Anon (not) Exposed - [HOAX]

Originally posted by xuenchen
must have been a good source to get that close to something.

Oh please, close to nothing.

Boondock has been repeatedly show how his first connection/conclusion is not just off-base, it's wrong. Subsequent connecting of disconnected dots led to a private person, and Boondock violating the terms and conditions by posting their personal info.

It's that simple.


He wrongly assumed a publicly displayed phone number on this page: www.automatedhosting.com was actually the cell phone of a private person, when in reality the material was simply taken from the domain lookup of the person's website, who also happens to be someone who used Whois Privacy Protect to keep their domain info private.

So of course, if they use the same company for their private domain registration, the contact phone numbers will be the same.

This is being moved to the hoax forum because the entire premise is based on grossly bad judgement.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Now, look at the example e-mail on the above web page too...

Here is a couple of the first hits:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

See, they are all unreadable and meaningless to everyone except Privacy Protection Service Inc. which uses the unique e-mails to identify their customers. So that debunks ALL of main part of your entire OP and your random connections to certain corporations.

Your entire topic, Boondock, is nothing more than a huge distraction, and as SkepticOverlord put it, a wild goose chase into neverland.

thank you for your work,
you have just proved my point
with the e-mails you provided.

If the prefix for these e-mails were
computer generated, then a program or script
would create each e-mail with the exact same
amount of characters just like the Social Security
Administration assigns SS Numbers which are all
9 numbers in length.

Look at the list of e-mails you provided to find
that some e-mail pre-fixes are:

10 characters long:
[email protected]

9 characters long:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

8 characters long:
[email protected]
[email protected]

the difference between the lengths of each of these
pre-fixes proves human creation, not computer
generation, else they would all have the exact
same length.

So if a human created them, then there is a high
chance of probability that the characters in each
can have meaning to it's creator.

computer generation of pre-fixes are now
debunked !!! And it makes your assessment flawed
along with your judgement of my investigation
skills.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
computer generation of pre-fixes are now debunked

Groan.

So, you believe it impossible for a script to randomize the number of characters in a randomly generated bit of text?

In four lines of simple code, we generate random alphanumeric passwords on ATS for new member accounts that can be anywhere from six to nine characters in length. It's rather easy.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


thanks for explaining,

but it proves nothing at least to me,

because the link is a 404 !!

what did that page show by the way?

still unanswered questions.

reply to post by xuenchen


Link is corrected.

There are no unanswered questions.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There are no unanswered questions.

but there are plenty of unanswered motives

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There are no unanswered questions.

but there are plenty of unanswered motives

and,

still unanswered questions!

the nay-sayers are not doing a very good job of convincing me there's no connections!

the bully tactics don't work that well every time!

too many over-reaction - lump-in-the-throat responses make me even more suspicious.

if this is a non-issue with people, then WHY respond with such force?

i wonder if somebody knows more than they're tell'in ?

reply to post by boondock-saint



But if 4Chan can get away with posting pedophilia of children that could more than likely be dead and in Snuff films by now, then this group may have the self-assurance that it will be backed no matter what you dig and come to find.

reply to post by boondock-saint

Originally posted by boondock-saint
the difference between the lengths of each of these
pre-fixes proves human creation, not computer
generation, else they would all have the exact
same length.

...another fine example of you coming to an erroneous conclusion based on nothing more than your own lack of knowledge.

I guess you know next to nothing about creating variable length randomly generated strings?

Personally, as a software engineer, I have created an algorithm that generates variable length random strings of characters which is used to prevent unwanted comment spam similar to CAPTCHA in only 4 lines of code. Have you ever heard of CAPTCHA??

www.google.com...

Go ahead... Visit the link above and click the small refresh button multiple times, and count the length of characters.

www.yopmail.com...

Now, visit the random e-mail generator webpage above. Go ahead and click your browsers refresh button multiple times, and count each character in the auto generated e-mail.

How about I just save you the hassle of counting and tell you that you are wrong.....

Originally posted by boondock-saint
computer generation of pre-fixes are now
debunked !!! And it makes your assessment flawed
along with your judgement of my investigation
skills.

YOU are now debunked... YOU just confirmed my assessment, and my judgement of your poor "investigation"...erh...skills.

-edit-

I can't believe your post got 3 stars... Actually, I can't believe any of your posts got any stars. This is a clear case of confirmation bias. You and a bunch of people who already believe Anon. is linked to the government use little to no logic or reasoning skills and will believe anything and everything that confirms their already held beliefs even if it is chunky, acidic, multicolored, regurgitation of previously swallowed bull feces.

Anon hides behind whoisprivacyprotect.com


www.whoisprivacyprotect.com...

