jambutty

Conciliator - You claim that the screen shots were forged. I ask by whom?

Obviously PeterB is a candidate but so is Jude. He got them from PeterB and it was he who posted them for all to see. So either one could have carried out the forging and you only have the word of either one that they didn’t. Without evidence one man’s word carries the same weight as another man’s word. I don’t think that the screen shots are forgeries but your attempt to make it appear so is flawed.
The rate per oz figure is only to two decimal places which has been rounded up from 679.1999688 making it 679.20. The actual price of gold is quoted to more than two decimal places.
Look again. I can only see 679.20.
Not necessarily. I have experienced out of time sequence entries in my E-Gold account records that were corrected the next time that I accessed my account. Glitches happen and the date hadn’t changed to 1st May. The ‘hacker’ could have gone to bed after a successful raid and decided to have another go when he got up.

There are many pairs of withdrawal entries that were made at exactly the same time according to E-Gold. But that’s not possible unless the time is rounded up or down to the nearest minute.
What about it being a default memo that would appear on every outgoing transaction and the ‘hacker’ couldn’t be bothered deleting it?
He, if it was a he, didn’t. Of the stats shown he did it in four batches. One from 17:37 on the 4th April to 17:50, then at 22.03 and 22:04 and then at 23:13 to 23:15 and finally at 07:48.
Load either screen grab into a decent paint package like PaintShopPro or Adobe Photoshop and then magnify the page. You will then see the anti aliasing around the text. I cannot see any evidence of a cut/copy and paste job unless the perpetrator took a lot of time and care in doing it. However the fact that I cannot detect any evidence of some malarkey doesn’t mean to say that it didn’t happen. It just means that I cannot see any evidence.
It didn’t! It stayed at 679.20 during these times: from 17:37 on the 4th April to 17:50, then at 22.03 and 22:04 and then at 23:13 to 23:15. What the rate was outside those times is debatable. My E-Gold records do not coincide the Club-Fx’s records to the minute but my E-Gold account records show that at 16:43 on the 30th April the rate was 680.40 and at 05:36 on the 1st May the rate per oz was 678.90 so the rate between those times could well have been at 679.20.
If the ‘hacker’ was using the numbers keypad to input the amount he could have hit the 1 instead of the 0 in his haste to get the job done. Don’t forget he had access when he knew that PeterB also had access and didn’t want to be caught in the act as it were. Do you know what happens if two people from two different computers try to log onto a site at the same time? I don’t but I should imagine that alarm bells would ring somewhere.

$9,500.01 translating to 13.987044 shows that the rate was at 679.2006946 rounded down to the quoted 679.20.
$9,500.00 translating to 13.987058 shows that the rate was at 679.1992998 rounded up to the quoted 679.20.
In other words you cannot put any credence on your assertions.

Did you not also notice that the last 7 entries on the first grab are the same as the first 7 entries on the second grab? In other words the screen grabs overlap.

However there is an anomaly between the screen grabs and my own E-Gold account records.
My E-Gold account shows a transaction number on the 28th April at 17:40 as 79998504 and at 21:51 on the 28th April it was 80006758 and thus after that date/time all transaction numbers are 80xxxxxx. Yet all the screen grab transactions for the 30th April until the last one are 7995xxxx.

If you are going to cast aspersions it would help your case if you proved your allegations. As it is your case is not proven. And in my case the jury is still out.

Conciliator

I have no idea who may have forged them, which is why it makes sense that PeterB would let someone review his e-gold history to confirm the transfers.
What, you're claiming that the spot prices for gold are carried out to several decimal places? I may be wrong, but I thought gold was quoted to the cent, no?

Second, the transaction you do the math on is the $4500 trade at $679.20/oz. I'm not sure why you're talking about this one, since there was nothing wrong with it. Rather, it's the one before it for $4500 at $677.90. The numbers are the same, so the rate should be 679.1999688 making it $679.20. But it's not, it's $677.90. There's something definitely wrong with this one.
That was a typo. I meant $679.20.
Sure, it's definitely possible that it was a glitch in e-gold. Which goes back to how easy it is to settle this. Peter just needs to give access to his account for someone to review the history and confirm things.

