Shawnna's Last - A Lear Discussion

Suggestions and Improvements

Moderators: ryguy, Zep Tepi

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:47 am

ryguy wrote:I apologize for any of my recent harsh words toward you AD - I have nothing against you and nothing against Shawnna at this point.

Thank you Ry, I appreciate it and the feeling is mutual. We're just not all on the same page on this particular issue and that's OK.

(see my post immediately prior to this one on the previous page)
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Postby ryguy » Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:02 pm

Hi AD - thanks for clarifying some of what you consider the evidence... I'm trying to understand whether this is a matter of us missing some point about the evidence, or you possibly giving something too much credence? From what we've seen so far it appeared to me you might have misanalyzed what you have as evidence.

If that is incorrect, I can accept it, but to convince everyone it'll take a good display of that evidence to prove it. Let's walk carefully on these eggshells and take a look:

Access Denied wrote:No proof? The proof is the email I posted from Simon. They saw the evidence that proves a hoax and they refused it!


The email that you posted, if viewed from an outside and unbiased perspective, quite honestly could also show that they were simply sick of your constant emails on the matter regarding evidence that only you see as substantial and "exclusive" but they don't. Do you see what I mean? Re-read the email and consider it from that point of view - and you can see how that email can't really be considered evidence of anything.

And there’s no denying the Roswell thread was deleted and if it was an “accident” why didn’t they make every effort to restore it? Besides, does anyone who has any experience as a board admin really buy the excuse that deleting all my posts and threads only took a single button click? I wonder why Bill wouldn’t answer my question about vBulletin?


No - probably two clicks to be honest. One to click delete, and a second to confirm the "are you sure you want to delete this topic?" question, or something like that. I think the point they were making wasn't a literal "single-click" but a brainless click-click of the mouse without reading the pop-up messages. I've personally made the mistake of deleting posts here once or twice in the same way. As an admin, those brainless actions are certainly conceivable if one isn't being very careful in their responsibilities as a board admin.

If it appears I'm defending ATS here, I'm sorry - but I'm not. Being annoyingly "on-the-fence" so much, I try to see things from every angle. I see it as a matter of empathy - if one wants to find the truth, one has to be willing to jump over to a side, take a look at the view, the angle, the emotions....and then jump over to the other side and do the same analysis. I am trying to explain how what you are calling evidence only proves what you say it proves, if one is willing to get down, twist their neck, and view that evidence from one particular angle. But if you stand up, take three steps to the left and view it from another angle, your evidence tells a completely different story. When I've taken Shawnna's side of any analysis, in particular on supernatural matters, Steve has asked me about my sanity (jokingly). When I take Steve's side of any analysis, Shawnna has told me at times that I take his side only because we're good friends. I can't control what other people think about me - I just try to keep an open mind and call it how the evidence shows it.

"The LO-2-162H has not been retouched as far as I can tell." and "Through some quirk of fate I not only received one that wasn't retouched but received the actual negative." == John Lear

Anyone who has seen the much higher quality copy of the image I received directly from NASA can clearly see (I even gave you guys clues how to find it and see for yourself!) that it isn't from the same reconstruction of the archived telemetry data due to slight differences in the alignment of the framelets (or "strips") yet it has the same so-called "anomalies" Lear touts as evidence that NASA “screwed up“ and his image is somehow special and unretouched!


Okay - so what you're trying to say is that you were able to (or anyone is able to) obtain the untouched image that Lear claims he "received" through a quirk of fate. If you re-read Lear's comment, you'll notice that he's saying that what is special is that he received the actual negative. It's a matter of bad grammer (he murders sentence structure worse than I do), but he clearly says that through a quirk of fate he not only received one that wasn't retouched, but he received the actual negative. Are you saying you are able to easily obtain a copy of the actual negative from NASA? Because it's pretty clear that in that statement of his, that's all he's saying is "special".

