly, there isn't a human being on the planet that knows what you stated above to be factual. You don't have a clue just like me or anyone else.
 

BoyintheMachine

Paranormal Maven
The answer to all of those questions is the conversation is being controlled. The conversation about UFOs has always been controlled and guided by groups and individuals whose goals are not necessarily related to solving the UFO mystery. One of the most effective control instruments is labeling. The debunker, skeptic, and true-believer labels are as effective as the alien, U.F.O., and flying saucer labels in creating false divisions and roles that beg to be played out.

Raging against the debunker and the skeptic is counterproductive. Skepticism is essential and must be embraced. Debunking hoaxers, frauds, and charlatans is paramount and must be pursued at every avenue. "Believing" things about U.F.O.s should be avoided at all costs.

Aren't clubs where everyone cheers anything that confirms their views and condemns all that oppose them called religions or political parties? The first church of Ufology should shun the disbeliever and protest against the heathen? Should we convert the unwashed or wag the all knowing finger at them? No. At least I don't think so anyway. There is no "us vs. them" unless you choose a label and apply it to yourself.

I think the UFOlogical purist must recognize the need for a robust skepticism and standards of evidence while shunning beliefs about UFOs altogether. The us vs. them business being as counterproductive and useless as the notion that science should be abandoned for magical thinking.

Trust me, there's a whole lot of "magical thinking" going on over at UFO Collective. The debunkers ignore any and all talk of channeling aliens, spirits, NDEs, etc. However, bring up the ETH and the debunkers come out of the woodwork and are given a free pass. It's reached a point where debunkers don't have to say anything. All of the people talking about "aliens are spirits" are discrediting them selves. There's no need to actively debunk them. They just sit back and laugh. It's the people that want to discuss the ETH that is a threat and must be attacked. If you could see the message where I was banned it was literally like Isaac Koi was high-fiving his debunker buddy. In fact, here is the message where I was banned:

*********
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:45 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm not engaging you in any conversation. You can take your flame war attempt elsewhere, perhaps a debunking forum where you would be more at home.

Jason,

It's not for you to ask other people leave this List and go elsewhere (particularly someone with the knowledge and experience of Peter Brookesmith).

I've given two warnings in recent days about the tone of some recent posts. You appear to have been unable to take the hint.

You are now banned.

I know some other members thought I was taking a bit long doing this (and in fact at least two members left this List as a result), but I wanted to give you a chance.

Goodbye,

Isaac
******

Peter Brooksmith's messages were all anti-ETH, debunking UFOs. Isaac Koi values the knowledge and experience of a debunker because he is a debunker himself. Birds of a feather flock together.
 

BoyintheMachine

Paranormal Maven
I don't know Isaac personally, however I feel he has made significant contributions to the realm apart from skepticism. I didn't even know about the Google group continuation of UFO Updates. Actually, skepticism is a very good quality to have and maintain with respect to investigating the anomalous. You seem very opinionated to me. Opinionated about that which has NO solid meaning, context, or definition. For instance you stated, "there is no connection between alien abduction and NDEs"

I would certainly advise you yourself in a VERY friendly and polite manner to practice a more so healthy dose of skepticism, because frankly, there isn't a human being on the planet that knows what you stated above to be factual. You don't have a clue just like me or anyone else.
You missed the point. A person, in this case Jenny Randles, can not openly criticize someone, make a unusual claim, and then not expect any criticism of such in return. If she wants to criticize Budd Hopkin's hypnosis as unreliable and a practice that he should not have enganged in then she automatically opens herself up to the same criticism with her claim that alien abductions are related to NDEs. The exact same situation is true for Kevin Randle. Mr. Randle will happily debunk alien abduction while not realizing that his same arguments also debunk his life work on Roswell. You can not have your cake and eat it to. If the blade is sharp enough to cut down the entire tree you can not argue that it should only be used on one branch.
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
You missed the point. A person, in this case Jenny Randles, can not openly criticize someone, make a unusual claim, and then not expect any criticism of such in return. If she wants to criticize Budd Hopkin's hypnosis as unreliable and a practice that he should not have enganged in then she automatically opens herself up to the same criticism with her claim that alien abductions are related to NDEs. The exact same situation is true for Kevin Randle. Mr. Randle will happily debunk alien abduction while not realizing that his same arguments also debunk his life work on Roswell. You can not have your cake and eat it to. If the blade is sharp enough to cut down the entire tree you can not argue that it should only be used on one branch.
I'm calling BS. People have a right to make any relevant claim or refutation they believe or define as personally correct according to their own convictions. That *is* the nature of uncertainty. Please explain the above emboldened statement to me, as it's seemingly completely without reason. BTW, alien abduction has never been debunked. Ever. Many people do not contend what is happening is an actual alien abduction, but I know very few skeptics that don't think "something" is happening. Gotta keep it real.
 

manxman

Paranormal Adept
i think what's eating him, is the control issue, posting being monitored by the group admin, and that admin being bias, just like skeptic fora where the rules are stacked and enforced rigorously against a propent, in favour of the home team, it always results in banning the proponent, the clever bit is seeing how long the proponent can dodge the bullet for, eventually tho they will issue enough minor infractions, to amount a ban, its always the same.
 