Second, I think it's ridiculous to propose that a hacker would go to bed after transfering several thounds of dollars at a time, every few minutes, with no sign that he can't keep going. Yeah, he just got burned out on transferring all that money, so he took a nap and then resumed hacking. Hell no. That makes no sense. This whole transfer history doesn't make sense. How did some hacker get into the Club-FX script in the first place? I'm incredulous.
No crap the time is rounded to the nearest minute. What does this have to do with anything?
Right, and according to the batch ID, the batch at 07:48 came before the batch at 22:04? That makes no sense.
As pointed out in the thread on Club-FX, this doesn't mean anything. If the image was first edited and then saved, it would be undetectable, since the compression artefacts would be the same everywhere
This is a good point. I still find it questionable though that all the transfers for the rest of the day, made at many different hours, were all at $679.20/oz.
How the 1 got put there is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything. The point is that the amount in gold bullion is incorrect. It calls the whole entry into question, especially since this entry has an out-of-sequence time.
Unless this was specifically programmed, it's unlikely that anything would happen. People have their connections drop and when they're on a dynamic IP, their address will change. Should these people be locked out since they're already logged in under a different IP? The answer is usually no and there's usually no alarm for this.
In other words, you're doing the math backwards. The spot rate is not calculated from the spend amount and the amount of gold bullion. Rather, the amount of gold bullion is calculated from the spend amount and the spot rate. What you're claiming is that gold was at $679.2006946 when the $9500.00 was transferred and that it just so happened to be at $679.1992998 SEVERAL HOURS (LATER/BEFORE???) when $9500.01 was transferred, such that the amount in gold bullion was identical. There's no way in hell. Like I said, I don't even think spot prices for gold are carried out past the cent mark anyway.
Yes, I noticed that.
Thank you! This is another HUGE inconsistency.
I never purported to prove anything. Think about it for a sec. This is HYIP world. Is Peter presumed to be innocent after claiming the fund was hacked? Or is he presumed to be guilty? He's the one making the claim that the fund was lost. He has the burden of showing evidence for that. All these screen shots do is cast some SERIOUS doubt on his claims. SO LET'S GET SOME EVIDENCE FROM HIM. This is turning into a freaking joke.

Schminner

If it is indeed a genuine screenshot, not forged, this can easily be an inside job using "Paul Roeder" e-gold account ... if it is indeed an inside job, why on earth would you contact a lawyer immediately?

As for writing to e-gold about the hacking, we all know that e-gold will give a generic response ... therefore, it's safe to provide and post e-gold's response for everyone to see ...

but, providing the lawyer's name and contact info would at least show some sort of effort that an attempt to stop the "hacker" had been made .... but then again, if there is an ounce of honesty, providing simple evidence would alleviate so much pain and headache for everyone, including the Admin .....

JoseLeon

I was thinking why don´t you, investors, contact e-gold asking about Club-Fx e-gold account and if it´s true that it was hacked. Sometimes e-gold answer these questions

__________________
My Blog:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"The more I know the people the more I love my dog"

kibitzer

Ok, I'll try and do that. Can anyone give me the actual e-gold account number that I should ask about?

My intuition tells me the Paul Roeder account is also PeterB's. This is probably the second account he transfers the funds to as mentioned by him in one of his posts (or maybe it was Jude's interview?) in answer to the question of how he makes sure the funds are safe.

Conciliator

It's probably not that account since the account number is so new. It couldn't have been the one he was referring to months ago.

kibitzer

Conciliator, hats off to you. I hope you keep up the good fight even though the pathetic cultists at GT are trying to run you down. Can people really be so BLIND?

allinvain

Yah, I think evidence and cool logic should be employed and the evidence should speak for itself. I hope we are not letting our emotional attachments to the admin get in the way.

Conciliator

I wouldn't call them cultists. They just have a LOT of trust and faith in Peter. And that's fine. If they trust him that much, the evidence I'm requesting is worthless to them. I can understand that.

I, on the other hand, am skeptical and critical by nature. I need substantial reasons and evidence as a basis for my beliefs. I also consider reasons and evidence in order to abandon bad beliefs. While those who support Peter may think the evidence I'm requesting is superfluous, I do think they're being closed-minded when they say that I'm being unreasonable. They should be also to understand how I (and many others) have a hard time taking Peter's word at face value. Seriously, this is the HYIP world. The questions about the e-gold images just amplify that doubt. Accordingly, I think they're incorrect to think that Peter owes no evidence to anyone since they don't require it personally.

Jude

I would understand the trust that is being built up by PeterB, and there are some that are standing in between the line (those that has funds stuck with CFX hoping for the recovery to happen) not wanting to voice anything out. Personally I have ALOT of funds stucked in CFX, and I'm preparing to write it off if the account is really being cleaned out by hacking activities.

And Pete can't respond to that?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Be Good!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.