Nudist camp source of child porn?
Anna
http://lanternproject.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=260&sid=bf885499937bb07d3254308602ca54ef
"Nudist camps, for example, seem to be a good source of "raw
material," where camouflaged paedophiles posing as photographers mix
with the unsuspecting members offering to take photographs of their
daughters but without informing them where the photographs will be
finally displayed. In this way complete albums of the same child, with
any age between 4 and 16, are prepared and offered to interested
parties. "
Zee
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2y56lx
>
> "Nudist camps, for example, seem to be a good source of "raw
> material," where camouflaged paedophiles posing as photographers mix
> with the unsuspecting members offering to take photographs of their
> daughters but without informing them where the photographs will be
> finally displayed. In this way complete albums of the same child, with
> any age between 4 and 16, are prepared and offered to interested
> parties. "
ok...if you had the experience that i have in knowing these
photographers and some of the families....you would know it is a
conspiracy...it goes like this an agreement is made with the family
and that photographer could be family but....the photographer takes
the hit if anything goes wrong...you know a picture he took might be
porn and the police can trace it back...and the family can say i did
not approve of those type pictures and maybe keep the CPS stalled for
a week or two....jz
Zee
and i might add something i do not think has been discussed in rec
nude....i have seen families from europe that visit clubs here usually
in florida and they offer their kids for pictures in trailers...also i
met one couple with two daughters at a florida nudist club back in the
late seventies that offered their kids to a staff worker in their
trailer....for supposely picture taking...he had a nice camera in his
hand when he entered...i talking with him also....jz
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
our lady of eastern enfluence Cheri has her favorite camp....carolina
foothills and she tried to assure us that those picture that was taken
by one of their beloved single members and was convicted of child porn
or whatever..was just inocent picture but i did not see them and the
girls had stated they took the picture and they were spread leg...so
she could go to that meeting in florida and explain that real
good...just good citizenry right.....those two girls vanished when he
was arrested and then convicted...there may be an undergroud movement
of these type families....a thought to be pondered....hell they have
done everything else what is left ....he he....jz
Mark
"Anna" <annal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:0ec9a3ff-e956-47cc...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> So says this article.
>
> http://lanternproject.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=260&sid=bf885499937bb07d3254308602ca54ef
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2y56lx
>
> "Nudist camps, for example, seem to be a good source of "raw
> material," where camouflaged paedophiles posing as photographers mix
> with the unsuspecting members offering to take photographs of their
> daughters but without informing them where the photographs will be
> finally displayed.
And of course you take that as truthful..........and nothing could be
further from the truth. Cameras are generally not allowed in nudist
camps--some don't allow cell phones on the resort grounds. Dismissal is the
penalty. Again 'anna', something you would know with minimal firsthand
experience......
sportbug
> "Anna" <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0ec9a3ff-e956-47cc...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So says this article.
>
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2y56lx
>
> > "Nudist camps, for example, seem to be a good source of "raw
> > material," where camouflaged paedophiles posing as photographers mix
> > with the unsuspecting members offering to take photographs of their
> > daughters but without informing them where the photographs will be
> > finally displayed.
>
> And of course you take that as truthful..........and nothing could be
> further from the truth. Cameras are generally not allowed in nudist
> camps--some don't allow cell phones on the resort grounds. Dismissal is the
> penalty. Again 'anna', something you would know with minimal firsthand
> experience......
I heard of camera watches being used at nudist resorts. Are you and
the staff aware of the camera watches? Very hard to tell someone
taking photographs from their camera watch, the James Bond kind of
watches..Try google...there are many varieties of them.
sportbug
>
> - Show quoted text -
and of course, also, the videos kinds
stinso...@hotmail.com
<MikeNCa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I heard of camera watches being used at nudist resorts. Are you and
>the staff aware of the camera watches?
1. Those watches have very poor resolution. They would be inadequate
for even poor quality comercial photography, including porn. Framing
the shot is also severely limited.
2. If someone is that desperate to shoot such pictures, they've
probably got a screw loose. That sort of thing stands out in a crowd.
3. Why would we let the *potential* nut cases and what they *might*
photograph dictate our behavior?
-T.
sportbug
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:37:09 -0800 (PST), sportbug
>
> >I heard of camera watches being used at nudist resorts. Are you and
> >the staff aware of the camera watches?
>
> 1. Those watches have very poor resolution. They would be inadequate
> for even poor quality comercial photography, including porn. Framing
> the shot is also severely limited.
I read of this a long time ago, the watches not quite good
quality..that was back then.. Nowadays they make better quality
watches, notably the Aigo F029 Digital Watch from url link:
http://www.wristwatchreview.com/2006/08/14/aigo-f029-digital-watch/
I think this watch has usb port to computer to printer technology
based on the descriptions if I understand it correctly.
> 2. If someone is that desperate to shoot such pictures, they've
> probably got a screw loose. That sort of thing stands out in a crowd.
>
> 3. Why would we let the *potential* nut cases and what they *might*
> photograph dictate our behavior?
Sorry, I do not quite follow you. There are nudists who are quite
sensitive to being photographed, or do not want to be photographed
without consent. For myself, if I was photographed without knowing
about it, and I find out later I was, this will not bother me
personally, with the exception how and what they do with the photos.
Life is too short. I enjoy breathing. So, I can't worry about
these things.
> -T.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bug...the most common and sensible method of taking picture in nudist
camps are from the rv windows...i have known and seen albums and
picture taken from rv....pedo rent and live in nudist camps and they
also sneak picture from their habitat...jz
stinso...@hotmail.com
<MikeNCa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I read of this a long time ago, the watches not quite good
>quality..that was back then.. Nowadays they make better quality
>watches, notably the Aigo F029 Digital Watch from url link:
>http://www.wristwatchreview.com/2006/08/14/aigo-f029-digital-watch/
>
>I think this watch has usb port to computer to printer technology
>based on the descriptions if I understand it correctly.
It doesn't change the fact that Those watches have very poor
resolution and would be inadequate for even poor quality comercial
photography, including porn. Framing the shot would still remain an
issue, as would the fact that the thing is clearly a video type
device. It would stand out, especially among naked folk.
>> 3. Why would we let the *potential* nut cases and what they *might*
>> photograph dictate our behavior?
>Sorry, I do not quite follow you. There are nudists who are quite
>sensitive to being photographed, or do not want to be photographed
>without consent. For myself, if I was photographed without knowing
>about it, and I find out later I was, this will not bother me
>personally, with the exception how and what they do with the photos.
>Life is too short. I enjoy breathing. So, I can't worry about
>these things.
So why are you worrying about this. We cannot control the actions of
others, and should not let their potential actions control ours.
-T.
sportbug
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes, and that. windows from vans can be made to see from inside of
van, but can't see through from outside. this is another almost
impossible to detect, more than the wrist camera, due to privacy
issue. Can't make every van users a suspect and search inside
without a search warrant, unless management of resorts willing to lose
customers. With the technology we have, and the crafty sneaky ways
people do things, I suspect there are many ways of getting away with
photographing nudists without their consent.
sportbug
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:13:38 -0800 (PST), sportbug
>
> >I read of this a long time ago, the watches not quite good
> >quality..that was back then.. Nowadays they make better quality
> >watches, notably the Aigo F029 Digital Watch from url link:
> >http://www.wristwatchreview.com/2006/08/14/aigo-f029-digital-watch/
>
> >I think this watch has usb port to computer to printer technology
> >based on the descriptions if I understand it correctly.
>
> It doesn't change the fact that Those watches have very poor
> resolution and would be inadequate for even poor quality comercial
> photography, including porn. Framing the shot would still remain an
> issue, as would the fact that the thing is clearly a video type
> device. It would stand out, especially among naked folk.
low resolution do not necessarily mean low quality. Just basically
mean the video frames are smaller. I suspect the usb port from the
most advanced watch, the images can be transferred digitally to the
computer and digitalized to a much bigger picture. I have not yet
seen them myself, regarding whether picture quality remains the same
or about. I will research this by going to the camera shop who is
more familiar with this than I am. though I have no intention of
buying the video/camera watch. Just the curiousity of the watch.
sportbug
Now this watch real high quality from this url link by
specifications: resolution: NTSC?640X480 PAL: 380X296
http://www.davidsteele.com/spy-watch-camera-dvr.html
The covert wireless spy camera wristwatch contains the latest in
miniaturized wireless video technology - squeezing a full color video
camera, microphone, power source and a 2.4GHz transmitter inside a
stylish wristwatch. And the watch works tooJ
It's ideal for the professional security person, law enforcement
agency and journalist to fulfill the undercover assignments, like
evidence collection, hidden investigation and surveillance, etc. It is
also great as a toy for hobby enthusiasts, as body worn solutions and
so on.
-Of course I copied this from the url link partial.-
technologies keep on getting better all the time.
sportbug
System advantages:
Wireless and working wristwatch to avoid detection
Tiny pinhole camera lens safely hidden inside the center of watch dial
(makes it ultra-discreet).
Portable Solar charger guarantees strong & long time power supply for
transmitter up to 8.5 hours esp. when outdoor working.
Built-in transmitter (300ft. L.O.S. range)
4 channels available for choice.
Long continuous operating time for camera wristwatch up to 1 hour.
2.4G wireless 4 channel 2.5" LCD color monitor recorder DVR provides
high quality AV for view and record, no need to connect with any cable
or any other equipment.
Rechargeable Li-battery for wireless receiver enables at least 6 hours
continuous play.
Wireless receiver can play and record all kinds of MP4 movies and MP3
songs.
No installation needed, just plug and play.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
i met an older swinger couple at interstate rest area in new mexico
and while we were talking the sex bit finally entered the conversation
and so we went to their rv and they said they were nudist and i told
them i was too.....they produced an album of picture taken from their
rv and i recognized the varios camps...they state many rv swinger
couples do this thing....this info is informative for folks wanting to
be photographed at camps and also for those that do not....a good
thread....jz
naturist
> i met an older swinger couple at interstate rest area in new
> mexico and while we were talking the sex bit finally entered the
> conversation and so we went to their rv and they said they were
> nudist and i told them i was too.....
So you lied to them eh? Nothing new there.
> they produced an album of picture taken from their
> rv and i recognized the varios camps...they state many rv swinger
> couples do this thing....
You're not going to see to much from an RV at a nudist camp. Most are
in the least active areas away from the crowds, kids etc.
sportbug
> You're not going to see to much from an RV at a nudist camp. Most are
> in the least active areas away from the crowds, kids etc.
There is one very well known resort I been to in California many
times, namely laguna del sol, many rvs in clear open view of nudists
and kids, real close...(i am going by distance from rvs to nudist/kids
which is short distance. Any nudists/kids can walk very close to any
or all rvs and be seen from the inside of rvs.)
If one from within the rv want to get real real close, they can use
cameras, video cameras with long range focus, meaning closer view,
though I am not implying any actually happened at laguna del sol, as I
cannot prove this, because I suspect no one practically able to
witness to such because this is rvs we are talking about and if they
have special can't see from outside windows.. But, I believe this
can all be possible. The thought never had crossed my mind regarding
videos/cameras from rvs at nudist resorts I had attended in the past,
until I read this whole thread.
naturist
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> There is one very well known resort I been to in California many
> times, namely laguna del sol, many rvs in clear open view of nudists
> and kids, real close...(i am going by distance from rvs to nudist/kids
> which is short distance. Any nudists/kids can walk very close to any
> or all rvs and be seen from the inside of rvs.)
