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?
