Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 An IP address is not enough to identify an individual. Routers perform Network Address Translation (NAT) between the private network and the public internet, so one IP address could have hundreds or thousands of computers behind it. Think of a corporate or public institution network. Also, ISPs change their customer's IP address all the time. Additionally, the IP address shown in an email is NOT the IP address of the sender, but rather, the mail server the user is using. So stories about linking the IP of an email to the hoaxer's IP are... hmm... doubtful. what about this Mulder, you still so sure that rumor you heard was absolute truth that the hoaxer was identified?
southernyahoo Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 SS, a prankster has to go find contact info before they yank on someones chain, usually right before. This can leave a trail and give you a suspect IP.
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Mulder, would you mind, you know, pointing out where they both "explicitly said otherwise" from day 1? I can't hold my breath much longer. RayG Wordsmithing, Ray? You just proved my point. They said they had suspicions from Day 1. They did not say from Day 1 they had suspicions. Two different things entirely. what about this Mulder, you still so sure that rumor you heard was absolute truth that the hoaxer was identified? Since both Ray and Guy rebutted him not even a few posts later, yes I am. I also have talked to people who know computers and it IS possible to find the specific IP addy of any computer if you know how to do it. Law enforcement does it all the time investigating cybercrimes, and lawyers to it in IP piracy cases to identify illegal downloaders.
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I also have talked to people who know computers and it IS possible to find the specific IP addy of any computer if you know how to do it. Law enforcement does it all the time investigating cybercrimes, and lawyers to it in IP piracy cases to identify illegal downloaders. Being hoaxed sucks, I have experienced it, but is it important enough to go that cyber crime route to save egg on the face? The skeptics point and laugh at anything and everything anyway. I was more interested in why they came to the conclusions they did and how. Mulder what about when you made this quote elswhere on the forum? He/They started the thread. By going public with the claim, you (or they) made it the concern of all of us interested in the documenting of this critter once and for all. Why does this apply to the MABRC body claim and not the Elbe trackway?
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I was more interested in why they came to the conclusions they did and how. In a nutshell that is also my interest. Hopefully there will be a report about the investigation published that we can review.
Guest RayG Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Wordsmithing, Ray? You just proved my point. They said they had suspicions from Day 1. They did not say from Day 1 they had suspicions. Two different things entirely. But saying they had suspicions is one thing, showing where they said so an entirely different matter. I'm more interested in you specifically pointing out where they expressed their suspicions, say, in the first week of the discovery. So far you've failed to do so. The skeptics point and laugh at anything and everything anyway. Had you said some skeptics, I'd agree, but you didn't, and I think it rather unfair to lump all skeptics together in a single pot. (not to mention it being a fallacy...) Hopefully there will be a report about the investigation published that we can review. ^^^That. I assure you I won't be pointing and laughing. RayG
Guest Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Had you said some skeptics, I'd agree, but you didn't, and I think it rather unfair to lump all skeptics together in a single pot. (not to mention it being a fallacy...) Ok....SOME skeptics
Guest Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Controversy and the allegation of “Hoax†quickly surrounds any evidence that people present regarding Bigfoot. And rightly so in many cases as far as I am concerned. Specifically, regarding video evidence, I believe there is a dearth of material out there that does not stand up to close and objective scrutiny. The subject of Hoaxing is never far away from a lot of the threads on this forum; there are people on here who simply will not entertain that Bigfoot exists and are adamant that people who claim to have had sightings or experiences are either misidentifying things, or are part of, or victims of, hoaxes. I am fine with that, people are entitled to their opinion whether it is informed or not. It is an opinion nonetheless. With the Bigfoot phenomenon becoming even more entrenched in US culture with the help of mainstream programmes like Finding Bigfoot, I expect we will see more and more hoaxers entering the fray. I don’t think it will be long before we get our first video hoax of a Bigfoot in England – I was very surprised to hear that there have been some sightings of a hairy 8 foot biped in the well-trodden forests of Middle England. To me, that sounds ridiculous, yet I have no problem thinking there might be something in the forest of North America. But what do you think the motivation is behind a Hoaxer? Is it simply because they want to make fools of people? Have a laugh at someone’s expense? Could it be for financial gain? I’ve no idea if there is any money to be made in the Bigfoot world. Unless someone can hoax that a Bigfoot family lives on their property and so are able to sell their property to researchers for a handsome profit. I hardly think it can be called fraud: Plaintiff: “He conned me out of my life savings because I bought his property under false pretences†Judge: “And what were those false pretences?†Plaintiff: “He told me a family of Bigfoots lived thereâ€. Judge: “Next!†Is it for 15 minutes of fame/notoriety? Is it to, paradoxically, convince people that I really did see that Bigfoot, and here are some casts I made the week after. You can stop laughing at me now. Or is it out of spite? You want to fool me because I called in to question XYZ about you as a Researcher. Whilst a lot of the above may be valid reasons, I have to go with many people just want to fool people for a laugh. Please let’s not talk about specific cases that have not been proven to be a hoax, despite the fact you may think they are – the thread will get quickly derailed I’m sure. So if we could steer away from the likes of PGP, Freeman, etc’, and speak more generically about things. Any thoughts appreciated. Best, Lee I'm curious if this applies. I like to pull hoaxes on my friends and family especially the kids. Xmas is coming and evidence of Santa and elves and reindeer will abound. I can see someone thinking he is spreading excitement and joy to believers rather than having some vicious agenda.
