The Anatomy of a Fake

I started this page originally simply to list known fakes, but I think maybe that’s an exercise in futility. As soon as I out a fake, they will simply remove it and make another.

Far more instructive, I think, would be to simply show you how we deconstructed a fake (and yes, I had help doing this). If you see what they do to make one, you’ll know how to research a friend request before accepting it.

Why do people make fakes?

There are multiple reasons, and the fakes are often specially designed to serve a single purpose.

One reason they’re done is to get into groups in order to spy and grab screen shots. Another reason is to spy on people’s Facebook pages, to be able to see posts that are set to “friends only.” William Peck, for example, existed almost entirely for a screen to hide Camille while she insulted and slammed Jocelyn Zichterman. Fakes are also useful if someone has blocked you. Nearly the entire Court has me blocked, yet they troll my page regularly looking for stuff.

These people aren’t one bit ashamed of doing this stuff. They retort that because people use screen names on my blog, somehow that’s equivalent and I’m a “hypocrite.” As you’ll see, it’s not the same thing at all. The people with screen names on my blog are almost all known to me. Some of them are known to each other as well. Furthermore, the blog itself is mine, and everyone knows that.

Furthermore, a fake profile that uses the name “Jiminy Cricket” is not what I’m talking about here.  Anyone knows that is a fake. It’s the equivalent of using a screen name when commenting on the blog.

Here’s a simple fake. It’s not in any way nefarious that I can see. It’s Cathy Harris, using the name she pretends is her birth name before Cleo “kidnapped” her.

It’s relatively easy to spot this as fake. No last name. No banner photo. Almost no activity. And the cat photo sort of gives it away. She’s not trying to hide anything here.

Kim Bumhammer

Here’s another relatively simple fake.

Again, no banner photo. They’ve tried a wee bit harder here, with a visible friend list (albeit few friends), and some likes and groups and stuff.

So how do I know this is a fake?

Take a good look at the profile picture. Notice the two guys in the rear (I’ve put arrows pointing to them.) And notice the logo on their shirts?

In addition, pay attention to the ball. It’s not a soccer ball. It’s a rugby ball. This is a rugby team.

Here’s a closeup of the logo. It says “Scotland.”

And look at these two guys. Have you seen them before, each holding a rugby ball? Think maybe this is the same photo shoot on the same day?

That is a photo of the youth that were chosen to be part of the Commonwealth Youth Games as a rugby team. From Scotland. Representing Scotland. In September 2011 on the Isle of Man.

Now, is it possible that Kim Bumhammer, from Kansas City, Kansas, has a nephew or niece or some other relative or friend who was chosen to be on the Scotland Youth Rugby Team, almost four years ago? And she’s kept that same photo as her profile picture ever since she joined Facebook in February, 2012, when this photo was six months old?

Or is Kim a fake?

Linda Meeks

This one is actually gone now, as far as I can tell, so I cannot link to it, but it’s clearly a fake as well. I include it because both “Kim” and “Linda” play in a role in what’s coming down the page.

“Linda Meeks” got her profile picture from the blog of Linda Weaver Clarke, who is an author.

Here she is again, profiled and interviewed on another blog.

It is not the case that Linda Clarke is simply a pen name for “Linda Meeks.” “Linda Meeks” purported to be a Bob Jones University graduate.

As you can see, the real person, Linda Weaver Clarke, went to college in Utah and is a Mormon.

So that leads to a question. How did we figure all this out?

The first tool is to be skeptical. Real profiles have lots of different things on them. My own Facebook page has stuff about cows, farming, GMOs, alternative medicine (as a hoax), atheism, Bob Jones, politics and silly kitties as well as rescued pups. That’s some pretty diverse subject matter. Be skeptical if the profile is too narrow.

Second, if a profile has nothing posted except one meme or video or something like that after another, you’re justified in seeing a red flag. There should be commentary, at least some commentary. Keeping up a bunch of fakes takes time, and the fakers get lazy. It’s easy to just toss up a meme. It’s harder to take the time to actually write something as “Linda Meeks” or “Kim Bumhammer.” Speaking of which, where in the hell do they get these names?

Look at the visible photos. Grab them. Stick them on your desktop. Then go to Google Images. On Google Images, click on the icon of a camera to the far right of the information box. Then click on “upload an image” or drag your image from the desktop onto the page. You’ll find all sorts of stuff if the image was lifted from somebody’s website. If it’s actually Susie McDonald’s photo, you probably won’t find anything at all.

Brenda Bough

And all the preceding has been a lead-up to this one. This is probably the most elaborate fake we’ve uncovered thus far.

Go take a look at it. Hell, some of you are probably friends with “Brenda.” “She” has 240 friends. Take a look at them. See how many names you recognize. [Note: you can’t. Camille took down “Brenda Bough” after this article was published. The friend list consisted largely of BJU-related people.]

Then take a look at her photos. Notice that there are photos of “Brenda” all over, taken at different times. There’s even a couple of photos which appear to be “Brenda” with her daughter taken years apart.

These are from the fake Brenda Bough’s profile pictures.

See the ones I’ve outlined in red?

