Skepticism is about doubting any claim, so yes, I assume they're wrong. They have shown they have no incentives to be right.
Start w/who would have evidence. Did the DNC have direct evidence of Iraqi WMD? Did US tech cos tracking metrics? Did private contractors?
-
-
What incentives do DNC and Crowdstrike have to be accurate?Former are spin doctors,latter drew a fur hat robot cover.Why not let FBI in?
-
What are you implying by bringing up the evidence source? Does private origin of evidence by itself make evidence more or less reliable?
-
No. It means there is evidence available via far more kinds of sources than there was in 2004.
-
OK-do these new sources help with attribution? Contractors haven't moved beyond language/time zone comments,APT-FSB/GRU links are theories.
-
That's where skeptics aren't convinced by what's available, while some investigators may be motivated to arrive at pre-defined answers.
-
Skeptical experts say available facts can be interpreted broadly enough to point to different actors not necessarily in Kremlin or Russia.
-
Also, simplifying "more sources" argument:few sources in 2004 - wrong consensus,more sources in 2016 - right consensus?Could still be wrong.
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.