That's not to say I believe Lear's claim either. He does an even poorer job analyzing his "evidence" in order to prove NASA screwed up. Again, he views what he considers evidence through one particular horribly biased angle and fails to take all angles into account. It's an affliction that seem to be a common and contagious.

The bottom line is ATS effectively suppressed this evidence by refusing to post it anonymously on my behalf and then lied about it in public and continues to promote this hoax to this day… and RU appears to be perfectly content with and complicit in protecting ATS. I wonder why?


No - we simply disagree with your take on the matter. From your point of view, you call it suppressing your evidence. From another angle, it could just as easily be seen as simply disagreeing with your analysis of the value of your evidence. As for "and continues to promote this hoax to this day". Do you mean the Lear "hoax"?

If so - if you have evidence showing Lear to be a hoax, we have always been more than happy to promote evidence exposing a hoaxter. But your focus to this point has been to prove that ATS is trying to protect Lear and is ignoring evidence that you have that you consider substantial. You've failed in providing any evidence that ATS ignored anything substantial. What you've proven is that they don't see your evidence as either substantial or very important.

That isn't to say that ATS didn't completely screw up. If your central goal is to prove Lear is a hoaxter - that certainly is central to the goals of RU, and we would be more than happy to promote, discuss, and publish anything you have that might prove that.

Sheesh, no wonder Shawnna quit... looks you guys let the 800 pound gorilla kick your a__.


No - the only side of this debate that was adopted by RU was your side, by Shawnna. That's the issue we had. Steve didn't want to take any side so prematurely, since the evidence did not prove the case appropriately (if viewed from every unbiased angle). But Shawnna was viewing your evidence through only your angle - because of preexisting bias against ATS and their owners. My take at first was excitement at the possibility that this might show strong evidence of a hoax (Lear), and a coverup of that evidence by ATS. But after seeing what was presented as solid "evidence" realized this was more about your disagreement with ATS over what you consider to be substantial evidence. When I saw you focus more on ATS than on John Lear, I had no choice but to jump over to Steve's side of the fence on this matter.

Now...with that said - if you're prepared to go after Lear and prove your case there that he's a hoaxter....I say, let's get on with it. If, once that case against Lear is presented and supported by solid evidence, ATS is shown to have covered up or protected Lear, so be it. ATS's reputation isn't our problem. Exposing hoaxes is our only concern.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Hydden » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:20 pm

ryguy wrote:Being annoyingly "on-the-fence" so much, I try to see things from every angle.


Yes..that was a compliment, not annoyance. LoL

((throws a handful popcorn at Ry))

Hydden
Too much popcorn is never enough!
User avatar
Hydden
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:31 pm

Postby ryguy » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:27 pm

Hydden wrote:
ryguy wrote:Being annoyingly "on-the-fence" so much, I try to see things from every angle.


Yes..that was a compliment, not annoyance. LoL

((throws a handful popcorn at Ry))

Hydden


ROFL....sorry, I wasn't referencing what you said (I actually did take your comment as a compliment) - I was calling myself annoying. My tendency to constantly play devil's advocate on each side annoys me - life could be so much easier if I didn't do that. lol

((picks up a couple pieces of popcorn off his lap and pops them in his mouth))

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby I.P.Freely » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:47 am

This might be a dumass question but how would have a negative? Does that require a camera that uses film? Does nasa or anyone else still use film?
"You can either trust people or not. I choose to trust what people say and sometimes I get lied to. If I were to trust no one I would never hear the truth." - James (IPF) Martell
I.P.Freely
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:48 pm

Postby Access Denied » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:55 am

ryguy wrote:I think the point they were making wasn't a literal "single-click" but a brainless click-click of the mouse without reading the pop-up messages.

That sounds like an assumption on your part but here’s what SO told me in an email when it happened…

It looks as though Simon accidentally clicked the "delete all posts" link which is dangerously close to other administrative links when managing a specific member's account (I need to remove that link!).

