UFO Silencers target researcher Isaac Koi

[Red]

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.

I agree and have uploaded a pdf of the conversation as it was on 12/8/2016. I leave it to everyone to make up their own minds.

edited to note: I did a quick and dirty copy/paste of the conversation, but did not alter or hide names in any way. This was not done to out anyone or start a flame war. Please use this information with discretion and be respectful of the identies of those who are not involved in this dispute.

 

[Han]

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?

I have not seen what you say was posted about you but:

If someone made threats, then I hope they are punished. That is in no way, acceptable.

I urge you to contact the relevant authorities.

Where I live, an online "threat" is a criminal offence, in a similar way to one made in person, by letter or by telephone etc.

It has become obvious to me that: I am not aware of all the facts and information in this case, so until that changes, I can't really add anything more.

I hope this situation is resolved quickly and respectfully, and is not repeated.
For the interests of all concerned, and Ufology in general.

Best wishes

 

[Paul Kimball]

Historian Aaron Gulyas and I weigh in on all of this in the latest episode of The Other Side of Truth, which should be available to Paracast+ subscribers by the end of this weekend.

 

[mike]

I agree and have uploaded a pdf of the conversation as it was on 12/8/2016. I leave it to everyone to make up their own minds.

edited to note: I did a quick and dirty copy/paste of the conversation, but did not alter or hide names in any way. This was not done to out anyone or start a flame war. Please use this information with discretion and be respectful of the identities of those who are not involved in this dispute.

Thanks Red, that confirms pretty much what i suspected all along.

Are these people for real ?

The argument starts over the veracity of a photograph that has been exhaustively debunked by Both Koi and Forgetomori.
The work and effort that went into that is outstanding. Those who know me here know i insist proof of hoax before calling one, And this one has been proved an April fools joke with a level of detail and thoroughness that's as conclusive as it gets.

Koi Alien Photo 01 - IsaacKoi

forgetomori » The FBI/KGB/SS Alien Photo: Found

The work speaks for itself, What a bloody shame to have chased this person out of the field.

Eventually Ted weighs in and its obvious he already has an axe to grind over anonymity and this is just a convenient vehicle to carry it. Even he recognizes Koi's work is of an outstanding quality.

Isaac wasn't even a participant, But on the flimsiest of pretexts, That his "minions" had been abusive at ATS he became the target. Which speaks to pre existing bad blood and an agenda.

Ted makes the absurd claim his anonymity translates to zero credibility, But the counter claim could be made that not seeking the fame and personal recognition that should rightly be attached to such outstanding research and fact finding, Enhances it. The genre is also rife with BS artists and con men. An anonymous profile makes perfect sense if you are going to be calling out the fakers and con men who truly believe the courts and litigation mechanisms are there to protect their dishonesty. Indeed someone called for a lawsuit in that thread.

Its just so typical, Unable to refute his data they attack the person presenting it, In this case all they have on him is his anonymity. So they attacked that.

Unable to refute his facts and research, They instead silenced the man. They knew exactly how to do it, and on a pretext so flimsy it's downright shameful they played that card. Threatening to dig up and expose his private identity, Knowing that would drive him from the field.

Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I don't pretend to know the truth about the supposed threats to 'out' Isaac Koi's real identity - I don't know if it happened, how it happened or why it happened.

I did want to point out that someone who is a barrister in England is in a position higher up the pecking order than an 'average' solicitor/lawyer. I know that in Scotland the equivalent is 'Queens Council' in title so such a person would be named 'Mr John Doe QC'.

I think for cases heard at the High Court, it must be a Barrister or QC that speaks and cross-examines witnesses etc. Someone charged with a serious offence would engage the services of a solicitor to handle the case and if the case goes to trial in the High Court, that solicitor would in turn engage the services of a Barrister to perform all the 'lawyer stuff' actually in court.
Whilst I may have some of this wrong or not quite right, the point is that a Barrister could be the legal equivalent of a Consultant Physician; a senior doctor basically.

Whilst the legitimate private interests of any Barrister are indeed private, it could be argued that public knowledge of an interest in UFOs or the paranormal could potentially harm one's reputation and unfortunately in this day and age with the internet, it is very easy to publicly smear the character of anyone and as has been said previously by others in this thread, the damage to reputation from online facts and/or lies, can be very, very real. I haven't used Facebook for several years now because so much information can be gleaned from our online activity I am annoyed even when I can see that I am targeted with certain types of adverts due to my recent online browsing.

We all know that huge numbers of people have difficulty differentiating what might be real or true reported news and visual content and often reputations are permanently tarnished due to false information online and 'mud sticks' springs to mind in that even when certain information is found to be totally fabricated, the damage to someone's reputation rarely is reversed completely.

So basically, I support people's right to anonymity online 100% with the caveat that such anonymity should never be used as something to hide behind to troll others or behave in various negative ways. Personally I could not care less if anyone finds out I am interested in UFOs because I am willing to explain to anyone interested why I am interested and why I think there is reason enough to be interested.
I think the very fact that I use my real name probably keeps me from overstepping certain boundaries because I have no way of hiding who I am. I'm not into trolling or digging dirt on others online anyway so I see no reason to hide my identity. But I can see why some others might feel the need to and that is fine by me also. To each their own and those who do not set out to harm others have every right to stay anonymous.

 

[Erica Lukes]

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

Hello,

Thank you for your comments.

With regard to Ted Roe's comments they were posted after a a series of personal attacks against me. This is why I must question the intent of someone when they are only giving out portions of a single thread when there is a much deeper history.

As far as Curt Collins blog post:
I was working on behalf of MUFON headquarters when I interviewed Mr. Maussan. I spoke with Mr. Collins on numerous occasions so I could present both sides to the Roswell Slides.
Anyone that knows me or listens to my radio show understands that I have neither the time nor desire to "enact revenge" over the Roswell Slides. I would truly hope that after a considerable length of time we could move on.
I have stated numerous times that the work that was done by certain people in the Roswell Group was thorough, end of story.

With regard to Mr. Collin's comments about me "defending" another fake alien photo, I never stated that the photo was a hoax or genuine.
My comments were simply that we should with hold judgment until we had a chance to review and address the information in Mr. Povenmire's book.

As far as the comments about the MUFON FB page,
His accusations about shutting down the FB page because of John Ventre are completely inaccurate.

Anyone who has been in this field knows very well of the bullying and abuse that take place on social media, in blogposts and on website's. All one has to do is look at the way that Mr. Collins operates to see exactly what I am referring to.

I look forward to moving on!

Erica

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

Thank you for your comments.

First of all let me say that anyone that knows me personally or who listens to my radio show understands that I have better things to do than "enact revenge" over the Roswell Slides. The RRG did a thorough with the investigation,end of story. The fact that this is even a topic of diusscusion is tiresome at best.



This attack on Isaac Koi is Erica Lukes' revenge enacted by Ted Roe, fallout in part from the Roswell Slides fiasco. Lukes was a guest host for MUFON's show on KGRA where she interviewed Jaime Maussan between BeWitness and his MUFON symposium appearance, allowing him to defend the Slides against the critics he said were trying to discredit him. Her primary concern was trying to get the meanies to stop saying unfavorable things about her friends. Lukes has referred to Maussan and Paola Harris as role models that have guided and supported her. She sees anyone criticizing the fakes that these two promote as hateful debunking abusive meanies. She apparently saw the team that exposed BeWitness in that light. Isaac Koi, Chris Rutkowski and I were among the members of the "Roswell Slides Research Group," and it's tragically comic that Lukes rushed in to defend yet another fake photo of a dead alien, this starting this disgusting episode.



There have been shrill cries from Roe and Lukes about bullying and abuse, but they seem to have
engaged in plenty of this behavior themselves while pretending to be the victims. This Dec. 1 post from "UFO Classified with Erica Lukes" shows she hasn't let the Slides fiasco go. She portrays herself as a victim of bullying attacks, just like Anthony Bragalia.

