Before enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water.
First, I agree that a qualifier is needed for Knotts' performance, because even Knotts wanted better documentation for this hike.
I don't have a major problem with the original post on the FKT board and the "headline" of the first post in this thread. Certainly, the Whiteblaze response will have a desirable effect on future documentation.
I believe Knotts succeeded in hiking an AT self-supported fkt and would like to congratulate him on his accomplishment.
I met him on the CDT last year, have had a couple brief Facebook exchanges, and talked to thru hikers in the Whites who met him. (I was in Lincoln on a resupply.)
So, I'm biased, but I think the discussion here is also not totally objective. I don't think Knotts' electronic issues should automatically disqualify him for at least qualified recognition.
I appreciate the fair tone of the discussion but many are saying that "a lack of data, is definitive data, that proves, X"
I have the latest Ambit gps watch which failed after 20 hours and did not fully record my PB for 21 hours. Also in the last 6 months, I failed to stop my watch after my training walk. I did not give myself credit for the extra 35 minutes of training or fail to brag about my 10 million cm hike. Technology is still subject to limitations and operator error.
We do not always get what we want, and the more we insist that this is a sport for the spectators, the more we will be disappointed. Some called for complete openness and suggested inviting anyone to come join you on your attempt. The fkt board still requires twenty somethings to keep a paper logbook on the trail and immediately FAX it to, whoever. The "Williamson Standard" says drinking from a water cache makes it a supported hike, that you do not need to carry a gps, that pacing with a partner is good (ok by me), and (I think) that hiking a closed trail is desirable, over an official reroute. Finally, some big names think that hikers should do the traditional ford of the Kennebec River and others would require hikers to take the official ferry service. None of these things have been universally adopted. Also, I strongly object to bringing up grey areas in retrospect, when it is just fishing for a consensus, on an ulterior motive. I think most self supported hikers will add 5% + to their baseweight for a Spot and batteries, we shall see if supported hikers do.
My problem with the discussion is the lack of responsibility for the consequences. It seems that the most believe that a new fkt will be set this week, and this means it doesn't matter what they say.
I think Bean's run puts a time constraint on acknowledging Knotts. Next week, it will be impossible to properly acknowledge him; It will just be a competition among those who want to rewrite history.
If Knotts finishes the Calendar Year Triple Crown and then sets a fkt on the AZ Trail with full gps, many will believe that his body of work should also include a former AT fkt. I think many on this thread will argue that the gps track on the AZ Trail supports their position on this AT fkt.
So, what is this position? PB was asked to post a blatantly false claim. He was taken off the hook by a WB thread that had posts on both sides. This time he enlisted JB to do the "analysis" privately. JB has found problems with at least three fkt attempts in the last year with no support of any hikers with incomplete evidence. This is not mentioned. I'm surprised by the lack of on-trail reports about a guy with dreadlocks and no shirt. Maybe this is a result of the investigative process, or Knotts didn't take enough smoke breaks, or people just don't care when guys take off / lose their shirt or set an obscure record on the AT. I accept that supplemental information will not be conclusive.
It is hard for me to see where we are now.
When did Knotts fail? Poor planning, losing his extra batteries in the south, not setting up his phone meta data, failed phone, making Facebook posts with poor cell signal (it is in "the report") etc.
Is it the stupidity of the failure, the number of failures, or the length of the gap between check-ins?
Anish had technical difficulties with the gps in Maine, Scott J forgot his gps going over The Priest. Are these gaps acceptable in the future? Have pot shots become the new norm in the name of fairness?
Many of "the report" supporters are wishing Knotts well on the triple crown, but the AT is part of the triple. I guess the position is, "he probably did a fkt, but what can I do?" I would suggest, Nothing.
i.e., Leave the fkt at the top in bold with the unverified designation, and footnote that the referenced report finds it unlikely to be verified in the intermediate term.
Not sure I followed all that- but the whole point of posting this publicly was to publicly discuss it.
Williamson personally (or perhaps Krud specifically); there are some quirks... and some things I disagree with regarding evolving trail conditions.
' Official route' is perfectly fine in my opinion, but I'm not intimately familiar with the PCT either.
The main point of naming it the Williamson standard is simply to acknowledge where it comes from.
The goal in the previous post is to use his guidelines as a basis for building a set of rules we can come to a consensus about. As multiple people point out-there are too many conflicting opinions.
