If all he investigates is G2, then why does he focus on the NGP VAN file, which was not directly released by G2? And why does he focus on the DNC releases when stuff linked at his own site makes it clear that G2 stated by leaking Podesta files, not DNC ones?
Yes. You keep proving my point that "Adam" is just a curator. You also keep ignoring that abundant evidence on "adam's" curated site undermines the entire project.
-
-
My site reports on G2 related discoveries and evidence regardless of theories supported. So, how does doing that counter itself?
-
It only counters itself if you hold (or promote) misconceptions about myself and my work.
-
I'm the one arguing you're just a curator. It's your fanbase who think you do analysis outside of inventing new culprits besides the obvious ones.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
If I am not wrong, Adams website nowhere explicitly denies that GRU and FSB could hacked DNC servers. Here I am not wrong. Adams site strongly suggests that Guccifer 2.0 was not part of any russian operation, but seems to be run by DNC/Crowdstrike.
-
But how can he prove that w/evidence entirely attenuated from the DNC hack? That's the point. He's not even looking at the right evidence.
-
> He's not even looking at the right evidence. There is no right evidence to look at. This is not how you do objective analysis. Based on analysis of ALL publicly accessible metadata, by many people, we came to some most probable theories. Thats the evidence we analyzed.
-
Well, when he does that, get back to me. Point is, he doesn't even understand that his site undermines all his pet theories bc he doesn't know what the object of study is.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.