Note: I didn’t outline or grab all the stolen photos because this page would be much longer than it is now if I had. All the photos of people are stolen.

All the photos of “Brenda Bough” are lifted from a blog and web site belonging to Mrs. Bettie Need. Mrs. Need is a widow, a very religious lady who makes patterns for those godawful “modest” dresses for women and girls. Regardless of what I think about her patterns, she didn’t deserve to have her photos stolen like this and used in such a vile way.

Here they are in their original setting.

And here is a common ploy that the Queen and her Court use to make it look like a profile is real. They have “Brenda” talking to “Linda” (Linda Meeks, remember her?) on the phone. Exactly the same way that “Beth James” spoke on phone with Cathy Harris “many times.”

And in several other places, especially early in the profile’s existence (when they needed to establish her supposed credibility) people “like” her comments – “people” such as “Kim Bumhammer” and “Linda Meeks” – other fakes.

Once they manage to get “Brenda Bough” some credible “friends,” it’s easy to add others. People accept “Brenda’s” friend request even without knowing her because so-and-so is a friend of hers.

Here’s another example. “Brenda,” who has already established herself a little bit with a few accepted friend requests, has a nice chatty exchange with “Kim” who is trying to get her foot in the door. By talking about the non-existent mother with the non-existent cancer (oh gee whiz, deja vu or what?), people tend to believe that “Brenda” and “Kim” know each other. And of course, they do. They are probably the same person.

Now which person do you think might be behind “Brenda”?

Between the time that I started this page (several months ago – I got interrupted) and now, “Brenda Bough” has blocked me on Facebook. Wrap yourself around that a little bit. Look at “Brenda’s” friend list [NOTE: You can’t since Camille took it all down]. I have never interacted with a single one of those people. Not one. I have no mutual friends with “Brenda Bough.”

She is ostensibly an older lady, BJU graduate, who likes to sew and who posts politically conservative crap and sappy religious stuff. There is no reason at all for “Brenda Bough” to even know I exist. But she has me blocked.

I thought the page was gone and had ask someone else to look – which is when I discovered the blockage.

I will tell you why I think that Camille did this. Since we (and yes, it’s “we”) started working on this, some folks felt strongly enough that this was seriously shitty that they warned some of “Brenda’s” friends. And Camille either got word filtering back to her, or she noticed “Brenda” was being unfriended a bit, and decided I was behind it, so wham – blockage.

Now, why would Camille make such an elaborate fake profile and keep it up since February, 2012?

She does it to snoop. She’s not friends with many of “Brenda’s” friends. Look at the list.  [Again, you can’t.] They are pastors and for the most part BJU “loyalists.” And Camille is their Facebook friend whether they realize it or not. It means she can see what they post to “friends only.”

She makes provocative posts like this one, hoping that they will say stuff. In the conversation that followed this, 10 comments, “Brenda” liked almost every post. As she clicked “like” she was laughing at them.

She hopes they’ll post stuff and have conversations that will give her dirt to put on Truth Seeking Graduates and then everyone will marvel at her “sources.”

In addition, by having a profile like this, Camille can join groups that would otherwise not allow her in.

UPDATE May 4, 2015

Here is Camille, in her own words, talking about “Brenda Bough.”

So here we have Camille calling her sister-in-law and Trudy Fremont, along with 239 other people, “whores.” Not “trusting.” Not “naive.” [Trudy Fremont, for those who don’t know, is the very elderly widow of a former professor. She has lived on campus for decades.]

“Whores.”

This is what she thinks of people at Bob Jones University. All the stuff she puts on Truth Seeking Graduates about how it’s the administration that is bad, but she loves the faculty? Bullshit. They are “whores.”

As I showed above, she stole all those pictures.

And that is the text of a letter than Camille wrote to the board members in support of Chuck Phelps. A woman who screams and yells about being an advocate for victims writes a letter like that in support of Chuck Phelps. It doesn’t matter that she did it under a fake identity.

What could possibly have been her motive? What did she stand to gain by doing that? Information? Not likely. All she did was fuel (albeit in a very small way) the feeling on the board that they were right to defend Phelps.

You see, Camille doesn’t want any change at BJU. Camille simply wants blood. She is after revenge against her former employer because they dared to let her go. It’s not about anything else or anything less.

Just look at the friend list. [You can’t.] Think about the deception that is going on here, actively, right now, today. Camille calls this “whistleblowing” and thinks she’s some sort of hero for doing it.

I call it pitiful.

Please look at the friend list. If you have mutual friends with “Brenda,” please send them the link to this page. They have a Peeping Tom looking in their window. [Thankfully, that page is gone.]

Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that “Brenda” is not Camille’s only fake. Of course, we already know that William Peck is another, but there are probably numerous others. Cathy is adept at pulling off this sort of stunt as well, and probably has a dozen aliases.

But more importantly, be aware that this is what the Queen and her Court do. This is why I bitch about fake profiles. This is what I’m talking about. Not using screen names on a blog where everyone knows that it’s my blog or that it’s Camille’s blog. This is not clever. It’s deceptive. It’s lying. It’s theft.

