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

There is no way Ryan could've compared his anon's numbers to Victor's original anon's numbers because, according to Victor, Victor never released any of the info (header info included) to anyone but the neutral third party who is still waiting for Ryan to reciprocate, which as you point out, Ryan has said he will never do.

Springer...

YYZZYY:

Go look again, in this thread Ryan makes the statement that he has in fact confirmed his "anon" is the same as Victor's anon.

Springer...

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Springer]

Maybe this will help?

ValHall's Post

ah, thanks for clearing that up for me springer!

that makes a huge difference if bill hasn't seen "victors's anon" information.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]

Originally posted by waffleprime
ah, thanks for clearing that up for me springer!

that makes a huge difference if bill hasn't seen "victors's anon" information.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]

Now you are "getting it". It's such a huge thread it's hard to point to exactly where stuff is BUT the wonderful BH has linked in her thread the EXACT quotes wherein Ryan states that he "doesn't know anon's email addy but he knows it's anon because of the "IP/HEADER INFO" in the email that matches what Victor got.


YYZZYY I think an APOLOGY to Shawna is in order here.

THANKS BH!

Springer...

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Springer]

Originally posted by ShawnnaBill 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.

According to Victor, right?

Victor gets email from the original Anon, Bill got one from Anon also. Compare the two emails to see if they are from same source. Am I on track so far?

IP's can change. They can be dynamic or static. Sending mail from different computers can result in different IP's. But the real issue here is that Bill claims he compared IP's while Victor says he didn't.

Lets believe Victor for a moment and wonder why would Bill lie. Probably to get past the subject and on to releasing data. If the IP's aren't the same, 40 pages would have been devoted to why not. Maybe Bill is not as tech savy as others and just doesn't know how and thought why even bother. I can retrieve that kind of info out of my Outlook Express email but I don't have a clue how to do the same thing to my Yahoo email.

Offering a third party is a no-no. The name Anonymous is self explanatory. I think Anonymous's last name is Andwanttostaythatway.

This excuse to offer up Serpo as a hoax is weak, very weak. All ATS has done is removed itself from the loop. Perhaps that was the objective to begin with. Regardless, it was a fascinating thread for awhile.

If SERPO is real

Disclosure, if it comes at all, will, IMO, be dribbled in the way we have seen in this humungous thread. I doubt it will come like a sledgehammer between the collective eyes of the human race.

Bill Ryan, et al, will not be the ones who will 'break the story'. It will come from the authorities through people like him to gauge public reaction. If ATS did not actively try to focus on the various discrepancies which show up, the exercise would be useless and give no information back to those authorities which are doing the 'drip feed'.

Does anyone really expect disclosure to come out like a bombshell? I doubt it. This could literally go on for years and more people with credentials in the UFO field could be fed information which will be picked up on forums such as this. Bill Ryan said one thing that resonates throughout the entire excercise...patience.

I agree with SO in that this is far from over. I still think this was only an early attempt at 'feeling the public pulse'.

Mr. Ryan...the internet is ATS on a much wider scale. You will find that all people interested in SERPO will look to verify everything and be eager to get to the desired result...full disclosure.

Come back and let the chips fall where they may.
.

I'm confused on what Bill wrote.

Did he compare the ip address of his anon email to that of the anon who wrote on his comments page?

no where did he say that he verified the ip to victors anon ip.

Hard to make sense of that post.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Maybe this will help?

ValHall's Post

Originally posted by Springer

YYZZYY:

Go look again, in this thread Ryan makes the statement that he has in fact confirmed his "anon" is the same as Victor's anon.

That I realize, but why are you (and apparently the majority of the others) assuming that Bill was referring to Victor's "Anon IP" as his source of confirmation? Can't there be *any* other possibility that Bill might have received confirmation using another method? Can you not think of another way to confirm someone's identity?

My point is, unless Bill DIRECTLY STATED that he determined Anon's identity base on Victor's Anon IP, we should not make that assumption! In fact, we should not be making *any* assumptions.

