Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: July 10, 2011 11:43PM
****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
There are a few things I know for sure.
Users do not have the option to delete posts.
Admin has not deleted ANYTHING in that thread.
The post in question is from the same IPset that Stormy, Jake and Jakes sister all use.
The post in question was edited by Stormy. It is in the same place as the post in question that Stormy now says she did not write. I know this for sure because someone did hit the report button so I KNOW this is the same post.
Something is not adding up here.
_____
Posted by: raptorjesus ( )
Date: July 10, 2011 11:48PM
Uh oh. We need Batman. Or at least Scooby Doo. (n/t)
_____
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 01:51AM
Scooby Doo is nothing without the meddling kids. (n/t)
_____
Posted by: Stormy ( )
Date: July 10, 2011 11:55PM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
All I know is it wasn't I Who posted and Would leave jake who is at work or my my sil. How would that happen?
stormy
_____
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: July 10, 2011 11:56PM
Re: ****Good question.
Someone from your house with your password edited the post. It is not gone. It is edited by you.
_____
Posted by: Stormy ( )
Date: July 10, 2011 11:59PM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
She has my cell phone, could that be what happened?
Jake posts from our computer.
stormy
_____
Posted by: The Man in Black ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 12:18AM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
Oh good I'm not as dumb as I was thinking. At least not this time.
I don't know if this helps but on my phone it keeps me logged in for hours. I can just pick it up, open the browser and I'm still logged in hours later. This seems to last even longer when background data is enabled. I'm on an Android now but the late iPhone (grabby child + bathtub) did it too. Stayed logged in much longer than a computer would.
Just a guess.
_____
Posted by: raptorjesus ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 12:23AM
I'm logged in constantly.
Anyone with my phone could post whatever they wanted.
_____
Posted by: Stormy ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 12:48AM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
The phone she has is an android and you are always logged in. My new phone is also an android and does the same thing. I really don't know what to say about any of this. I feel sorry for her and that's why she has my phone. I just got another one and pay for that one also. She needs the support. But if need be I'll ask her to send it back to me.
stormy
_____
Posted by: jake's sister ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 12:27AM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
Storm called very upset. I have her cell and I have used it to post. I didn't want my husband to know I post on this board. He's supportive of my decision but asked that I didn't post. But I did any way. When I use her cell it automatically signs in as stormy. She explained this to me before. But this time, I was anxious to post and didn't log out and sign in under my name. When I realized what I did, I just erased the message.
I'm sorry to have caused trouble for everyone, especially Storm.
Things have been rough here and the help from the board means a lot to me.
I understand if I'm not allowed to use this board any more. What you decide, I will abide by it. Stupid people do stupid things and I guess that's me. I'm using the phone now since I can't use our computer because of my husband.
_____
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 01:24AM
I don't see why she would call when you are in the same room using the same computer. new
All of these have the same IP.
2. Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
She has my cell phone, could that be what happened? Jake posts from our computer. stormy
--YesterdayStormy3. Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
All I know is it wasn't I Who posted and Would leave jake who is at work or my my sil. How would that happen? stormy
--YesterdayStormy4. Re: Maybe Stttooorrrmmmy is channeling Joseph Smith...
Thanks..that's all I need right now. I'm still cleaning out our bathroom...the renovation starts tomorrow at 7:30 am sharp. stormy
--YesterdayStormy5. Re: In this thread?
Yes stormy
--YesterdayStormy6. Re: Stormy - tell me EXACTLY what post.
The post is gone now. It was on the response to the bishop thread that my sil posted. I always sign my posts stormy This one wasn't signed like that.. . stormy
\
--YesterdayStormy7. Re: Did anyone else see what I saw?
I saw it also and they used my name...that post did not come from me. I checked with my sil and she didn't post either. Does this happen often? I am registered does that mean some one has my info..? Will I have to change my password? stormy
--YesterdayStormy8. Re: response to bishop continued
Sil called...sp due to come over. stormy
**Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 09:18PM by stormy.
This is the post in question. Content was originaly by Jakes Sister but with the name Stormy on it. It was not deleted, it was edited by Stormy.