> If one from within the rv want to get real real close, they can use
> cameras, video cameras with long range focus, meaning closer view,
> though I am not implying any actually happened at laguna del sol, as I
> cannot prove this, because I suspect no one practically able to
> witness to such because this is rvs we are talking about and if they
> have special can't see from outside windows.. But, I believe this
> can all be possible. The thought never had crossed my mind regarding
> videos/cameras from rvs at nudist resorts I had attended in the past,
> until I read this whole thread.
Sorry, but this just sounds like paranoia to me.
Even if someone WERE hiding in an RV taking photos, they aren't going
to get very good shots. And technically any kids photographed aren't
being harmed and it certainly isn't kiddie porn.
I'd prefer that this not happen of course but I think it is extremely
unlikely to begin with. I certainly wouldn't let it spoil my family's
enjoyment of an otherwise safe and wholesome nudist environment any
more than I'd let the odds of shark attack keep us from enjoying a
nice beach.
This is just one of those things you can't control and therefore
shouldn't stress much about. If some loser of JZ's stipe wants to get
their jollies sneaking photos of some kids in their natural state, so
be it. But touch those kids and you're dogmeat.
Odds are, their little hobby is going to be found out sooner or later.
David Looser
news:0abe9324-c28a-4e9a...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> low resolution do not necessarily mean low quality.
Sorry to disilision you Bug, but that's exactly what it means.
> Just basically
> mean the video frames are smaller. I suspect the usb port from the
> most advanced watch, the images can be transferred digitally to the
> computer and digitalized to a much bigger picture.
And that bigger picture is of low quality.
David.
sportbug
wrote:
> "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0abe9324-c28a-4e9a...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > low resolution do not necessarily mean low quality.
>
> Sorry to disilision you Bug, but that's exactly what it means.
This is what I said as you left that one part out: low resolution
do not necessarily mean low quality. Just basically
"mean" the video frames are smaller.
I can't find the link. I am tired now, and will check in morning.
that was the first link...another link shows a much higher quality
camera watch below... with link provided
> > Just basically
> > mean the video frames are smaller. I suspect the usb port from the
> > most advanced watch, the images can be transferred digitally to the
> > computer and digitalized to a much bigger picture.
>
> And that bigger picture is of low quality.
>
> David.
well, did you see the other link I posted which clearly shows by
specifications to have the ability to produce great picture/video
quality?
here is the link: http://www.davidsteele.com/spy-watch-camera-dvr.html
the resolution of the spy camera watch in the link: resolution:
NTSC?640X480 PAL: 380X296
David Looser
On Jan 17, 12:33 am, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0abe9324-c28a-4e9a...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > low resolution do not necessarily mean low quality.
>
> Sorry to disilision you Bug, but that's exactly what it means.
This is what I said as you left that one part out: low resolution
do not necessarily mean low quality.
No Bug, I'm *telling you*, low resolution DOES mean low quality.
well, did you see the other link I posted which clearly shows by
specifications to have the ability to produce great picture/video
quality?
here is the link: http://www.davidsteele.com/spy-watch-camera-dvr.html
the resolution of the spy camera watch in the link: resolution:
NTSC?640X480 PAL: 380X296
You think 640x480 "great picture quality"?, 640x480 is crap picture quality.
David.
sportbug
I still think cameras from within rvs can be very well be camouflaged
quite well, not only from inside the rv, or van, but from the outside
of the van or rv somewhere, if they are persistent and carefully
planned enough. The outside rear view mirror can be disguised as
camera in secret for one....Another thing, how are paparazzis able to
take good clear pictures through clear windows of celebrities inside
autos? I seen the pictures, by experience. Windows are not
necessary glossy to distort the views from within the inside of rvs or
vans to take pictures. Windows can be made to suit well for good
photography view...Ever heard of anyone accidentally walk through
windows, when thought there was no windows there because windows
appear to be visible?
sportbug
wrote:
> "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:56876363-a761-420f...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 17, 12:33 am, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0abe9324-c28a-4e9a...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > low resolution do not necessarily mean low quality.
>
> > Sorry to disilision you Bug, but that's exactly what it means.
>
> This is what I said as you left that one part out: low resolution
> do not necessarily mean low quality.
>
> No Bug, I'm *telling you*, low resolution DOES mean low quality.
>
> well, did you see the other link I posted which clearly shows by
> specifications to have the ability to produce great picture/video
> quality?
>
> here is the link: http://www.davidsteele.com/spy-watch-camera-dvr.html
>
> the resolution of the spy camera watch in the link: resolution:
> NTSC?640X480 PAL: 380X296
>
> You think 640x480 "great picture quality"?, 640x480 is crap picture quality.
>
> David.
Okay, First check this url link: http://www.cyberbiznes.pl/baners/firmy/68012_b.jpg
...this is a picture ....then copy and paste this url link to the
location box at 640x480 test frame at link by clicking:
http://www.serve.com/apg/workshop/640x480Test/index.html then click
"go"
This should prove how great quality picture adjusted to 640x480 is.
David Looser
> Okay, First check this url link:
> http://www.cyberbiznes.pl/baners/firmy/68012_b.jpg
> ...this is a picture ..
Why *that* picture bug?
> ..then copy and paste this url link to the
> location box at 640x480 test frame at link by clicking:
> http://www.serve.com/apg/workshop/640x480Test/index.html then click
> "go"
> This should prove how great quality picture adjusted to 640x480 is.
And you think that's "great quality picture" do you? Poor you.
David.
stinso...@hotmail.com
<MikeNCa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>low resolution do not necessarily mean low quality. Just basically
>mean the video frames are smaller.
You're obviously not a commercial photographer. My staement stands.