64.74.223.37

and then Whois Privacy Protect
hides behind another different
protection service

64.74.0.0 - 64.74.255.255
CIDR : 64.74.0.0/16
NetName : PNAP-SEA-BLOCK4
NetHandle : NET-64-74-0-0-1
Parent : NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType : Direct Allocation
RegDate : 2000-04-05
Updated : 2003-02-12

OrgName : Internap Network Services Corporation
OrgId : PNAP
Address : 250 Williams Street
Address : Suite E100
City : Atlanta
StateProv : GA
PostalCode : 30303
Country : US
RegDate : 1996-07-18
Updated : 2010-09-08

www.whoismind.com...

layer upon layer upon layer
peeling this onion

the legal business name

Whois Privacy Protection Services, Inc.

They are incorporated which means they had to file
incorporation papers in some state to get that.

I need help in finding out where they got their
Inc. status.

Finding the articles of incorporation will have to
have a name on the application and a list of officers
and or stock holders.

The thread was moved to the hoax forum because the site owner disagrees with the premise of the topic and has made his own judgement and opinion? Hmm I wonder why all of the Nibiru topics on this site hasnt been sent to the hoax forum?

No matter...even without additional information, Boon's theory could be accepted as a plausible theory (keeping in mind he's said since the get-go this is nothing more than a theory)...especially when taking into consideration the fact that military front companies exist everywhere and the suspicion on anon being a government operation is not a new theory invented by Boon. Taking these simple possibilities into factor, the fact that this was moved to the hoax section really questions the credibility of this website...is it "deny ignorance", or "deny ignorance unless skepticoverlord doesn't accept it"?

Anywho I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall even typing this, so have a great night folks...can someone define what a conspiracy is, and what type of conspiracy is allowed on the site without being declared a hoax?

I have to admit. You've done a lot of work & present a lot of information boondock-saint. I too am surprised at the aggressive nature in which people choose to "debunk you".

Whether this information is correct or not, you have to give credit for the attempt and hard work that has been put into this thread by boondock-saint. Isn't that what this forum is about? Or are we supposed to go blasting people to pieces because they have a notion? I know I’m only a new member here but, I have been an avid reader of this forum for many years. I feel I can comment on this situation.

There seems to be some hostility towards people who present certain ideas. I have also read the COINTELPRO thread & my reply to that is “of course the CIA or the Government (or whoever it’s supposed to be) would say ATS is not related in any way to them”. Of course they would vehemently deny any involvement. (*awaits warning or banning*)…

Now I don't believe ATS is COINTELPRO (see? You can put away the ban-hammer …) and I have to say I'm not sure I believe ANON is Government either but - this is a conspiracy forum, am I correct?

Angry threads & publicly shooting down members theories is not what I joined this forum for. If anything, it only creates doubt to the validity of what is being said by those throwing stones or defending their forum.

reply to post by boondock-saint




Boondock... Everyone who buys a domain name such as "fss34.com" from eNom.com and purchases their "ID Protect" service will be hiding behind "Whois Privacy Protection Services Inc.". Literally ANYONE can hide behind them because the service is open to the public. So what makes you so sure that W.P.P.S. Inc. is related to Anonymous in any way?

All of my domains names are protected by "Domains by Proxy, Inc." because I bought my domains from GoDaddy.com. So if Anonymous decides to buy a domain name from GoDaddy, and purchase their privacy protection service, does that mean "Domains by Proxy, Inc." is then related to Anonymous? No, it just means they are using a public service that is available to anyone. Please try very hard to understand that...

Originally posted by boondock-saint
64.74.223.37

and then Whois Privacy Protect
hides behind another different
protection service

64.74.0.0 - 64.74.255.255
CIDR : 64.74.0.0/16
NetName : PNAP-SEA-BLOCK4
NetHandle : NET-64-74-0-0-1
Parent : NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType : Direct Allocation
RegDate : 2000-04-05
Updated : 2003-02-12

OrgName : Internap Network Services Corporation
OrgId : PNAP
Address : 250 Williams Street
Address : Suite E100
City : Atlanta
StateProv : GA
PostalCode : 30303
Country : US

You should know that doing a whois search on an IP address is completely different from doing a whois on a domain name, because they are two completely different namespaces.

According to your info, "Whois Privacy Protection Services Inc." is NOT hiding behind anything. All you did was look up the server that their website is hosted on. That IP you looked up is pointing to a well known address to a well known company that houses several computers/servers that host several websites.

A domain name is just a name... When you do a whois search you get the registration information for that name from the domain name registries. You also get the nameservers (like IP addresses) that they are pointing to.

