Scammed by Andrew Michael Popp Las Vegas, NV

Originally Posted by Mister Internet

It doesn't PROVE shenanigans, no. In much the same way that a dog standing by a pair of chewed-up slippers doesn't PROVE that the dog did the chewing. It is possible there's another explanation for the slippers? Yes. Is it the most likely explanation? Not by a long shot.

^^^^
This

Andy (Reptile over people), since you are here viewing this thread right now, you have a PM (private message) needing your attention. Top right of your screen.

Originally Posted by Cletus Marley

^^^^
This

...is a bit of hyperbole that fails to consider the specifics. The IP address Nick supplied belongs to Hughes Network Systems. HughesNet is apparently a bit of an oddity among ISPs. This appears to be one of the situations where IP alone can't really be used as a personal identifier. Obviously, that relies on the assumption that they're "both" using Hughes. It may very well be one person making all of the posts; unfortunately, considering the actual provider, the shared IP address alone doesn't make shenanigans nearly as likely as the chewed-slippers analogy suggests.

https://jacksontech.net/index.php/ar...etworking-faq/

The IPv4 address given to your networked devices via the HughesNet modem is not a public IP address. It is a private IPv4 address in a range reserved for ISPs via RFC6598 for use in Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) systems. So, most customers with home routers are behind two layers of NAT–sometimes called “double NAT.”

CGN functions much like your home router; many computers are “hidden” on a private network behind a single public IP address (which may be dynamic or static) using a mechanism called Network Address Translation (NAT). In this case, the scenario has been scaled up. Many HughesNet customers are situated behind large NAT gateways run by HughesNet. The network traffic of all the customers behind each gateway appears, to the rest of the Internet, to originate from one IP address. This practice is common among cellular wireless providers and some other ISPs. Among other reasons, it attempts to stave off IPv4 starvation/exhaustion by assigning many customers to one IP address, as opposed to giving each customer their own IP address.

I'll be the first to admit, Andrew Popp is cunning, meticulous, and he sounds professional on the phone. But it's unfortunate he does not know when to throw in the towel. I'm not careless and I feel like I used due regard and due diligence in this transaction. But did I get scammed? - yes I did.

He reminds me of google (has an answer for everything)

But its the pointed direct, questions that he cowards away from. I wish we could all stand in a big room and let one another ask questions, then I could articulate how bold this was.

It's probably the listing from July (as non hets) that was his major undoing. That's a smoking gun. He even reluctantly admitted it.

Now he is threatening to sue my wife? - Andrew, man, I'm just gonna not comment on that.

Please find three pictures attached, one is of my 7 inch adult turtle, and next to my adult you will see andrew Popps "Adult Turtle".

Also please notice my screen shot of text messages, where Andrew agreed to refund (after we confronted him with the July posting match)

Also, please notice another texts, saying he has some snake gonna breed and that's how he would eventually repay.

You know, if you still have doubts - you will likely never believe this was a scam. And that's okay - everyone is entitled.

But I know I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt 100%. When I return back to ATL, I am willing to post more proof. But please message me, and say exactly what you would like to see, I will accommodate as best I can. Also please give me a pass on typos - I'm traveling and using mobile devices.

-Chris Davis

Originally Posted by calebroad

SUCCESS!!

Long day - tired as crap. And had to extend my trip time here.

Although things do not move lighting fast, as I would like.

I understand the system takes time, and I am very impressed with the judges, officers, and authorities in Las Vegas. True professionals

But the lawsuits are filed, now working on warrants. Obviously that's ultimately not my call and the DA will determine that.

You spoke with a judge?

Originally Posted by Fangthane

...is a bit of hyperbole that fails to consider the specifics. The IP address Nick supplied belongs to Hughes Network Systems. HughesNet is apparently a bit of an oddity among ISPs. This appears to be one of the situations where IP alone can't really be used as a personal identifier. Obviously, that relies on the assumption that they're "both" using Hughes. It may very well be one person making all of the posts; unfortunately, considering the actual provider, the shared IP address alone doesn't make shenanigans nearly as likely as the chewed-slippers analogy suggests.

https://jacksontech.net/index.php/ar...etworking-faq/

I have to wonder why you didn't put as much stock into the notion that IPs aren't so accurate in condemning someone as you did regarding me in the Garrett Smith (frogman) thread where you wanted everyone to see the "real" Chris Kennard. You were way off. I guess when opportunity knocks...

