It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Project Serpo: Postings by "Anonymous" -- Breaking news?

page: 229
29
<< 226  227  228    230  231  232 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
If you go back a few posts that is where they banned me. I set up another account to figure out why.
thorshammer is Eben




posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thorshammer
If you go back a few posts that is where they banned me. I set up another account to figure out why.
thorshammer is Eben


That's funny, you aren't listed as banned:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What's with the histrionics dude?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by tjack
Maybe there's a plug-in or 3rd party proggy that converts scanned raster graphics into vector graphics??

This is the only one I'm aware of:
www.adobe.com...
But the features are built into Adobe Illustrator, not Word.
Even still, Streamline/Illustrator converts the line art into one vector drawing, not one with multiple objects.

Illustrator is a very sophisticated program, from what VERY little clicking around in it I've suffered through, yet as you pointed out, it still only outputs a single vector object per converted image .

I must conclude that a similar program, capable of discerning individual elements of a PRINTOUT of a SCANNED, HAND DRAWN image and converting them to multiple vector objects must be similarly sophisticated (if not way more sophisticated).

To me, this doesn't sound like the kind of prog you send along as an attachment to an email. (to be fair, Bill never stated the program was an attachment to an email, he stated it was "a Word program supplied by Anonymous")
I wish Anonymous would share high end software with me for free, but, I digress....

This "Word program" is sticking out like a sore thumb.

from Serpo post 15:
The outlined circle did not appear in the original download; however, as the diagram was scanned, the circle appeared in the Word program.

and after the scanning of the printout of the download, it

created a 4 Mb document and the individual components could easily be accidentally clicked and dragged,

What a weird "Word program", why not just send the picture with the circle in the first place, and have Bill print it and re-scan it, if you're worried about traceability?
Instead Anon sends a weird program and dubious "detailed instructions", when all he set out to do was post a dumb meaningless sketch??

Whats that smell?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Bill Ryan has been PROVEN to be a liar with respect to the information he provided this forum.

He said he had confirmed that the IP's were the same with respect to the information he received directly from ANON, and the information provided to Victor when, in fact, he had not.


OK Shawnna, because I like you (::smooches:
, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you hold information that "PROVES", without a shadow of a doubt, Bill to be a liar. Would you be so kind as to show all of us this valued information? Or, are you going to (once again) smugly decry that you need to "Protect you sources"?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Okay... things are getting out of hand.

To avoid confusion, Eben was not banned, however lucianarchy and a "sock puppet" mightyfine, were banned. I had sent lucianarchy a u2u explaining our policy preventing members from promoting their own conspiracy theory/alien/etc discussion boards without advance permission. We tend to allow this once members become "established", but not so soon after joining. Then the member created an alternate account, and tried again.

People, please... let's have a degree of maturity here.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by YYZZYY
Or, are you going to (once again) smugly decry that you need to "Protect you sources"?


Valhall had indicated that she was in communication with Victor on this subject, and Victor confirmed that Bill never compared the IP's, even though he said here that he did.

It's all in the thread, some 20 pages back.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Valhall had indicated that she was in communication with Victor on this subject, and Victor confirmed that Bill never compared the IP's, even though he said here that he did.

It's all in the thread, some 20 pages back.


I just received an email from Victor not 5 minutes ago that restates Bill as NOT compared IPs as of today either...

FWIW
Springer...

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Springer]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Bill States on his message that I read, that he plans to not reveal the I.p. info at all. so that leaves this search at a stale endeavor..unless someone breaks the law and cracks his email...and gets the info themselves. but, eh, I'm to lazy to be breaking any rules. *opens bag of cheetos and adjusts underwear*

how about them steelers?

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Valhall had indicated that she was in communication with Victor on this subject, and Victor confirmed that Bill never compared the IP's, even though he said here that he did.

It's all in the thread, some 20 pages back.


I've read every bit of this thread from day one (yes, it's true). Though I may have missed it, I can't find where Bill claimed he was going to compare the IPs. As far as I can recall, Bill has always maintained that he would never reveal *any* of Anon's info to *anyone*, Victor (and his third party people) included.

Do you have a link that shows Bill claiming to have compared IPs?

EDIT ---> PS SkepticOverlord please address my question to you on page 230. Thanks.


