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

[edit on 2/8/06 by dogberts not]

[edit on 2/8/06 by dogberts not]

Well Centrist...if I follow you, you're hypothesising that the JPEG image has encrypted info into the shapes or image itself, and the program decrypts the image after it is scanned, and then authenticates the user?

If so...interesting James Bond type stuff there, all I was trying to do is get them to move in a conventional way ...

Starting to get out there, may have to detach my safety rope connecting me to the box...

Originally posted by Centrist

....the image that appeared on the screen with selectable objects was actually stored IN the word program -- the "WORD program" may not have been "Microsoft Word". That program may have just have the function of authenticating the user (by the scan) and then displaying a predetermined image in with selectable elements. All the scanning and testing with other programs will never yield the same result.

WJ

Two things:

First, Anon knows Bill has a Mac.

Second, if the file was received in an e-mail there would be no need to authenticate the user. Bill had to ID himself to retrieve it.

However, it is possible that a self-extracting zip or WinRAR file could open on a predetermined image.

To that end, it would be necessary for Bill to describe the screen itself, any messages he saw, etc...

The e-mail I use automatically checks attachments for virus before giving the option of saving or opening the file. (And on dial-up Bill would have had a LOT of time to look at the screen while receiving a 4.3M file.)

Edited to add:

Your hypothesis takes me back to my defense of Victor where I spoke of stereographical encryption, multiple layers or channels being evidenced in the same view. However, once Bill printed that file, he effectively destroyed those layers. He now has only what he scanned.

G





[edit on 8-2-2006 by garyo1954]

From what I can gather he created the word file when HE copied the image in the email into word to print it, then scan it etc...

Springer...

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Springer]

Where did he say this Springer ?

Sorry for the one liner, hay it's not now ...

Maybe this is not clear to you. Let me try to clear it up.

I'm not having a go but I don't really think you are reading or understanding what I am saying, or for that matter what Centrist is suggesting, as he posted pretty much what I did, in the next post although obviously a lot better worded!

A. Bill was sent the 4.3Mb file and the Word program both from anon.

B. Bill was following instructions from anon to download the file, scan it and then upload the image into the Word program.

C I am slightly more intelligent I hope, than to think a printed image on a piece of paper can contain any more information, related to the 4.3Mb other than the actual size of the image,.I was talking about the actual shape of the image, and the details of it could would be recognised by the Word program, and maybe this would unlock something I'm not sure what sort of like a password but in a visual format.

D. The Word program obviously is important otherwise anon wouldn't have sent it I'm pretty sure Bill is capable of obtaining his own software.

Like I said I'm not having a go I think you just mis-understood my point and I will also say again this is wild speculation just seems plausible!

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Well Centrist...if I follow you, you're hypothesising that the JPEG image has encrypted info into the shapes or image itself, and the program decrypts the image after it is scanned, and then authenticates the user?

JM -- I agree it's far fetched, but let me clarify. No, I don't think there's "hidden" data in the jpeg -- just certain metrics that allows the scanner program (the word program) to identify whether the "key" image is present on the scanner. If it is, then the "word program" creates an image on the screen. The image shown on the screen is not derived from image data from the scanner (I think) -- the image on the screen was stored within the "word program" itself... Bill didn't say how big the "word program" was, did he? that might give a clue, but it's hard to say.

Why use two files then? Security. You can't access the image data in the "word program" without instructions and a "keycard" image. Alone, the three pieces of the puzzle are useless if someone gets ahold of them. Get all of the pieces together, though, and put them together properly, and you get to access to the picture.

Like i've said.. just an interesting thought I had I'm sure it's nothing more than that.

Well...

That's the problem I have with it, if it's "intercepted" then they have both the image and key program...

I mean wans't the program sent along with the image ?

show us/give us the files.

10 to 1 odds says he won't do it for the same reason he won't share the headers. I.e., not because it would reveal his source, but because it would reveal him for what he is.

[edit on 2/8/06 by dogberts not]

[edit on 2/8/06 by dogberts not]

[edit on 2/8/06 by dogberts not]

Rabbit and Centrist, You guys are really smart! Just wanted to get that out.

I wish Bill had done a step-by-step, chronological account of events like your post, Whiterabbit. The vagueness and incompleteness of his responses (all of them) have me a little bit miffed.

