GENERAL NEW RELEASE SPECULATION TOPIC PART II

[bsun]

Hi all,

First post here, but I've been a silent observer for more than a decade.

The domain cosecha-transmisiones.com refers to 7 gateway IPs:
104.21.16+x.1, where x=0,16, 32, ... n*16
Locating the 7 gateway IPs leads to a hexagon shaped area near San Francisco, see image



This seems quite intentional, but could also be a cloudfare thing, i don't know.
I searched the area for... I really don't know what. Without any further clues it is quite pointless I think. But maybe you have an idea.

Sorry if this is already known, I honestly didn't check every post here and during the 2013 ARG I just started listening to BoC. I missed all the fun by a few weeks.

[bsun]

The website was down for a decade, then, suddenly nobody home appears. I have no doubt that there is a very significant meaning to it.
For me, the Morse code resonates will with the Pioneer/space theme.
By the way, the last signal from Pioneer 10 was sent on April 27th, 2002. Too bad we don't know when the cosecha update appeared. But April 27. would be my guess. For me, this message also resonates well with the AI-related speculation. Pioneer messages Earth using its last bit of power, but nobody (no human) is there to receive it. In this picture, the Pioneer message would be a distant memory of mankind that nobody can hear.

[hexagonFox]

User Count is Back up to the 500's

[Frindia]

Hi all,

First post here, but I've been a silent observer for more than a decade.

The domain cosecha-transmisiones.com refers to 7 gateway IPs:
104.21.16+x.1, where x=0,16, 32, ... n*16
Locating the 7 gateway IPs leads to a hexagon shaped area near San Francisco, see image



This seems quite intentional, but could also be a cloudfare thing, i don't know.
I searched the area for... I really don't know what. Without any further clues it is quite pointless I think. But maybe you have an idea.

Sorry if this is already known, I honestly didn't check every post here and during the 2013 ARG I just started listening to BoC. I missed all the fun by a few weeks.

Curious if this was known or was this missed during the TH arg?

[derp!]

where are these numbers coming from when all anyone else can find on the website are certificate exp dates?

if there are seven, why wasn't that point plotted on the map?

the open space at the center has a pentlands feel, but what would you really get out of sending someone there?

why is this just coming to light after two weeks?

User Count is Back up to the 500's

maybe that's the whole point of this ridiculous bullshit

[Walkingcloud]

The TH album art photo was taken within that hexagon across the bay from San Francisco. This may be left over from that album rollout

[derp!]

Alameda doesn't match any of those points.

[murmur maris]

Hi all,

First post here, but I've been a silent observer for more than a decade.

The domain cosecha-transmisiones.com refers to 7 gateway IPs:
104.21.16+x.1, where x=0,16, 32, ... n*16
Locating the 7 gateway IPs leads to a hexagon shaped area near San Francisco, see image



This seems quite intentional, but could also be a cloudfare thing, i don't know.
I searched the area for... I really don't know what. Without any further clues it is quite pointless I think. But maybe you have an idea.

Sorry if this is already known, I honestly didn't check every post here and during the 2013 ARG I just started listening to BoC. I missed all the fun by a few weeks.

that's interesting! anyway.. probably is still something related to TH and Alameda stuff

[bsun]

if there are seven, why wasn't that point plotted on the map?

Good question. A friend of mine who is not into BoC searched the website for peculiarities. So I will try to explain what he told me.
There is 1 IP address that is backed by 6 others. If the one IP is down, the others handle the website. The 6 IPs make up the hexagon, the other one is within the hexagon and changes constantly.
Apparently there is a grid of overlapping hexagons encompassing the world, each IP makes up one corner. This is a cloudflare thing, I think. However, it might be intentional that BoC chose 6 IPs on the exact same hexagon. Thats all I know.

where are these numbers coming from when all anyone else can find on the website are certificate exp dates?

I will ask my friend about the details and will let you know shortly.

[doshan]

Hello fellow Boc fans.

