Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) Victoria on Backpage: 720-662-4542 / 720*662*45*42 http://colorado.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/stunning-classy-discreet-looking-for-reference/21631073 Nothing on Google Nothing on Tineye. Nothing (that I could find) on TOB. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks ___________________________________ cached Ad BP Denver escorts Jan 17, 2016 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:44qg6kx0vXoJ:denver.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/stunning-classy-discreet-looking-for-reference/21631073+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Edited January 22, 2016 by Kaduk Added Tags, cached version of Ad, tags 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 14, 2016 Damn. That's a pretty girl. One of her Salt Lake City ads had that easysex link in it which looks like a credit card scam but that might have been added later by one of the backpage compiler sites . t. Hopefully the more skilled cyber sleuths might be able to tell us more. I think I recognize that hotel. Not sure if that's good or bad 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 15, 2016 I found 11 different numbers in about 3 minutes. Makes me think fake/scam 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 15, 2016 Like Raoul stated, some of the Google results were simply from useless sites that compile BP ads. Some others were from credible, reviewed Denver escorts with no obvious connection. Still others were complete unknowns, with no connection to "Victoria" either in phone number/s or photos - not even sure why Google thought they were connected. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 15, 2016 She is quite talented to be in three places at once http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:44qg6kx0vXoJ:denver.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/stunning-classy-discreet-looking-for-reference/21631073+&cd=59&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Victoria as above http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3DB89RnFFg0J:chicago.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/let-me-do-all-the-work/21514014+&cd=58&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Nikki in Chicago 847-466-5066 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Vm6WX9otRikJ:oklahomacity.backpage.com/BodyRubs/tight-flexible-and-kinky-specials/10209063+&cd=51&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us no name in Oklahoma 405-2068315 and recently Ashley in Miami 786-398-1446 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y4iO_yJGkEAJ:miami.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/addictive-1choice-mg-video-perfect/32242910+&cd=42&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Bella in Boston 781-588-1923 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dW44JSslLVwJ:https://myscarletbook.com/boston/781-588-1923/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Molly in Jacksonville 321-430-7725 http://www.roxxxo.com/girls/girl-profile/molly-968.html And yes, I am pretty sure it goes on and on. Run. Pass. Move on. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 15, 2016 Way to go gr8owl! THAT, folks, is how it's done. Most of the links he provided came from fourth page and on of the Google Image search results. So, lesson is, have to look at all the search results, not just the first or second page. Also need to pull up the cached copy of the search result, since the original page might be gone. And compiled sites are very useful. At simplest, those sites did lots of the heavy lifting for you in that it's compiled links, that will most likely, have multiple names/numbers for the ads. And good chance same pic, different cities on same days listed. They give you different numbers that can be searched. Different numbers to search and cached copies of the links can show how an ad has changed from one set of stolen pucs to another. And don't forget these links to BP provided have a id number in them, so, can take that number and do a Googlr "backpage cityname idnumber" to get the cached copies. Heck, even on page one of image search results turned up this: http://www.escortpolice.com/805-738-8960 Lots of different pics with that number, including girl in OP. What are the odds that the girl in the OP ad is legit under this link/number, seeing all the othe pics used? And in that case, legit everywhere else the picture is used? When dealing with Backpage, need to go into it all with attitude of "it's a fake", do all above and more, in order to "convince me I'm wrong". Do not go in "I hope she's legit" and think with the little head when looking at results. jj254 is taking the right approach. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 15, 2016 20 minutes ago, mrvegas63 said: . So, lesson is, have to look at all the search results, not just the first or second page. Also need to pull up the cached copy of the search result, since the original page might be gone. And compiled sites are very useful. At simplest, those sites did lots of the heavy lifting for you in that it's compiled links, that will most likely, have multiple names/numbers for the ads. Lesson learned. Don't be lazy. Or, be lazy and wait for the pros to come to the rescue. Lots of times I get lost in all the links and don't understand exactly what I'm looking at so I really do appreciate the edjumacation. Thanks guys!! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 18, 2016 Thanks to gr8owl - you are the king of finding stuff. Well Done. I too have been a lurker on this board for a while and just now started to post. I like flying UTR except all the change in fake stuff that is going on. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 19, 2016 And yet, we now have a review of Victoria where her pics are described as accurate. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 19, 2016 And she just got a new P411 account. P208895 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 19, 2016 Re: "pictures accurate": I'd take any of those review fields with a grain of salt. From personal experience, seeing a provider that has a review, many a time the review info does not gibe with what I experienced. Review says "tattoos: none", lady is actually covered in them. "Pictures accurate: yes", yet lady's ad has photos from "Playboy" or some porn actress, with the head cropped out. I've mentioned in other threads that when the blood rushes from the big head to the little, perception skills go out the window. Stacked blonde in photos, stacked blonde at door, "yup, pics accurate". Maybe this woman is actually the one in the pics, and everyone else stole her pics. Sometimes happens. Then again... As for being on P411, sometimes one sneaks through the cracks re: accuracy of their info. Personally, in this case, I'd sit it out. Would really love to actually see a woman that looks like the one in the photos, but those pics are suspect, imo, and the review basically says nothing, other than she might be legit (ie. Not LE, and does render some kind of service,though we don't know what). 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 20, 2016 Just like Corina BP's recent review. "Pictures accurate? Yes" Pics are actually Ariana Marie, online pornstar http://www.nudevista.com/?q=ariana+marie&s=s Both Reviewers have multiple reviews. Not judging, just observing. Maybe Ariana Marie is now calling herself Corina and making Denver her home now. Corina at (216) 551-7201, or 216-551-7201 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 20, 2016 12 hours ago, mrvegas63 said: Re: "pictures accurate": I'd take any of those review fields with a grain of salt. From personal experience, seeing a provider that has a review, many a time the review info does not gibe with what I experienced. Review says "tattoos: none", lady is actually covered in them. "Pictures accurate: yes", yet lady's ad has photos from "Playboy" or some porn actress, with the head cropped out. I've mentioned in other threads that when the blood rushes from the big head to the little, perception skills go out the window. Stacked blonde in photos, stacked blonde at door, "yup, pics accurate". Maybe this woman is actually the one in the pics, and everyone else stole her pics. Sometimes happens. Then again... As for being on P411, sometimes one sneaks through the cracks re: accuracy of their info. Personally, in this case, I'd sit it out. Would really love to actually see a woman that looks like the one in the photos, but those pics are suspect, imo, and the review basically says nothing, other than she might be legit (ie. Not LE, and does render some kind of service,though we don't know what). I would give 50/50 odds at best. Call me a jaded skeptic, but I really, really doubt that. Additional names and numbers, too lazy to paste all the links but google is a wonderful thing: Macy in Houston 414-208-9506 (a week ago) Brooke in Houston 510-274-7956 Amber in Salt Lake City 619-832-8682 Paris in Oakland 760-563-4746 no name in Edmonton 306-551-6415 Kasey in SF, Cali 707-356-8845 The names and numbers keep going and going and going and did NOT appear in Denver first. Combined with the review - hmmmm, only two reviews four years ago and then four in two days, mainly one sentence that anyone could write about any provider. Then all of a sudden all kosher on p411. Perhaps "Victoria" or the reviewer would care to appear here and tell their side. I have my opinion, but can't prove so I will not state as fact. But my opinion remains - avoid. Has bad news written all over it. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 20, 2016 I'm troubled by the P411 account, although now there's a different set of pics that don't turn up anything with google search. Wouldn't be the first time a provider started out with borrowed pics then got honest. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) The BP photos are stolen, the P411 photos are legitimate (imo). Sometimes there is a bit of a learning curve, I wouldn't throw her into the fire just yet. Time will tell! Always, Gina Edited January 20, 2016 by GinaXXX 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 22, 2016 On 1/20/2016 at 0:07 PM, GinaXXX said: The BP photos are stolen, the P411 photos are legitimate (imo). Sometimes there is a bit of a learning curve, I wouldn't throw her into the fire just yet. Time will tell! Always, Gina Perhaps. But January 6 Katy in Orange County 949-872-4654 looks familiar http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sz9k16rrezMJ:orangecounty.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/freaky-petite-curvy-bombshell-real-pics-22/26134413+&cd=28&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us And today Jan 21 with same phone number AND post id is Lauren with a new set of stolen pics. http://orangecounty.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/pretty-hot-new-arrival-model-girl/26134413 The identical ad and person posting - just new pics. So color me still a jaded skeptic. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 22, 2016 Obviously someone in California is using stolen photos, some of which were the same photos that Victoria was using on BP. I'm not sure where the connection is that it's the same person behind the photos though.... please let me know if I'm missing something. But I see totally different contact information being used, in completely different states, which would indicate two different people using the same set of photos. Also, please note that for a provider to have an account on P411, she has to submit identification for age verification. Take what you will from that information. Always, Gina 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 22, 2016 and: http://denver.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/stunning-classy-discreet-have-review-on-tob-and/21631073 still using stolen pics in DENVER, same phone, same post id and pointing out TOB review. Enough already. Make up your own minds. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites