>>5237685 pb
for what it's worth the reference was to the lack of actual competent forensic examination by NIST.
Also, where is the sauce to back up your apparent assumption that it was not a real convo?
I think it's because it's meant to be known only to those people who can think their way out of a wet paper bag..
It's always better to show people rather than to tell them.
All of the info is not going to be for everyone?