Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
KorMan said:
By "ranges", what do you mean? There's ways around IP banning I know, but I don't know about ranges.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Billy Meier
- Thread starter teacheroffools
- Start date
Free episodes:
By "ranges", what do you mean? There's ways around IP banning I know, but I don't know about ranges.
R
redalton
Guest
A.LeClair said:
IP address ranges are a set of IP addresses assigned to a subnet or segment of a network. The forum software more then likely offers an option for blocking a range or set or IP Addresses in order to block a segment of the network.
This allows an administrator the ability to block a suspected user or users from a certain network from entering the forum. This is a feature can be very useful or very detrimental depending on how it is used and the knowledge of the forum administrator - simply stated this feature can block these user(s); but if not applied correctly it could block out more then just the intended users but also anyone else that resides on that segment or range of IP addresses.
This can of course get very complicated when you start to look at IP Addresses that are derived from NAT (Network Address Translation) meaning many IP Addresses are associated to one class-full IP in order to gain access to the Internet. Blocking more then one IP Address can get ugly quick - IMO it is better practice to monitor and ban users from the forums with moderators and administrators and it also keeps the forums organized and on-topic.
A little long winded I know, but I hope that answers your question.
In vBulletin, open the Admininstrator CP. Select vBulletin Options > vBulletin Options. In tle list, select User Banning Options and click Edit Settings.
The second section of that window is Banned IP Addresses. Here's the text for it.
Banned IP Addresses
Use this option to prevent certain IP addresses from accessing any part of your board.
If you enter a complete IP address (242.21.11.7), only that IP will be banned.
If you enter a partial IP (243.21.11. or 243.21.11), any IPs that begin with the partial IP will be banned. For example, banning 243.21.11 will prevent 243.21.11.7 from accessing your board. However, 243.21.115.7 would still be able to access your board.
You may also use an '*' as a wildcard for increased flexibility. For example, if you enter 243.21.11*, many IPs will be banned including: 243.21.11.7, 243.21.115.7, 243.21.119.225.
Place a space or a line break between each IP address.
It can't ban a range such as 123.456.789.100 to 123.456.789.150.
With popular ISPs such as AOL, Earthlink, etc., knocking out a range of IP #s may prevent access by innocent parties.
IP #s for dial-up users are typically dynamically assigned, meaning that every login results in a different number. Ergo a banned dial-up IP # will be ineffective the next time the pest user logs in to his ISP.
In short, banning by IP #s is worthwhile only if an annoying user insists on reregistering repeatedly after being banned.
Little known alternatives:
1. "Tachy Goes To Coventry" puts a user on everyone's Ignore list, but allows him to see his own posts. The premise is that eventually the <s>victim</s> user decides that no one wants to reply to him and he goes away. It's semi-effective.
2. A much nastier "hack" is "Miserable user".
When classed as miserable, a member suffers ;
1. Slow response (time delay) on every page (20 to 60 seconds default).
2. A chance they will get the "server busy" message (50% by default).
3. A chance that no search facilities will be available (75% by default).
4. A chance they will get redirected to another preset page (25% & homepage by default).
5. A chance they will simply get a blank page (25% by default).
6. Post flood limit increased by a defined factor (10 times by default).
7. If they get past all this okay, then they will be served up their proper page.
This one works every time. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/evilgrin.gif" />
The second section of that window is Banned IP Addresses. Here's the text for it.
Banned IP Addresses
Use this option to prevent certain IP addresses from accessing any part of your board.
If you enter a complete IP address (242.21.11.7), only that IP will be banned.
If you enter a partial IP (243.21.11. or 243.21.11), any IPs that begin with the partial IP will be banned. For example, banning 243.21.11 will prevent 243.21.11.7 from accessing your board. However, 243.21.115.7 would still be able to access your board.
You may also use an '*' as a wildcard for increased flexibility. For example, if you enter 243.21.11*, many IPs will be banned including: 243.21.11.7, 243.21.115.7, 243.21.119.225.
Place a space or a line break between each IP address.
It can't ban a range such as 123.456.789.100 to 123.456.789.150.
With popular ISPs such as AOL, Earthlink, etc., knocking out a range of IP #s may prevent access by innocent parties.
IP #s for dial-up users are typically dynamically assigned, meaning that every login results in a different number. Ergo a banned dial-up IP # will be ineffective the next time the pest user logs in to his ISP.
In short, banning by IP #s is worthwhile only if an annoying user insists on reregistering repeatedly after being banned.
Little known alternatives:
1. "Tachy Goes To Coventry" puts a user on everyone's Ignore list, but allows him to see his own posts. The premise is that eventually the <s>victim</s> user decides that no one wants to reply to him and he goes away. It's semi-effective.