BoyintheMachine

Paranormal Maven
I'm calling BS. People have a right to make any relevant claim or refutation they believe or define as personally correct according to their own convictions. That *is* the nature of uncertainty. Please explain the above emboldened statement to me, as it's seemingly completely without reason. BTW, alien abduction has never been debunked. Ever. Many people do not contend what is happening is an actual alien abduction, but I know very few skeptics that don't think "something" is happening. Gotta keep it real.

You missed the point again so I will repeat it. You can not openly criticize someone, make an unusual claim, and then not expect similar criticism in return. If you do not understand this then I'm not sure if I can ever reach you.

Jenny Randles posted a message, in a nice way, saying that Budd Hopkin's hypnosis was wrong and he should not have done it. She then turned around and made the claim that alien abduction is related to NDEs, as in paranormal NDEs and not just a hallucination of the dying brain. The second she made that claim she opened herself up to criticism of such claim. Does she have evidence? No, no she doesn't. As Stanton Friedman has said a thousand times or more, we don't do research via proclamation. NDEs are not part of the UFO experience. NDE enthusiasts have their own struggle if they want to have NDEs recognized as proof of an afterlife and existence of the soul. We should not hook up our cart to their cause. In my opinion, UFOs should be treated as a separate subject.

Now you can make whatever claims you want. But when you make a claim you automatically open yourself to criticism. There is no debate on that. Nobody gets a free pass. Nobody should be criticizing some one else's work and then turn around and proclaim something that is in the same category of oddness while expecting no criticism.

As for alien abduction, there are many, many debunkers of the alien abduction phenomenon in the UFO community. UFO Collective is full of alien abduction debunkers. I mentioned Kevin Randle because he is a famous alien abduction debunker. So if you want to discuss the possible reality of alien abduction then that group is not the place for you.
 
Last edited:

BoyintheMachine

Paranormal Maven
i think what's eating him, is the control issue, posting being monitored by the group admin, and that admin being bias, just like skeptic fora where the rules are stacked and enforced rigorously against a propent, in favour of the home team, it always results in banning the proponent, the clever bit is seeing how long the proponent can dodge the bullet for, eventually tho they will issue enough minor infractions, to amount a ban, its always the same.
No, I'm just shocked that most of us on the UFO Updates list were tricked into joining a debunker group. Just when have people wanting to discuss ETH ever been driven into the shadows on UFO Updates?
 

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
I'm a little confused with Koi being framed as the debunker, as this is also the man who has gone through an incredible amount of personal pains to preserve Ufological history online in an extremely thorough and free manner. To me, if anything, he is a credit to anyone interested in engaging the UFO pursuit without any shaping of that pursuit. I am unaware of anyone else engaged in that same degree of historical preservation and am very appreciative of the many ufo audio recordings I've been able to access due to his work.

Emotions always run high in this area and the ETH is one of those common powderkegs of debate. As far as criticisms of ETH, that certainly is the more focussed direction that many in the field are continuing to move towards, though behind the times as far as Vallee and other writers in the field are concerned. As you say, 'flame wars' are hot spaces, but Koi seems to be pretty far away from debunking, just open minded enough to allow for critical perspectives.

If he was a debunker why should he bother with providing open access to so much primary source material? CSICOP's style is to present that info right alongside their requisite explanation of that material, no matter the fact that their explanation may sometimes be even more impossible than the original event.
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
BITM,
I am not missing a thing, and Manx I do understand the new poster's frustration, but badmouthing Isaac on a new forum within the first five posts is NOT like there is a need to wonder if someone has an agenda here or not. I just want some substantiation out of friendly and respectful prudence for Isaac's sake and he does routinely, on occasion, watch and participate on this forum. Isaac is a member here too. Ask @Sentry. One that's been around as long as Kandinsky, or Billy Cox. If Isaac was wrong, he should be ashamed for conducting himself in such a way. However, so far, all we have is begrudging overtones from a biliously upset and thoroughly unknown poster immediately after joining. I feel bad for you, I REALLY do, but apart from gossip column worthy, emotional tabloid accusations that publically defame known good guy contributors to serious Ufological considerations, we ain't got much. And it's YOU BITM that should know better than to blaringly slam someone that to me, frankly, you seem a bit unfamiliar with. How long did you say that you were on that UFO Updates list? What did Isaac just do in large part to better the entire globe's UFO research community in a MAGNONOMOUS way? Defamation is serious business and I know gossipy hurt feelings when I read them in admitted print. Whatever. Without verified proof, slamming Isaac without him being able to defend himself as a fellow member here is defaming. Sadly, this is directly akin to slander, verbally, and liable, in writing . I apologize if I seem out of place here. I won't state anything more on the matter until Isaac has an opportunity to defend himself.
 