But I finally understand the possibility that you are talking about.

No one knows of a piece of software that does what you're proposing (this key and lock function), you're just speculating, right?

Springer, what does it mean that Bill "created the Word file"? That he drew it? I don't understand that...

Originally posted by Centrist

JM -- I agree it's far fetched, but let me clarify. No, I don't think there's "hidden" data in the jpeg -- just certain metrics that allows the scanner program (the word program) to identify whether the "key" image is present on the scanner. If it is, then the "word program" creates an image on the screen. The image shown on the screen is not derived from image data from the scanner (I think) -- the image on the screen was stored within the "word program" itself... Bill didn't say how big the "word program" was, did he? that might give a clue, but it's hard to say.

What you are saying Centrist is the printed image on the scanner bed becomes the 'key' unlocking the true image?

If that were true it would require some changes in the main program which has been identified as Word.....

Use a DLL routine to have both images mesh on the screen? Seems a waste of time if all you are doing is presenting an unidentifed drawing with no reference, labesl, names, date.......even if you published it in Wall Street no one could tell you what it is.

So why create something for nothing?

G

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Rabbit and Centrist, You guys are really smart!

Just wanted to get that out.

To be honest, this is Centrists Idea I just thought it was pretty cool and understood what he meant but thanks anyway

No one knows of a piece of software that does what you're proposing (this key and lock function), you're just speculating, right?

I'm not aware If this type of software is available it wouldn't suprise me If it is though.

what does it mean that Bill "created the Word file"? That he drew it? I don't understand that...

To be honest again, I think this has been taken slightly out of context. Someone was asking Bill about hidden personal information I'm presuming stuff like I.P address was hidden in the word doc (this is normal apparently) so was that why he wouldn't release it, and Bill replied no because a new file had been created to scan the image into. That was my understanding of the conversation anyway

Originally posted by Whiterabbit29

Like I said I'm not having a go I think you just mis-understood my point and I will also say again this is wild speculation just seems plausible!

I'm not SCREAMING at you WR. I'm just frustrated by all the nonsense people are willing to believe or speculate about without having ever seen the item of discussion.
But we will never know will we? And our friend Bill is busy promulgating his unverifiable set of posits that constitute well, what?


[edit on 2/8/06 by dogberts not]

[edit on 2/8/06 by dogberts not]

[edit on 2/8/06 by dogberts not]

*runs screaming from the room, half naked crazy hairy alaskan bozoboy style*

arrrrrrrgh!!

This is insane.

Springer, I'm not 100% certain that I understand your question... I have NO idea what's going through bills pointy little head, nor what he would be aware of... His computer could be farting the star spangled banner and he could be totally unaware of it for all I know.

I would know if I had multiple programs running on MY computer... and how they were interacting... but I'm a freek.

The whole cloak and dagger stuff surrounding the image is crazy. IF info dumped on the serpo site is true, then the software used to generate the image is the story of the century and serpo can go hang.

According to the little bomb shell you just dropped about billyboy dumping the image into word (MICROSOFT WORD?) in order to print it then scan it, well, I don't know what to think any more other than the guy's a moonie and he's driving me crazy.

None of this info is on the serpo site.

From what I gather this info is coming over from loony lucys house of ryanite worship and used cars.

My deadhead days are OVER. I'm not touring the net following the moonies around to see what they have to say today. If billyboy doesn't wanna play with me, fine, I'll play with my kid (she's more fun ta play with anyway)

Bill's been less than honest for the past couple of weeks. Now, apparently, he's changing his story yet Again.

"oh, it wasn't some super secret dia magic program, I just put my email into word so I could print it out" or some such dribble *rolls eyes*

I'm sorry.

I'm ticked.

I don't think I answered your question, Springer...

mmph.

sorry 'bout that.

ticked ticked ticked.

If there is an ANON, then that person (persons) should consider dumping billyboy and vic (even though I think vic has been a pretty straight shooter) and hire the three amigos to do the disclosing... you guys have kept The levelest heads outta everbody during this whole roller coaster ride.

And I ain't kissin' up.

I don't give a rats tail what anybody on the face of thie planet thinks of me except fer this chick sittin' in my lap right here::

www.torbtown.com...


