Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 I've seen comments that this trackway must have taken hours to do, why do people think that?
gigantor Posted October 13, 2012 Admin Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) I can't believe you're trying to argue technical details with me but it's friday night and I'm bored, so I'll entertain it. When you go to whatismyip.com, that is the PUBLIC IP of the router, not your computer's IP address. The DNS hostname can only be attached to static IP addresses. Dynamic IPs are assigned generic hostnames, they have nothing to do with your computer. For example, the dynamic Ip address of my router is 69.137.148.xxx The hostname of that IP is c-69-137-148-xxx.hsd1.md.comcast.net. A generic DNS name. ------ Did you run IPCONFIG on your command line? Edited October 13, 2012 by gigantor
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Gigantor is right about IP addresses, but I think it`s unlikely that the hoaxer and the member in question happened to share the same IP address. I think they were the same person. Edited October 13, 2012 by OntarioSquatch
gigantor Posted October 13, 2012 Admin Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) That's the point, you need to confirm that from other than just IP addresses. I guess I'm just tired of the insinuations, if anybody knows who it is, come out and say it, show your proof; or forever shut your mouth. I hate the secret squirrel game. Edited October 13, 2012 by gigantor 2
ShadowBorn Posted October 13, 2012 Moderator Posted October 13, 2012 Who cares who the hoaxer is,it makes no differance.DHCP will always be and be renewed.Hoaxing makes no differance unless you are in the field and expierance it by locals wannabees.Would it not be funny if the hoaxer doing the hoaxing really met with a Bigfoot.It would be like the kid that cried wolf. This is a joke!
gigantor Posted October 13, 2012 Admin Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) yeah, that was out of line, I'm sorry. Just my opinion. Please continue. Edited October 13, 2012 by gigantor 1
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 That's the point, you need to confirm that from other than just IP addresses. I guess I'm just tired of the insinuations, if anybody knows who it is, come out and say it, show your proof; or forever shut your mouth. I hate the secret squirrel game. Forum rules won't allow it, even if they have the information you want.
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 I don't think it was out of line, just poor presentation, I have demonstrated that technique myself from time to time.....
Guest RayG Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 I can't believe you're trying to argue technical details with me but it's friday night and I'm bored, so I'll entertain it. I'm not trying to argue technical details, I'm saying if the IP address that shows up on a forum is the same IP address that shows up the same day in an email, it's in all likelihood the same person. Not sure what you think I'm arguing. When you go to whatismyip.com, that is the PUBLIC IP of the router, not your computer's IP address. The DNS hostname can only be attached to static IP addresses. Dynamic IPs are assigned generic hostnames, they have nothing to do with your computer.For example, the dynamic Ip address of my router is 69.137.148.xxx The hostname of that IP is c-69-137-148-xxx.hsd1.md.comcast.net. A generic DNS name. Correct, that's the hostname of your computer unless/until your ISP resets it. And when your IP address shows up on a message forum or on a website, it will be 69.137.148.xxx, which should also be the one that shows up in your email header. It may not be 100% conclusive, but it would certainly be suspicious. Did you run IPCONFIG on your command line? ipconfig /all is better. I switched from DSL to cable back in August and had forgotten that I configured my system to use Google DNS settings instead of the default ones from my new ISP. ipconfig /all will show me that, ipconfig by itself won't. And when I was running WinXP on my systems I used to configure the LAN settings in IE to use a proxy server with the loopback IP address of 127.0.0.1 so I wouldn't have to worry about the kids inadvertently surfing the net with it. Worked like a charm and Firefox was completely unaffected. IE free since 1994!! Love talking geek, but doesn't satisfy my curiosity about the Elbe trackway hoax. Just how easy is it to fool bigfoot researchers anyway? If anything it kind of ends the argument that humans can't make convincing trackways. RayG
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 Due to a lack of conclusive evidence, I'm assuming here that a skeptic created the Elbe trackway that has gotten a few proponents very upset. And, from what I've gathered, the trackway was not proclaimed a fake because of the trackway, but was instead questioned as a hoax because of the computer forensics involved. You know what they say about "assuming" things, Ray. Your theory is directly contradicted by the statements of Derek and DDA, who indeed DID have problems with the trackway from the start, but felt that there was a possibility they could be wrong, so they continued the investigation. The computer stuff was just the "final nail" in the hoax coffin.
gigantor Posted October 13, 2012 Admin Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) It may not be 100% conclusive, but it would certainly be suspicious. Thank you, my point exactly. Are we now accepting suspicion as proof? Edited October 13, 2012 by gigantor
Guest RayG Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 Nah, they were duped for nearly 10 full days. Where exactly are you getting your information Mulder? My timeline of the events show no statements from Derek and DDA that directly contradict my assertions. I'll show you my timeline if you show me yours. RayG
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Ten days is not very long in the theme of investigation something Ray, there is no big scofftic victory here, you can attempt to call it anything you want, but it was nothing but malicious, shameful, and an insult to the people who are attempting real research here. Do you wish to understand, and get to the bottom of the Sasquatch mystery? Or are you seeking to attempt to win an argument under the guise of critical thinking? Does it bring you satisfaction to attempt to "humiliate" researchers? How about running some comparison guidelines on any investigation of any thing at all? I read your timeline on Jreff,it means nothing. Gee, we had them scratching their heads for ten full days, lets be proud. These are valid questions,in my opinion, since the word duped was brought into play. Edited October 13, 2012 by JohnC
gigantor Posted October 13, 2012 Admin Posted October 13, 2012 I agree. Although I can imagine it was a hoot for the hoaxers during those 10 days, they failed in the end and actually helped researchers by testing their skills. Thank you hoaxers!
Recommended Posts