That supposedly bit? You invented that. That's my point. No one knows where that file came from and you hoaxsters are left just inventing where it came from.
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.
-
> bc he doesn't know what the object of study is. Off course he knows what object of HIS study is. He analyzed it and published it on his website. [Or by your theory, he just published it and someone else analyzed it.] Which doesnt change a thing about findings of analysis.pic.twitter.com/M4bYZwTNob
End of conversation
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.