Btw, I added in my email to S.O., that the comment quotes listed by JohnLear were not (but one) directed at him as any personal attack. I've explained that after each quote below.


"By arguing with morons" (jritzmann) - not directed at anyone but Meierites.

"You're not getting another goddamned reply." (jritzmann) -directed at Lear, but obviously not a personal attack.

"I'm done with his sorry ass and this case" (jritzmann) - Referring to the media rep for the case.

"…this case is hogwash...you're an idiot" (jritzmann) - VERY selective edit, as "idiot" is not directed at Lear, but was more of a broad based comment after an IIG member posted a debunking of Meier's "spark" saucer shot. The entire paragraph and thought, lifted from my post:

"And, as I said above, if anyone believes the sparking discs pictures Derek posted *right from the film*, is proof of the reality of Meier's claims and points to anything but that this case is hogwash...you're an idiot (and I mean that in the sense that you don't really think, and you're brain is clearly not working), and you definitely got bigger issues then placing belief in Meier."

I am perfectly within right to call the case hogwash.


"…anyone putting any stock in this crap is an idiot." (jritzmann) - not directed at Lear, same as above.

"I cannot believe the balls these people got." (jritzmann) -not directed at Lear.

"My work in debunking this crap is well known." (jritzmann) - I fail to see how this is insulting to Lear, but he chucked it in there. I think it's safe to say, it IS well known. So...what?

"…stop being such a B.S'.er." (jritzmann) - Yes, directed at Lear. I thought he was B.S.-ing us, because I fail to see how a man with his level of professional accomplishments could possibly feel the Meier case has any weight. I guess I was wrong, as it seems he does. I still respect him for his aerial accomplishments, and no one will ever take that away, but as far as UFO stuff goes? We're at opposite ends of the spectrum.


The bottom line here is while my posts were apparent violations, they accurately depicted my frustration at this nonsense. Was it wrong to use colorful language? Yup. But guess what, I'm human and prone to make those kinds of errors from time to time. Were they directed at anyone in particular? (with the exception of the single one?) No.

None of these were edited. And I'll say again, I'm absolutely disgusted to think MY words were edited in MY name to apparently make a case for getting rid of another member.

Now, I want to know who did it.

I dont think its wrong, if you get angry... you might be slightly less civil than normal - who cares! Nobody is perfect!

Now the question is.. was anything actually ever edited? If not, then clearly somethings gone wrong in the communications department and someones going to be appologising to someone for something.

I think whats "wrong" is the way all of this has been handled, its actually been made into more of a "Drama" than it would have been if everything was just left the way it was


[edit on 5/5/08 by dawa]

Originally posted by jritzmann
Lets make one thing real clear.

I did NOT edit any posts. I did NOT lie about editing any posts. There was nothing to "confess" to. I made the statements, I never edited them.

Personally, I said nothing about any editing. What I said was "Between finding the offending posts, and the offending CM fessing up to such behavior...".

You "confessed" to posting rude/offensive material (including a personal and a few ad hominem attacks). As you said "my posts were apparent violations...".

My problem is that such things often rolled right off John's back; yet your comments seemed to "stick" (so much so that he felt things needed to be aired publically, and he wouldn't settle on dealing with the drama in a behind-the-scenes manner). The only motivations I see for such a "necessity" would be if he felt he needed to be publically-vindicated somehow, and/or he felt the need for some sort of "revenge", to take you down a notch or two, for all of the Meier debunking and ad hominems.

You lost your cool and admit it. Somehow, that wasn't enough for John to let it go. That's what I mean when I said "It would have been nice if John could have been the bigger man when SO received the confession, but I think the chance to publically stick it to Ritz blinded him from that option."

[edit on 5/5/08 by redmage]

Springer says

All S. O. asked of him was to GET OVER the fact that JRitzmann edited his posts and removed the "insults". We don't like drama and that's ALL that would have been.

So someone must have edited a post somewhere, or someone thinks that someone edited posts!

I'd imagine that Moderators, Admins, etc can go about editing posts....

As for John, maybe he just snapped? Everybody has a limit, maybe he wanted some assurance that from now on things that breach the T&C get the snip? But I wouldn't really say thats the issue, the main point is the entire situation was handled in such a strange way.. especially for a community based around conspiracy theories! Digging this stuff up is exactly what this place is for!