I'm doing what I can to try and recover the posts... but the database backup is 3 gigs.


Let me remind you that Mark recently claimed on ATS that Simon accidentally “clicked” this magic “delete all posts” (not just in one thread!) button when Simon’s intention (according to Mark) was to ban me. Now here’s what Simon told me in an email at the time when I asked him why my email address and been changed on my account and I had been locked out…

I do not know why it has changed. Mods do not have the ability to change such details, only administrators.

I can only assume there was some database corruption, or indeed someone has accessed your account. I can assure it was not a member of ATS staff as there is a heavily-complex audit trail for all changes made by both mods and admin-level staff.

I've changed your e-mail address to propulsion.research@gmail.com.

Simon Gray


Note that this was done earlier on same day all my posts were deleted and I was able to post after this so presumably Simon was done "managing" my account at this point. Now here’s what Mark said in an email after my posts were deleted later that evening…

Tom:

I want you to know that I ("Springer") did not disable your account. You've been decent the past couple weeks as far as I know. I also want you to know that the reason I temporarily banned you last time was NOT because you criticized/challenged John Lear's opinions/beliefs it was the acidic way in which you did it, attacking him personally.

[snip zero tolerance lecture]

Best Regards,

Mark


So why would Simon want to ban me as Mark claimed recently? Now note that back in July when who we now know was Springer locked me out Simon said this in an email when I asked him why a post of mine was deleted and I couldn’t log in…

I've looked at the page and I honestly have no idea. Just re-post your comments, we've been having lots of system problems today, it may have been corrupted (as this has happened before, even to myself).

Regards,
Simon Gray


So much for the “heavily-complex audit trail” eh?

As I said before we have evidence in the form of emails, other contradictory public statements made, and knowledge of how vBulletin is organized and works that contradicts all of this. Let me also remind you that Shawnna has already seen all of this evidence and the implication that she jumped to a premature conclusion in this case solely because of a preexisting bias is just plain ignorant of the facts.

I also understand you don’t see how this aspect of my case is relevant so we’ll just leave it at that. If you want to believe they're being perfectly honest about all of this that's your perogative.

ryguy wrote:I've personally made the mistake of deleting posts here once or twice in the same way. As an admin, those brainless actions are certainly conceivable if one isn't being very careful in their responsibilities as a board admin.

Too bad phpBB doesn’t have a soft delete feature like vBulletin eh?

ryguy wrote:Okay - so what you're trying to say is that you were able to (or anyone is able to) obtain the untouched image that Lear claims he "received" through a quirk of fate.

Precisely, although you need to know who to ask and you’ll probably get much better results if you’re a professional and politely ask the good folks at NASA for their assistance.

ryguy wrote:Are you saying you are able to easily obtain a copy of the actual negative from NASA? Because it's pretty clear that in that statement of his, that's all he's saying is "special".

No, I asked for a high-resolution digital copy not a negative. Without getting into boring technical details let me just say the only way you used to be able to get a copy of the hand assembled Lunar Orbiter images was either in the form of a negative (photograph) or a print made from one of those negatives so the point is moot.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... extra9.htm

Also, I strongly disagree with your analysis of his statement. It’s pretty clear he’s also claiming it’s special because it’s not retouched. Besides, the image posted on ATS is a scan of a print. This was admitted after the watermarks were discovered. Even if Lear does have a negative which he hasn’t proven he does so what? It’s nothing special and he’s also failed to prove his image wasn’t retouched by virtue of the fact he failed to produce any proof that any other copy was. My copy is the same as his as far as the so-called “anomalies” are concerned therefore it’s clearly a hoax.

ryguy wrote:As for "and continues to promote this hoax to this day". Do you mean the Lear "hoax"?

Yes.

ryguy wrote:You've failed in providing any evidence that ATS ignored anything substantial. What you've proven is that they don't see your evidence as either substantial or very important.

