IMHO you didn't disprove the slide is real, you are casting doubt
     over
     it.

   I agree completely! "In other words, the guilty knowledge implied by
   the accuracy of the slide can imply things other than being guilt of
   surveillance." Proving that it could be definitely doesn't mean that it
   is.

     If it really was leaked by Snowden, the question is where it came
     from.

   I'd say that question is even more relative if it came from anywhere
   but Snowden.
   On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Michael Best
   <[1]themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's my preliminary list of potential reasons for faking a GCHQ slide. Not mea
nt to be comprehensive, and not every possibility is highly likely. Some are inc
luded only for completeness, but I'm sure there are possibilities I missed.
There have been a few incidents already where the slides have been challenged or
 at least partially debunked. The German prosecutor found a lack of evidence tha
t the NSA was illegally monitoring their government and concluded that the alleg
ed NSA order was a fake. Snowden has also accused The Independent of attributing
 slides to him that he never gave to them.
The why depends on the who. Candidates include:

     * GCHQ
     * Snowden (included for completeness, but least likely. Why fake this
       particular slide among many apparently legitimate ones?)
     * Russian chekist agencies
     * Chinese intelligence agencies
     * The Intercept
     * Intel service X
     *

   If the GCHQ, then there are a few possible reasons:
    1. Part of a proposal/demo
    2. Disinfo to discourage visitors from going to Cryptome
    3. Disinfo to create paranoia
    4. Disinfo to discredit other slides (Snowden suggests something like
       that
       here [2]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov
       ernment-independent-military-base )
    5. Disinfo to convince a FIS (foreign intel service) that their
       capabilities are better/more complete than they are (or were better
       than they were at the time)

   If Snowden:
    1. ???
    2. Makes no sense as an isolated incident, little evidence to the
       contrary
    3. Would not necessarily recognize a fake slide, since he didn't
       examine all of the ones he passed on

   If Russian disinfo:
    1. Discredit the GCHQ
    2. Discredit western governments and undermine their intelligence
       agencies
    3. Inflate the importance of Cryptome prior to attempting to use them
       to release disinfo

   If Chinese disinfo:
    1. Smear British cyber operations as part of their ongoing cyberwar
       with the west and related cognitive warfare
    2. Discredit the GCHQ
    3. Discredit western governments and undermine their intelligence
       agencies
    4. Inflate the importance of Cryptome prior to attempting to use them
       to release disinfo

   If The Intercept:
    1. Fame
    2. Money from being paid to publish a fake by any interested party
    3. Financial compensation from media attention as suggested
       by Razer/[3]Rayzer@riseup.net

   If Intel service x:
    1. Any of the above

     Juan [4]juan.g71@gmail.com
     Sat Oct 10 17:31:29 EDT 2015
     >I still don't get who would make such a fake and why.

References

   1. mailto:themikebest@gmail.com
   2. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base
   3. mailto:Rayzer@riseup.net
   4. mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com?Subject=Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?&In-Reply-To=<5619825d.361f8c0a.691ce.fffffe96@mx.google.com>