-T.
sportbug
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:17:15 -0800 (PST), sportbug
>
> >low resolution do not necessarily mean low quality. Just basically
> >mean the video frames are smaller.
>
> You're obviously not a commercial photographer. My staement stands.
>
> -T.
then we agree to disagree. take care....however, I agree I am not a
commercial photographer.
sportbug
wrote:
> "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I think you need to give the camera watch the benefit of a doubt by
trying them youself? I will do the same, eventually if the camera
shop clerk show the demonstration..
David Looser
You are not any kind of photographer. Nor do you understand the meaning of
"resolution".
David.
David Looser
I think you need to give the camera watch the benefit of a doubt by
trying them youself? I will do the same, eventually if the camera
shop clerk show the demonstration..
I *know* the sort of picture quality that cameras with 640x480 pixels
produce, and it ain't "great picture quality". I don't need to see another
one.
David.
sportbug
wrote:
> "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
well, taking pictures of nudists come out clearly than taking pictures
of textiles with camera watch, perhaps? If not, then decent enough
to show, though may not be perfect..
sportbug
http://www.nudistdepot.com/girl%20beach%201.jpg
then copy and paste this url link to the
location box at 640x480 test frame at link by clicking:http://
www.serve.com/apg/workshop/640x480Test/index.html then click
"go"
This should prove how great quality picture adjusted to 640x480 is.
This is quite clear.
There's no argument about it.
sportbug
sportbug
here goes again:
Test frame link:
http://www.serve.com/apg/workshop/640x480Test/index.html
Picture link:
sportbug
picture came out great now.
David Looser
Give it up bug. You may think that "great", but I don't, I think it poor, as
would a commercial photographer, or indeed pornographer. I guess you are
just particularly easy to please.
David.
David Looser
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:5va4laF...@mid.individual.net...
well-composed close-up taken with a decent camera. As T pointed out you
simply couldn't do that with a spy camera (unless you wanted to make it
bloody obvious what you were doing!). If you wanted to crop a badly composed
picture the limited resolution of the original image would really bite hard.
I suggest you stop banging-on about something that is clearly beyond you.
David.
Zee
yeah liar...like the trash dump parking lot at como with the tenters
and their kids next to it...and on a busy weekend at any camp where rv
seems to be everywhere...and all those trailers that perverts live
in....and are aanr members...and now everyone can see ....well jonZeee
you are right again for nth time .....what a bunch of liars....jz
sportbug
wrote:
> "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5va4laF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I copied yours and T's comments to my documents. I will go see a
camera man at the shop who is quite experience in that field. and
see what his thoughts are,,the camera watch and the quality.....that
way, I get other parties opinions, real experts ones, compared to your
less experience...
Zee
Bug ....pure nudism now offer hd on most of their presentations...and
also zoom which allows one to zoom in on a cute freckle that little
girl might have and see the peach fuzz around it....great stuff...of
course the world does not commend these folks for taking the time to
create this technology as they would think it perverted for naked kids
to be the focus of such technology...never the less...we have
struggled for years to find a social redeeming value that nudist kids
might offer...and now we know...jz
Mark
On Jan 17, 3:05 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
I copied yours and T's comments to my documents. I will go see a
camera man at the shop who is quite experience in that field. and
see what his thoughts are,,the camera watch and the quality.....that
way, I get other parties opinions, real experts ones, compared to your
less experience...
*********************
Check it all out Mike--before you buy a photo-taking watch and head for a
nudist club ( and eventually get caught and kicked out)......that IS what
this is all about isn't it??
sportbug
> "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No. Far from it. I am quite concerned as visibly apparent here, by
far, others not getting their facts straight. If I am wrong and I am
convinced, then I will admit it. It seems to me others said here
regarding certain resolutions count not a problem to them or nudist
resorts when pedophiles using spy cameras. Ignorant is dangerous
and so is denying!! I know great pictures can be taken from the
inside of vans, autos, etc. with windows closed depending on types/
brands of windows. I seen this happened taking good pictures from
inside with windows closed, so there is no kidding me about it. I
was not born yesterday. This whole threads of responses giving me
quite a laugh. LOL,,,I know where I am right, and I know where I am
learning, and I know where I can be wrong, I know where I am skeptical.
Casa Blanca Hot Spring
Hi,
Please read a book or somehow otherwise educate thineself.
Low resolution IS low quality, in case you didn't know.
"sportbug" <MikeNCa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56876363-a761-420f...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Casa Blanca Hot Spring
>> location box at 640x480 test frame at link by clicking:
>> http://www.serve.com/apg/workshop/640x480Test/index.html then click
>> "go"
>
>> This should prove how great quality picture adjusted to 640x480 is.
That's a lousy quality photo. TNS would reject it outright, even for a
tightly cropped small photo. Since the bulletin is desperate for photos,
they might take it, but I doubt it very much.
Bill Pennington
anned
handle
type metal cane.
this was not at a nudist camp but at the burning man festival in
nevada.
the short end of the t handle of the cane had a black glassy end for
the camera and the person only had to point and hit the trigger and it
would send the photos back to his car.
this person was a Private investigator but anyone could have this type
camera.
Zee
<CasaBlancaHotSpr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please read a book or somehow otherwise educate thineself.
>
> Low resolution IS low quality, in case you didn't know.
>
>
> news:56876363-a761-420f...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 17, 12:33 am, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0abe9324-c28a-4e9a...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > low resolution do not necessarily mean low quality.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
willy what do you use when taking pictures of nudist kids....jz
David Looser
> No. Far from it. I am quite concerned as visibly apparent here, by
> far, others not getting their facts straight.
The only person who hasn't got his facts straight is you.
> If I am wrong and I am
> convinced, then I will admit it. It seems to me others said here
> regarding certain resolutions count not a problem to them or nudist
> resorts when pedophiles using spy cameras.