It sounds like what you really want is a copy of my image. Considering the way Shawnna was treated here I’m not sure I can trust you guys to do the right thing and give her the credit she deserves for investigating this and bringing it to your attention.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Zep Tepi » Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:31 pm

It sounds like what you really want is a copy of my image. Considering the way Shawnna was treated here I’m not sure I can trust you guys to do the right thing and give her the credit she deserves for investigating this and bringing it to your attention.


How shall I put this? No AD, we do not want a copy of your image. If your analysis skills and powers of deduction are anything like displayed in your posts on this site so far, we can do without them, ok?

I don't mean to offend you or sound arrogant, but it appears you are unwilling to actually listen to anything unless it supports your own pre-formed conclusions. It appears you cannot understand that some people see things differently to you. Your accusatory tone isn't nice either, especially in light of everything that has been said so far.

And how many more times should I say this: This isn't an agony aunt site where you can go and compalin about how you have been treated at ATS. Boo hoo, get over it.

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby Access Denied » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:35 pm

Zep Tepi wrote:
And how many more times should I say this: This isn't an agony aunt site where you can go and compalin about how you have been treated at ATS.

You can say it as many times as you want but it isn’t going to make your perception of what this is about true.

So let me get this straight, you don’t think it’s the least bit odd that all my posts were deleted IMMEDIATELY AFTER I offered ATS evidence to refute the claim made by Springer’s pet John Lear and THEN refused to follow up on it?

Believe what you want but this is about ATS promoting a hoax.

Zep Tepi wrote:Boo hoo, get over it.

No offense but I have to ask, how old are you?
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Hydden » Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:16 pm

AD.....really.....just let it go, man.

It's even obvious to me that you're not going to win this argument here.
Go and try to find another forum to post your evidence in if you can't post it at ATS.

Sometimes...you just have to move on.

Hydden
Too much popcorn is never enough!
User avatar
Hydden
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:31 pm

Postby Springer » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:46 pm

I cleared this out because I am following my own advice (found in my signature). This is truly pointless, meaningless and beyond reason.

I'm done.

Springer...
Last edited by Springer on Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Never argue with an idiot. He'll only take you DOWN to his level and beat you with experience!
Springer
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Indian Territory

Postby ryguy » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:50 pm

Thanks for taking the time to respond Springer.

Springer wrote:Hell, I never even realized you thought you had some sort of "proof" that JL's pictures aren't what he says they are (they ARE what he says they are by the way) until I read it here! :lol: I'd say you didn't do a very good job of "selling us" either. Not that you had ever had a chance to after pissing off the whole staff and the owners by being an acidic prick much like you've been here.


I agree concerning AD's antagonistic style, but I suppose regardless of the drama surrounding AD vs. ATS, there's room for some kind of examination of whatever evidence exists. Assuming both sides can avoid pouring more fuel on the fire of course.

AD - the rest of this post is in response to your post above. I know it's long (or "long-winded" as Shawnna likes to say) - just do me the consideration of taking the time to read it all - most of the length comes from quotes.

Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:I think the point they were making wasn't a literal "single-click" but a brainless
click-click of the mouse without reading the pop-up messages.


That sounds like an assumption on your part but here’s what SO told me in an email when it happened…


Um...well yeah, did you not notice the "I think" at the beginning which is how most assumptions begin? You might want to try that sometime when you're making assumptions - it's a nice way to let people know that something isn't a fact yet.

Let me remind you that Mark recently claimed on ATS that Simon accidentally “clicked” this magic “delete all posts” (not just in one thread!) button when Simon’s intention (according to Mark) was to ban me. Now here’s what Simon told me in an email at the time when I asked him why my email address and been changed on my account and I had been locked out…


Why are you starting in on all this again? Did you even read my last post? What does this have to do with providing solid proof that Lear is a hoax?

(...snipped several paragraphs of complaining about deleted posts and disabled accounts...)

