That was it, that the slide might not be authentic or could have been an internal GCHQ mockup. I thought that was worthy of discussion and exploration, but then John accused me of faking the data <https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/651777707873837056>.

*Juan* juan.g71@gmail.com

<juan.g71%40gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Cryptome%20has%20been%20leaking%20its%20user%20logs%20for%20over%20a%20year&In-Reply-To=%3C56166710.4237370a.4285d.552d%40mx.google.com%3E>*Thu Oct 8 08:58:03 EDT 2015* On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:26:51 -0400 Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com> wrote: >* In summary, I showed that the information on the slide could have *>* been mocked up, depsite matching the logs for Cryptome.org. * Supposing it was true that you proved that *maybe* the slide isn't authentic, what then? Are you trying to make a more general point? Amd that point is...?