Guest Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Being hoaxed sucks, I have experienced it, but is it important enough to go that cyber crime route to save egg on the face? There is no "egg on my face". If LE can use IPs to identify specific individual computers and tie them to a particular person, then that proves that giganto rebutted NOTHING with his blather about changing IP addys. Mulder what about when you made this quote elswhere on the forum? He/They started the thread. By going public with the claim, you (or they) made it the concern of all of us interested in the documenting of this critter once and for all. Why does this apply to the MABRC body claim and not the Elbe trackway? Oh no you don't, John. Not falling for that little trick. Derek and DDA WERE forthcoming about Elbe, unlike Ed and DW. But saying they had suspicions is one thing, showing where they said so an entirely different matter. I'm more interested in you specifically pointing out where they expressed their suspicions, say, in the first week of the discovery. So far you've failed to do so. Since that was never my claim, it's not relevent, and you know it...you're wordsmithing again, Ray.
Guest Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) There is no "egg on my face". If LE can use IPs to identify specific individual computers and tie them to a particular person, then that proves that giganto rebutted NOTHING with his blather about changing IP addys. Oh no you don't, John. Not falling for that little trick. Derek and DDA WERE forthcoming about Elbe, unlike Ed and DW. Mulder, Was not talking about you with egg on your face. You were not involved in the investigation. Really? Were they forthcoming? Where? Have you seen them posting? You have yet to show anything that supports your claim that DDA and DR were forthcoming. Why are you OK with DDA and DR apparently not talking, but you are demanding things from the MABRC? Seems like a double standard Mulder. Edited October 19, 2012 by JohnCartwright
Guest Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Mulder, Was not talking about you with egg on your face. You were not involved in the investigation. Really? Were they forthcoming? Where? Have you seen them posting? You have yet to show anything that supports your claim that DDA and DR were forthcoming. Why are you OK with DDA and DR apparently not talking, but you are demanding things from the MABRC? Seems like a double standard Mulder. John they DID talk. They explicitly said that they had doubts about Elbe from the very first day. They may not have voiced them hen the data was still inconclusive, but they had them. And I'm not trawling an old thread for posts you can look up as easily as I and which we all saw. Your side's repeated insistence that Derek and DDA are somehow not being forthcoming is why they chose to stop posting. You have no one but yourselves and a certain hoaxer to blame.
Guest Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I did go back and look. Not seeing what you are claiming. it would help other investigators to know specifically what and why. It seems a lame excuse for them. It also lets the hoaxer get what he wanted.
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C2W_O9BX4g
Guest RayG Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 They explicitly said that they had doubts about Elbe from the very first day. They may not have voiced them when the data was still inconclusive, but they had them. In other words, there's no timeline showing they had publicly stated their doubts from the beginning, nor have you provided any evidence of that. That's what I had been arguing -- that their public statements for the first few days, indicated they thought the tracks were real. None of us are mind-readers, so we can only form a conclusion based on what they expressed in published writings or an interview. In viewing those writings and listening to the interview, I came to the conclusion that they (DDA & DR) thought the tracks were real in those first few days. I can conclude NOW they think it's a hoax, but I came to no such conclusion in the beginning, given their recorded public statements. RayG
ohiobill Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 You can't always get what you want ... but sometimes you get what you need...a healthy dose of skepticism. Hopefully the next time they investigate they will call on it because hoaxes aren't going away. Mulder - Did they really stop posting because of JohnC? Sometimes folks just need a break from here I think. Everyone makes mistakes and it takes a man to admit it and learn from it. At least no one is accusing them of exactly what you accused Tontar of - avoiding interaction because they are guilty of hoaxing.
Recommended Posts