 

[SRL+]

“UFOlogical death of the confidential informant: Erica Lukes full statement and interview”

UFOlogical death of the confidential informant: Erica Lukes full statement and interview - NewsInsideOut

As a brief aside, I found the below as laughable when in respect to anonymity with Ufology, especially, via Facebook.
“According to NewsInsideOut’s Alfred Lambremont Webre there exists an identity-vetting protocol at Facebook whereby members are required by site employees to submit passports and drivers’ licenses."

As if the Ufological swamp couldn’t get any murkier, I’m simply one of countless anonymous messengers …

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I've got to wash the slime from my hands. Let me get some soap.

 

[Han]

Hello,

Thank you for your comments.

With regard to Ted Roe's comments they were posted after a a series of personal attacks against me. This is why I must question the intent of someone when they are only giving out portions of a single thread when there is a much deeper history.

As far as Curt Collins blog post:
I was working on behalf of MUFON headquarters when I interviewed Mr. Maussan. I spoke with Mr. Collins on numerous occasions so I could present both sides to the Roswell Slides.
Anyone that knows me or listens to my radio show understands that I have neither the time nor desire to "enact revenge" over the Roswell Slides. I would truly hope that after a considerable length of time we could move on.
I have stated numerous times that the work that was done by certain people in the Roswell Group was thorough, end of story.

With regard to Mr. Collin's comments about me "defending" another fake alien photo, I never stated that the photo was a hoax or genuine.
My comments were simply that we should with hold judgment until we had a chance to review and address the information in Mr. Povenmire's book.

As far as the comments about the MUFON FB page,
His accusations about shutting down the FB page because of John Ventre are completely inaccurate.

Anyone who has been in this field knows very well of the bullying and abuse that take place on social media, in blogposts and on website's. All one has to do is look at the way that Mr. Collins operates to see exactly what I am referring to.

I look forward to moving on!

Erica









Thank you for your comments.

First of all let me say that anyone that knows me personally or who listens to my radio show understands that I have better things to do than "enact revenge" over the Roswell Slides. The RRG did a thorough with the investigation,end of story. The fact that this is even a topic of diusscusion is tiresome at best.



This attack on Isaac Koi is Erica Lukes' revenge enacted by Ted Roe, fallout in part from the Roswell Slides fiasco. Lukes was a guest host for MUFON's show on KGRA where she interviewed Jaime Maussan between BeWitness and his MUFON symposium appearance, allowing him to defend the Slides against the critics he said were trying to discredit him. Her primary concern was trying to get the meanies to stop saying unfavorable things about her friends. Lukes has referred to Maussan and Paola Harris as role models that have guided and supported her. She sees anyone criticizing the fakes that these two promote as hateful debunking abusive meanies. She apparently saw the team that exposed BeWitness in that light. Isaac Koi, Chris Rutkowski and I were among the members of the "Roswell Slides Research Group," and it's tragically comic that Lukes rushed in to defend yet another fake photo of a dead alien, this starting this disgusting episode.



There have been shrill cries from Roe and Lukes about bullying and abuse, but they seem to have
engaged in plenty of this behavior themselves while pretending to be the victims. This Dec. 1 post from "UFO Classified with Erica Lukes" shows she hasn't let the Slides fiasco go. She portrays herself as a victim of bullying attacks, just like Anthony Bragalia.

Hello Erica, thank you for the reply.

Best wishes

 

[Erica Lukes]

Here is a statement I gave earlier this week in the hopes of clarifying things
“The past few days have been incredibly alarming for an already fractured community. The blatant misinformation that has spread across the internet has resulted in a mob mentality that seems neither interested in the truth nor in understanding the complexities involved in this situation.

“To date, there has been no proof presented by Mr. Gilles Fernandez to substantiate his claims that Mr. Roe “threatened to out” Isaac Koi. Instead we have seen portions of social media posts that have been given to the public in a deliberate attempt to create an abusive environment to discredit myself, my colleague Ted Roe and the International Association of UAP Research.