Plus, its all so trivial! I never expected people supposed to be grown up and responsible behave like this! I can see a reason for Jritzmann and John getting huffy with each other, but why are the admins and moderators acting like this?

[edit on 5/5/08 by dawa]

The outcome doesn't matter, only the intentions of the individuals involved.

Yeah well, Jeff, John used to irritate a lot of us with his outrageous claims about walking around on the Moon breathing the clean atmosphere, the giant soul catcher thing or no planes on 9/11, and the rest. To some of us, he seemed to be uniquely exempted from the normal site requirement to post some supporting evidence for said claims.

To claim that ATS is some kind of INTEL disinfo site is laughable. Lear by his own admission worked for the CIA for decades flying illicit cargoes around the world, and some of us suspected that HE was sowing disinfo to discredit the '9/11 Truth Movement' with his unsupported claims about 'no planes' and in fact did a pretty good job. Now, whenever I see a post from someone claiming 'no plane at Shanksville' or whatever, the first reaction is always 'Aha! CIA disinfo agent posting again!' Thanks to Mr. Lear.

He did/does display a sense of humor though Jeff. Some of us could learn from that, don't you think?

I've avoided commenting on John's departure until now but having read through this thread I do want to state a few things.

First, the posts by the members are far more perceptive and reasonable than those by the participants in the drama, who are using this thread for after-the-fact self-justification and venting. I see a bagatelle built into a mountain--all over Billy Meier, for Chrissakes--and all the participants, all, far too deeply clinging to entrenched positions well after the fact, when you would have hoped by now that more understanding would have come into play.

In all, a very sad episode for all involved, and no one came out a winner--all lost in some way, and this is leaving bitterness that simply hardens. There should have been some rising above, rather than a clash of strong egos. Oh well, such is life.

As for John, he was a delightful character to have at ATS and I thoroughly enjoyed his board and am sorry he is gone. I know all his faults--it's all been said here a thousand times--but assuming you had a brain and a good BSometer, he constantly provoked thought and investigation, and that in the end is good for us all. He was a provocateur; he loved it, and did it with great style. I do not doubt he posted things simply for the reaction: This site was his playpen, and he reveled in it, and put up with a pack of rude detractors with (mostly) aplomb. He could and often did laugh at himself.

Perhap my fondest thread on this site was "Learology," which popped up just before it all hit the fan, and showed a comradery and joyfulness in silly banter--at John's expense--that is too rare here, and in which he himself took up with gusto and good humor.

His qualities and his experience and extensive knowledge of aviation were huge assets to ATS, and again, if you could sift wheat from chaff, then he brought a great deal here. I'm very sorry to see him gone.

So if I understand it correctly, from the video - as well as from a post {elsewhere on the net} that John made {explaining what had happened between him and the Admin here, showing the communication that took place between him and S.O.} - then the situation can be summarized as this:

Apparently John was initially post banned because there was an issue with ATS staff being able to find the actual statements, {using google, etc.}, which John claimed certain ATS members made about him.

John finds all, but one, of the messages himself. After he 'proves' his innocence it appears all is fine as long as they can just leave this behind them.

It appears what the real issue, at least with John was/is, basically boils down to this:
I would say it seems from his perspective that he feels he was looked at as a liar and that no true effort was made in clarifying the issue before false accusations against him were made. {An irony indeed when you realize why he was initially post banned.}

Also, he had looked at S.O., and Springer as friends, so I guess it hurt all the more.

In the end, both sides are feeling hurt and trying to defend themselves.
From each sides perspective, they are 'right'...but being right does not 'bring together.'

Isnt it time to just move on? And this doesnt mean hiding issues like this in the closet and hoping they go away.

The reason for Johns original post ban no longer exist...why not reinstate him then?
Its almost a tit-for-tat. Again, he may or may not post again if he is reinstated.
If he does, Im sure he wont try to recycle dirty laundry.

The fact is, as you watch the video interview, he is not really talking bad about ATS.
You take from the video whatever it is you want to take away from it.
I have seen, into the 3rd video, some positive comments about ATS and the community. - of course he has stated his grievance with what happened, but that is neither here nor there...why make it a tool in which to divide?

As far as whether this site is owned by the CIA, FBI, etc. - I would say on one level, who cares. People in the CIA have internet connection, they dont have to own a site to go to it to see what people think.

Common sense would dictate that a site like this would be a nice place to come and see what people are thinking.