Oh, this does need to be pointed out I suppose because you either completely missed the point, or you're intentially trying to mislead (which I hope isn't the case).

I've looked at the page and I honestly have no idea. Just re-post your comments, we've been having lots of system problems today, it may have been corrupted (as this has happened before, even to myself).

Regards,
Simon Gray

So much for the “heavily-complex audit trail” eh?



However, the audit trail comment Springer made was related to changes by mods and admin, yet you make such a comment above in response to Simon's comment about system/database problems. Why would you do that? It's unfair and it's dishonest. I'd have no problem with outlining any activity by ATS that covered up a hoax - but I will not allow someone go on twisting words around trying to make these private emails and PM's appear as solid evidence. I'm not trying to be mean here AD...seriously...but each time you do this, all your proving is that as a forum member you can be quite annoying, disruptive, and get extremely offended if people don't agree with your take on what you consider "evidence".

Please read this next slowly and carefully: I am not saying that the possibility doesn't remain that ATS could be covering up for Lear - but you're putting the cart before the horse. If your evidence regarding Lear is really that amazing - it would make ATS look pretty stupid for ignoring it. Is the photo all you have regarding Lear?

Let me also remind you that Shawnna has already seen all of this evidence and the implication that she jumped to a premature conclusion in this case solely because of a preexisting bias is just plain ignorant of the facts.


Yes - we've seen much of it from what Shawnna was forwarding on (as I said, I was excited about the possibility another hoax would be proven) - but as I watched the exchanges I became more and more disappointed by the lack of good evidence. But I remained hopeful that one of you had something that you hadn't shared with Shawnna or she hadn't shared with us that outlined the Lear hoax. But the focus seemed to be this beef with ATS and not so much exposing the hoax.

I also understand you don’t see how this aspect of my case is relevant so we’ll just leave it at that. If you want to believe they're being perfectly honest about all of this that's your perogative.


Again - you didn't read my post. I see how this aspect of your case could be relevant if you actually have solid evidence of a hoax . But your focus has simply been that ATS is ignoring you. If your evidence regarding Lear isn't really all that significant - then the fact that ATS is ignoring you certainly isn't relevant. I have several forum trolls that I've ignored over time here as well - and I'm sure they develop the same kind of theories about a conspiracy, it's human nature.

Too bad phpBB doesn’t have a soft delete feature like vBulletin eh?


No - it's too bad all of the forum software doesn't have a feature to prevent the users from using it when they are tired, drunk, or simply not paying attention to what they are doing.


ryguy wrote:Okay - so what you're trying to say is that you were able to (or anyone is able to) obtain the untouched image that Lear claims he "received" through a quirk of fate.


Precisely, although you need to know who to ask and you’ll probably get much better results if you’re a professional and politely ask the good folks at NASA for their assistance.


Well now we're getting to the heart of the issue - thank you for responding to that question.

ryguy wrote:Are you saying you are able to easily obtain a copy of the actual negative from NASA? Because it's pretty clear that in that statement of his, that's all he's saying is "special".


No, I asked for a high-resolution digital copy not a negative. Without getting into boring technical details let me just say the only way you used to be able to get a copy of the hand assembled Lunar Orbiter images was either in the form of a negative (photograph) or a print made from one of those negatives so the point is moot.


Let's take at the Lear comment you quoted:

"The LO-2-162H has not been retouched as far as I can tell." and "Through some quirk of fate I not only received one that wasn't retouched but received the actual negative." == John Lear

He makes the statement that it hasn't been retouched. He's saying that through a quirk of fate, he has a negative (allegedly). As you've confirmed, that means the original from which all other copies (like the one you obtained) are made.

My initial mistake was assuming you were quoting the same paragraph. Re-reading what you wrote, I just realized you plucked two sentences out of context. So to properly examine what exactly Lear said, I went back and obtained the entire passage:

Photo Source Information

The first 4 are separate scans of one photo Lunar Orbiter 2-162H. I ordered this photo many years ago from a NASA contractor, I forget which. When the package arrived it was a 16x20 inch negative. It took until a couple of years ago to find someone in Las Vegas that could print from a 16x20 negative. I had 2 prints made, one a 16x20 print and one 20x24 which is now on my den wall. I took the 16x20 over to Bob Lazar's and he scanned it in 4 sections: no. 1 is top left, no. 2 is top right, no. 3 is bottom right and no. 4 is bottom left. No. 5 is a scan of Lunar Orbiter 5-155M.

The LO-2-162H has not been retouched as far as I can tell. LO-5-155 has been retouched which is obvious from others photos I have of 155. The other photo I am referring to is published in "Exploring the Moon Through Binoculars and Small Telescopes by Ernest H. Cherrington, Jr. published in Canada by the General Publishing Co. Toronto, copyright 1969, 1984. It is on page 230 I think but I will check.

LO-2-162H is an oblique photo of the north face of Copernicus looking north. I will post the technical data in the next couple of days. The Lunar Orbiter cameras were launched in 1965-1966 and 1967. There were 5 Orbiters. They sent back thousands of crystal clear photos of the moon. As I mentioned most of these photos have been retouched. Through some quirk of fate I not only received on that wasn't retouched but received the actual negative.

Here is some data on the pictures:

Copernicus 1 through 4 are from Lunar Orbiter 2 H-162; Spacecraft Altitude 45.9 kilometers, camera tilt 69°20’; Frame Center Data: LAT.: 5°30’N, LONG: 20°00W, sun elevation 24°40’. Framelet Bearing: N86°40’W.

Lunar Orbiter 2
Launch: 6 November 1966
Imaged Moon: 18-25 November 1966
Apollo landing site survey mission

Copernicus 5 Lunar Orbiter 5 M155 Spacecraft Altitude 104.2 kilometers Camera tilt: 5°10’ Frame Center Data: LAT.: 10°40’ north, LONG: 20°20’W, sun elevation 18°00’ Framelet Bearing N5°10’E.

Lunar Orbiter 5
Launch: 1 August 1967
Imaged Moon: 6-18 August 1967
Lunar mapping and high resolution survey mission

- John Lear, a Member at ATS


This was printed, of course, before Lear was banned from ATS for two months for violating TAC (so much for protecting Lear huh?)

Anyway - his comment about receiving one that wasn't retouched and was a negative directly followed an entire paragraph outlining how he believes most of these photos have been retouched, yet his particular one is not.

I now understand your point - because if you've shown that his statement that "most of these photos" have been retouched is false - then you've proven that his statement above is a lie. If you obtained one from NASA that matches his "clean" one, then NASA hasn't retouched this photo as it appears Lear claimed.

However the most important thing that needs to be confirmed first is whether yours came directly from NASA. Is there a way to verify you aren't simply using a copy of Lear's photo? Probably your official correspondence with NASA would be sufficient to prove that.

ryguy wrote:You've failed in providing any evidence that ATS ignored anything substantial. What you've proven is that they don't see your evidence as either substantial or very important.


It sounds like what you really want is a copy of my image. Considering the way Shawnna was treated here I’m not sure I can trust you guys to do the right thing and give her the credit she deserves for investigating this and bringing it to your attention.



LOL...that's really funny. I'd actually prefer not having a copy of your photo - because then if our analysis disagreed with yours, and shows that your photo is inconsequential and inconclusive, I'm sure you would be just as quick to develop all kinds of paranoid conspiracy theories regarding us as well. I'd rather not touch the likes of someone this paranoid with a 10 foot pole. However if there's evidence showing Lear has lied - of course I'm interested.

As far as giving Shawnna credit - do you mean like the credit she received for uncovering Doty's law records (or lack thereof?)...or credit for reporting his harassment to his supervision? Or credit for uncovering Victor's sordid past? Maybe you should reread my writeup where I called Shawnna an "intrepid" researcher? These were issues and investigations we all put tons of effort and energy into. No...forget all that - because she's a victim here, and never gets credit for her work...uh, yeah right.