I was poking around the site: https://cosecha-transmisiones.com and noticed there was possibly some additional information, that I have yet to see discussed here. (ok, I went back to April of this thread, and searched every page for "css" and found no results, so excuse me if this has already been discovered and I happened to miss it )

To my knowledge, since the website is changed this is what we have access to, every time we load the page.
First the html:

Code:

<html><head><link rel="stylesheet" href="resource://content-accessible/plaintext.css"></head><body><pre>nobody home... /// -. --- -... --- -.. -.-- / .... --- -- . .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-</pre></body><style type="text/css"></style></html>

And a stylesheet file, named plaintext.css:

Code:

/* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
 * License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
 * file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. */

pre {
  white-space: pre-wrap;
  word-wrap: break-word;
  -moz-control-character-visibility: visible;
}

.nowrap pre {
  white-space: pre;
}

/* Make text go with the rules of dir=auto, but allow it to be overriden if 'Switch Text Direction' is triggered */
html:not([dir]) pre { /* Not a UA sheet, so doesn't use :-moz-has-dir-attr */
  unicode-bidi: plaintext;
}

@-moz-document unobservable-document() {
  :root {
    color-scheme: light dark;
  }
}

/* NOTE(emilio): For some reason some pages, mainly bing.com, load a bunch of
 * scripts in zero-size <object> elements, see bug 1548449.
 *
 * Line-breaking such documents is useless and pretty expensive, so only render
 * them if there's a viewport. Sigh.
 */
@media (width: 0) or (height: 0) {
  :root {
    display: none;
  }
}


CALLING ALL WEB DEVS!!!!!
I know just enough about html and css to see that there is something fishy going on in this stylesheet. Note the unobservable document, as well as media width 0 / height 0.... they are hiding something no? also the comment for Emilio stands out to me as well.


I hope my first post was successful in finding a new clue. Maybe this was only recently been updated and thus that is why no one has talked about it yet... Or, I may have missed the discussion entirely, and in that case I apologize, I am just very excited.

I will continue to poke around. I am trying to find out how to render a locally modified version of the css file, changing things like display none and adjusting the width and height.... I am not a web developer though so I might sound really stupid and this may be nothing!


EDIT: I forgot to mention also, I bounced on a vpn from about 5 different countries all over the world, and I always received the same 7 ip addresses stated earlier in the thread. This could indicate that they are static addresses, but from what I understand pretty unusual that they are all multiples of 16 (chosen intentionally?) I was unable to further verify any geo-location data for these addresses though.

[doshan]

Sorry for double posting, I am unable to edit my post after enough time has passed I suppose...
I am still tinkering around and found something strange. Using browser Dev Console, I see under network the html page, but also favicon.ico. Well, you may have noticed the website doesn't have a favicon image in the tab... It is sending an image request, but returning instead the message, nobody home.

I just feel like there has to be something more going on here, but I don't know enough about web development to make anything out of it. I've tried editing the CSS to no success. May look into JS injection? Anyone have experience with this stuff? I am either crazy, (and dumb) or BoC is saying game on.

[luminousdusk]

I am either crazy, (and dumb) or BoC is saying game on.

Ime, It's usually a vague combination of the two!

[niski]

Sorry for double posting, I am unable to edit my post after enough time has passed I suppose...
I am still tinkering around and found something strange. Using browser Dev Console, I see under network the html page, but also favicon.ico. Well, you may have noticed the website doesn't have a favicon image in the tab... It is sending an image request, but returning instead the message, nobody home.

I just feel like there has to be something more going on here, but I don't know enough about web development to make anything out of it. I've tried editing the CSS to no success. May look into JS injection? Anyone have experience with this stuff? I am either crazy, (and dumb) or BoC is saying game on.

there is nothing going on in there. if there was a hidden document it would have to be embedded into the HTML. CSS could have some leftover stuff from the old instance of the site anyway

and half of the terms you mentioned like JS injection aren't even relevant to what you've found in any way possible

[doshan]

EDIT: I realize I don't know the meaning of terms, and I admit I am talking out of my a** a little bit. However, just because I don't know the specific name for something I am not familiar with, does not invalidate the fact that there could be something to find.

there is nothing going on in there. if there was a hidden document it would have to be embedded into the HTML. CSS could have some leftover stuff from the old instance of the site anyway

and half of the terms you mentioned like JS injection aren't even relevant to what you've found in any way possible

I think that seeing the favicon.ico returning as text was a cool find... I suppose my question is what is going on with this CSS if there is nothing here? Why leave in the comments about a mozilla bug that loads scripts inside zero size elements? if this is a bare bones, plain text site, why are they being so specific about the way text is wrapping and the direction of the text? It just seems like a lot of effort for what? Making sure it loads correctly on mobile?

And, by JS injection I was referring to using dev console to interact with the page using JS, while yeah it may not be technically called "JS injection" but it is very possible to lob JS commands at it and have it do something to the page. I am sorry I do not know the exact term for that, I am not claiming to be a web developer, or any kind of developer.

Personally I think this is something, but if you know for a fact why they created the style sheet the way they did I will take your word for it.

Why make it so all pages return status 200 rather than 404 page does not exist? Why the 7 static IP addresses that all end in multiples of 16? Why the comment about scripts loading in zero size containers? Maybe each on their own, I would say "who knows" but, the fact that there is multiple 'weird' things going on has me intrigued. With a website so deliberately cleaned up to include a simple message, I would think the CSS wouldn't have random dev comments left in. BoC seems too meticulous for that sort of thing (not that I assume they are personally writing the code for the site, but you know what I mean)

I appreciate the reality check. I understand about maybe the CSS being left over but it's named plaintext.css, while using the wayback machine I can only load pages back from the debut of the site, and so far I've found terminal.css, (which is the actual css from back then):

Code:

body {
  margin:0;
  background-color:#000;
  padding:3px;
  font-family:monospace;
  color:#22FF07;
  font-size:14px;
  min-height:100%;
  min-width:100%;
}
h1,
h2,
h3,
ul li {
  margin:0;
  font-size:14px;
  font-weight:normal;
}
h1 {
  font-weight:bold;
  text-align:center;
  padding:20px 0;
}
p {
  margin:5px 0;
}
a {
  color:#22FF07;
  text-decoration:none;
}
a:hover {
  color:#22FF07;
}
ul {
  list-style:none;
  margin:0;
  padding:0;
}
h2 {
  clear:left;
  padding-top:10px;
  font-weight:bold;
}
h3 {
  margin-top:10px;
  font-style:italic;
}
#terminal-container {
  width:100%;
  padding-bottom:16px;
  position:relative;
}
#command-line {
  float:left;
  position:absolute;
  left:0;
  bottom:0;
  right:0;
}
.completed-command,
#command-line,
#command-line span,
.completed-command span,
#command-line .commands,
.completed-command .commands {
  float:left;
}
#command-line span,
.completed-command span {
  margin-right:5px;
}
#command-line .commands b {
  display:block;
  background-color:#22FF07;
  width:0.75em;
  height:1em;
  float:right;
}
.completed-command .commands b {
  display:none;
}
/*
     FILE ARCHIVED ON 02:53:32 May 12, 2013 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 06:30:05 May 16, 2025.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
*/
/*
playback timings (ms):
  captures_list: 0.622
  exclusion.robots: 0.025
  exclusion.robots.policy: 0.013
  esindex: 0.011
  cdx.remote: 19.404
  LoadShardBlock: 104.955 (3)
  PetaboxLoader3.datanode: 71.454 (4)
  load_resource: 267.261
  PetaboxLoader3.resolve: 203.641
*/


The stuff at the bottom is included from the wayback machine when the snapshot was taken, but everything else there is original.
So, this css looks way more like what someone would expect to see. The site back then was also quite simple in terms of layout and style. The new plaintext.css looks fishy to me, just because it's formatted in a way that seems to allude to something more. The old style sheet had no multi line dev comments the way the new style sheet does. I am trying to access snapshots from 2024 but I'm guessing the site was down until they changed it around April sometime. But, I guess what I am getting at is I have yet to find plaintext.css in any other available snapshots.

After doing more research I don't think the unobtainable_document() is anything, but I do think there is more to the CSS as a whole than what we see.
It just seems weird to me, and I think it is something to at least keep playing around with.

As far as why the CSS looks weird, although I am not a web developer, I have made simple sites before, and the terminal.css looks a lot more familiar than plaintext.css - that doesn't mean it is anything because I am unfamiliar with it, it is clearly over my head. It just seems different from all the css I've seen or worked with.

[doshan]

Again, too slow to edit the post another time. To be clear, it appears plaintext.css is a file created by Mozilla and since I use FF, it auto loads the stylesheet when I load the page because the page tells it "I'm planetext!"

Oof.

Ok so it appears I am just dumb until proven otherwise. but, the favicon.ico thing was still interesting (to me)

[Sherbet Head]

Admittedly, most of this technical chatter is going way over my head, but I do appreciate the work you guys (and others) are putting in. It's all good fun, regardless of the outcome. <3

[Negamuse]

Nothing dumb about thinking you've found a thread and pulling on it, that kind of exploration is how anything gets found, and thinking you've found something is exciting. We would all like one of these threads to turn something up, right?