Any chance of saying that in English?
> Ignorant is dangerous
> and so is denying!!
The only thing I have denied is that you get "great picture quality" from
cheap little spy cameras with 640x480 resolution. How is that "dangerous"?
> I know great pictures can be taken from the
> inside of vans, autos, etc. with windows closed depending on types/
> brands of windows.
Indeed, *if* there is anything to see from the window. It does very much
restrict the photographers ability to get the shot he might want.
> I seen this happened taking good pictures from
> inside with windows closed, so there is no kidding me about it.
> I was not born yesterday.
No?, you believe in Biblical prophecy, not a good sign.
> This whole threads of responses giving me
> quite a laugh. LOL,,,I know where I am right, and I know where I am
> learning, and I know where I can be wrong,
Apparently not. You have been utterly wrong about camera resolutions all
along, yet you still don't seem to "know" that.
No one denies that a determined person could take surreptitious photos in a
nudist resort, either with a spy camera, or from an RV. However these photos
would not have any commercial value as they would almost certainly be of
poor technical quality and/or (probably "and") poorly composed. Also any
such photos would hardly count as "porn" anyway. Frankly it would be
desperation on the part of any would-be pornographer to do that.
David.
Mark
> "sportbug" <MikeNCa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b029160-0dcf-4b4f...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Apparently not. You have been utterly wrong about camera resolutions all
> along, yet you still don't seem to "know" that.
>
> No one denies that a determined person could take surreptitious photos in
> a nudist resort, either with a spy camera, or from an RV. However these
> photos would not have any commercial value as they would almost certainly
> be of poor technical quality and/or (probably "and") poorly composed. Also
> any such photos would hardly count as "porn" anyway. Frankly it would be
> desperation on the part of any would-be pornographer to do that.
>
> David.
David,
Mike will never understand what you're saying, whether its about resolution,
ppi, glare off RV windows, composition, or even a remote knowledge of
photographic principles..... I don't worry about the "bug" taking 'spy
photos'--a watch would render only his face, and a camera phone would only
allow him to shoot himself in the foot.......
I give up trying to explain--you might want to consider that too.
Mark
8^)
sportbug
wrote:
> "sportbug" <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b029160-0dcf-4b4f...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No. Far from it. I am quite concerned as visibly apparent here, by
> > far, others not getting their facts straight.
>
> The only person who hasn't got his facts straight is you.
I don't think you got all your facts straight.
> The only thing I have denied is that you get "great picture quality" from
> cheap little spy cameras with 640x480 resolution. How is that "dangerous"?
who said pedophiles, child molesters do not want even these kind of
cheap pictures? Do they really care?
> > I know great pictures can be taken from the
> > inside of vans, autos, etc. with windows closed depending on types/
> > brands of windows.
>
> Indeed, *if* there is anything to see from the window. It does very much
> restrict the photographers ability to get the shot he might want.
agreed. minus .00001% or more...big deal.
> > I seen this happened taking good pictures from
> > inside with windows closed, so there is no kidding me about it.
> > I was not born yesterday.
>
> No?, you believe in Biblical prophecy, not a good sign.
Oh well, we agree to disagree.
> No one denies that a determined person could take surreptitious photos in a
> nudist resort, either with a spy camera, or from an RV. However these photos
> would not have any commercial value
Pedophiles, child molesters do not necessarily care for perfect
pictures for themselves, and more likely will not sell them as usual
as proven to be the case many times, which many such pictures had been
in the hands of the FBI(quoted by FBI in news) during busts....
In order to determine the quality of pictures for sale, you will need
to look quite close.....
That's the bottom line. I have a cheap camera(basic regular one),
and at first glance at the pictures I took, the pictures and looks
good, even when I show to someone. But looking real close, well,
thats a different matter. Pictures not bad, neither perfect.
So you think taking camera watches pictures, say of trees, people,
etc. are all bad, and should be thrown away?? Not even good enough
to show? Give me a break!! I think pedophiles and child
molesters really do not mind using cheap cameras, especially camera
watches in order to get their drooling shots. I do not think perfect
pictures an issue to them.
Zee
bug they sell poloroid pics in back alleys for 5 bucks a piece...jz
naturist
> bug they sell poloroid pics in back alleys for 5 bucks a piece...jz
In the fantasy world you live in, circa 1970, perhaps.
stinso...@hotmail.com
I'd have to see it to believe it. The technology exists, but it
wouldn't be cheap to build/buy. The platform would be stable, but
framing would still be challenging. The resolution would be pretty
good, but the commercial value of the pics would be iffy.
-T.
sportbug
I am giving Jon the benefit of a doubt. Developing polaroid films
or pictures at certain places are cheap.
Zee
well Bug...the idea behind polaroid is that it develops itself and for
all the non fools taking naked child photos it it the best idea if one
is inclined....the 5.00 child porn pic was offered in and near an
alley....there are probably more polaroid than others in the states
where folks are scared to take pictures of naked children...that is
the reason a lot of the nudist web sites have removed them....you know
the hysteria about children being target of predators...and a naked
camp is considered by textiles to be like naked adult
places...preverts looking for sex....reality is bitch...jz
David Looser
LOL!
Tell you what Bug, I'll develop your Polaroid's for you at a very reasonable
price!
:-)
Poor Bug, you really haven't got what it takes have you?
David.
Richard C.
===========================
Do you know what a polaroid picture is?
Mark
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uMKdnQCyI-eavw_a...@comcast.com...
> "sportbug" <MikeNCa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I am giving Jon the benefit of a doubt. Developing polaroid films
> or pictures at certain places are cheap.
>
> ===========================
> Do you know what a polaroid picture is?
ROFLMAO.....
Mark
You obviously don't know what a polaroid camera is or does....try google.
Terry J. Wood
news:13ot0ir...@corp.supernews.com:
> And of course you take that as truthful..........and nothing could be
> further from the truth. Cameras are generally not allowed in nudist
> camps--some don't allow cell phones on the resort grounds. Dismissal
> is the penalty.
Actually, ARREST can be the penalty. At my camp they caught a guy with a
camera and the cops searched his van. They found tapes he had hidden
there. He had been taking secret video in his own home of local girls
changing before using his pool. He ended up in prison.
But getting back to the subject "Nudist camp source of child porn?" the
short answer is that nudist camps can't be a source by definition. That is
to be child porn there has to be SEXUAL content to the photos. Simple
nudity is not child porn. Since there could be no sexual content to such
photos they couldn't be child porn.
That's not to say that a judge and jury might not convict someone for
taking clandestine photos, mind you. I knew of a college student who was
arrested and convicted of some sort of pornography for taking photos of
fully clothed cheerleaders at public events. His camera wasn't even
hidden. But he zoomed in only on the girl's crotches. This convinced the
jury that it was "porn".
> Again 'anna', something you would know with minimal
> firsthand experience......
A visit to Richard's camp has been offered. So far there's been no takers.
Zee
> "Mark" <alln...@nospammindspring.com> wrote innews:13ot0ir...@corp.supernews.com:
hey idiot...child porn is what a local community of jurors say it
is...that can be simply a nude child asleep ....and the USSC will
agree.....all nude child photos have utterly no social redeeming value
even on bear skin rug....jz
David Looser
news:31732cd3-df43-4792...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> hey idiot...
Still going with the abusive language Zee?
> child porn is what a local community of jurors say it
> is...that can be simply a nude child asleep ....
"Pornography" has a definition. And it is not the same thing as nakedness,
pictures of fully clothed people can be "pornography"
> and the USSC will
> agree.....
Who appointed you the spokesman for the USSC?
> all nude child photos have utterly no social redeeming value
> even on bear skin rug....jz
What is a "social redeeming value" when it's at home? Parents like to have
pictures of their children, but since you've never been a parent, or indeed
had any involvement with children beyond lusting after them, you wouldn't
know that.
David.
Zee
wrote:
> "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
because to date the USSC has totally upheld all the cases coming to
them as porn...and that means some that were not spread leg or
masturbation....if a community feels it is porn and offensive...then
so be it...a naked child has no value and can appeal to the prurient
interest...again the community has the right to decide...jz
David Looser
> because to date the USSC has totally upheld all the cases coming to
> them as porn...
And how many cases is that?
> and that means some that were not spread leg or
> masturbation....
And how do you know that?, were all these pictures published for the public
to view?
> if a community feels it is porn and offensive...
The public might regard them as "offensive", but that doesn't make it "porn"
if it isn't.
> so be it...a naked child has no value
It might have a lot of value to it's parents!
> and can appeal to the prurient
> interest...
You, you mean!
> again the community has the right to decide...
A community has the right to decide what sort of images may be used in
publicly available published magazines etc. Whether that gives the community
the right to enforce a code of behaviour onto all and sundry against those
people beliefs is another matter.
And you still haven't told me what a "social redeeming value" is.
David.
stinso...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>because to date the USSC has totally upheld all the cases coming to
>them as porn..
Please list the child porn cases that the court has reviewed and ruled
on.
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>hey idiot...child porn is what a local community of jurors say it
>is..
Actually, child pornography is defined by federal law:
“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any
photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated
image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical,
or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a
minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or
computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to
appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit
conduct.
“sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or
opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
-T.
(you're welcome)
Zee
wrote:
> "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
david...each person has the right to determine in their mind if the
nakedness of humans in art or photography has a social redeeming
value....and communities also have this right....if the art or photo
is offensive because of the nudity of an innocent child ...that
community has the right to make that determination....it seems adult
nudity in art and pictures that are kept from the eyes of children is
ok ...but to expose such art or pictures to children might be a
different matter...iows do not sit with your child and read hustler
magazine and let aunt matilda see you do it...the issue of child porn
is in the eye of the community as the USSC has held...and i agree and
i know that most all nudist do not agree as they want to go to walmart
naked and if their kids are at walmart naked and want to jackoff and
have sex...they want their children to be left free to do just
that....and i heard you say we have all these middle class families
that are nudist...you are full of bullshit...first of all a family is
alienated from society and family to become a nudist....mainstream
folks do not generally take the chance on involving their children in
a behavior where social stigma does not permit it....but as i have met
many of these folks here is a few of their occupations...parents that
live in trailer houses and work in auto wrecking yards.....parents who
work on jobs where traveling and relocating alot is normal for
them....parents that are sex workers in other sex industry places
because non nudist feel nudist camps of all kinds are sex
businesses....and parents that want a credible parental image do not
abuse their children by offering them naked in a social environment
for fear of other children finding out and ridiculing their children
in school....but low life parents might feel.... hey my kids can drop
out of school..... and work in the wrecking yard with me if it
happens and no big deal...hey the guy that owns the wrecking yard is
rumored to fuck his kids...so there you have it....the overt behavior
of disregarding the reputation of ones child in school is proof in
most minds of blatant child abuse....and certainly does not represent
good parenting...the child might be able to sue parents for child
abuse...for subjecting them to social nudism....it would be an
interesting case in the court but they have sued their parents for
most everything else and won so why not....jz
stinso...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>.the issue of child porn
>is in the eye of the community as the USSC has held..
Child pornography is defined by federal law.
-T.
Richard C.
hey idiot...child porn is what a local community of jurors say it
is...that can be simply a nude child asleep ....and the USSC will
agree.....all nude child photos have utterly no social redeeming value
even on bear skin rug....jz
===========================
You are as dumb as a stump!
