Does anyone recognise this one?

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 19

I'm baiting this one using two different "personalities". It looks like she actually reads the mails, she answers all my questions and she isn't deeply in love with any of us, yet.
Here's one of her pictures:

I'm not going to post other details at the moment, as I'm not 100% sure that she's a scammer.
I tried to google her, but to no avail.
Has anyone seen her before?

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:39 pm

I don't deal with the dating scammers, but that photo look suspiciously model-like to me, with posing, white fur and all that. Something I would expect from a scammer, but from a real person I would expect something more...um...real?

-Cyric

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:41 pm

I don't recognise the girl, but scammers steal pictures from everywhere so that's no real indicator. The picture is over 2 years old (Jan 22nd 2005). The best thing to do is to post up the headers of the emails for us to look over along with some background info. Does she claim to write from an internet cafe, that kind of thing.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 19

I may be really thick, but how did you get the picture's date?
By the way, the headers of her emails report different originating IP-addresses, all connected to some satellite providers in different countries (USA, Israel, Ghana).

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:04 pm

Quote:

how did you get the picture's date?

I looked at the EXIF data. This is what it showed me

File: - C:\kiki1.jpg

Make - Canon
Model - Canon EOS 10D
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 150
YResolution - 150
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0
DateTime - 2005:01:25 14:25:52
YCbCrPositioning - Centered
ExifOffset - 268
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Manual
WhiteBalance - Manual
SceneCaptureType - Standard
ExposureTime - 1/180 seconds
FNumber - 11
ISOSpeedRatings - 200
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2005:01:22 13:51:55
DateTimeDigitized - 2005:01:22 13:51:55
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 3 (bits/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/180 seconds
ApertureValue - F 11.00
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.80
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Flash fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 75 mm
UserComment -
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth - 600
ExifImageHeight - 400
FocalPlaneXResolution - 3443.95
FocalPlaneYResolution - 3442.02
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Inch
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - Other

As for the headers, they often reveal a lot of info as well.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 19

OK, I knew about EXIF data, but on Photobucket they do not show up.
I will have to get some programs to view them.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:20 pm

Irfanview and the plugin pack (both free) is what I use. It's quick and simple.

(edit) Want to post up the headers for us to pick through too?

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 19

Ok, thanks!
I've got just now "Exif Viewer"; it's quite a handy program and it's free.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:18 pm

That pic definately has a professional 'touched up' look to it.

(no..I didn't mean that!)

Wish my ladies were so conscientious..I get warts 'n all!!! Shocked

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 19

Yes, that picture looks quite professional (although a good amateur with a decent set-up can get the same results).
She sent me other pics, they are all taken with the same camera, between Dec. 2004 and Jan. 2006.
Definitely suspicious...

here's one of the headers:

Quote:

X-Apparently-To: XXXXXXX via 69.147.75.23; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:57:50 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [217.146.182.108]
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Authentication-Results: mta363.mail.re4.yahoo.com from=yahoo.co.uk; domainkeys=pass (ok)
Received: from 217.146.182.108 (HELO web28003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com) (217.146.182.108) by mta363.mail.re4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:57:50 -0800
Received: (qmail 91798 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2007 12:57:44 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;
d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:
Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=knyPM5aiplsfd9jbAYY4ClyQFCpfC+/XVRtTMVOTjTHK1MKAd8vzOEjJWDs5ryTv80HQa8dqxEtqesGrcpoN8NgKb8SkG0
Fr7pm02iQrVdDcqqXcVDW9YX9dtXahOA3yGqqu0O6X5pk2sbJYqZEqBLfw4d5H8WIAMGX0iBgHa/0= ;
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-YMail-OSG: bQS5kbEVM1kEoQDpCKZ0MEaFIVInJnrovkUI4eRfogRqoybYLRlTVONoEABYAQcttyMr7w2arhrbzassBf4mL.4VIxpcKaT8VXLm3jRl5hDy4SZHVLk-
Received: from [216.118.254.75] by web28003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:57:44 GMT
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:57:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: "YYYYYYY" <[email protected]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.co.uk. Learn more
Subject: Hi dear!
To: XXXXXXXXXX
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1316437109-1172149064=:91507"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 177690

Other headers show IP-addresses pointing to satellite providers in Israel and Ghana.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:57 pm

In, ermmm, my previous, ummmm, research (yes, that it, research) for love scammers, I saw her. I think she might go under the name of Emily18.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:47 am

It is unusual that they answer ALL your questions! Usually 1 out of 5 is about the norm unless you push the point.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 19

You're right, that's why I'm not really sure she's a scammer.
Oh, well.. the bait goes on... Twisted Evil

Not quite a Newb Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 59

You gotta admitthough, some of the models they nick aren't bad looking apart from "Mrs exposure" posted in another thread.

Or maybe it's me

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:03 am

Quote:

some of the models they nick aren't bad looking

And that would be why they're models Very Happy

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 19

Well, I personally do not find this one very much attractive. Looks like she has a nice rack, though... Twisted Evil

Not quite a Newb Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 59

I googled the Camera model. It isn't too fancy, basically looks like a regular camera but the cost kinda says it's a model cam - �700. Nobodie's gonna buy that for general snaps. We certainly have a model here

Not quite a Newb Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 59

@wayne,

But some models can be rather mingin'. Take mrs Katie Price for example. or is she now Katie Andre? Nice 4 years ago but now look at her - over enlarged tits, ugly and with a crap singer.

Does anyone recognise this one?	View next topic View previous topic