An IP address is different... When you do a whois search on an IP you get information about who the IP is leased to from local or regional internet registries. You will always get a location to a computer or server, or company that owns the servers, or a internet service provider.

For example, I bought my domain names from GoDaddy.com, but all my domain names are pointed to HostGator.com nameservers. If I were to do the steps you are doing on my own websites, you would only be getting information about HostGator.com servers which have absolutely no relationship with me besides the fact I pay them to host my websites files.

To sum it up, what you have done so far is pretty much useless.... You are peeling layers of the wrong union.

F.Y.I., from what I know, "Whois Privacy Protection Services Inc." is owned by the same people who own eNom.com, which is now owned by a previous chairman of Myspace.com. But that is useless information anyway because, again, anyone can buy a domain from eNom.com and hide behind Whois Privacy Protection Services Inc.....

reply to post by matth


reply to post by TRiPWiRE



The ones who are debunking/attacking Boondock's methods of investigation are the ones who actually own domain names and websites like myself and SkepticOverlord, who have lots of computer knowledge and experience, and who understand with extreme clarity the incorrect and illogical path he is using to "track" the owner of "fss34.com".

Like I have said, if Boondock were to use his same methods of investigation on MY websites, he would be lead to people and corporations that have absolutely ZERO relationship to me. That is how I know Boondocks entire topic is a bunch of bullocks. He has shown no relationship at all between the domain name owner and the service providers.

People keep saying to him "good work", and "you have done a lot of work". Really, he has done nothing... All he did is a few whois searches on a domain name, an accused public domain name registrars and privacy services for being involved in Anonymous simply because they sold services to someone who claims to be a part of Anonymous. Then he let his imagination go wild on a randomly generated e-mail address, and accused even more people of being involved in Anonymous because he found 2 or 3 letters in a name which he assumes are abbreviations of their companies... that is out right lunacy.

It's sad really... It's like watching someone make a mistake, you try to help them, and all it does is motivates them to continue on with the mistake. We get to watch someone waste their time walking in the wrong direction, and drag other ATS members with them. I know for a fact SkepticOverlord, myself, and others are just trying to help... but it is met with blind opposition and insults about being involved and trying to hide something.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Internap? Is that who you tracked it down to? Do you know who they are?
If Internap is involved, then you might as well say that the whole Internet is under govt control.

Edit:
I can see what you are trying to accomplish. Yet, even if no privacy service was being used, more than likely the WHOIS owner information would be completely falsified and therefore useless. Incorrect domain owner information (including the address and phone number) is not policed very aggressively by the registrar or InterNIC. I know a domain that had completely false WHOIS information for years. Fake owner name, addresses and phone numbers listed in another country. This is possible since the registrar will likely be contacted before any serious action is taken against the domain. The registrar will then notify the real owner that they have on file (separate from the WHOIS information).

Originally posted by matth
No matter...even without additional information, Boon's theory could be accepted as a plausible theory

No, It cannot.

Domain registrars, IP look-ups, and the operation of the Internet is one of the things in which I'm well-versed, having been around since being on the beta distribution list for the development of Netscape.

He is so wrong, and incorrect in his assumptions, and has been repeatedly shown the error of his "research," that I can only come to the conclusion that Boondock is working hard to perpetuate a hoax on ATS members.

This is the final straw. The "[HOAX]" identifier has been added to the thread subject.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I can only come to the conclusion that Boondock is working hard to perpetuate a hoax on ATS members.

That is going a bit far don't you think...I can't see Boondock intentionally trying to steer people to untrue information...not purposely...he may be incorrect but I would by no stretch of the imagination say that he is perpetuating a hoax on members.

Sorry...I have sat back and watched this thread from it's birth...and reserved comment right up until now...I don't agree with this last statement Skeptic!

Being wrong is one thing...but your making too broad of an accusation saying he is purposely steering by lying...I don't think that is the case at all.

Purposely perpetuating a hoax...no way! I am not buying it! Wrong...possibly...nothing more than that!

Originally posted by jerryznv
.I can't see Boondock intentionally trying to steer people to untrue information.

But he is, even after he's been show the error of his conclusions over and over again.

It's the same as someone posting a "UFO picture," but it's actually airplane lights over Lake Erie, and they refuse to capitulate despite irrefutable evidence that it's an airplane. Hoax.

Seriously, it rare im saying this but........Skeptic is right this time

Most peoples here dont know a damn thing in matter of computer engineering
A simple application can generate in two clicks from three to 9 random passwords, and it have other use.

Anyways, how easy a simple paranoid lookin for conspiracies see the called conspiracies everywhere?