VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998 - #2 - ***READ FIRST POST***

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll look. I remember seeing it as well, not just from FindAmy, so I agree with FA on this one. I also remember it was on a link inside of a page that showed up according to the time capture, not on the first screen itself. You can click on the links within the wayback archived site bc they don't just capture the first page, they capture most of the site if not all of it. You'll still be viewing those links within wayback & from that date in time, not the present time, so it's safe.

Thanks JG ... i just haven't seen each and every page within the Wayback links because i'm usually rummaging for something specific and then take off in a 100 different directions. In the July 29, 2004 edition though, her pics are under Guest Escorts, but when I checked 2002 specifically under Guest Escorts, I didn't see it there.
 
Sillybilly, I'll check now. Can't guarantee ill find it right away. Bbs...
 
Original post begins here:
On September 21, 2005 Hyscience received information from a reader, Allan K, about images he had found that looked like Amy Bradley.
We subsequently placed the images that we received from Allan, in a side by side comparison (above) with images from her web site, along with other images that we enlarged from comparison to her known features (see below). We then spoke with Ron Bradley, Amy's father, and emailed him the images (one of which was shown on the Dr. Phil Show tonight).
Ron Bradley then told us that he thought it was Amy and asked us NOT to post on the information or the images in order that whoever had Amy would not be "spooked," and that they, the parents, could get the information to the FBI. Ron told us on the phone, that the FBI had previously had difficulties when contacting either the owners or the people that knew where the girls were, and would probably prefer that we held back the information (We did not speak directly to the FBI ourselves since we thought the family was the ones to deal with the situation).
WE AGREED. But tonight we were surprised to see one of the images that we sent the Bradleys, show up on Dr Phil.
So since the "cat is out of the bag," we feel that we are no longer under any obligation to hold back information and other images(but would if asked to do so by the family).
Update: Here is the file for the site that was taken down, where "Amy's" pictures first appeared. Notice that it has "Aruba's Only Adult Tour (Caution, sexually explicit language)." We are not saying that any of these sites are "illegitimate businesses." Only that girls like Amy Bradley, and others, can end up there. They either get there voluntarily, or someone takes them there, and then for whatever reason, they don't leave.
Update 2 (relating to the above paragraph, only): We have received information today that calls into question whether or not Amy's picture was ever at the above mentioned site. We cannot confirm or deny, that her image was indeed on that particular site. What we do know is that since Natalee Holloway disappeared, virtually all of such sites relating to Aruba have been taken down - making it impossible to recheck our original information. The above mentioned site was operated by an operator that we chose not to identify at this time. - end item.




I went back to the original Hyscience article to re-read the explanation of how these pictures were found and noticed an update 2 which states that they received information that calls into question whether these pictures were ever even on the site. Does anyone have information on this?[/QUOTE]

That is quite interesting
This is the first I have heard about this
 
Weird that they can't confirm weather the website had the photos up ...

Hasn't wayback been around a while ? Does anyone know if it's possible to manipulate an archive ?

And I did find it odd that FA said yellow was not the band member who spoke to brad and that that's an error ... because brad said it on the tv show :?:

This is truly a weird one ...

Have any of Amy's friends ever spoken out ? I read the FBI interviewed her basketball coach ...

Why ?
 
How do they explain that the Wayback contains the images in 2002 and 2004, prior to Allan K discovering them. Why would Allan K go to Hyscience and not the Bradley's or the FBI?PS: I personally have not seen the pics on Wayback in 2002 and am relying on provided earlier in the thread (by FA??)



That is an excellent question
 
I'd still like to know where that 3rd pic of Amy came from that is NOT on the AAV site. I don't believe we have seen it anywhere without the blockouts, so ... it could be that the original without the blockouts is showing the gecko tatt at her navel, and that is how the pic was verified.

I'm sorry to have to ask, but can you tell me which of the photos was not from the AAV site?

TIA
 
I would assume from the verified insider? I agree that I've never seen a photo in missing person case be verified without something that stands out like a tattoo etc and even then they still say "appears to be".

Without fingerprints, DNA, identification ect. I think that LE can really only say they believe the person seen in pics. and "witnessed" in person -is Amy, as opposed to saying it is 100% Amy.

I am "acting" on the presumption that it is in fact Amy.
The only "grain of salt" in the back of my mind, might come from the Jones character who had someone pose as Amy, and was jailed for deceiving the family for his bogus undercover work ..
 
Buncha azzaholas...

