Quote Originally Posted by Alex Hawley View Post
The assumption made was that Ryan bought Ansel Adams negatives, then shortly after, marketed prints made from those negatives as original Adams prints. There was never any more evidence offered than this singular assumption.
1. Ryan bought a copy negative
2. Ryan auctioned off a print of the same image as that the copy negative was of

I don't think that this is a preposterous allegation at all, Alex, but I also trust in Ryan's integrity and he promptly responded to the post with answers. What was misleading to me is that Ryan multiple times used the term "work" in reference to the CCP and then later had to recant his use of this term and said he "volunteered" at the CCP. I don't believe he did this to mislead people on purpose, but that while volunteering he was literally working (just for no $$$) at the CCP and this is how he saw it--he had no hesitations in stating that he probably misused the term "work" as it could be misconstrued and replaced it with "volunteer."

Is there anything other than circumstantial evidence of any wrong doing? Nope, not at all--is there circumstantial evidence? As stated by Jim_5508 on the LF forum "You can tell by looking at his bid history that he bought an Ansel Adams copy negative and 2 weeks later turned around and sold an "original" print from the same negative," to me this does make me perk up my ears--but as I said above, I have no reason to doubt Ryan and as someone mentioned above: his personal life has no bearing on the actual images which he creates (gotta love that Iceland work).