I think Snowden has become such a folk hero that some people may leap
   to defend what seems like an attack on him without taking as much time
   to look at the data/posts as they would otherwise.

   On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Shelley <[1]shelley@misanthropia.org>
   wrote:

     On October 12, 2015 6:20:46 AM Michael Best
     <[2]themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:

     I tried to list their motives under the GCHQ/UK motives, who would
     be more
     likely to fake the slide anyway and are the ones alleged of having
     leaked
     documents to the Independent on behalf of JTRIG, are a fairly likely
     candidate.

     Yes, you did list a number of possibilities.  It sometimes seems as
     though the same few people do not read and/or comprehend responses
     before replying to them.

     Faking a slide like this would be a good way to inspire paranoia
     and divide a community, no? It got Cryptome to post a notice on
     their site
     for a week or two, alerting people to the possibility that they'd
     been
     targeted by GCHQ by visiting Cryptome. Sounds like JTRIG-ish
     paranoia, no?

     Agreed.  It could be an effective way to deter visitors to Cryptome,
     possibly to divert attention away from something posted there around
     the time this all began.
     -S

     On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Georgi Guninski
     <[3]guninski@guninski.com>
     wrote:
     >
     >
     [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Threat_Research_
     Intelligence_Group&oldid=670966374
     >
     > Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group
     >
     > In June 2015, NSA files published by Glenn Greenwald revealed new
     > details about JTRIG's work at covertly manipulating online
     > communities.[6]
     >
     >
     > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:58:33AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
     > > >
     > > > So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he
     didn't get
     > >
     > > owned, the slide is _REAL_.
     > >
     > >
     > > I don't think I understand your mean, if we assuming it's real,
     it
     > follows
     > > that it's real? I think I walked into a language barrier.
     > >
     > >
     > > > Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if he
     got
     > > > owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake.
     > > > Is this plausible?
     > >
     > >
     > > Not necessarily, that's not how disinfo works a lot of the time.
     > >
     > > And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu appearing
     to
     > > > trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)?
     > >
     > >
     > > No, there just wasn't much to respond to.
     > >
     > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Georgi Guninski
     <[5]guninski@guninski.com>
     > > wrote:
     > >
     > > > So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he
     didn't get
     > > > owned, the slide is _REAL_.
     > > >
     > > > Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if he
     got
     > > > owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake.
     > > >
     > > > Is this plausible?
     > > >
     > > > And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu
     appearing to
     > > > trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)?
     > > >
     > > >
     > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:22:37AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
     > > > > No but as I and others have noted, he didn't look at all of
     the
     > materials
     > > > > he handed over to journalists and couldn't possibly be
     expected to
     > > > remember
     > > > > all the ones he did see well enough to possibly be able to
     ID this
     > one as
     > > > > altered or forged. He was only able to argue against the
     other
     > documents
     > > > > because he had never been in touch with the outlet releasing
     them,
     > > > contrary
     > > > > to their apparent belief.
     > > > >
     > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Georgi Guninski <
     > [6]guninski@guninski.com>
     > > > > wrote:
     > > > >
     > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Michael Best
     wrote:
     > > > > > > As I think I said in the other thread, less specific
     charges that
     > > > require
     > > > > > > more specific proof and almost never leveled before a
     trial is
     > set,
     > > > > > because
     > > > > > > it forces the issue to be tried in the court of public
     opinion,
     > > > where a
     > > > > > lot
     > > > > > > of information can't be released lest it spoil an
     investigation
     > or
     > > > > > > potential trial. There's also the fact that there'd be
     little to
     > > > gain at
     > > > > > > this point by alleging that the slides are fake since
     there
     > would be
     > > > few
     > > > > > > people to believe it,
     > > > > > >
     > > > > > > "NSA hasn't said it's fake" doesn't seem like a strong
     argument -
     > > > > > > especially for a non-NSA slide. And again - *Snowden
     himself* has
     > > > accused
     > > > > > > outlets of releasing slides attributed to him that *he
     says he
     > did
     > > > not
     > > > > > > provide*.
     > > > > > >
     > > > > > Likely the NSA would distribute fake slides just to
     discredit
     > Snowden.
     > > > > >
     > > > > > Does Snowden deny the authencity of this slide?
     > > > > >
     > > > > > This slide appeared in _too many_ news AFAICT to get
     unnoticed.
     > > > > >
     > > >
     >

References

   1. mailto:shelley@misanthropia.org
   2. mailto:themikebest@gmail.com
   3. mailto:guninski@guninski.com
   4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group&oldid=670966374
   5. mailto:guninski@guninski.com
   6. mailto:guninski@guninski.com