--YesterdayStormy9. Re: "Modest is Hottest"
I sure disagree..you don't need to look trampy..but then I have boys do what do I know..around here clothes for girls leave zip to the imagination..are the clothes different in utah? stormy
--YesterdayStormy10. Re: If left untreated rather unfortunate side-effects such as death can occur.
Glad you went to the er...those infections are serious. stormy
--YesterdayStormy11. Re: Church-approved Mormon sex (mildly adult)
OMG...do these people know nothing? Thank god jake went to medical school and played around..do did I..better marriage. stormy
YesterdayStormy12. Re: Which is the Greater Threat to the Traditional Family and Traditional Marriage: Gay Marriage or Mormonism? (Please take an informal survey.) (mild language)
I know of no marriages broken by a gay in my friends. My marriage was crushed because of the lds botch. stormy
*****
These are also from the same IP/land line
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy. Date: July 11, 2011 12:48AMPosted by: Stormy
The phone she has is an android and you are always logged in. My new phone is also an android and does the same thing. I really don't know what to say about any of this. I feel sorry for her and that's why she has my phone. I just got another one and pay for that one also. She needs the support. But if need be I'll ask her to send it back to me.
stormy
******
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
Posted by: jake's sister
Date: July 11, 2011 12:27AM
Storm called very upset. I have her cell and I have used it to post. I didn't want my husband to know I post on this board. He's supportive of my decision but asked that I didn't post. But I did any way. When I use her cell it automatically signs in as stormy. She explained this to me before. But this time, I was anxious to post and didn't log out and sign in under my name. When I realized what I did, I just erased the message.
I'm sorry to have caused trouble for everyone, especially Storm.
Things have been rough here and the help from the board means a lot to me.
I understand if I'm not allowed to use this board any more. What you decide, I will abide by it. Stupid people do stupid things and I guess that's me. I'm using the phone now since I can't use our computer because of my husband.
_____
Posted by: Queen of Denial ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:08AM
Uh. That's in direct conflict with this post.
>>>>>>I saw it also and they used my name...that post did not come from me. I checked with my sil and she didn't post either.
Does this happen often? I am registered does that mean some one has my info..? Will I have to change my password?
stormy
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,240397Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 02:09AM by Queen of Denial.
_____
Posted by: Queen of Denial ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:15AM
Re: Uh. That's in direct conflict with this post.
Why would Jake's Sister tell Stormy that it WAS NOT her that posted, and then come on the board and say it WAS her?
_____
Posted by: Teewan ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 12:51AM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
This is a lot of drama.. When is someone going to break out the "I can't say with Certitude" line? Lol
_____
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 01:29AM
As Reader's Digest would say ......
Drama in real life !
_____
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 01:45AM
No drama.
Just a series of facts that do not add up.
_____
Posted by: Queen of Denial ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 01:50AM
Very curious. Hmmmm.... (n/t)
_____
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 01:49AM
If the home computer was hacked...
It would be possible for an outside user to take over the computer, export the screen to their own off site commuter then run as if they were sitting in Stormy's home using the commuter. The hacker would get what ever stated the computer was in when they exported the screen. If the user was logged onto the computer and logged into RfM, then, other than writing stile and content of the post, there would be no way to distinguish from a real Stormy post because it came from the same computer and the same login.
This would explain everything except the post being edited and the claim of 'jake's sister' above (a claim that Susan I/S notes has a problem). I suppose it could be possible that a hacker posted a post then had a change of hart...
This scenario is not very likely, but it is possible.
_____
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 01:56AM
Nope, that would still not explain it. new
They are continuing to post from the same IP.
Stormy says she saw the post in question, that it was not her, and that it was deleted. No, she edited it. If someone had hacked a password, they have been posting as her alllll day. And continuing to do so. From the same IPs that all three of them have used over the last few months.
And as I said about the two in this thread, talking about calling when they are using the same computer?
_____
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:08AM
Re: Nope, that would still not explain it.
Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are continuing to post from the same IP.
>
That is my point, The IP address would be the same because the actual post would have come from stormy's computer. Only the screen would be exported, the hacker would be using stormy's computer, everything would come from stormy's computer. It would have the exact same address because the post itself would have come from stormy's computer and stormy's web browser. The exported screen runs the computer REMOTELY.
