[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

  • From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:33:28 +1300

Yes, l did see it and i went whip d' do so what. I am sure people keep an eye
on various pieces of information that are around the place. Why do you think
Snowden is living in Moscow? Why do you think Assange is holed up in a embassy
in London? Both people pissed of the US govt and made look like criminals. That
should speak for itself.

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:29:30 -0700
Subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
From: iao.ms88@xxxxxxxxx
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Interesting,the dissemination

Of misinformation. How to tell

the truth, without compromising the tangled web,like they say at Bohemian

Grove,no tangled web here.

Respectfully, Iao
On 9 Oct 2015 14:22, "Shelley" <shelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On October 9, 2015 4:51:44 PM Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am not surprised that GCHQ does what you claim it does.

Have you read about this from the beginning? If so, you'd know that Mike Best
is not the one claiming that the GCHQ slide is real. He is trying to establish
whether nearly anyone could have made the slide with the logs Cryptome
leaked/distributed/whatever, unwittingly or otherwise. That's all, and I don't
know how a researcher trying to verify data has become a giant shitstorm.


Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:11:50 -0400

Subject: [cryptome]

From: themikebest@xxxxxxxxx

To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To the original point, the GCHQ Snowden slide. Cryptome accusing me of faking
the data was a diversion. Only had to verify it because of the GCHQ slide.

From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:00:48 +1300So, now you have
named and shamed Cryptome for this grievance you have, whereto


Other related posts: