Most of what you call errors are not. I read your critique and think you are getting a great deal wrong--e.g., conflating Fusion and Orbis.
-
-
"Broke the rules of evidence" lolz ok

great work -
You think it's a good idea to point to stories based on Steele dossier to "prove" Steele dossier? You think 2015 data can prove 2017 report?
-
Both of those would get someone laughed out of a freshman logic course.
-
1) the report was compiled in 2016 2) siphers not saying anything "proved" the report, merely that its more credible than thought
-
Right. Sipher is saying a December 2017 report predicted a November 2017 Oxford study. You think that's great work. I think it's laughable.
-
Sipher says a series of reports that were CONSISTENTLY 2-3 weeks behind twitter predicted the hack-and-leak.
-
Those claims defy the laws of physics. I get that you're okay with that. Me? I'll adhere to the laws of physics, thanks.
-
December 2017? Laws of physics? What r u still rattling on about?
- 12 more replies
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.