On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:00:35AM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
And all because somebody got bent out of shape over comments made re attempting to challenge the attribution of a "leaked" document? That amounts to less than an ant fart in a tornado, in context?
Lest we forget, the original PRISM slides were, at minimum, heavily altered by the Guardian and/or Post. Everyone who was paying any real attention at the time knows it. No firestorm of controversy followed.
http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/06/are-nsas-prism-slides-photo shopped.html
... although it did influence my own early conclusions about the Snowden Affair, which have evolved a bit in response to subsequent events. Even so, I'm not the least embarrassed by any mistakes I may have made:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surro und-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity
:o)
Have you ever thought who profits from JYA selling already sniffed logs and someone fabricating a GCHQ slide? If Snowden is just fabricater/photoshoper why wikipedia claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Snowden&oldid=684683260 --- Criminal charge Theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified intelligence to an unauthorized person (June 2013). --- Why they don't charge Snowden for fabricating/photoshoping?