Originally Posted by Fangthane

...is a bit of hyperbole that fails to consider the specifics. The IP address Nick supplied belongs to Hughes Network Systems. HughesNet is apparently a bit of an oddity among ISPs. This appears to be one of the situations where IP alone can't really be used as a personal identifier. Obviously, that relies on the assumption that they're "both" using Hughes. It may very well be one person making all of the posts; unfortunately, considering the actual provider, the shared IP address alone doesn't make shenanigans nearly as likely as the chewed-slippers analogy suggests.

https://jacksontech.net/index.php/ar...etworking-faq/

I understood the original point, but the issue becomes one of circumstances and probability at some point... for example, a simple ARIN query shows that the IP range assigned to HughesNet is 67.142.0.0 - 67.143.255.255, which allows for ~130,000 public IP addresses. Now, obviously they may have a single public IP for all their residential/non-upgraded subscribers that have not paid for a static IP, and hide them ALL behind a giant double-NAT, but that seems a bit far-fetched. On would assume a distributed system that has a range of assignable gateways/addresses, probably assigned by geography for latency concerns. From annual reports, it looks like Hughes may have around 1M customers, so for a majority of those IPs to have gone to customers paying for their own static IP, would require about 1 in every 10 subscribers opting for that... which is ludicrous. Circumstances being what they are, it's not unreasonable to take this as evidence of shared. Of course it's not a slam dunk, but unless the web server logs contain IPv6 information in the HTTP headers, we won't have that anyway.

Sorry, was not trying to question your knowledge, but it's not really as open-ended as you left it.

Originally Posted by calebroad

But I know I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt 100%.

If the "stress" is no longer "getting to" you, you could just do what I already suggested. I know you caught it the first time around, but here it is again:

Originally Posted by Fangthane

Since you've previously expressed an interest in posting ALL your evidence here, how about attaching the incriminating audio files in this thread? Seems like a really easy to way to remove all doubt and indisputably show that things stand exactly as you've stated.

If you have recordings of him flat-out admitting that he scammed you, what more could you possibly need to post in order to put the matter to rest?

Originally Posted by ChrisKennard

I have to wonder why you didn't put as much stock into the notion that IPs aren't so accurate in condemning someone as you did regarding me in the Garrett Smith (frogman) thread where you wanted everyone to see the "real" Chris Kennard. You were way off. I guess when opportunity knocks...

IP address had nothing to do with that. You got banned; someone immediately started spamming the thread. 2 + 2 appeared to be 4. It was a reasonable suspicion that others openly shared. I'm sure it's just a matter of faulty memory and not inherent dishonesty. Try again.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

If the "stress" is no longer "getting to" you, you could just do what I already suggested. I know you caught it the first time around, but here it is again:


If you have recordings of him flat-out admitting that he scammed you, what more could you possibly need to post in order to put the matter to rest?


IP address had nothing to do with that. You got banned; someone immediately started spamming the thread. 2 + 2 appeared to be 4. It was a reasonable suspicion that others openly shared. I'm sure it's just a matter of faulty memory and not inherent dishonesty. Try again.

No need to try again. Like I said, opprtunity knocked, and proof meant squat to you then. Post 1188 of the Garrett Smith (scammer) thread proves it. You are an opportunist, nothing more. You were wrong. You didn't own it. You play things safe. I get that. While others may have "shared" your "suspicions", they didn't openly amplifly the condemnation you did in that post. But by all means, please share more about the IP phenomenon.

Again, IP played no part in that situation. To my knowledge, no IPs were ever posted or even discussed. Your choice to throw that into your whining just shows that the "real" Chris Kennard isn't above adding non-existent elements to a discussion. Can't say it even remotely surprises me.

I'm fairly confident that those familiar with that thread will see that the circumstances there show your comment about how much weight I give IP addresses is somewhere between idiotic and plainly deceptive. If not, it really doesn't make any difference to me. This thread isn't about your feewings, or Garrett Smith.