If it seems like the old heads on this site are cynical about things it's not that we're out to shut down people's joy its just we've been through the cycle a few times and know (or think we know) that when there's something to find its usually a lot more obvious. Or maybe we'll get caught going "ehh probably nothing" when the next thing starts, who knows!

But the likes on social media posts about new material is probably the best heart beat we've got right now that the BoC project isn't dead. Everything else, I'm waiting to be convinced

[niski]

EDIT: I realize I don't know the meaning of terms, and I admit I am talking out of my a** a little bit. However, just because I don't know the specific name for something I am not familiar with, does not invalidate the fact that there could be something to find.

there is nothing going on in there. if there was a hidden document it would have to be embedded into the HTML. CSS could have some leftover stuff from the old instance of the site anyway

and half of the terms you mentioned like JS injection aren't even relevant to what you've found in any way possible

I think that seeing the favicon.ico returning as text was a cool find... I suppose my question is what is going on with this CSS if there is nothing here? Why leave in the comments about a mozilla bug that loads scripts inside zero size elements? if this is a bare bones, plain text site, why are they being so specific about the way text is wrapping and the direction of the text? It just seems like a lot of effort for what? Making sure it loads correctly on mobile?

And, by JS injection I was referring to using dev console to interact with the page using JS, while yeah it may not be technically called "JS injection" but it is very possible to lob JS commands at it and have it do something to the page. I am sorry I do not know the exact term for that, I am not claiming to be a web developer, or any kind of developer.

Personally I think this is something, but if you know for a fact why they created the style sheet the way they did I will take your word for it.

Why make it so all pages return status 200 rather than 404 page does not exist? Why the 7 static IP addresses that all end in multiples of 16? Why the comment about scripts loading in zero size containers? Maybe each on their own, I would say "who knows" but, the fact that there is multiple 'weird' things going on has me intrigued. With a website so deliberately cleaned up to include a simple message, I would think the CSS wouldn't have random dev comments left in. BoC seems too meticulous for that sort of thing (not that I assume they are personally writing the code for the site, but you know what I mean)

I appreciate the reality check. I understand about maybe the CSS being left over but it's named plaintext.css, while using the wayback machine I can only load pages back from the debut of the site, and so far I've found terminal.css, (which is the actual css from back then):

Code:

body {
  margin:0;
  background-color:#000;
  padding:3px;
  font-family:monospace;
  color:#22FF07;
  font-size:14px;
  min-height:100%;
  min-width:100%;
}
h1,
h2,
h3,
ul li {
  margin:0;
  font-size:14px;
  font-weight:normal;
}
h1 {
  font-weight:bold;
  text-align:center;
  padding:20px 0;
}
p {
  margin:5px 0;
}
a {
  color:#22FF07;
  text-decoration:none;
}
a:hover {
  color:#22FF07;
}
ul {
  list-style:none;
  margin:0;
  padding:0;
}
h2 {
  clear:left;
  padding-top:10px;
  font-weight:bold;
}
h3 {
  margin-top:10px;
  font-style:italic;
}
#terminal-container {
  width:100%;
  padding-bottom:16px;
  position:relative;
}
#command-line {
  float:left;
  position:absolute;
  left:0;
  bottom:0;
  right:0;
}
.completed-command,
#command-line,
#command-line span,
.completed-command span,
#command-line .commands,
.completed-command .commands {
  float:left;
}
#command-line span,
.completed-command span {
  margin-right:5px;
}
#command-line .commands b {
  display:block;
  background-color:#22FF07;
  width:0.75em;
  height:1em;
  float:right;
}
.completed-command .commands b {
  display:none;
}
/*
     FILE ARCHIVED ON 02:53:32 May 12, 2013 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 06:30:05 May 16, 2025.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
*/
/*
playback timings (ms):
  captures_list: 0.622
  exclusion.robots: 0.025
  exclusion.robots.policy: 0.013
  esindex: 0.011
  cdx.remote: 19.404
  LoadShardBlock: 104.955 (3)
  PetaboxLoader3.datanode: 71.454 (4)
  load_resource: 267.261
  PetaboxLoader3.resolve: 203.641
*/


it's probably just a framework or a WYSIWYG editor. there genuinely is nothing here.

[bsun]

A quick note about the gateway IPs and the hexagon. Its nothing. This is just the way cloudflare handles everything. Boc can't influence it sorry

[Aphex-Twin-Peaks]

Favicon returning text is a v cool find, pity it didn't uncover anything new though.