Think of it as if the hacker attached a monitory, keyboard and mouse with REALLY long cables to the back of stormy's computer and took the monitor, keyboard and mouse to and entirely different house . Despite the fact that the hacker is now in a different house, he is still using the computer in stormy's house. The IP address would still be the same on all the posts.
The same thing is done with the remote control programs I am talking about, they send the screen output, the keyboard and mouse input and output to another, remote, computer. Though the hacker will be sitting at the the remote computer, he would ACTUALLY be using stromy's computer, not his, to send the message. The IP address would be stromy's address. The hacker is only using a remote keyboard, monitor and mouse, but would still be using Stormy's computer.
_____
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:15AM
Re: Nope, that would still would not explain it either.
Because the same thing is happening with two different providers :). Two different ways to access period.
_____
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:22AM
OK, so how is this possible? "They are continuing to post from the same IP."
If "They are continuing to post from the same IP [singular]." how would two different providers be involved? Each provider is assigned a different UNIQUE set of IP addresses to assign to customers. The INTERNET would not work of two providers were using the same IP addresses.
So, if it is coming from two different providers with the same address, then it would have to be something like IP spoofing. This would be exceptionally difficult to do especially from two different providers.
Or is there really two IP addresses involved? Jake's sister's explanation would be plausible.
Are you sure you are determining the provider correctly?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 02:31AM by MJ.
_____
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:33AM
I am not good at explaining.
And I can't give specifics. But the first set, with the one they BOTH claim is not from them, is from one IP/provider. The later two where they are calling each other is a second IP/provider.
_____
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:53AM
So, there are two different posts then.
If stormy posts from home and a cell, then there should be two address sets possible, the phone's which could be rather random depending on how mobile they are and the home which should be in a very narrow range of addresses if the addresses change at all.
Depending on what set the particular issues came from, would indicate different problems.
If jake's sister set down stromy's phone and jake's sisters decided to play a practical joke, that could explain the posts that both are saying they did not do, and the pranksters could have had a change of heart and deleted the message. Perhaps Jake's sister is covering for friends????
Then, since there was two different sets of posts involved, perhaps there some of the same sorts of confusion I experienced going on with the calling each other.
Working tech support taught me that most people are not very good at explaining this sort of stuff either. I won't even tell you about my dad and his "nothing" claims when I was trying to help him over the phone. My usual default position is, if it is all really convoluted and confusing, it is usually because the user is confused, hiding something so they don't have to admit they did something wrong, are combining separate issues into the same sentence.
The first thing I would do, is stop treating the two sets of posts are if they are necessarily linked.
_____
Posted by: snb ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 01:57AM
Could happen
I guess there are a lot of clever ways to try and gain access to someone's computer.
This is all pretty weird though.
_____
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:11AM
Stranger things have happened. I wourked for a company that had it's phone system hacked.
The hacker was using the voice male system as an information board and using the PBX to allow people in the local area to call anywhere in the world and the charge would go back to the company.
Had about 3 weeks of the FBI camped out in our offices before the hacking was resolved. I don't know how long it took for my boss to fix all his credit reports that the hacker mangled as revenge for calling the feds.
_____
Posted by: snb ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 03:02AM
I've heard of attacks like that
Well, rather, I've heard of ONE attack like that. I wonder if that was the same one :)
Anyways, must have been intense working there during that time.
Options: Reply•Quote•Follow Topic•Report
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 03:06AM
The worst part was being considered a suspect. Once I was cleared, then I went back to my job running the data network. new
The phone guys had a miserable time for the whole mess.
And this sort of attack happens all the time. The voice mail information listed 18 systems that were also hacked all around the world. The FBI contacted the owners of the other two USA based systems, but I don't know what the outcome was there.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 03:08AM by MJ.
_____
Posted by: The Man in Black ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:08AM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
Before I crash for the night I just want to say one thing about IP numbers. They show not only your approximate location but they show your service provider. It's pretty easy to know if it's wireless or a landline.
Nite.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 02:09AM by The Man in Black.