2. A much nastier "hack" is "Miserable user".
When classed as miserable, a member suffers ;
1. Slow response (time delay) on every page (20 to 60 seconds default).
2. A chance they will get the "server busy" message (50% by default).
3. A chance that no search facilities will be available (75% by default).
4. A chance they will get redirected to another preset page (25% & homepage by default).
5. A chance they will simply get a blank page (25% by default).
6. Post flood limit increased by a defined factor (10 times by default).
7. If they get past all this okay, then they will be served up their proper page.
This one works every time. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/evilgrin.gif" />
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Ok, didn't know people actually did a range ban, since I figured innocent people would be banned with it. I guessed it meant a range of numbers, but I figured anyone with two IP addresses wouldn't have them nearly the same, or use a proxy. I didn't think of subnet or another network.
I used a proxy for a bit to ward off hackers and more security (I hoped). I used a program to give me a fake IP address. Not sure if I should name the program and give banned members another way to get back on though. At the same time, it might help in understanding how they get back on. Gene probably already knows about such things, but if not and curious, I'll send a PM if asked to.
Thanks for the explanations.
I used a proxy for a bit to ward off hackers and more security (I hoped). I used a program to give me a fake IP address. Not sure if I should name the program and give banned members another way to get back on though. At the same time, it might help in understanding how they get back on. Gene probably already knows about such things, but if not and curious, I'll send a PM if asked to.
Thanks for the explanations.
Sometimes it's really easy to post again after a banning if the admin only bans a single ip address.
Say the poster has an ip address of 193.168.1.2, a class c address which means the first three numbers are fixed and only the last one can be changed. If they have an isp which assigns dynamic ip addresses, all they have to do is disconnect from the internet and then reconnect and their isp will assign a new ip address. Maybe 193.168.1.4, which would get past the banning filter.
So banning the full range 193.168.1.1 - 193.168.1.254 would be a good idea
Say the poster has an ip address of 193.168.1.2, a class c address which means the first three numbers are fixed and only the last one can be changed. If they have an isp which assigns dynamic ip addresses, all they have to do is disconnect from the internet and then reconnect and their isp will assign a new ip address. Maybe 193.168.1.4, which would get past the banning filter.
So banning the full range 193.168.1.1 - 193.168.1.254 would be a good idea
Cygnus X1
Paranormal Novice
I read "light years" once a while back - and like many found it interesting, while somehow too good to be true... After seeing the wedding cake craft photos I laughed the whole case off a few years ago.
However I still am perplexed on how Meier took all those daylight photos and films without anyone seeing him or his group doing it... Some of the shots are over valleys with villages in the background.
Are the skeptics in agreement that the older photos were of suspended models and not some kind of double exposure or optical trick? What were the models suspended on? Did he use the same technique to fake the photos from his travels in India?
Most investigators of this case have noted that this area of Switzerland isn't as remote as one might believe - people were always about on roads or tending their farms. After all this time noone from the area has come forward to claim hoax?
There is much about the Meier case that seems outlandish. All the missing evidence and negatives, the laser gun and wedding cake craft. Yet if there's one thing I'm pretty damn sure of - there is a shadowy part of the government that makes it their sworn duty to discredit and disinform the public about UFOs.
Is it so hard to believe that they would leave Meier unscathed if there was some truth to his case? Maybe with all the ridicule I read on these forums they are doing their duty, and doing it well.
However I still am perplexed on how Meier took all those daylight photos and films without anyone seeing him or his group doing it... Some of the shots are over valleys with villages in the background.
Are the skeptics in agreement that the older photos were of suspended models and not some kind of double exposure or optical trick? What were the models suspended on? Did he use the same technique to fake the photos from his travels in India?
Most investigators of this case have noted that this area of Switzerland isn't as remote as one might believe - people were always about on roads or tending their farms. After all this time noone from the area has come forward to claim hoax?
There is much about the Meier case that seems outlandish. All the missing evidence and negatives, the laser gun and wedding cake craft. Yet if there's one thing I'm pretty damn sure of - there is a shadowy part of the government that makes it their sworn duty to discredit and disinform the public about UFOs.
Is it so hard to believe that they would leave Meier unscathed if there was some truth to his case? Maybe with all the ridicule I read on these forums they are doing their duty, and doing it well.
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
Meier doesn't need any help from the government to discredit his case.
As for the photos, I think you may be overestimating the size of the models. At that distance, they could be only a foot across more or less. It's all about perspective, focal length and careful planning. And it doesn't matter how active that part of the country is NOW, the question is how active was it in the 70s?
As for the photos, I think you may be overestimating the size of the models. At that distance, they could be only a foot across more or less. It's all about perspective, focal length and careful planning. And it doesn't matter how active that part of the country is NOW, the question is how active was it in the 70s?
Cygnus X1
Paranormal Novice
CapnG said:
Looks like it was pretty populated to me judging from all the houses out there...
http://www.theyfly.com/photos/images/f0187.jpg
If these are small models close to the camera why are they so hazy indicating distance between the camera and object? As shown in this shot http://www.figu.org/us/images/pictures/figu/supporter/horn_us/hasenb.jpg
I've seen a computer analysis that shows the branch was in front of that object BTW...
I'm not a photographic expert but Billy sure has fooled many of them - which is why I won't just throw this whole case out due a few which look obviously hoaxy.
Cygnus X1 said:
The problem is that they ALL look "obviously hoaxy," which is why lots of people do reject the claims. I would also disbelieve any computer analysis that the Meier camp presents, because so much of what they present is misrepresented.