I don't mind naming names- Doyle has been an ongoing problem with issues like the Kennebec ferry and general 'thru-hiker style'. One of those I'd like to see get on board with a new standard is Warren.
Fer my part- I've said several times the goal isn't to go back in time. The only reason past examples were brought up was to illustrate issues we've had previously that could be cleaned up.
Anish had pizza gate, Joey's family came out his first trip. Out of those two items and others: a better consensus on delayed tracking came about. This has been an ongoing problem specific to self-supported FKT's on long distance trails as it conflicts with the 'invite everyone to participate' standard in the overall guidelines. Believe it or not, that was a sticking point for a bit and it's really only this season that delayed tracking is not only accepted, but encouraged.
The other reason to discuss past attempts- Anish specifically if you'd care to be blunt- is to identify what went wrong. In part to answer your closing questions we have to ask how we got from a very clean hike in Matt Kirk to today.
I believe Anish did what she said. That's a belief. I know what happened after, and I know exactly what two folks said repeatedly, "I did as much or more than Anish did".
So the mistake, was not to fully review Heather's claim AT THE TIME. There is no value in retroactively reviewing it. While I admit to mild curiosity and fascination with Ward's hike- it wasn't to 'review it' but to understand it.
So is the question then is: Is the standard now irreparably damaged and everyone should simply revert to an honor system? Or should we correct that mistake moving forward and review all hikes?
As pointed out; the entire history is literally Leonard, Kirk, Camps, Anderson, Kaiha, Knotts, and Camps/Stringbean. Ward is Ward. Kirk is 2013, Camps was DQ in 14, and Anish claimed it in 15.
Who should we talk about?
As far as Dan- http://www.animaps.com/pb/399330003/29/Knotts
I would encourage you to simply ignore the trip report and look at this map. Ignore all the other evidence.
Dan wrote a trip narrative. Dan turned in a partial GPS track. They don't match, not even close.
Almost immediately when his narrative was converted to a spreadsheet and a 76 mile day was pointed out- Dan immediately revised his story.
So two versions of a trip narrative, a busted GPS, enlisting a hiker to get him supplies and ' It's all on facebook yo'. That was the sum total of evidence supplied.
In what context does anyone feel anyone should proceed with a review or should Dan get credit for anything?
Joey Camps was about 10 days out with a two day lead when he fell and got injured. He had to take a zero, recover from his injury, hike with trenchfoot, and battle through the fact that he knew what he was doing would not count. He still bested Matt's time by a day. Matt Kirk was about the first person to congratulate him. I called him out and Joey and I are now friends. So are he and Matt.
If you want to feel that Dan had a tough break: If Joey didn't fall he would have held an FKT. If he had taken a zero on trail, instead of getting a ride to the ER, he'd have an FKT.
If Dan didn't have spot issues- he still would have had issues. His trip narrative didn't match his GPS data. More GPS data would have meant more holes in his story.
In my opinion, Dan still violated the guidelines.
Despite all that; Dan got a fair review. Probably the fairest and kindest review I can imagine.
I personally worked actively to try to validate his hike, to come up with some story and pull puzzle pieces together.
I'm a very good storyteller and a superb bullsharter of the highest order. I couldn't do it.
I spoke to Dan quite a bit. I didn't share that personal correspondence, I didn't share the bulk of the information found. I spoke to other people who's names remained out of the report.
I begged Dan to share his photos and any information he had with us. He did not.
There were witnesses.
If you mean Dan's friends and former hiking partners- they didn't really fill any holes in his hike, though I did note them and indirectly contacted at least one. Unfortunately that witness report conflicted with one of the time stamped photos Dan pulled from his arse just before the Outside article was published.
If you mean plain jane non-thru hiking WB members... not 24 hours after I started this thread... a hiker came forward to share an encounter with Dan. This witness contradicted Dan's story again.
The trail is a small place. Dan has interacted with many people. Not all those interactions are positive, not all those accounts agree with one another.
My report was written in about the kindest most neutral light I can think of. To simply and succinctly share the headline and just enough supporting information to back up that headline.
Extra pains were taken not to publish every scrap of evidence or share personal details. To leave Dan's personal reputation intact.
As I mentioned- I am a good storyteller.
Lack of responsibility for the consequences.
Here I am. I didn't quite follow what you were trying to say about three other hikes? It doesn't bother me to talk about them if you want.