Originally posted by sandman658
I'm confused on what Bill wrote.

Did he compare the ip address of his anon email to that of the anon who wrote on his comments page?

no where did he say that he verified the ip to victors anon ip.

Hard to make sense of that post.

This is the part:

originally posted by Bill Ryan:
Many thanks. I think you may have misunderstood or overlooked what I said here. What I'd missed until last Friday was that the IP address is (apparently) the same as Anonymous's.

The IP address is (sometimes) the identifying "number plate" or "fingerprint" of an individual computer – and (sometimes) a descriptor of the routing a message takes (a function of the network). The IP address is not visible in the text of the message but is part of the message's "header" (which most e-mail clients, like Outlook, can read if you choose the appropriate menu option).

Here is where he explains he did NOT have anon's email addy but used the IP to confirm.

Springer...

Bill din't outright say "LOOK AT ME I COMPARED I.P.'S"

but, he did say he did not see victor's address's then said that they were the same

contradicting no? to further this belief is he refuses to compare i.p. with victors source...then all we need is a yes from victor and the 3rd party to say "YES, ITS THE SAME" then we're back on the fence.

but, on the other hand...there are i.p hiders and such...or switching computers...I got like 4 computers at my disposal right now if anyones up for an experiment..as you can see I have alot of time on my hands?


[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waffleprime]

This is the part:

originally posted by Bill Ryan:
Many thanks. I think you may have misunderstood or overlooked what I said here. What I'd missed until last Friday was that the IP address is (apparently) the same as Anonymous's.

The IP address is (sometimes) the identifying "number plate" or "fingerprint" of an individual computer – and (sometimes) a descriptor of the routing a message takes (a function of the network). The IP address is not visible in the text of the message but is part of the message's "header" (which most e-mail clients, like Outlook, can read if you choose the appropriate menu option).

I think the word I'm picking up on here is apparently the same as anonymous's.

That sounds very much to me like Bill had it confirmed by some other source not neccesarily Victor. None of us know exactly what is going on behind the scenes of this I'm just hoping we haven't shot ourselves in the foot with this

I am trying to remember this, but didn't Bill say something like a password was being used between him and Anon to confirm identities. I don't know if it was even posted on this board or in one of his radio interviews...Anyone remember this?

If there is a code word being used then why doesn't Bill just say that instead of having a fit over protecting the IP address?

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by sandman658
I'm confused on what Bill wrote.

Did he compare the ip address of his anon email to that of the anon who wrote on his comments page?

no where did he say that he verified the ip to victors anon ip.

Hard to make sense of that post.

This is the part:

originally posted by Bill Ryan:
Many thanks. I think you may have misunderstood or overlooked what I said here. What I'd missed until last Friday was that the IP address is (apparently) the same as Anonymous's.

The IP address is (sometimes) the identifying "number plate" or "fingerprint" of an individual computer – and (sometimes) a descriptor of the routing a message takes (a function of the network). The IP address is not visible in the text of the message but is part of the message's "header" (which most e-mail clients, like Outlook, can read if you choose the appropriate menu option).

Here is where he explains he did NOT have anon's email addy but used the IP to confirm.

Springer...

Let me see if i got this now...

-Bill gets his first message from anon (the 1st to bypass Victor)

-Bill checks IP info from that message

-Bill checks the IP info from a previous comment made by Anon on Serpo.org

-They are the same

-Bill then says he can verify new message is from the same source, although he has no access to Victor's IP info on Anon.

Is this not a possibility... hard to believe this is all a big misunderstanding though? Bill could have cleared this up without any worries over revealing Anon's true identity.

and yet he then says this on another site:
"Here's the situation, which I've already explained... but I can understand its importance. I have an e-mail address and a first name (which I'm sure is a pseudonym anyway). I have some IP information. I will not disclose any of this at present, period."

all of this was posted today on another forum.

incidentally he starts his extremely long rebuttle to nobody other than the admin with this:
"Yesterday when I posted my message to Victor's list I absolutely meant what I'd stated: that I wouldn't be posting on any more forums"

one whole day. kudos my good man.

anon never posted on serpo.org, those answers came from victor martinez's list.

Originally posted by Springer
It's such a huge thread it's hard to point to exactly where stuff is BUT the wonderful BH has linked in her thread the EXACT quotes wherein Ryan states that he "doesn't know anon's email addy but he knows it's anon because of the "IP/HEADER INFO" in the email that matches what Victor got.

WTF? He does NOT state that at all! Show me were he said "doesn't know anon's email addy but he knows it's anon because of the "IP/HEADER INFO" in the email that matches what Victor got."

If you were paraphrasing, then say so. Don't put quotes around something that was never said. I can't beleive I had to say that.

Here's the relevant quotes from Bill:

"I don't have any information about the IP addresses of Victor's Anonymous. Victor will confirm that he had never shared those with me."

"I've never said I've confirmed anything about the IP addresses. I don't know what Victor's Anonymous's IP addresses are."

Question - Can you absolutely verify that this has come from Anonymous and not from some 'pretender'?
"Hi, Zep – Yes, I can."

"I think you may have misunderstood or overlooked what I said here. What I'd missed until last Friday was that the IP address is (apparently) the same as Anonymous's."

"As far as I'm aware, all the information is coming from the same address. But that doesn't mean the same fingers are on the keyboard, or that the address hasn't been cloned, or that the original typist isn't operating to different orders. I really have no idea yet quite what's happening, any more than anyone else has. "

OK, so from this all we know from Bill is that claims to ba able to "absolutely verify that this has come from Anonymous and not from some 'pretender'". Other than that, I don't see anywhere that Bill claims to know it's Anon based upon an IP Address. Bill concedes that the IP is *APPARENTLY* the same in one of his quotes, and "As far as I'm aware" in another, but that implies he doesn't know for sure... again, leading me to believe that he's used another method to verify Anon.

Is anyone undertanding me here?

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
IP's can change. They can be dynamic or static. Sending mail from different computers can result in different IP's. But the real issue here is that Bill claims he compared IP's while Victor says he didn't.

From VallHall's post:
A quote from Bill of unknown (to me) origin:
I don't have any information about the IP addresses of Victor's Anonymous.

And NO ONE has asked that he reveal any information about Anon as far as I know. Ever.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by YYZZYY

My point is, unless Bill DIRECTLY STATED that he determined Anon's identity base on Victor's Anon IP, we should not make that assumption! In fact, we should not be making *any* assumptions.

I'm kind of lost in this thread so I could see where you are coming from YYZZYY.......But Bill could easily clear this up by allowing a cross checking of the IP's with Victor. He has not done this and even refuses to do so.

Why hide it? Victor already has Anon's IP so the "Non disclosure" excuse won't hold up.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

And NO ONE has asked that he reveal any information about Anon as far as I know. Ever.

Then you havent read the thread at all. I have followed the thread since the beginning and I have seen 3 or 4 messeges demanding that Bill reveal Anons identity (or else hes being a "liar for witholding vital info", etc.). But then again... most, if not all of the times I saw those messeges, they were from Shawna. So...


YYZZYY I think I got you loud n clear, and I think were on the same page.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Unplugged]

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Unplugged]

Originally posted by YYZZYY
Is anyone undertanding me here?

I hear ya, but keep in mind that people have been talking through emails, U2Us, other boards, etc., that aren't necessarily listed in this thread.

Ultimately, I'd like to hear Bill's explanation of all this. He doesn't have to reveal any information if he would just say how he knows or doesn't know certain things. Or explain it without the contradictions.

And remember, a skeptical mind doesn't mean we've all given up on Bill. I still think everything I've read 'against' him could be explained if only he would do it.