Now are topics pushed in one direction or another?
I think we can all agree that we try to push our own agendas, and the majority usually pushes their weight.

We know of the issues in most of the forums, from religious to the secret society ones.

What we must do is keep our heads about us.
Just because the majority leans in one direction doenst make it true...
Read and learn to think for ourselves is really what its all about.

Now are certain subjects kind of pushed back and looked at as taboo?
Perhaps, but again this site is not only a community, it is a business, and therefore it has its business interest to look after. - Even if it does, at times, seem to override the open discussion of good topics such as 'legal' usages of Hemp.
- At least they have it in RATS, and this is something to be grateful for.

So, ATS is not without its flaws - nor does it have to be in order for this to be a great place to post. The key is in the content.

Peace

dAlen

Originally posted by yankeerose

Respectfully Ritz.... if you didn't edit the posts, than who did?

And there is this whole subject in a nutshell.

Who can edit a post besides the member?

Who would DARE to edit a CM's post?
[edit on 5-5-2008 by yankeerose]

I don't know, as I'm not privy to how this board works. All I can tell you is I did not. Swear on my life. Never did it.

And ya know what? With some of the stuff I've posted on the board, the work I've done, and as forthright as I've been here, the idea of laying it on me, and people assuming I lied about *anything* or tried to cover my words up, is the biggest slap in the face I've ever gotten in this field.

Someone had better damn sight 'fess up is all I can say.

Originally posted by dAlen
As far as whether this site is owned by the CIA, FBI, etc. - I would say on one level, who cares. People in the CIA have internet connection, they dont have to own a site to go to it to see what people think.

Common sense would dictate that a site like this would be a nice place to come and see what people are thinking.

I disagree.

While I agree that all the CIA, NSA, etc has to do is come here and find out what people are saying, but the claim of the these agencies being infiltrated here or even running the site does matter and a lot.

Even if most of the membership here knows better, some will believe ATS is infiltrated or run by the CIA, and most importantly, the people that never heard of ATS or would come here to present their photos, videos or stories perhaps will think otherwise when they hear about the site.

And user content (quality) is what makes ATS so great. Remember O'Hare? We had numerous witnesses coming to the site for the first time submitting their accounts and in some cases, even photos.

You're entitled to have legitimate doubts about this or any other site especially nowadays, but what John Lear did was immature and incredibly irresponsible because he knows ATS is not run by the CIA. And not only that, but he presented no evidence to back his claims, nor will he ever as we very well know.

And for what? Because he got banned or that he didn't like that someone here might (I'm not convinced) have lied to him? And he said it with a serious face, exactly with the same seriousness and ease that he makes/made all his other claims.

As Springer pointed out, what else, what other stories from John Lear shouldn't we trust?

Its kind of funny. John Lear puts out a video and all the sudden, we're back to talking about him. Didn't we go over all this already? Is there anything new here?
I feel that this is embarassing for ATS, not because of the video but because of our response to it.

Originally posted by kthulu
Its kind of funny. John Lear puts out a video and all the sudden, we're back to talking about him. Didn't we go over all this already? Is there anything new here?
I feel that this is embarassing for ATS, not because of the video but because of our response to it.

I'll stress this: it isn't about John Lear for me. I don't care what he thinks about the UFO subject. The issue for me is that someone edited my posts then edited them back in an effort to concoct some sort of accountability issue and get rid of another member. And to boot, edited them in my name.

Think thats a non-issue? Wait till it happens to you and see how you feel. I got about 2 hours sleep last night for being so incredibly angry. It's friggin outrageous. I have a large post going up on my blog very soon detailing what exactly I *know* happened. Past that, I know no more...but at this point I'd be extremely hesitant to post *anything* on this board again, knowing full well I didn't edit my posts.

Hold on Jeff. Number one this is based on my memory of an event that was four months ago and I was not on the site when it happened, I was in New York City on business.

The issue was not that you edited the threads or didn't edit the threads, we assumed you did because the only edit tags in the posts are yours and we couldn't find the quotes in search.

Bill asked you about it and you said you typed them, we couldn't find them in search so what else were we to think? Our initial reaction was you thought better about it and removed them, after looking into it deeper (again I wasn't involved, this is what I was told at the time) it was discovered that Lear had taken them out of context.

Bill dealt with this and he will straighten this out.

Springer...

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Springer]

Ohh dear me.

What the heck is going on here exaclty ?

UMMM im confused.

Take care.

Regards
Lee