Anytime I have called anyone out, I've also reached out. I do it to their face, with my real name. I don't get to hike much these days, but I'm not hiding behind a screen name in my mom's basement either. If you'd care to question my personal ability to do one of these; I've had to do that myself. I'm not physically capable. I gave it a good shot, my mind is there for it, I sussed out most of the tricks and I researched the hell out of it. At one point thought I would give it a serious shot. I did a few tune up/test trips and realized while I am fast, I ain't FKT fast. Tough tits. 99.9% of people aren't. So call me the kid who played college ball but not in the pros if you want to be kind. If you want to be unkind call me whatever you want. I took the training I had built up, gave the Long Trail FKT a long shot and the trail quite kindly informed me where I stood on it.
Some might think that makes me bitter, but it doesn't at all. Knowing who you are, and who you aren't is a better gift than most receive and far more valuable than an FKT. If anything it motivates you to help out folks to do the same. Besides that- one only has to think of Brett Maune and keep that firmly in mind when reviewing a claim. If you have any bit of integrity or honor in you that story should haunt any skeptical review. But if you have any kind of courage you aught to be able to accept what the results tell you. You should never say, 'I believe'. Only I know, or I don't know.
As mentioned- since it was the exact strategy I planned to employ on my attempt- I was uniquely suited to understand both Kaiha and Dan's style of hiking as it is my own personal style. Heather isn't quite as down and dirty as you can go, and to up her game in the style she prefers she's been running marathons. Dan is lean, mean, down and dirty. He can run, but mainly he can suffer dirtbag style. But he'd be the first to tell you he messed up his gear big time and made other mistakes too. I wanted to believe Dan's hike because in a way it was a validation of my style of hiking... but often the trail has other ideas.
Peter joined whiteblaze and is willing to discuss these things when and where he can.
As mentioned though, this is one very specific FKT in a much bigger world of FKT's... but he bent over backwards to acknowledge Dan.
This is a solo, self-supported FKT. Where is Dan's responsibility for the consequences?
I have informed Dan personally many times that the door is open for him to sit down and revisit his claim.
Not via a PR campaign, but to actually sit down, write a split sheet, and see if he could somehow put his hike together. To make an honest attempt to review his own hike.
Dan has raw talent. He's not Joey Camps quite yet. Joey was mad for sometime, then he understood, and now he's back.
There is no time limit on Dan's ability to follow up. We were all young, we've all 'lost' and been pissed. The level of empathy for Dan is something he simply has failed to see at this point, and perhaps you have failed to see. While nobody is handing Dan an FKT out of sympathy, people are reaching out a hand out of understanding. Sometimes it's hard to see the hand trying to help you back up from the hand that knocked you down...good thing for Dan those of trying to help him out know the difference.
It doesn't matter if Stringbean beats his time, or Joey, or the next guy. That happens anyway.
What is important for Dan personally is that he learn what it means to put one of these together- on trail and off- and take those lessons on to the next hike. I specifically told him that any bid he makes on the next trail would get tied to this claim. So no matter what happens this season it is in his best interest to continue to work on it. To understand where he went wrong, and to understand what to do next time.
"To start off, I’m downed at the time I put up on the AT Self Support FKT. A time that will easily be beat."
That is literally the first two lines of Dan's trip narrative. I like to think the best of people. I think Dan knows deep down that this wasn't a clean hike. It was a hell of a first show, I'll give him that.
The triple crown is self-reported honor system.
It's (mostly) clear that Dan hiked the trail, it's (mostly) clear he didn't do so in the manner he proposed, in the time he claimed, or with a clean trip report.
That doesn't mean it's not a thru-hike. That's all that's required to claim a triple crown.
A note on that: Dan is currently in the midst of a calendar year triple ATTEMPT.
Roughly- I think he had 700-800/2600 done on the PCT. And 500/3100 on the CDT. I didn't look that hard so don't quote me- look for yourself.
Do your own math on that one starting in August and finishing by December 31st.
But careful giving credit for things that haven't yet been earned.
Where we are now-
Dan- nothing has changed.