[edit on 6-2-2006 by YYZZYY]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waffleprime
Bill States on his message that I read, that he plans to not reveal the I.p. info at all. so that leaves this search at a stale endeavor..unless someone breaks the law and cracks his email...and gets the info themselves. but, eh, I'm to lazy to be breaking any rules. *opens bag of cheetos and adjusts underwear*

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]


Pretty CUTE after he told this forum he in fact has confirmed his "Anon" was the same as Victor's eh?


Springer...



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by YYZZYY
OK Shawnna, because I like you (::smooches:
, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you hold information that "PROVES", without a shadow of a doubt, Bill to be a liar. Would you be so kind as to show all of us this valued information? Or, are you going to (once again) smugly decry that you need to "Protect you sources"?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by waffleprime
Bill States on his message that I read, that he plans to not reveal the I.p. info at all. so that leaves this search at a stale endeavor..unless someone breaks the law and cracks his email...and gets the info themselves. but, eh, I'm to lazy to be breaking any rules. *opens bag of cheetos and adjusts underwear*

how about them steelers?

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]


This might be a good time to check the T&C:

"10.) You will not use these Forums for the purposes of sharing or distributing viruses, licenses, registration information, software keys, "cracks," or other information designed to do harm to or allow unlawful access to any computer hardware, software, networks, or any other systems."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm sure that anyone doing something like this would be severely dealt with.

And yeah, Dem Steelers did well.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I have been folllowing this post from the start, and I must say whether
Bill was right or wrong , he was always a gentleman. We should have
disagreed in the same manner, we would have gotten answers to the
questions we still have.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
the only thing bill confirmed was the names from anon that read on the header I'm assuming though..I have no clue about the email or the i.p...in my opinion, I think that was enough to satisfy bill that it is anon...but, double check triple check is what its about. I think the community refuses to be run amuck by falsehoods and that why they..we, need to know.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynomor
I have been folllowing this post from the start, and I must say whether
Bill was right or wrong , he was always a gentleman. We should have
disagreed in the same manner, we would have gotten answers to the
questions we still have.


After nearly a week of asking politely both behind the scenes and here I doubt what you say is true (he would've answered the questions).


People didn't get "heated up" simply because he evaded and dodged for a few minutes. They got "hot" after DAYS of frustrating evasion.

I understand why he didn't answer though... No biggie.
One can not answer that which will prove one to be something other than what one presents.


Springer...

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Springer]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
No offense Shawnna but that does not prove he lied.



Originally posted by Shawnna
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Help me understand what would PROVE it to you?? How many times does this forum have to repost items that have been posted before?

Bill said that he verified that his Anon was the same Anon that communicated with Victor. The only way he could do that was to compare IPs - he has not done that.

What, specifically, are you trying to get at here?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sandman658
No offense Shawnna but that does not prove he lied.


Originally posted by Shawnna
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Indeed. Once again Shawnna proves her Analytical Prowess by linking to a "my friend told me" statement. Sigh...

Evidently I need to repeat myself as it appears I was ignored...

I've read every bit of this thread from day one (yes, it's true). Though I may have missed it, I can't find where Bill claimed he was going to compare the IPs. As far as I can recall, Bill has always maintained that he would never reveal *any* of Anon's info to *anyone*, Victor (and his third party people) included.

Does ANYONE have a link that shows Bill claiming to have compared IPs???

PS SkepticOverlord please address my question to you on page 230. Of course any other Admins (and everyone else) may comment as well. Thanks. \



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Help me understand what would PROVE it to you?? How many times does this forum have to repost items that have been posted before?

Bill said that he verified that his Anon was the same Anon that communicated with Victor. The only way he could do that was to compare IPs - he has not done that.

What, specifically, are you trying to get at here?



yeah, thats the only way We would know..cause we're all about proof.
but, bill said the headers had the same name and email and that he had some i.p. information...I figure that for him that was enough to make that conclusion as they're "compared" and apparently so, that isn't enough...he needs to take it right to the source to be certain, which he's not intending to do.

"I can easily take 2 m&m's and say their both m&ms but, that doesn't mean their the same piece on candy."


my spelling is horrible. forgive me?
[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Bill said that he verified that his Anon was the same Anon that communicated with Victor. The only way he could do that was to compare IPs - he has not done that.


There ya go again, spouting nonsense as if it's the gospel. Why is it only a very few here seem to be able to see through this ignorant spew!?!?




top topics



 
29
<< 226  227  228    230  231  232 >>

log in

join