I need ta cool off a bit.

rock on
twj

NO I don't mean he drew the picture... When you decide to write a letter for example you "create" a new word file when you open the program.

That's what he meant I think. He used Word to create a printable version of the image so he could print it, scan it etc... The whole process is simply retarded IMHO.

WHY would you print it, then scan it and then transfer it to a gif to present on the web when apparently he STARTED OUT with image already in a digital display format (of some sort) in the email.

That's why i don't buy the whole "key theory" either... He stated a few times that image was in the email already displayed when he opened the email right?

Springer...

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Springer]

Originally posted by garyo1954
once Bill printed that file, he effectively destroyed those layers. He now has only what he scanned.

G
[edit on 8-2-2006 by garyo1954]

Yes he did, he killed it for everyone looking at the scanned image...but...Bill still has the original that he downloaded...hmmm...

Originally posted by garyo1954
What you are saying Centrist is the printed image on the scanner bed becomes the 'key' unlocking the true image?

Yes.

If that were true it would require some changes in the main program which has been identified as Word.....

Was it?

Anonymous Posting #15
This posting was sent directly to myself and was not sent to Victor Martinez. The diagram below was downloaded, printed, and then scanned into a Word program supplied by Anonymous, all precisely as per detailed instructions.

I don't think what you said is accurate. Why would Anonymous send Bill Microsoft Word (for Bill's Mac) to scan the document in? Bill didn't say "Microsoft Word". he said 'a Word program supplied by Anonymous'.

So why create something for nothing?

Good question. Maybe he didn't and there's something more to this than what we're seeing?

Why would Bill make up such a lousy lie about how he got the drawing? Makes no sense, given that Bill has professed to being less than particularly computer literate -- why use that as an area to try and fool a community teeming with computer jockeys?

Personally, I think the image we saw in the GIF files was a ruse. I'll bet that the 4.6 MB "Word" file that was created during the scanning process contains something much more interesting. Perhaps Bill will receive another JPG that will unlock another picture?

Who knows. yes, I understand that this may just be "feeding" him a reasonable explanation for the GIF files (because this would allow him to explain-away the file size, the reason for the extensive, but seemingly useless process, the "pure black" in the scanned image, and truly the fact that the image itself appears to be nonsense.

In other words, unless this is ALL just a hoax, maybe what comes next will be real? Yah... I'm half thinking that I'm grasping at straws, too.

Am I hand-feeding anyone a "way out". I hope not. If it buys a little more time to see if Anon speaks again with something that passes the smell test? Hell, I have 2+ months invested in this, I just want to know for sure.

I realise I might only be a lowly 2000 odd pointer on here but If people actually took the time to read each others posts I'm sure a lot of time could be saved. The email was not put into word and then printed here is the process as per Bill.

1. A Jpeg was recieved by E-mail (4.3Mb)

2. The Jpeg image was then printed.

3. Print was scanned into a word program supplied by anon which resulted in a large word document where the components could be moved around individually!

4. A screen shot was taken of this using a Mac OS X program called Grab which created a TIFF image

5. That was then opened with a program called fireworks and exported unchanged into a GIFF (15k)

6. The image was then darkened using the contrast setting on the Fireworks program.

7. Image was posted





[edit on 8-2-2006 by Whiterabbit29]

Torg, Springer,

I couldn't be more in line with that thinking. If I get an attachment, it's already in my computer when I save it.

Why the print, scan, post routine?

Yes, torg, I feel the insanity itch too. It helps when you are dealing with crazies to be crazy yourself.

Even if the technology exists, why not just go put it in a smoke detector box and place it on the shelf with an X?

Nothing got revealed by the scan. Everything got concealed by the scan. All identifying properties to the original word document were hidden once it was scanned and uploaded.

You can either sit here and talk about this to one of you passes out, or you can ask...

Victor to send you the original word document he couldn't open and sent to the "trusted third party", OR

Bill for the original word document prior to scanning.

Since Bill won't even check his IP with Victor - good luck getting the original word document from him.

And I asked Victor for the original word document for posting 11 2 or 3 days ago. He never replied.

Seems the areas of vetting are closed off. Continue feeding the machine guys. You're doing a great job and building nothing into something for some one else - free of charge I might add.