Door is open for Dan to participate and clean up his own mess. Or he can take his ball and go home. Or do what he said he was doing when we concluded things- hike. The review was completed in a timely manner, and a generous amount of time donated to Dan mainly because I personally respected he was out hiking. Dan was out doing interviews and contacting media. He's found time to post on WB, to exchange emails with me. He was spending time attempting to discredit a respected journalist on their personal facebook page, he was recovering photos left and right and filling in all his social media updates, but somehow failed to get those photos to the only people that mattered. He was home for several weeks trying to get his foot back in shape to hike again. It is highly likely I personally spent more time on Dan's claim than Dan. It's quite likely FKT dude spent more time on it too.
So if there was any urgency for Dan to 'hold the record' in real time before it was surpassed... one can hold Dan responsible for that.
A simple question one might ask on that matter:
Why put all your energy into a PR campaign and play up the controversy, rather than just a little energy into bolstering your claim and ending the controversy?
Overall-
Is openly discussing what has up until now been a record held by people who more or less knew each other. And more or less directly communicated the guidelines to each other. Just because you are ignorant of the rules, doesn't mean they are not there. This is not a thru. There are no participation trophies. It is a record.
I hear more silly rumors, fake rules, and total confusion in the hiking community overall. I summarized the entire history of it in one decent sized post. This shouldn't be that hard... seems we all agree on that... so that's progress in my book.
I think it's easy to miss that the goal is to open it up to all- fairly.
I'd like to see the FKT folks put out a simple guideline for all to follow to set them up to succeed.
In exchange- folks should understand that just showing up isn't good enough.
Since this is no longer an honor system then it must be a record keeping one.
Period.
Well said, as always. The responsibility for proof lies with the individual attempting to set the FKT.Originally Posted by Just Bill
The requirements are clearly spelled out and there's really no excuse for failing to meet the minimum standards.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
“He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature.” –Socrates
pretty much nothing more to be said.
Bill, have you talked to Peter about Dan still being on the FKT site?
In what way?
"Report, not judge" is pretty well Peter's policy. Dan's noted in the main AT page... So is Joey's first attempt. Ward Leonard, Snorkel, and others who are part of the history/story of this FKT overall even if they don't hold one.
Peter has reformatted this page about 16 times now, lol. I like the way it is at the moment. The rundown of all the times chronologically and the further breakdown of the supported/self-supported.
Guess the only critique... is that Dan could be removed from the chronological list but no rush for that. That's still 'current event's' and people visiting the site would likely be looking to see the latest news and/or wish to follow up on Dan.
And who knows what this off-season will bring?
Dan can still technically clean his hike up if he chooses and earn a spot on the list.
Joe M still has to release his hike data for review.
Joey still has to finish.
We all (hopefully) need to write a 2 pager and nail down documentation, guidelines, and standards.
Then next season we can get back to enjoying and celebrating these controversy free.
It comes across reported as a completed FKT when in the list, particularly with the picture also.
I frequent running forums and his name has come up a couple times now with people being confused on who held the previous record. Many people aren't going through the whole post, just the parts that stand out easily.
Would seem prudent that with the attention Joe is getting that it could be made a little more clear for all the people who are just going to be skimming that page.
That's why I asked if you maybe knew something about why he's included as he is. I'm sure it'll be cleared up eventually.
Guess it's handy you are on them running forums then
Yar... I think everything is just moving fast. It's peak season for FKT's everywhere so guessing things will need to wait until this off season.
Unless Peter knows something (which he may) Joe M has yet to release his documentation. Peter put Joe's name up top in bold though and I noticed Runner's World is claiming that Peter 'verified' his hike, and then immediately followed it with the disclaimer (There is no official sanctioning body for AT records). But apparently they failed to read the whopping one paragraph blurb beyond the headline on the FKT proboard which says; "Stringbean carried a SPOT tracker and typically sent several track points per day, though there were some "holes" in the track of up to 30 hours or so. "
So confusion abounds as per usual I suppose.
Peter said a few times he'd like to remove the 'bold' summary at the top of the page. Too many folks read the headline and not the page. At first I disagreed because it's handy for folks like me to pop back on and quickly check a time... but I'm starting to see his point.
Not sure that it's totally fair to ask somebody like Joe not to do media until the claim is shored up... but it does lead to lots of misinformation.
Being involved with Joey, I already said I wouldn't want to personally review Stringbean's claim- but it should be reviewed. If nothing else you can't yoink one from Dan and then let Joe skate by.
And besting the previous time by 20% should be an eye raising claim even if Joe was up for sainthood. Besting Melzer with a 25lb pack is quite a feat as well... not to mention speed hiking at all with such a load.
Heather carries a bit heavier than some as part of her style but most folks are flying well under 15lbs with food and water these days.
Trust, but verify.
Nothing personal against Dan, means nothing personal against Joe too. Rules for one, means rules for all.
But... it's only been a week. It took nearly 30 days to wrap up Dan's review, though if Joe put everything on the table it might not take nearly as long. A week or more of Knott's review was simply waiting for him. Whenever release of information is delayed I personally grow more suspicious... but also understand all the real world problems that face you when you get off the trail. Seems Joe was whisked away and back to his day job pretty quickly. He's got loved ones, physical pain, and a thousand adjustments to make too. Unlike Karl he didn't climb in the van for a debrief at Red Bull HQ or have any staff on hand to help give his documentation wings. Can't fault Joe for wanting to talk with a dozen reporters who want to talk to him either... he's a young dude and could be one of the lucky ones to parlay this into some kind of living.
My 'community member' opinion only- holes in GPS are inevitable/understandable until the technology improves. I'm still a firm believer in traditional documentation and using that to filling any blanks as needed. Joe has some holes in both his track (publicly) and 3-5 days missing from his insty feed. LOTS of trail magic to look at and some pretty crazy times overall.
I'm keeping an eye on Joey as he's still cruising along.
So I'm trusting that others are working to verify.
I believe in miracles very much... when they can be proven then they are truly amazing. A miracle with no faith required.
oh, the heck with all this kerfuffle. what I want to know is did anyone use Just A Quilt on their attempt?..
Should Knotts instagram feed include "self support fkt" AT
It says attempt.
He 100% did that much.
still hiking... seems to have wrapped up the PCT lickety split and on to the CDT.
Not this year... looks like the Pa'lante packs were the big gear winner this year.
Joey is really liking his. Though he seems to have lost a lot of crap, lol. That bottom pouch may not be perfect...
Dan definitely wins for best dirtbag kit though for sure.
So, is SB a for sure on the self-supported FKT? Is his data public yet?
Not that I've heard, no.
Correct.
Peter said his track was filled in enough to acknowledge it and noted on his site "Stringbean carried a SPOT tracker and typically sent several track points per day, though there were some "holes" in the track of up to 30 hours or so."
Not that this is anywhere near that official- but I 'recuse myself' from any official review seeing as I got a dog in the race with Joey and I asked not to see anything private regarding Joe until Joey is done.
So no real special insight to share on my end. Joe will have his own version of Pizza Gate to deal with we can discuss some other time.
It would be a horrible disservice to Dan and the FKT if this hike wasn't reviewed. Hopefully Joe will release the data publicly and if Alligator is up for it (and nobody else does it) we can do an open review here.
I for one would be happy to see more people learn a bit about the process. Peter doesn't want to be the referee or the judge- he wants the people who care about and participate in them to review claims.
Joe put up a very stunning time, in stunning fashion, with plenty of reasons to be skeptical.
But so did Brett Maune when he set the JMT record.
Any claim should be reviewed...if it's skin or your teeth or days faster.
There are holes in both his instagram feed, and apparently some holes in his track.
Spot in particular seems to do worse, and worst of all on the AT- so some holes in the track should be expected and isn't reason for automatic suspicion.
The point of the review and posting your documentation is to fill in the holes. It was a mere handful of years ago that the possibility of using GPS didn't exist. Just because it now does, doesn't excuse you from publicly turning in your proof. Being cynical- it's likely only a handful of years until people can fake the GPS track. So in order to protect the FKT in the future it's worth maintaining the standards of documentation.
To be blunt- I suspect there is a bit of FKT fatigue in general at the moment. It's a long off-season so other than the fact that he's doing interviews rather than documentation- no big rush.
As pointed out before though... it hasn't really been that long. But the longer it goes the more suspect it gets too.
I'm still watching Joey for a good week, but if it drags on much longer than that I am more than willing to contact Joe directly.
Also often missed when Matt attempts to make the point:
You document your efforts fully so that the next person up has the best possible chance to do better.
I would imagine Joe's hike will hold up and if so it's quite a bit of an inspirational trip that many of us who hike fast but not that fast would love to fully review in appreciation.
I contacted Joe about this 2 days ago and encouraged him to complete his trip report/log & publicly release his SPOT data. He got back to me promptly & today sent a draft of what he wants to release (basically his daily trip log & SPOT data). So, I think he's close to getting this done. 2 weeks seems like not too long. I suppose it's a little overwhelming coming off the trail after 46 days of non-stop and trying to catch up with your life! But, yes I agree, the sooner the better.
I guess Joey has been having trouble with his tracker? I haven't managed to keep up with him lately (life!) Using the SPOT Trace seems like a bad idea. You want to be able to send messages when you have a good clear view of the sky. Trying to transmit every 10 minutes or whatever the Trace is set for will just burn through batteries without providing much useful data.
Leaving a paper trail seems to go against the leave no trace principle
Good to hear on Joe! Yar... a few weeks seems reasonable- best to get some kind of timeframe nailed down at some point. Hate to say it but with a few weeks time it wouldn't be hard to cook the books.
As he's shared you get pretty messed up as soon as you stop... and being an average Joe looks like he was back to work paying the bills too. So if he's working on it at this point kudos to him and understanding from me for sure.
https://mapalist.com/map/638124
That's total BS that you have a life. Matt's map is probably the easiest to follow. Those are the actual spot pings, just slightly delayed.
But I'd have to second that the spot trace is a busted option for these things. It sounded good to Joey on paper as it's supposed to just automatically kick on when you move... but in practice he's had to manually toggle it on and off pretty much all the time. I don't think it's water proof either as he's had some issues with that. So much for it tracking your stolen boat, lol. If anything, based on the literature- you'd think it would punch out a stronger signal as it's acceptable to mount it in an obscured location (just no metal) where the regular needs a clear view to the sky. In practice guess not... they show it stored below deck on boats.
As far as I know: He had the problem with it at the start where it didn't kick on as advertised... despite him and Matt testing it out back in Utah.
He had a second stretch south of shennies, including his big 67 mile day. But he backed that day up with about 4-5 short videos he sent that I backed up for him.
I think both Joe's- both using the Pa'lante Pack- need to move it higher up too. I have a pack I made that has a pocket on the top, and another prototype that has one on the top of the shoulder strap... that seemed to work best for me to get pings while moving. The Pa'lante (and most packs) have it mounted on the chest if they have a stash spot for it at all.
Course if I see that on the next UD pack somebody owes me money
Maybe the Delorme is the more reliable solution based upon some other posts, but no idea on cost, battery or fees. The spot is still a relatively good deal even with some limitations. Hell, running through the green tunnel and catching 4-5 pings a day is still pretty impressive I think. Unfortunately they have high level of user error involved it seems.
But as you pointed out when we talked about it before- it seems simply pulling it out and firing it up when you find a good spot to catch a signal is best.
Fortunately regular old methods work just fine too... so between a 85-95% track and more traditional stuff I think that's a pretty high level of proof that can be achieved even on the AT.
Last edited by Just Bill; 09-14-2017 at 19:00.
JB, when you mention hacking the GPS, I imagine the day is now, not years from now.
I believe the SPOT tracker works as follows, please correct me if I am wrong...
1. The unit has a native GPS inside.
2. The unit has a SATCOM transmitter, not transceiver. That is, it sends only, it doesn't receive incoming messages, thus SPOT can't tell if it is the actual unit communicating because it cannot interrogate it...
3. The unit internally records your location by it's native GPS.
4. The unit transmits your recorded location via it's SATCOM transmitter to SPOT's receiver, via a satellite in outer space.
5. The unit has a unique ID(like a MAC address) that SPOT uses to "track" the unit via the SATCOM transmission of the unit's recorded location, rather than a unique SATCOM frequency or channel. The unique ID is transmitted with the location.
6. Once the location is transmitted, the SPOT unit writes over it when it records the next location, preventing the SPOT from acting as a GEO-logger.
If this is the case, hacking it is uber simple. All you need are two things. The unique ID of your SPOT and the transmission frequency of the SPOT SATCOM receiver. Plus, whatever front and back encoding or ID'ing that SPOT adds to the unit to transmit with the unique ID, if there is any. Those are easy to capture by intercepting a single SPOT transmission from your unit. Then, you simply create your own SPOT transmission with your own GPS coordinates and send it via a SATCOM transmitter(SATCOM phone would probably work, but no reason not to hack the insides of the SPOT to insert your own GPS "signal" in place of the native GPS and use it to send the fake coordinates...).
Seriously, a good techie hardware hacker can nail this down in less than a day. I doubt you would need a software hacker at all for this....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