BoyintheMachine

Paranormal Maven
I'm a little confused with Koi being framed as the debunker, as this is also the man who has gone through an incredible amount of personal pains to preserve Ufological history online in an extremely thorough and free manner. To me, if anything, he is a credit to anyone interested in engaging the UFO pursuit without any shaping of that pursuit. I am unaware of anyone else engaged in that same degree of historical preservation and am very appreciative of the many ufo audio recordings I've been able to access due to his work.

Emotions always run high in this area and the ETH is one of those common powderkegs of debate. As far as criticisms of ETH, that certainly is the more focussed direction that many in the field are continuing to move towards, though behind the times as far as Vallee and other writers in the field are concerned. As you say, 'flame wars' are hot spaces, but Koi seems to be pretty far away from debunking, just open minded enough to allow for critical perspectives.

If he was a debunker why should he bother with providing open access to so much primary source material? CSICOP's style is to present that info right alongside their requisite explanation of that material, no matter the fact that their explanation may sometimes be even more impossible than the original event.

On Koi's Facebook he has listed his interest in The Skeptical Inquirer (CSICOP), as well as other skeptical organizations. CSICOP is not new to Ufology and CSICOP is not truly a skeptical organization. It is an organization of debunkers who actively debunk subjects. They do not accept the possibility that some or any UFOs may be extraterrestrial in nature. Whenever a person does not even allow the possibility that some UFOs may be extraterrestrial, if they aren't even open to it, then they are a debunker. This is not new. Everyone in the UFO community should very well know that CSICOP is a debunking organization. Yet, Koi has it, and other skeptic groups, listed as his interests.

Koi has allowed debunkers to run amok on the list. When Koi banned me for stating that I would not engage in a flame war with a debunker he also complimented said debunker, saying the debunker had much knowledge and experience. He complimented the debunker who was trying to start a flame war, clear as day. I have posted it above. I'm not posting it again.
 

BoyintheMachine

Paranormal Maven
BITM,
I am not missing a thing, and Manx I do understand the new poster's frustration, but badmouthing Isaac on a new forum within the first five posts is NOT like there is a need to wonder if someone has an agenda here or not. I just want some substantiation out of friendly and respectful prudence for Isaac's sake and he does routinely, on occasion, watch and participate on this forum. Isaac is a member here too. Ask @Sentry. One that's been around as long as Kandinsky, or Billy Cox. If Isaac was wrong, he should be ashamed for conducting himself in such a way. However, so far, all we have is begrudging overtones from a biliously upset and thoroughly unknown poster immediately after joining. I feel bad for you, I REALLY do, but apart from gossip column worthy, emotional tabloid accusations that publically defame known good guy contributors to serious Ufological considerations, we ain't got much. And it's YOU BITM that should know better than to blaringly slam someone that to me, frankly, you seem a bit unfamiliar with. How long did you say that you were on that UFO Updates list? What did Isaac just do in large part to better the entire globe's UFO research community in a MAGNONOMOUS way? Defamation is serious business and I know gossipy hurt feelings when I read them in admitted print. Whatever. Without verified proof, slamming Isaac without him being able to defend himself as a fellow member here is defaming. Sadly, this is directly akin to slander, verbally, and liable, in writing . I apologize if I seem out of place here. I won't state anything more on the matter until Isaac has an opportunity to defend himself.

Isaac Koi censored my voice. He took my voice my from me. I have no choice but to go public. I have posted his email where he banned me. I clearly said that I would not engage the UFO debunker in a flame war. I advised the UFO debunker that perhaps he should go to a UFO debunking group. Isaac Koi responded by taking the side of the UFO debunker, banned me, and complimented the knowledge and experience of the UFO debunker. Now combine this with his interest with CSICOP and other skeptical groups and it is evidence that we may have had a debunker in our midst for a very long time. Why are we acting like a debunker wouldn't try try to infiltrate a UFO group?
 

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
On Koi's Facebook he has listed his interest in The Skeptical Inquirer (CSICOP), as well as other skeptical organizations. CSICOP is not new to Ufology and CSICOP is not truly a skeptical organization.
I'm not sure that having CSICOP on his Facebook confirms any personal debunking stance of Koi's at all. One could argue that keeping your enemies closer than his close friends is all he's doing. I think anyone who is thoroughly engaged in the UFO phenonon will naturally seek out all skeptical inquiry as TO pointed out above. Sometimes I will look at the skeptical and debunking side of a story to see what other possible explanations there might be that i have not thought of, or sometimes I just like to have a really good laugh, and CSICOP can always provide that in a pinch. Koi's larger public profile, and his very actve pursuits in preserving ufological history, should be the more accurate indicator of his agenda.
 

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
Btw, @BoyintheMachine have you read any of Brookesmith's UFO books? He's also pretty far away from being a debunker if his books are anything to go on. Maybe he's just anti ETH? Both Clark and Vallee have taken opposite sides of the ETH debate over the years, taking pot shots at each other here and there, but they're still both ufologists.
 


Top