Some of the women look like they really like their job. A few don't seem that way. (Amy's) picture stands out. I've gone over so many links & pictures trying to find another girl on that bed that "Jas" is on. I'm talking a month, not a single one thus far.
 
Also notice how they re-use those "names"? I saw pics of the same person over a span of a few years being labelled with 5 different names lol.
 
Have no idea how this might apply to Amy's case, but thought I would post anyway on this interesting information as to facial recognition:

B&SBM:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbis-nationwide-facial-recognition-system-2012-9]
The FBI's Nationwide Facial Recognition System Ends Anonymity As We Know It
The fbi has begun installing state-of-the-art facial recognition technology across the country as part of an update to the national fingerprint database, sara reardon of the new scientist reports
According to a fbi "facial recognition initiatives presentation" at the 2010 biometrics conference, the technology will be used for identifying fugitives, missing persons and unknown persons of interest; tracking subject movements to/from critical events;

[/quote]
http://www.biometriccoe.gov/FBI_Initiatives.htm
facial recognition/identification
The biometric center of excellence (bcoe) was created to support the fbi’s overall biometrics mission and the major programs and initiatives that comprise the portfolio of services. One biometric initiative involves facial recognition/identification capabilities. Facial recognition involves the automated searching of a facial image in a computer database, typically resulting in a group of facial images ranked by similarity. Facial identification is the manual examination of the differences and similarities between two facial images for the purpose of determining whether they represent different persons or the same person.

The fbi’s facial recognition program, led by the operational technology division, provides guidance and valuable lead information to support criminal and national security investigations and missions. The fbi has been involved with facial comparisons for identification purposes for more than 50 years and continues to pursue automated facial biometric capabilities.
 
I am not familiar with the Hyscience site, but personally, I’m calling BS on their claim … just looking at how extensive their site is, they aren’t stupid and surely have heard of Wayback, so could easily check to verify that the pics were IN FACT there prior to Allan K bringing them to the attention of HySc.

I am suspicious of:

1) Allan K's reference to Amy's tatts being "strategically covered" (or whatever term he used)
2) Allan K not initially bringing the pics he found to the attention of the Bradley family or the FBI
3) HySc backtracking on their claim as to where the pics were found. If NOT found on the website, where do they propose Allan K got them? (which i guess begs the question ... how did Allan K(with no last name) AND/OR HySc come by the pics?)

ETA: Allan K said he came across "2 photos" ... so again I ask, where'd the third photo come from as it has not been found on the AAV site and it seems Allan K didn't find it??
 
Without fingerprints, DNA, identification ect. I think that LE can really only say they believe the person seen in pics. and "witnessed" in person -is Amy, as opposed to saying it is 100% Amy.

I am "acting" on the presumption that it is in fact Amy.
The only "grain of salt" in the back of my mind, might come from the Jones character who had someone pose as Amy, and was jailed for deceiving the family for his bogus undercover work ..

I really have no idea if the FBI has proof that these photos are Amy, but am just beginning to wonder regarding the "facial recognition" technology and if the FBI has applied it to her case.
 
I am not familiar with the Hyscience site, but personally, I’m calling BS on their claim … just looking at how extensive their site is, they aren’t stupid and surely have heard of Wayback, so could easily check to verify that the pics were IN FACT there prior to Allan K bringing them to the attention of HySc.

I am suspicious of:

1) Allan K's reference to Amy's tatts being "strategically covered" (or whatever term he used)
2) Allan K not initially bringing the pics he found to the attention of the Bradley family or the FBI
3) HySc backtracking on their claim as to where the pics were found. If NOT found on the website, where do they propose Allan K got them? (which i guess begs the question ... how did Allan K(with no last name) AND/OR HySc come by the pics?)

Ditto

However, they definitely were on the site. It's archived through a crawl of the affordable-adult-vacations domain on wayback. So if the commenters on HySci are saying they have a question whether or not the pics were on the sex vacay site, then they're flat out wrong. I'm not saying that disrespectfully but it is what it is, they're wrong bc she is on there.
 
Buncha azzaholas...

Some of the women look like they really like their job. A few don't seem that way. (Amy's) picture stands out. I've gone over so many links & pictures trying to find another girl on that bed that "Jas" is on. I'm talking a month, not a single one thus far.

That pic of Amy on that particular bed, is the only pic on that particular bed.... and that's about all I can say... beyond that, that's all I can say regarding these photos, as I'm not going back to that site..., sickening and extremely demeaning to women. IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
1,149
Total visitors
1,217

Forum statistics

Threads
602,172
Messages
18,136,055
Members
231,261
Latest member
birdistheword14
Back
Top