“We have received threats of physical harm, blackmail and hacking.

“Both Ted and I have stated numerous times that we value the significant work done by Isaac Koi. He has been an important part of this field for many years and it is a great loss to see him leave. It is very clear that the motives of his associate, Gilles Fernandez must be questioned.

“This current situation has highlighted agendas of people dominating the field whose purpose appears to focus on bullying and abusive behavior. We have witnessed an increasingly negative environment that must be examined if we are to move forward in a cohesive and positive manner.

“Many researchers having dedicated considerable time to the field have then been targeted by a negative faction of debunkers who have been allowed to flourish on Facebook and other social media sites. Under such a regime, people who have come into this field seeking answers are discounted, women are targeted and debased.

“This behavior must end. Discussions of anonymity in a field full of disinformation are valid and needed. If we hope to engage the mainstream scientific community then this among many other issues should be addressed.”

Recommended Reading

 

[Randall]

... Many researchers having dedicated considerable time to the field have then been targeted by a negative faction of debunkers who have been allowed to flourish on Facebook and other social media sites. Under such a regime, people who have come into this field seeking answers are discounted, women are targeted and debased. This behavior must end. Discussions of anonymity in a field full of disinformation are valid and needed. If we hope to engage the mainstream scientific community then this among many other issues should be addressed.

Everybody is territorial, wants to promoter their own agendas, and have little time for trying to solve these problems. The obvious solution is a panel of like-minded people who agree on the fundamentals first, but even that seems to be overly optimistic because of the varying viewpoints. I don't think MUFON or NARCAP have it right. CUFOS isn't perfect but IMO it is still the best. So what is the solution? In my experience it doesn't matter how well thought out the plan is, existing egos, agendas and social politics tend to take precedence over ideas that make more sense. Therefore the root problems remain, and that perpetuates the discontent.

 

[SRL+]

What Ufology actually needs are more individuals who truly know what they are discussing, and not in pandering to those of known shadiness.

Jamie Maussan

For instance..., Jamie Maussan who is continually gushed over along with some others of the not-so-dreamy team.

Check out the below @ the 59:15 mark where the gushing commences then terminating in my utter disbelief. In fact, the entire show is pretty much an eye-opener.

MUFON Radio Show - Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Once again, please don’t bludgeon me, as I’m simply the anonymous messenger …

 

[Randall]

What Ufology actually needs are more individuals who truly know what they are discussing, and not in pandering to those of known shadiness. Jamie Maussan For instance..., Jamie Maussan who is continually gushed over along with some others of the not-so-dreamy team. Check out the below @ the 59:15 mark where the gushing commences terminating in my utter disbelief. In fact, the entire show is pretty much an eye-opener. MUFON Radio Show - Tuesday, June 16, 2015 One again, please don’t bludgeon me, as I’m simply the anonymous messenger …

I think you make a really valid point. Do you think @Erica Lukes is genuine but misinformed or knows exactly what she's doing and just playing the game?

 

[SRL+]

That’s a good question there, as how can someone of seeming intelligence be so naïve?

I guess it only just goes to prove that Ufology can be gushing with the mysterious …

 

[Red]

Here is a statement I gave earlier this week in the hopes of clarifying things
“The past few days have been incredibly alarming for an already fractured community. The blatant misinformation that has spread across the internet has resulted in a mob mentality that seems neither interested in the truth nor in understanding the complexities involved in this situation.

“To date, there has been no proof presented by Mr. Gilles Fernandez to substantiate his claims that Mr. Roe “threatened to out” Isaac Koi. Instead we have seen portions of social media posts that have been given to the public in a deliberate attempt to create an abusive environment to discredit myself, my colleague Ted Roe and the International Association of UAP Research.

“We have received threats of physical harm, blackmail and hacking.

“Both Ted and I have stated numerous times that we value the significant work done by Isaac Koi. He has been an important part of this field for many years and it is a great loss to see him leave. It is very clear that the motives of his associate, Gilles Fernandez must be questioned.

“This current situation has highlighted agendas of people dominating the field whose purpose appears to focus on bullying and abusive behavior. We have witnessed an increasingly negative environment that must be examined if we are to move forward in a cohesive and positive manner.

“Many researchers having dedicated considerable time to the field have then been targeted by a negative faction of debunkers who have been allowed to flourish on Facebook and other social media sites. Under such a regime, people who have come into this field seeking answers are discounted, women are targeted and debased.

“This behavior must end. Discussions of anonymity in a field full of disinformation are valid and needed. If we hope to engage the mainstream scientific community then this among many other issues should be addressed.”

Recommended Reading

I'm sorry that you have been attacked and I can assure you that I would never engage in such despicable behavior. I think we can all readily admit that many of us have said unfortunate things at times when certain situations have gotten heated. You had a chance to explain the role you played in the Roswell slides affair, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that issue.

However, I am troubled as you and especially Ted seem to be unable to admit any culpability in the entire affair. Isaac was pretty clear on his facebook page that he was concerned enough by Ted's comments that Isaac felt he had no other choice but to leave the field. I have read the threads on facebook, not just snippets, and I agree the threat was there, even though indirectly. It may not have been what Ted meant to say, but in this instance Ted needs to own the poor choice of his words.

I'm also troubled that you both seem to want to ascribe this whole blow up to a group of anonymous and vociferous debunkers whose only purpose is to harass you and Ted. Are you trying to imply that somehow Isaac was part of the shadowy cabal that exists to harass you? I'm sorry, but I don't really understand how that applies to the situation involving Isaac. Isaac never attacked either one of you as far as I could tell in the relevant conversations.

Identies and credentials don't mean anything if the information presented cannot be verified in any meaningful way. I'm sure we can all think of the those in the field who spin great stories with little proof to back them up, yet these are people we know by their real life identities.

We need to move on. Isaac has left the field, which is a great loss. You and Ted have only lost credibility. Which you will be able to regain, if you both make an honest effort to engage in meaningful research. Posting messages casting blame on everyone but yourselves will do nothing to repair the damage done and only serves to damage your own reputations further.

 

[Randall]

That’s a good question there, as how can someone of seeming intelligence be so naïve? I guess it only just goes to prove that Ufology can be gushing with the mysterious …

What sort of solution do you think can be had ( if any ) to these problems? It's too complex for the average lone analyst like myself to handle without a lot more resources than I have at my disposal.

 

[SRL+]

I’m not a UfOlogist, so I’m really at a loss here, other than to suggest in disposing with the nonsense* before anything meaningful can possibly be accomplished. You know, just that common sense kind of stuff.

*Frauds, hoaxers, hucksters, charlatans, wannabees, etc.

 

[William Strathmann]

It seems to me that an open association of long-time UFO-Paranormal researchers could establish a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" to apply to UFO-paranormal cases and events. The criteria for judgment would be based on three or so elements on a scale of 1 (low) to 4 (high) for each element (let's keep it simple):

a) open methods and methodology
b) proven provenance of evidence, or scientific validity of investigation techniques
c) compellingness of evidence

So, for example, the Roswell slides. Lets say that every associate made the following judgment:
a) 1 ; b) 1; and c) 1, then the Seal of Approval would be 1.1.1. There is no need for the "Seal of Approval" group to get involved in why the evidence is poor or poorly presented, as in fraud or hoax, but simply that it was not open, not provenanced and not compelling.

Or for example the group looks at Isaac Koi. Even without a legal name, the evidence Koi offers can be traced back to all the sources he uses to make his decisions (as far as I know). So for Koi the association members judge: a) 4; b) 4; c) 4, or 4.4.4. That would be his "Seal of Approval" rating.

This "Seal of Approval" group would stay focused strictly on methodology and compellingness of evidence, and not engage in any personal judgments about motivations of other researchers or presenters.

