gowlerk 1,937 #26 January 1, 2017 Royreader8812 Quote Except the effect of the leak wasn't limited to information that actually was in the leak. It was a 2 pronged attack. Leak a bunch of stuff then use lots of fake news sites to start bullshit stories about stuff that wasn't actually in the leak, secure in the knowledge that loads of people will believe it anyway because they can't be bothered to go and search through the source info. In denial much... Lol Those whole fake news epidemic is essentially full regard damage control. The sites considered 'fake news' by.the lying establishment media, have always been doing the same thing for years. The difference us that these sites are getting much more popular because more and more people are coming to realise that the establishment media are complete buckshot artists. The figures show it all. Some websites considered mainstream are actually more fringe now statistically, than some of these so called alt right sites like Drudge report or infowars. There is a very good reason for that. Do I look at these sites? Before the predictable onslaught.... I look at everything I come across, skeptically. The person assigned to be Royreader8812 yesterday had much better English skills than you. You should spend more time in America studying. Then you will be more effective at agitprop.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #27 January 1, 2017 QuoteIn denial much... Lol Those whole fake news epidemic is essentially full regard damage control. The sites considered 'fake news' by.the lying establishment media, have always been doing the same thing for years. The difference us that these sites are getting much more popular because more and more people are coming to realise that the establishment media are complete buckshot artists. The figures show it all. Some websites considered mainstream are actually more fringe now statistically, than some of these so called alt right sites like Drudge report or infowars. There is a very good reason for that. Do I look at these sites? Before the predictable onslaught.... I look at everything I come across, skeptically. Yea, what he said........... If I want fake news, I'll watch RT, or lately several major "news" outlets. This whole mess is simply amplified democratic talking points. Putin is sitting back and laughing, watching us bicker, what he fails to understand is we do it normally. He just got to push a couple buttons. This didn't effect the outcome of the election, Hillary being a seriously flawed candidate did the most damage. The DNC admitted this. Had they run a decent candidate, perhaps a Jim Webb type or even possibly Joe Biden, they could have beat Trump easily. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #28 January 1, 2017 Autocorrect. I have edited the post. You really do like assumption. It seems to.be an epidemic these days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,262 #29 January 1, 2017 Royreader8812 Quote Except the effect of the leak wasn't limited to information that actually was in the leak. It was a 2 pronged attack. Leak a bunch of stuff then use lots of fake news sites to start bullshit stories about stuff that wasn't actually in the leak, secure in the knowledge that loads of people will believe it anyway because they can't be bothered to go and search through the source info. In denial much... Um, no. You? Quote The sites considered 'fake news' by the lying establishment media, have always been doing the same thing for years. The difference is that these sites are getting much more popular Yes, that is an accurate framing of the problem - except that the fake news outlets are rapidly proliferating as well.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #30 January 1, 2017 Well the term fake news has been so watered down, I tend to listen to interviews and opinions of guests, on any site then see how their opposition report on the same matters. Listening to scripted bullshit from the said the network says nothing. Some here would consider the BBC more trustworthy than RT for example...but they are just as complicit as each other in any criticism one might direct at either of them. What is more telling in news these days, is what is not said, rather than what is. The following is a good example. A German whistleblower on RT talking about how he was coerced into writing pro US and pro European Articles... https://youtu.be/pL9UjWljjao Is it fake news? No. Is it completely balanced, no. I am not sure a Russian whistleblower would be put on RT... but that same Russian whistleblower would be greeted kindly on the BBC or CNN no worries, suits the agenda nicely.. but this German fellow on German/US or British major networks after his book was published... probably.not. That is why understanding both sides of the story is always important, and why some of you here are hysterically biased. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,262 #31 January 1, 2017 QuoteThe following is a good example. A German whistleblower on RT talking about how he was coerced into writing pro US and pro European Articles... https://youtu.be/pL9UjWljjao Is it fake news? No. How do you know? Who is he?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #32 January 1, 2017 QuoteHow do you know? Who is he? Lol,I rest my case. Took me all of about 30 seconds to get a Wikipedia page on him and multiple links to his social media accounts. Along with the full unedited interview. You spent that time doubting and writing a reply asking someone else to think for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,262 #33 January 1, 2017 QuoteTook me all of about 30 seconds to get a Wikipedia page on him and multiple links to his social media accounts. Along with the full unedited interview. Good for you. Do those multiple social media accounts provide any proof to back up his allegations? Since he freely admits that he can be bribed to say whatever anyone wants him to say it would be foolish to simply take him at his word when he expresses anti-western views on RT, no?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #34 January 1, 2017 Maybe I'll just stick to my conclusion that a rational balanced discussion is probably not going to aventuate if I have to provide all the information. But I can see how all the fake news hypocrisy is well cemented in so many minds around here. How about them Russians huh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,262 #35 January 1, 2017 Royreader8812Maybe I'll just stick to my conclusion that a rational balanced discussion is probably not going to aventuate if I have to provide all the information. So that's a no, then? You just have the word of a man appearing on Russian TV who admits that he can be bribed to say anything? All of which is frankly irrelevant to my point about fake news sites simply making up stories about what was contained in the leaked Hilary campaign emails. Whether or not the BBC or German newspapers are trustworthy has nothing whatsoever to do with it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 634 #36 January 1, 2017 "If you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old fashioned way because I'll tell you what, no computer is safe," Trump said. Looks like Trump could be bringing back those Pony Express jobs that were stolen by technology. What a dolt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #37 January 1, 2017 Royreader8812Maybe I'll just stick to my conclusion that a rational balanced discussion is probably not going to aventuate if I have to provide all the information. No great loss since, based on your posts, that was never your intention to begin with.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #38 January 1, 2017 jakee Who is he? Dr. Udo Ulfkotte - far right idiot, would perfectly fit into DT's range of *friends*. (Watch original video, he's mentioned in it) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Ulfkotte dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #39 January 1, 2017 Lol, considering he is an award winning journalist that was an editor of a major news outlet, having travelled extensively in the middle east reporting on various important issues. I am more inclined to give credit to his standpoint, than yours. What were your credentials again? By your rationale nobody that has ever been complicit in many activity, should ever be taken seriously as a whistleblower. Now back to those sneaky Russians... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #40 January 1, 2017 Because this fringe right wing but job is the first person to suggest US intelligence agencies do such things... https://youtu.be/QBwpvHGnQL4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #41 January 1, 2017 The issue is, as I see it, is you have to separate the lies made for the right reasons from the lies made for the wrong reasons. ALL governments lie. Period. To a certain extent they have to. I doubt you tell 100% of the truth 100% of the time either. If you did, you'd be risking alienation by your cohort. You'd risk getting your face slapped from your wife when she asks you if her jeans make her ass look fat. The main difference between a person and an organization though is organizations can last for much longer and are rarely forgiven for past untruths. A person might forgive a spouse for lying about being at work when they're really out at a bar carousing with friends. People tend to not forgive organizations for similar things. Regardless of past indiscretions by various individuals or single organizations in the past, why do you distrust this particular[/I] document I've posted?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,262 #42 January 1, 2017 Royreader8812Lol, considering he is an award winning journalist that was an editor of a major news outlet, having travelled extensively in the middle east reporting on various important issues. I am more inclined to give credit to his standpoint, than yours. But he just said that everything he said in those reports was a lie, that the major news outlet had no interest in publishing what was actually happening, just like the rest of the media industry which presumably includes the people who give out awards. You're using his testimony to support your claim that his entire industry exists to propogate lies, but you're also saying that because he was a high ranking liar within a company that is very succesful at lying he is actually trustworthy. QuoteWhat were your credentials again? I'm not a professional liar working for a (according to you) discredited industry. QuoteBy your rationale nobody that has ever been complicit in many activity, should ever be taken seriously as a whistleblower. By my rationale, there should be evidence. That's why I asked if he provided any evidence.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #43 January 1, 2017 Haha, why do I distrust the DHS and FBI... A hunch I guess... Lol I suppose these agencies are the cornerstones of integrity and truth, so I must be just a fool. Russia phobia has not been drummed up since the Russians have embarrassed and exposed US complicity in the farcical war on terror, and there is no reason at all for these agencies to be butthurt about being so wrong for so long and achieving very little other than making their contractors very wealthy. Wikileaks not even being mentioned and a disclaimer stating that none of the information is to be taken as factual doesn't have anything to do with it. And the fact that I don't believe it, makes me a Russian spy on the Kremlin's payroll sent to spread misinformation to skydivers that are so easily swayed... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #44 January 1, 2017 QuoteBy my rationale, there should be evidence. That's why I asked if he provided any evidence. And the evidence that these sneaky Russians have hacked anything? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #45 January 1, 2017 Why do you distrust the DOCUMENT? Please point to specific things in it you disagree with.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #46 January 1, 2017 QuoteWhy do you distrust the DOCUMENT The document itself is not really an issue. It is just a discussion document and it clearly states so at the beginning. There are no facts pointing to any wrong doings of the Russian government, and the document is worded in such a way that it should not be taken literally. It is all just opinion. Obama missed that part (well those that do the things he supposedly does while he plays golf and attends fancy dinners), and so did the hysterical media onslaught. That part was not an accident. What about it do you find so telling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #47 January 1, 2017 Royreader8812QuoteWhy do you distrust the DOCUMENT The document itself is not really an issue. It is just a discussion document and it clearly states so at the beginning. There are no facts pointing to any wrong doings of the Russian government, and the document is worded in such a way that it should not be taken literally. It is all just opinion. I'm reasonably certain you've either not read the document or not understood it. It is absolutely not "just a discussion document." It is absolutely intended to "be taken literally."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #48 January 2, 2017 QuoteDISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information within. And (again) from William Binney Quote I expected to see the IP’s or other signatures of APT’s 28/29 [the entities which the U.S. claims hacked the Democratic emails] and where they were located and how/when the data got transferred to them from DNC/HRC [i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton]/etc. They seem to have been following APT 28/29 since at least 2015, so, where are they? Further, once we see the data being transferred to them, when and how did they transfer that data to Wikileaks? This would be evidence of trying to influence our election by getting the truth of our corrupt system out. And, as Edward Snowden said, once they have the IP’s and/or other signatures of 28/29 and DNC/HRC/etc., NSA would use Xkeyscore to help trace data passing across the network and show where it went. [Background.] In addition, since Wikileaks is (and has been) a cast iron target for NSA/GCHQ/etc for a number of years there should be no excuse for them missing data going to any one associated with Wikileaks. *** Too many words means they don’t have clear evidence of how the data got to Wikileaks. Go read an analysis from an independent expert...if you're impartial. Otherwise just carry on and take it hook, line and sinker http://jerrygamblin.com/2016/12/30/grizzly-steppe-ip-and-hash-analysis/ http://www.robertmlee.org/critiques-of-the-dhsfbis-grizzly-steppe-report/ There are plenty of reports like these. At best this JAR can be described as confusing, inept and deceiving. But what else to expect from such entities... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #49 January 2, 2017 Royreader8812Go read an analysis from an independent expert...if you're impartial. Otherwise just carry on and take it hook, line and sinker http://jerrygamblin.com/2016/12/30/grizzly-steppe-ip-and-hash-analysis/ http://www.robertmlee.org/critiques-of-the-dhsfbis-grizzly-steppe-report/ Done. Quote At best this JAR can be described as confusing, inept and deceiving. Negative. The report does exactly what it was intended to do, it is an explanation to system operators of what's going on and what to look for. It's not for general consumption, and it's not intended to convince anyone of anything in terms of the type of evidence that would be required in a court. It's not perfect. No document is. There will always be critics who think any document could be improved in this or that way. There will always be critics who will find an error or point out something they believe is an error but it should be obvious to others it's simply data. For instance, Gamblin goes on to make a bit of a show to point out about 25% of the IPs being TOR exit points. Well, no fucking duh. I'm surprised the number isn't higher. Lee, on the other hand, in his first few paragraphs gives the report good marks. He does spend the remainder of his analysis critiquing how it could be better, but so what? BTW, I have some notes on Rogue One I think would have made it a better film. Who cares? So do a bajillion other people, yet the film is a valid film as is. All of the above said, I really wanted to read YOUR thoughts on the report, not the thoughts of others.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #50 January 2, 2017 I already said. There is no evidence presented that suggests the Russian Government was involved. That is my issue with it. If you contest this, then maybe you can point out the said evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