If you want to expose Lear as a hoaxer here, feel free. If you want to do it at some other forum, or on your own website, go for it. If whatever you present, wherever you present it, is a good solid argument supported by strong corroborating evidence - I'll link to it from here either way.

The issue with Shawnna has to do a multitude of factors. Now, a woman who presented herself as a loving and supportive friend to me, a person who presented herself as having integrity, honesty, and a thirst for truth - a woman who sent my family a Christmas card only last month - has now turned on me, and on us. To be quite frank Tom, our situation with Shawnna is none of your damn business.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Access Denied » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:52 pm

Springer wrote:When you did, you presented it as if you had some exclusive (you didn't) and you just didn't want to pony up the extra money for the bandwidth, we weren't interested.

Wrong. I do have an exclusive (prove I don’t!) and you know bandwidth was only one of my concerns (which I know now didn’t need to be). The other much more important one was protecting my privacy. Would you like me to post the email where your response to this was to use the EX tags?

Springer wrote:S.O. had no idea any of this was happening and I didn't know Simon deleted your threads/posts until after someone asked me about it. To think that we should have immediately tried to reconstruct the thread is pure fantasy, until S.O. told YOU that he could try to mine the database for the thread I had NO IDEA it was possible, I honestly believed once a thread was deleted it was permanently gone. The point is though, it was several DAYS or maybe even WEEKS AFTER it was deleted before S.O. even knew about the situation.

Wrong. SO knew about it on the day it happened. The email I posted earlier in this thread was his response (cc: YOU) to an email I sent to Simon (cc: SO) asking what happened. BTW this is all documented in Shawnna’s timeline posted elsewhere here.

Springer wrote:Here's an idea AD:
Why do YOU go build a BIG WEBSITE and put YOUR pictures on it for all the world to see? In the time you have spent crying about getting banned from ATS you could have had it built.

LOL. You know I have a website (and have for over tens years) and the picture is posted there. That’s how I showed it to you when I offered you an exclusive on it. Would you like me to post the logs from my web server that prove you looked at it?
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Access Denied » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:08 am

ryguy wrote:AD - the rest of this post is in response to your post above. I know it's long (or "long-winded" as Shawnna likes to say) - just do me the consideration of taking the time to read it all - most of the length comes from quotes.

But of course! That’s the least I could do in return for your patience.

ryguy wrote:Why are you starting in on all this again? Did you even read my last post? What does this have to do with providing solid proof that Lear is a hoax?

I believe that deleting all my posts was a deliberate attempt to intimidate me in the hopes that I would go away and give up the fight. Of course I can’t prove that but I can show you the numerous inconsistencies that would seem to support this theory… or at the very least give one reason to believe ATS has been less than forthcoming about all of this so it might be wise to take their version of what transpired with a grain of salt. That’s why.

ryguy wrote:However, the audit trail comment Springer made was related to changes by mods and admin, yet you make such a comment above in response to Simon's comment about system/database problems. Why would you do that? It's unfair and it's dishonest.

Actually Simon made the comment about the audit trail not Springer. Was I not clear? If so I apologize. The point I was trying to make is the first time I got locked out of ATS Simon said he didn’t know what happened. Then when it happened again, his response to my suspicion that Springer or perhaps a mod had done it was that he would know if they had because of the audit trail in place. After that I got an email from Springer admitting he was the one who locked me out the first time. If this was the case AND an audit trail was in place then why did Simon say he didn’t know what happened the first time? Is that more clear now?

ryguy wrote:Is the photo all you have regarding Lear?