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
Cygnus X1 said:
That particular model could be bigger. The tree could be smaller than you think (ie immature). Note that the sun is directly behind the object (creating distortion in focus automatically as a consequence). Note also the background indicates it was a foggy or misty morning. Finally, be aware that because the object is at the top of a hill, no accurate judgements can be made as to size or distance. The other picture also benefits from this over-the-hill shot. How? Well, if it were level ground, we could see shadows cast by the objects, which we could use to triangulate positions and calculate relative distance and size.
In the words of my favorite teacher "What you see isn't what you think you see, you see?"
Cygnus X1
Paranormal Novice
How did he achieve the effect of atmospheric haze on this "small model close to the camera?"
http://www.figu.org/us/images/pictures/figu/supporter/horn_us/hasenb.jpg
You guys really think he was running around all over the Swiss countryside with his buddies with 20 foot long poles or balloons and nobody noticed him all those hundreds of times?
http://www.figu.org/us/images/pictures/figu/supporter/horn_us/hasenb.jpg
You guys really think he was running around all over the Swiss countryside with his buddies with 20 foot long poles or balloons and nobody noticed him all those hundreds of times?
T
TerraX
Guest
You know, a decade back I thought Billy Meier may be on to something but these days I rarely have a good word to say about the man. The pic you put up seems convincing but other stuff like the alleged "weddingcake UFO" points to downright fraud. I'm not a photographic expert but 'atmospheric hazing', if I'm not mistaken, makes the black area's in the picture (over distance) more greyish. Feel free to check with an expert. The pic you put up doesn't show that but the alleged craft is directly in front of the sun which could create sharp shadows, especially with an older camera whose focus was stuck on 'infinity'.Cygnus X1 said:
Pictures and films are one thing to debate and as you probably know a consensus is not reached on that. Besides from the alleged "weddingcake UFO" which displays a multitude of very terrestrial parts, that wasn't the only thing which deflected me away from the case. You should take a hard look at what Mr. Meier is trying to accomplish and what he's willing to push aside to make himself the center of everything. No kidding! You have a portion of the case which fanatical supporters try to pass as scientificly proven yet beyond that you reach a virtual ocean of religious mythology and negative speculation about everything else including many historical figures. Beyond the pictures and films there is a path laid out which is deliberately designed and I doubt it is for our benifit. Take a good look at it.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Cygnus X1 said:
More believable than what MH, you and Meier propose.
Want to hear some hard to believe stuff? Read about the Dean Martin dancer look a like aliens that like to time travel to undermine their Earth contact by inspiring trash can lid makers to make lids that look like their craft so no one believes they are visiting. All the while only contacting someone who was previously institutionalized, and posing for pics..... There's more. I could go on and on. If anything is hard to believe, it's not thinking this is a hoax. One can apply your own method to prove you wrong. You appear to be selectively dismissing evidence that you deem hard to believe, but not when it comes to making the other sides case. If you are attempting to be bias you've succeeded.
As for the photo. I don't see anything anomalous. It looks exactly as I would expect given a small model closer to the camera than the tree, in the sun.
R
Recon
Guest
Cygnus X1 said:
lets just throw everything away..... and lets start from now...
MH claims that billy has monthly contacts...
why not set up a video camera, or bring out a crew and catch these NEW meetings... SHOW THE WORLD. seeing as he wants to save us... why not jump the middle man.
MH is a crazy asshole... he believes all this BM **** on BLIND faith... BUT none of us here are drinking that cool-aid.
H
hopeful skeptic
Guest
A.LeClair said:
Yep. The aliens never contact the president, they never contact a Nobel Prize-winning botanist or a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. They never contact the Dali Lama, the Metropolitan or the Pope. It's always someone from Podunk with a long list of bizarre, completely unverifiable stories who gets contacted and visited at night. How tiresome.
Meier's folks need to believe this nonsense is true, because it fits the world view and political agenda they have, and I'd suggest this is true for every contactee story I've heard. This presumes, of course, that Meier's proponents are not willingly participating in outright fraud.
If a person has political beliefs, no matter how inane and vapid, they ought to just state them and engage in persuasive argumentation instead of foisting this insipid UFO hoax on the ranks of the gullible. There are too many people out there who don't exercise their filters.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
hopeful skeptic said:
Aliens may very well have contacted some of the people you mentioned. They just don't speak about it, think they are crazy, or have no recall.
It is not always someone from Podunk. What is the sources that lead you to think this? Stand up comedians and tv comercials? Hearing that trite inaccurate remark is what is tiresome.
Cygnus X1
Paranormal Novice
Aspie said:
Why do I have to do my homework when Micheal Malin - head of Malin Space Systems which designed cameras for NASA, Robert Post from JPL photo labs (Jet propulsion laboratories) and Eric Eliason creator of image processing software for the USGS all did theirs and found the pictures to be genuine?
I think I figured out why the wedding cake photos look so terrible. Maybe it's a test to see that only the most rational intelligent thinkers will start to study what the Plejarans have to say instead of laughing the whole case off.