The power of a "Seal of Approval" group lies in being open and fair about the case elements they judge. Once such a group tries to determine someone's motivation, then credibility diminishes. Nor can anyone expect everyone giving instant credence to the results of a "Seal of Approval" group. But if enough of the members are long-time participants in UFO - paranormal research, then it will probably influence the field to some degree, hopefully to a large degree.

 

[Randall]

It seems to me that an open association of long-time UFO-Paranormal researchers could establish a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" to apply to UFO-paranormal cases and events ...

Thanks for your thoughts. I like the idea of a panel and a rating system. The problem is implementation. USI developed a confidence rating system similar to your idea years ago that is available for any group that wants to use it:

USI Confidence Rating



The system is explained in full here ( Source ). Basically it combines the Hynek-Vallée ( AN, FB, MA, CE ) system with Vallée's SVP ( Source, Site Visit, Probability ) rating system, adds a Mnemonic variable for the type of memory the experience is recalled from, adds it all up, averages it out, and arrives at an intuitively simple star-style rating. In addition to the 5 star-rating system, USI also developed a system to rate cases based on PSI factors. Below are the main classes which are distilled in conjunction with the confidence rating above into 24 codes each from 0 up to and including 3 for each type, e.g. an H-3 would correspond to hypnotic reconstruction backed by objective substantiation and a 4-5 star SVPM.

USI PSI Factor Types



The system was reviewed by at least one critic of ufology and given praise for the idea, but the author noted that it hasn't been put into use by any of the major players. I think that has more to do with politics than anything else. So once again, the problem isn't so much one of good ideas, as putting those ideas into practice. This was perhaps the hardest lesson in ufology for me. I naïvely assumed that all of us were one big happy family searching for answers and that good ideas would be readily embraced. I even volunteered to review case files, implement the system, and create an online database free for researchers. I wasn't even given the courtesy of a reply from MUFON.

That was one of the reasons I started USI. But again, good ideas are one thing. Getting anybody to do anything with them is another. Members love the absence of politics and that there are no dues, but few are actively doing anything but providing moral support, which is appreciated, but a project like coding thousands of UFO reports takes time, resources, and cooperation between groups, and three's very little of that going on out there.

 

[mike]

With regard to Ted Roe's comments they were posted after a a series of personal attacks against me.

“To date, there has been no proof presented by Mr. Gilles Fernandez to substantiate his claims that Mr. Roe “threatened to out” Isaac Koi.

You are still making the nonsense claim there is no proof, there is proof. Its been posted here and elsewhere. Even you admit the comments (ie threats) were made by ted but that it was in retaliation for other nasty things said about you, of which to date I've seen no proof whatsoever. Certainly no proof Issac said nasty things about you.

He is entitled to be critical of the slides case, and the involvement of anyone who was promoting them.
And that includes Jamie Maussan's handling of the case.

Within a short time of the Hi res photos being available, the internet sleuths who do what they do so well had busted that case wide open.
They got to the bottom of that one in record time.
It wasn't hard to do, the question that hangs in the air now is why didn't those promoting this case, selling tickets and booking stadiums do this leg work first ?

Its not a long bow to draw to conclude they were too busy rubbing their hands together and contemplating the money to be made to bother doing the sort of work that saw the truth of this matter come to light.

You have no credibility in my book, and wading through the 14 pages of debate at ATS you and Ted have none left at all.

The level of cognitive dissonance you've displayed in your replies here suggest to me you bring nothing of value to this field.

There is proof, even you admit Ted made the comments (And those comments were threats), You accuse everyone else of bullying with no proof of such.

The court of public opinion is no different to the courts of law. When the guilty come before us and show no contrition, no remorse for their actions. Instead play the poor me i am the victim card. The judgment and penalty must be harsher than if they had plead guilty and shown remorse.

I've been to many sites, and read an awful lot about this case. And the court of public opinion almost universally sees you and Ted as the guilty parties, the bully's.