Yes, although I already proved on ATS that his claim that Lazar knew about Element 115 20 years before anybody else did was bunk and that it was impossible to have a “piece” of it because the half life is a mere fraction of a second… but of course that’s all gone now too. I also tried to point out several times that Lear was (admittedly) involved in a known hoax in the 80s (the “Krill” or Dulce Papers) but seemingly to no avail. Why ATS continues to promote this guy is beyond me. Why ATS thinks I'm a PITA isn't.

ryguy wrote:He makes the statement that it hasn't been retouched. He's saying that through a quirk of fate, he has a negative (allegedly). As you've confirmed, that means the original from which all other copies (like the one you obtained) are made.

There is no original negative from which all other copies are made. The actual original negative is still on the spacecraft which was crashed into the Moon. Copies are made by photographing a hand reconstructed (from archived telemetry data) “master” composite image which is made up of several individual film strips. This way as many negatives could be made and distributed as desired of this “original” and in fact the entire image could be reconstructed if necessary. If you compare my copy to Lear’s you will see that they were actually made from different “original masters” yet the “anomalies” are the same.

ryguy wrote:However the most important thing that needs to be confirmed first is whether yours came directly from NASA. Is there a way to verify you aren't simply using a copy of Lear's photo? Probably your official correspondence with NASA would be sufficient to prove that.

Yes, I do have that correspondence but for obvious reasons I’m not going to post it here.

(I should add though if you've seen it you would know that's impossible . The image truly speaks for itself. For one thing it covers a much larger area.)

ryguy wrote:If you want to expose Lear as a hoaxer here, feel free. If you want to do it at some other forum, or on your own website, go for it. If whatever you present, wherever you present it, is a good solid argument supported by strong corroborating evidence - I'll link to it from here either way.

Thank you, that would be great.

ryguy wrote:To be quite frank Tom, our situation with Shawnna is none of your damn business.

Fair enough.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ochre » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:42 am

Access Denied wrote:I also tried to point out several times that Lear was (admittedly) involved in a known hoax in the 80s (the “Krill” or Dulce Papers) but seemingly to no avail.

I already "revealed" that here on this very site back in July by oh-so-cleverly copying an even older magazine article, so I don't think that was such a revelation. I mean, even I knew it and I haven't been halfway active in this field for months. So I strongly suspect the ATS Amigos were aware of that as well and didn't need you to point it out to them "several times."

And I'm not sure why I'm reviving this week-long dead thread (give me a warning if it's earned), except I've been up all night engaging in heated debate, so it's nice to come here for a break.
ochre
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:36 am
Location: Greater Scandinavia

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:05 pm

ochre wrote:
Access Denied wrote:I also tried to point out several times that Lear was (admittedly) involved in a known hoax in the 80s (the “Krill” or Dulce Papers) but seemingly to no avail.

I already "revealed" that here on this very site back in July by oh-so-cleverly copying an even older magazine article, so I don't think that was such a revelation. I mean, even I knew it and I haven't been halfway active in this field for months. So I strongly suspect the ATS Amigos were aware of that as well and didn't need you to point it out to them "several times."

And I'm not sure why I'm reviving this week-long dead thread (give me a warning if it's earned), except I've been up all night engaging in heated debate, so it's nice to come here for a break.


I doubt that the 3 Amigos were aware of Lear's sordid past (although they ought to have been.) They administer a huge site. The UFO stuff is just a small part of it. While you may say that they have moderators on all threads- I would have to contend that the moderators are mostly dilettantes with little knowledge of the subject matter of the threads that they moderate.

This ridiculous mountebank, John Lear, has been outed numerous times, as you point out. ATS has banned his sorry ass in order to repair their credibility.

I don't believe in bannings. Lear should have been allowed to defend himself (and continue his absurd rant) there and Access Denied should have been granted the same courtesy.

Access Denied's big mistake was attaching himself to Shawwna's (aka the Goddess!) soiled knickers. Yuck.

Lear is a scumbag, petulant poseur as is (was) Shhawwnnaa. AD walked down that same path.

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Site Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests

cron