You ignorance is astounding.
The USSC has decided that YOU are wrong.
Simple nudity is not porn according to them.
===============================
Richard C.
because to date the USSC has totally upheld all the cases coming to
them as porn...and that means some that were not spread leg or
masturbation....if a community feels it is porn and offensive...then
so be it...a naked child has no value and can appeal to the prurient
interest...again the community has the right to decide...jz
========================
You are so very wrong.
You make these things up.
Zee
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:33:45 -0800 (PST), Zee <jonZ...@webtv.net>
> wrote:
>
> >hey idiot...child porn is what a local community of jurors say it
> >is..
>
> Actually, child pornography is defined by federal law:
>
> "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any
> photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated
> image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical,
> (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a
> minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
> (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or
> computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that
> of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
> (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to
> appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit
> conduct.
>
> (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
> anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or
> opposite sex;
> (ii) bestiality;
> (iii) masturbation;
> (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
> (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
> -T.
> (you're welcome)
>
> .that can be simply a nude child asleep ....and the USSC will
>
>
>
> >agree.....all nude child photos have utterly no social redeeming value
>
> - Show quoted text -
the community can state the picture meets the requirement of ..V...
licivious exhibition of genitals...and therefore is child porn....a
child laying on a bed that appears to be asleep could be seen as awake
but intent on gratifying the onlooker...the USSC does not attempt to
2nd guess the viewers opinion on the picture...does the picture allow
for that opinion and nakedness does allow generally for that
opinion....duh....jz
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
actually i think newbie nudist that comes to camp and hears this
bullshit about simple nudity for children being legal and then takes
pictures to walmart to be developed and the little ol lady or man
takes the film to the police and the police say...you found this
offensive because of the children being depicted.....right...yes....ok
so we will procecute and even though the case may be thrown out of
court on tech or other reasons the person has been hurt badly and
should be able to sue the nudist camp for putting out propaganda and
causing undue pain upon the newbie.....of course now so many cases has
been in the news in the last five or ten years....it would most likely
be an alien that would do such a thing as take a picture of a naked
child and then go try and have it developed....in the usa of
course.....jz
stinso...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>the community can state the picture meets the requirement of ..V...
>licivious exhibition of genitals...and therefore is child porn....a
>child laying on a bed that appears to be asleep could be seen as awake
>but intent on gratifying the onlooker..
Show me the case law, Jon. Hell, give me the case title ort number and
I'll post the case for you. Here's your big chance!
>the USSC does not attempt to
>2nd guess the viewers opinion on the picture..
Does and has.
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>actually i think newbie nudist that comes to camp and hears this
>bullshit about simple nudity for children being legal and then takes
>pictures to walmart to be developed and the little ol lady or man
>takes the film to the police and the police say...you found this
>offensive because of the children being depicted.....right...yes....ok
>so we will procecute and even though the case may be thrown out of
>court on tech or other reasons
Yeah. Other reasons. Like: no crime committed.
>.....of course now so many cases has
>been in the news in the last five or ten years...
How many? Specifically. And of those, how many resulted in
convictions?
-T.
naturist
> On Jan 21, 9:31 am, Zee <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote:
> actually i think newbie nudist that comes to camp and hears this
> bullshit about simple nudity for children being legal and then takes
> pictures to walmart to be developed and the little ol lady or man
> takes the film to the police and the police say...you found this
> offensive because of the children being depicted.....right...yes....ok
> so we will procecute and even though the case may be thrown out of
> court on tech or other reasons the person has been hurt badly and
> should be able to sue the nudist camp for putting out propaganda and
> causing undue pain upon the newbie.....
NO, they should sue Wal-Mart, the ignorant bitch that turned them in
and our sick backward society for seeing simple nonsexual nudity as a
perversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>it would most likely be an alien that would do such a thing as take >a picture of a naked child and then go try and have it >developed....in the usa of course.....jz
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yes in the USA. Land of the prude, home of the depraved.
Richard C.
>
> the community can state the picture meets the requirement of ..V...
> licivious exhibition of genitals...and therefore is child porn....a
> child laying on a bed that appears to be asleep could be seen as awake
> but intent on gratifying the onlooker...
=============================
You are even sicker than I thought..........
Richard C.
>.....of course now so many cases has
been in the news in the last five or ten years
==============================
Really?
Show us the "many".
David Looser
> david...each person has the right to determine in their mind if the
> nakedness of humans in art or photography has a social redeeming
> value....
I've asked you twice what you mean by "social redeeming value", rather than
answer you have simply used it again. So I'll ask a third time, what do you
mean by "social redeeming value"?
> and
> i know that most all nudist do not agree as they want to go to walmart
> naked and if their kids are at walmart naked and want to jackoff and
> have sex...they want their children to be left free to do just
> that....
A total lie.
> and i heard you say we have all these middle class families
> that are nudist...you are full of bullshit..
Sorry Zee, it's you that's full of shit.
>.first of all a family is
> alienated from society and family to become a nudist....mainstream
> folks do not generally take the chance on involving their children in
> a behavior where social stigma does not permit it....but as i have met
> many of these folks here is a few of their occupations...parents that
> live in trailer houses and work in auto wrecking yards.....parents who
> work on jobs where traveling and relocating alot is normal for
> them....parents that are sex workers in other sex industry places
I bow to your superior knowledge of low-lifes jonZee. I know nothing of such
people, I think I did speak to someone from a wrecking yard once about 20
years ago when I went to buy a part for my car, but I've never knowingly
spoken to anyone involved in any sex business - except you of course. My own
circle of friends includes a merchant banker, a former accountant who
re-trained as a priest in the Church of England, a doctor, a lawyer, an IT
consultant, a civil engineering consultant and a man who owned a chain of
HiFi shops until he sold out to retire on the proceeds. I realise you know
nothing of such people, which is why you are so in awe of them, but they are
the sort of people I mix with. We have high standards of our children, which
is why they did well at school and went on to get good degrees from
prestigious universities. I've lived in the same house for 25 years, it's in
a small village in an area designated as an area of outstanding natural
beauty. As it's also within commuting distance of London house prices here
are high, your low-lifes would stand out like sore thumbs.