I know that “some people are saying” that Camille is having a crisis of faith. But I’ll tell you flat out. The atheists I know are moral people. They don’t do this sort of shit. We do not want her. You guys can keep her.

 

 

Intent

calvary

This is the Fundy Church From Hell. The pastor who was there years ago had a mother who also attended the church. She was a sweet, gentle person who was also a bit gullible. However, she made a very astute statement once that I have never forgotten.

Her daughter-in-law (the pastor’s wife) and I were riding in a car someplace. She asked me to get a pad of paper out of her purse as she was driving, and then began to dictate a letter.  I dutifully wrote, like a secretary would. (What she wanted was for the letter to be in my handwriting, not hers.)  Then she had me address an envelope to the local paper. A letter to the editor. And she signed it with her middle and maiden names.

She smiled and said, “See? I didn’t lie.”

I forget now what the letter was about, but it was something that she didn’t want to sign her own name to.

When it appeared in the paper, her mother-in-law saw it and recognized who the author was immediately – and she made an offhand comment:  “The intent to deceive is a lie.”

The intent to deceive is a lie.

Interesting statement, I thought. I’ve thought about it a good bit since then, more than thirty-five years ago. That woman is long dead, but her words remain with me. “The intent to deceive is a lie.”

Religion has flaws (I know it’s surprising to read that coming from me, but bear with me here) – and this is one of them. Religion teaches you to obey rules.  Thou shalt not . . . whatever. And one of those is not to lie.

So my pastor’s wife spent half her time trying to figure out, like accountants and tax attorneys do every day, how to wiggle around and weasel out of the “lying” category and still deceive.  If she used her middle name and her maiden name, well, technically those are her names, aren’t they?  So it’s not a lie.

So what you do is create a fake Facebook profile and then start a Facebook group using the fake profile and then declare that you’re “not an administrator” of that group.  Or you say to somebody, “Well, I don’t know for sure, but a friend told me that so-and-so has problems with alcohol,” thus starting a rumor that so-and-so is an alcoholic.  Or you say, “I just wanted to ask you why you don’t see your granddaughter, because there are all these rumors. . .” when you’ve really been told that by one person only.  It’s “technically” not a “lie.”  Only it is.

I’m the atheist here. I don’t worry two seconds about what some imaginary guy in the sky thinks about whether or not I tell the truth. But I’ll tell you this:  If there was a deity worth two cents, that deity would know perfectly well when somebody is trying to weasel.

I am not saying that having a screen name is wrong.  Or even that using a pseudonym on Facebook is necessarily wrong. A great deal depends on intent. Because I am way more interested in intent than I am in somebody keeping a technicality.  Why are you using a screen name?  Why are you using a pseudonym?  There are perfectly good, valid reasons for doing so. I know some of you do that, and in some cases, I know why. And it’s fine.

I’m talking about this because of something Music Man said.

Just tell people that you’re using a fake ID because you need some privacy. Most people would understand.

That’s a perfectly good reason, provided it’s a real reason. Provided you aren’t saying that when really the reason is to try to hurt another person or get revenge or play a prank on somebody at a school you don’t like just to be mean.

photo courtesy David Schauer via freeimages.com

When I was taking philosophy in college (University of Wisconsin- Madison), I had a long discussion with my prof about this subject.  When is it okay to lie?  He had a great answer (and he was Christian, by the way). He said that a lie is fine when the person who asked you the question had no right to do so.

Example:  The Gestapo comes to your door and you are hiding Jews. You lie.

His take was that this is okay (with Jesus) because the Gestapo does not have the right to ask the question in the first place.

My take, because I’m not interested in what Jesus thinks, is that the greater good is achieved by lying, so I would lie happily (or rather, I would lie while scared out of my wits).

But the important thing here is not nit-picking over why it’s okay to lie from time to time. The important thing is that the issue is not black-and-white.

There is not a rule that says, “Don’t lie.” Rather, there is a principle, expressed in the Bible, but also in nearly every moral code found throughout history, including those that predate the Bible by many centuries, that we’ll generally be better off if we don’t do to people what we don’t want done to us.

I don’t wish to be deceived. I am not naive and I know I have been greatly deceived in the past and that I will be in the future, and that some people simply prove to me that they cannot be trusted—however, in general, I believe most people are decent and relatively honest, and aren’t really out to get me. I try to return the favor.

The pastor at the Fundy Church From Hell was not my favorite person in the world. However, he also said something I’ve never forgotten. He said that everyone carries a gun.  Not a real, literal gun, but a figurative one.

And he said that some people  leave their guns at home, locked in a gun safe. To get their gun out, they have to go to some trouble. It’s not loaded. They have to find the bullets.

Other people carry their guns in the holster, but they have the safety on.

Other people carry their guns loaded and ready.

And I’ve found something else to be true:  Everyone has been each of those people from time to time, at different points in their life and with different situations. I like leaving the gun at home. I like the feeling of knowing that I can.

But when somebody has pulled a loaded gun on me over and over and over again, it’s not a surprise when I don’t want to give them another chance.

It’s all about intent. Not what you do. Not your skill at maneuvering around some imaginary rules.