One problem with being an incorrigible gossip and compulsive liar is that one tends to forget what one has said in the past. It must be difficult being Angela Power-Disney, then, as almost everything that issues from her mouth is either a blatant lie or a bit of second-hand news that she’s heard from someone else, and hasn’t bothered checking herself.
Take this, for example: Aside from the fact that IP addresses cannot be “shown to be accessing” anything at all, let alone “SNUFF MOVIES & CHILD PORNOGRAPHY”, as Angela so grandly pronounces, she’s conflating two separate lies here:
- That Scarlet Scoop is in any way related to RD: Sabine decided some time ago that he was, and that his IP address showed him living in San Francisco; and
- That RD was ever in any way found to have been accessing and disseminating commercial child sex abuse videos: this one was cooked up by Charlotte Alton Ward, back in the days when her Hamster Research blog was still in existence.
When Charlotte’s pestilential blog was banned from WordPress.com, she managed to salvage some of it, which she reposted on a site called HROldBlog. Funnily enough, we were able to find her original allegations against RD, and they were even more ludicrously ill-informed and disingenuous than we remembered.
First, Charlotte admits that she was “unable to verify whether 2 hearts delight belonged to RD so (she) took John’s word for it”. In other words, she’s predicating her entire argument on a fact that she has not verified.
Second, “2heartsdelight” is not a “step up” from a “normal IP address”. It is a DNS, or domain name server. The Domain Name System is the system that translates Internet domain names into IP numbers. A “DNS Server” is a server that performs this kind of translation.
Charlotte is talking through her hat if she is trying to claim that a DNS is a “special” thing that allows you to “access websites that other people can’t access, not unless they know the IP addresses of those websites”.
The internet does not work the way Charlotte seems to think it does.
She states that a DNS could give someone who knew what they were doing access to illegal sites. In a way it would, if by “a DNS” she means “adding entries to the host’s file.” The porn site was never inaccessible to begin with, but doing it that way would be one (very clumsy) way to trick her browser into making the request she wants it to.
Then she asks whether a DNS could be used to search the Deep Net. The answer: to access certain sites, yes. To search, no. Not unless one of the sites you access is an index of said net. (DNS has no search capabilities at all.)
But never mind the facts—Charlotte says she “accessed this website”—the one she heard might have belonged to RD, but didn’t bother checking—and found a bunch of other sites there. (By the way, when a person sets up a website and puts it on a host server, their site will not get its own unique IP address. It will get an IP address that’s shared by a bunch of other sites, because there’s a finite number of IPs laying about, and web hosting companies will typically place a bunch of domains on one IP.)In the above, Charlotte has just admitted to having viewed commercial child sex abuse images—and has thus stated that she has committed a crime. It doesn’t matter that she was “just doing research”. The courts have heard that one before. It’s not an excuse, and the fact that she did not instantly report this site to the police, rather than going on to look at images of children younger than one year being sexually abused is beyond disgusting.
And here’s a funny little thing about Charlotte’s vaunted “predictive software”: it is not possible to use predictive analysis software to find out what someone else’s “sites of interest” might be.
The software will only show the user what it “thinks” their own interests might be, based on where their browser has been recently. In other words, because Charlotte is fascinated by commercial child sexual abuse images, her predictive analysis software takes her to that kind of site. To say that this is pure and utter horseshit is to do a disservice to horseshit. In fact, Charlotte admits that she is not sure that the child sexual abuse sites she’s so blithely exploring belong to RD…but she’s willing to state that they are, because she would very much like to believe that they are.
We do find it amusing that Charlotte’s predictive software pointed her toward medical sites dealing with sexually transmitted diseases. We wonder—was Jacco De Boer using Charlotte’s computer to look up a symptom or two? Of course we have no evidence to indicate that this might be so, but what the hell. Let’s just claim it’s true. Now, you might recall that two screenshots ago, Charlotte stated that “in the cause of fact checking” she had visited a site featuring child sexual abuse images. Now she seems to be saying that her (unbelievably ill-informed) informant provided her with tools to get “evidence to substantiate the children’s allegations without having to search out or view such material”. Both statements cannot be true, so we’d like Charlotte to tell us: which one is the lie?
And now back to you, Angie…
So this is the utter bollox that Angie is dredging up from the cesspool of her memory, and posting as though it were established fact…except that she’s attributing it not to RD, but to Scarlet Scoop. As usual, the only “established fact” is that neither Angela nor Charlotte would know a fact if it bit them in the arse.
Updated to add:
Commenter Dave reminded us of how Charlotte attempted to use “sameip.net” to prove that RD was hosting commercial child sex abuse pages. He sums it up here:
If I remember correctly this was the ‘sameip.net’ fiasco. Charlotte took the IP address of a site she hadn’t verified as relating to RD and placed it in the search engine box of ‘sameip.net’. She then clicked on the ‘recommended for you’ box which appears when you click enter.
Upon clicking on the ‘recommended for you’ box the site brought up a whole load of health websites. Clicking it again brought up a whole load of porn sites and from visiting those she found the ones offering images of under age children. She made a video of herself doing this process.
However, Charlotte overlooked more than just the information that EC has written up here.
One problem is that you could place any IP address into the search engine box and when you clicked ‘recommended for you’, it would give back the same sites. I tested this myself.
In fact, even if you put no IP address at all in the search engine box and clicked ‘recommended for you’, it would come back with the same sites.
Further, the website also had advertising banners of scantily clad women and if you clicked on those it would take you to the porn sex site ‘Fuckbook’.
In short, the website was sponsored by porn sites and always lead you to porn no matter what. Unfortunately, Charlotte was too stupid to carry out a few control examples to make sure. This was pointed out to Charlotte just hours after she uploaded the video on YT. Her response was to disable comments. She was also informed of it on her HR blog but she deleted the comment.
It has also been pointed out to APD multiple times in the comments of her videos. Yet every so often she still tells this nonsense and claims it was forensic analysis when in reality Charlotte clumsily (or deliberately) used a website sponsored by porn.
And “Big Bubba” created this useful video to demonstrate how “sameip.net” really works: