Fake User Awareness Thread

sh2564 said:
I’m not sure how to prove this per se, but this user claimed she thought she got pregnant 1 month after sex with a dog. Then (unsolicited) proceeded to send me a before picture and a ‘pregnant’ picture of two clearly different women. View attachment 304174
Click to expand...
I can also confirm that this user is a catfish and should be banned.
 
sh2564 said:
I’m not sure how to prove this per se, but this user claimed she thought she got pregnant 1 month after sex with a dog. Then (unsolicited) proceeded to send me a before picture and a ‘pregnant’ picture of two clearly different women. View attachment 304174
Click to expand...
It would have to be public. She would have to claim something as her in the general forum.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-09-09 at 9.35.14 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-09-09 at 9.35.14 PM.png
    515.6 KB · Views: 49
  • Screen Shot 2022-09-09 at 9.36.05 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-09-09 at 9.36.05 PM.png
    1 MB · Views: 50
www.zoovilleforum.net

AllyKat

www.zoovilleforum.net www.zoovilleforum.net

This user sent me this photo of her. which can already be found on the internet easily. @Oldman

Sent me a photo with face easily but couldn't even hold up three fingers to verify themselves lol. Said they "couldn't because they're maybe hacked" lmaooo.

I deserve a janitor title here. Also revising my "amount of actual women on ZV" from 12 to 8.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-09-09 at 10.49.15 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-09-09 at 10.49.15 PM.png
    234.7 KB · Views: 43
  • Screen Shot 2022-09-09 at 10.49.27 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-09-09 at 10.49.27 PM.png
    245.1 KB · Views: 43
Why do people keep doing this shit? Both banned. I wonder how many retards gave them personal info or even worse.
 
Funny how often they all make similar usernames. Like ZooFetishUk, DogSemenSucker, ExremeCumSlutSlave, SubDogMommy69 and so on. Apologies if any non dodgy members with similar nicknames :)
 
noah28 said:
www.zoovilleforum.net

AllyKat

www.zoovilleforum.net www.zoovilleforum.net

This user sent me this photo of her. which can already be found on the internet easily. @Oldman

Sent me a photo with face easily but couldn't even hold up three fingers to verify themselves lol. Said they "couldn't because they're maybe hacked" lmaooo.

I deserve a janitor title here. Also revising my "amount of actual women on ZV" from 12 to 8.
Click to expand...
8 real ladies here? I was certain we were at zero, just those are better at pretending they are real 🤣
 
I’m curious how accurate these reverse image searches are. I got a result for an image sent to me that was originally posted in 2010 per tiny eye, and another that wasn’t found. The user claims their image was shared, but for that to be true the 2010 date stamp would have to be very, very inaccurate (based on the age of the person in the photo).

I guess I want to make sure I’m not unfairly calling someone out since the other image they sent wasn’t found. Perhaps there is some inaccuracy in the reverse image searches?
 
sh2564 said:
I’m curious how accurate these reverse image searches are. I got a result for an image sent to me that was originally posted in 2010 per tiny eye, and another that wasn’t found. The user claims their image was shared, but for that to be true the 2010 date stamp would have to be very, very inaccurate (based on the age of the person in the photo).

I guess I want to make sure I’m not unfairly calling someone out since the other image they sent wasn’t found. Perhaps there is some inaccuracy in the reverse image searches?
Click to expand...
Reverse image search looks for symilar images. Shows the results, do you can just make sure by yourself if that is the same image.

Normally they provide the source, so date usually comes from the context more that the metadata. Go to the site, check the context.

No results: Might be real, only-for-you photo, or just hunted from an unindexed site.

Possible errors:
- Real photo that the user or someone else has posted elsewhere.
- Results based on metadata (if the camera is out of date, metadata may be from 2010, but mist times people manage to omit metadata.
- VTE (Very twisted error) if someone has an accout somewhere and edits a 2010 post to replace the photo with an actual one... but honestly... quite improbable
 
sh2564 said:
I’m curious how accurate these reverse image searches are. I got a result for an image sent to me that was originally posted in 2010 per tiny eye, and another that wasn’t found. The user claims their image was shared, but for that to be true the 2010 date stamp would have to be very, very inaccurate (based on the age of the person in the photo).
Click to expand...
Goattobeloved said:
Reverse image search looks for symilar images. Shows the results, do you can just make sure by yourself if that is the same image.

Normally they provide the source, so date usually comes from the context more that the metadata. Go to the site, check the context.

No results: Might be real, only-for-you photo, or just hunted from an unindexed site.

Possible errors:
- Real photo that the user or someone else has posted elsewhere.
- Results based on metadata (if the camera is out of date, metadata may be from 2010, but mist times people manage to omit metadata.
- VTE (Very twisted error) if someone has an accout somewhere and edits a 2010 post to replace the photo with an actual one... but honestly... quite improbable
Click to expand...
It says “first found” on such and such date, so I presume that’s not metadata? The direct links to the image doesn’t work, but it seems to be from a couple of porn websites. So I guess the date found refers to the date it was posted to that porn site?
 
sh2564 said:
It says “first found” on such and such date, so I presume that’s not metadata? The direct links to the image doesn’t work, but it seems to be from a couple of porn websites. So I guess the date found refers to the date it was posted to that porn site?
Click to expand...
Yes, usually it would be that.

If the site is not there anymore, you can still try sonething. Copy the address, paste it in google search bar.

If you see the link inbthe result, there is usually an option of "view cache", which has some recent captureif that page.
The other option is waybackmachine
 
Goattobeloved said:
Yes, usually it would be that.

If the site is not there anymore, you can still try sonething. Copy the address, paste it in google search bar.

If you see the link inbthe result, there is usually an option of "view cache", which has some recent captureif that page.
The other option is waybackmachine
Click to expand...
Based on this and the flow of the conversation I’m pretty sure it’s a fake account. Within a few messages the user was asking for personal content and the sent the fake image without a request for one. And now that I’ve questioned them and asked for a verifiable photo they’ve disappeared. So I’m gonna say 95% sure it’s bs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top