_____
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:15AM
They can also be spoofed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing"IP spoofing can also be a method of attack used by network intruders to defeat network security measures, such as authentication based on IP addresses. This method of attack on a remote system can be extremely difficult, as it involves modifying thousands of packets at a time. "
It can also be used in what is known as "man in the middle" attacks.
_____
Posted by: atheist&happy:-) ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:44AM
I will say it, i.e. what maybe a few people here have been thinking all along.
I always felt from the beginning that this “story”:
1. had too much drama, and was too artificial, and scripted
2. played out like a bad novel, as the posts of three alleged different people flowed too conveniently like a story
3. three writing styles were too similar for me
4. was the product of a fanciful imagination - the occupations, activities, etc. were all so picture perfect
5. had a very pro-Catholic agenda in the beginning
I thought this was possibly a regular poster who felt slighted by the strong atheist content here, and posted defensively as three people - in order to be backed up/hide behind by a man who also chose catholicism (and her), and a fragile SIL - with herself, and catholicism as the heroes.
Certain posters get resentful, because they cannot defend their religion, and feel attacked.
The edits, and lies appear to be someone covering their tracks, and not a hacker - a hacker would have no stake in the upkeep of this story.
It always looked like a three-in-one "trinity", so I sometimes read to confirm my suspicions, but did not buy into it.
And now we have silence as said poster is thinking up an out, because anyone with truth could immediately reply. Will the triune poster now claim hacking?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 02:52AM by atheist&happy:-).
_____
Posted by: Tristan-Powerslave ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:55AM
I was worried that I was the only one that noticed anything wrong. (n/t)
_____
Posted by: bona dea ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:59AM
Re: I was worried that I was the only one that noticed anything wrong.
I was slow to notice, but the thought struck me today. Jake is supposed to be a doctor and the writing style just isn't that of a professional, IMO and is to similar to the other posters' style. Besides they seem to have way too many over the top Mormons in their lives. I didn't want to say anything on board but since someone else brought it up, I'll join the chorus of doubters. If I am wrong I'll grovel later.Besides, the simplest explaination is usually right and it is a lot more believable that we are being played than the some hacker set up this elaborate hoax.I am embarrassed that I bought into it for so long.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 03:03AM by bona dea.
_____
Posted by: lulu ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 03:00AM
Tune in tomorrow for
"As Stormy Turns."
I can't believe anybody reads that stuff, let alone, notes an edit or deletion.
_____
Posted by: Fiction is Fun ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 04:19AM
You're not the only one
Yeah, I've thought that too. If it's not true, it's an impressive hoax. I have my popcorn on standby to watch what happens next.
_____
Posted by: bona dea ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 02:51AM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
I noticed the similar writing styles and the excess drama too. If I am wrong, I apologized, but the whole thing sees a bit contrived and over the top to me.If I am right, I am not going to guess motive, but a lot of the story just seems too convenient and soap operaish to me.I tended to buy into it until we got to the bishop's email. That just seemed a little off after I had time to think about it.Then I noticed the fact that all three have the same run on sentences in their posts. Once again, if I am wrong, I apologize, but I am suspicious.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 03:11AM by bona dea.
_____
Posted by: honestone ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 04:06AM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
+1
_____
Posted by: Ctus ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 03:13AM
I agree with bona dea...
The whole effort required to set up three separate posters seems a bit much. And to what end?
I have noticed a few things others have mentioned as well, the writing styles and run on sentences mainly. Then of course the inordinate amount of drama. One thing that struck me several times was the sometimes brutal frankness with which the posters spoke of each other at times.
In all honesty, though, I really didn't give it a lot of thought until this thread. By the time I came to athiest&happy's comment I had come to the same conclusion myself.
_____
Posted by: bona dea ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 03:41AM
Re: I agree with bona dea...
Not to hijack the thread, but I am glad your leg is better and that it didn't cost a fortune.
_____
Posted by: Stumbling ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 04:26AM
Re: ****Did anyone else see what I saw? - PART 2. Questions for Stormy.
Sounds like the whole soap opera was fabricated to me.
The simplest explanation is usually the right one.
_____
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: July 11, 2011 04:24PM
top nt (n/t) new
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 08:30PM by steve benson.