As I said, Zee, It's you who are full of shit.
David.
Terry J. Wood
news:5vj1chF...@mid.individual.net:
>> all nude child photos have utterly no social redeeming value
>> even on bear skin rug....jz
> What is a "social redeeming value" when it's at home? Parents like to
> have pictures of their children, but since you've never been a parent,
> or indeed had any involvement with children beyond lusting after them,
> you wouldn't know that.
I wonder if Z even really exists.
In any case I don't put much value in the words written by those who have
never raised children. They may claim to be doing things to "protect the
little children", but if they really cared about children they would be
involved in raising some. And contrary to what some would say, you don't
have to be a "breeder" to raise children. There are many, many abandoned
children in this world in need of a loving family and a caring home. Those
who claim to be the protectors of children should start by giving these
children the very basic thing they need: A HOME and A FAMILY.
Terry J. Wood
> You are as dumb as a stump!
> You ignorance is astounding.
Or he's crazy as a fox.
> The USSC has decided that YOU are wrong.
> Simple nudity is not porn according to them.
Much to the chagrin of some feminists.
Dan Abel
"Terry J. Wood" <Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> I wonder if Z even really exists.
> have to be a "breeder" to raise children. There are many, many abandoned
> children in this world in need of a loving family and a caring home. Those
> who claim to be the protectors of children should start by giving these
> children the very basic thing they need: A HOME and A FAMILY.
I'd almost rather shoot the child than give them to Z as his new
playtoy. By the time Z got done with the child, they would be so
messed up and confused about life that they could never have a good life.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Terry J. Wood
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> I'd almost rather shoot the child than give them to Z as his new
> playtoy. By the time Z got done with the child, they would be so
> messed up and confused about life that they could never have a good life.
They'd probably grow up to be a feminist.
stinso...@hotmail.com
<Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I wonder if Z even really exists.
Doubtful.
>And contrary to what some would say, you don't
>have to be a "breeder" to raise children.
We raised nine. Four were biological.
-T.
Richard C.
news:Xns9A2DB4E185B...@216.168.3.30...
========================
more likely a serial killer or at least a serial rapist.
all...@gmail.com
http://ibestadult.info/1/porn.html
1000s of FREE Sex Videos including Free Porn Movies, Free Sex movies,
fuck videos, sexy videos, porn videos, porn links, adult movies, sex
games, porn...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
FREE Sex Videos / Sex Movies / Porn Videos / Porn Clips/
http://ibestadult.info/1/porn.html
1000s of FREE Sex Videos including Free Porn Movies, Free Sex movies,
fuck videos, sexy videos, porn videos, porn links, adult movies, sex
games, porn
Dario Western
naturism' or 'family nudism'. If you access the "images" section of Yahoo!
or Google, type in 'family naturism' and see what sort of images come up.
A good many of them I found were of under-aged kids in sexually provocative
positions. I can't for the life of me understand why *any* nudist parent
would allow their kids to be exploited in this way. What makes it even
worse is that there is little the governments can do to eradicate these sick
muthafuckers from the face of the Earth altogether.
}:-(
naturist
I highly doubt that those kids are nudists, or that the photos were
shot at nudist resorts. Not the sexual ones anyway. Those photos are
likely staged shots taken by predators like JonZee, and posted online
using "nudism" as an (albeit inaccurate) codeword. I agree these sick
muthafukers need to be take out, not only for the crime against
children (though that's the primary reason) but for slandering the
name of family nudism.
Zee
well it is bad i agree...but the nudist that planted the seed of the
crime is the ones that need to be taken out behind the barn....jz
naturist
>crime is the ones that need to be taken out behind the barn....jz
LMFAO. OOooh my what a sad rebuttal it is.
Shitwit.
Zee
well shitwit...it is sad that nudist are responsible for all the child
porn ...it was the nudist responsible for the child porn years of the
late seventies...read nikki craft....nudist hall of shame....it tells
all about the beginning of nudist child porn on the shelves of dirty
book stores for the first time in the usa.....jz
naturist
> well shitwit...
Please stop using my material.
> it is sad that nudist are responsible for all the child
> porn ..it was the nudist responsible for the child porn years of the
> late seventies. read nikki craft....nudist hall of shame....
> it tells all about the beginning of nudist child porn on the shelves
> of dirty book stores for the first time in the usa.....jz
*Yawn*
Fucking parrot. You're back to repeating the same shit that has been
destroyed here over and over again. Nikki Craft? Hall of Shame?
Yesterday's compost...
Zee
those parrots have solved a lot of crime over the years with their
truth repetition....it stings does it not....jz
stinso...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>well it is bad i agree...but the nudist that planted the seed of the
>crime
Nudists did not plat the seed, as has been demonstrated over and over
again.
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Feb 7, 10:19 pm, naturist <n8u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >well it is bad i agree...but the nudist that planted the seed of the
>> >crime is the ones that need to be taken out behind the barn....jz
>>
>> LMFAO. OOooh my what a sad rebuttal it is.
>>
>> Shitwit.
>
>well shitwit...it is sad that nudist are responsible for all the child
>porn ..
It is factually incorrect.
-T.
naturist
Keep trying, sparky. You almost managed a hint of wit in that one.
Terry J. Wood
2698a2...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> Those photos are
> likely staged shots taken by predators
Don't let them get away with it. Send the URLs of those photos to the FBI.