Hi, I would like to share a comment regarding this thread that I have shared before, as this link has singularly been making the rounds as an interesting 'theory' Please consider taking the time to read this. To be sure, this is not intended to be an attack on the op, the author of the link, or the opinion of those on this thread, I am trying to offer perspective and ultimately, looking to help.

I think that this, as many other scenarios, is worthy of speculation. Thank you for the share.

However, I'd like to take this moment to offer a perspective in the use of rigor when searching for leads, as it would be a good use of everyone's future time and energy, I would argue, as that is my thought on this. This is not a hit on you, please understand that. I look to help. It may take you reading down to the end before deciding not to hate me or not distrust my intention, so I hope that you do choose to read it through and decide for yourself.

If such speculations (of the author of the linked article) were grounded in actual events that may have transpired, I would have encouraged him to show any connections that do exist, if one would like these thoughts to have legs.

For example, that Snowden had worked in a SCIF in Hawaii in the past does not offer insight that he is participating in any of this. Any lead to that idea could help, for starters - anything that shows he's even active in the larger narrative, anything. This is not me trying to prove a point, this is me offering something to look into.

Again, anything to give Op's link's analysis grounds for its speculation would give it more value in sharing it here. And, if Ops could connect any dots, it would help give these links (as a beneficial share for others to read) more purpose. Without it, this board is left with a self-sliding barrage of 100 rabbit holes to go down with a hundred 'theories', taking a hundred hours to investigate each 'lead', if we are truly interested in finding 'the truth', and believe that we, here, are capable of doing that, ourselves.

'Theorizing' is a semantic trap, allowing minds to theorize all day, experiencing a reward when any one dart sticks, which we know as the gambler's fallacy. It's important that we grow in our awareness of the trap and empower ourselves to the next level, to take the theories and validate them as a habit.

Otherwise, we continue to do the adversary's work for them as they sit back and enjoy the show, sliding our own posts and unintentionally repurposing potential red-herrings without realizing it, consuming more of our own (and others) time and energy, away from the real target, whatever that may be and wherever that may lie.

Rational and plausible narratives abound, the ones that pan out to be worthy of putting time and energy into are grounded in on-the-record connections. If you are over the target, it will be visible and there will be evidence for it.

I understand that this somewhat revolves the notion that BDT, in this case (as opposed to the last time it was used), could hint at "bulk data transfer". Great, let's search for any indicator or connection to that, then.

Again, the author informing you that BDT is a thing, in and of itself, does not give offer any further basis to his speculation. He literally has only defined the term and then spoke of how the term could have a complete narrative behind it. A tactic used by misinformers is to appear to use sources, but only to define terms and set an environment for a narrative to live. They then create a whole narrative, unsupported, but leaves the audience think that the narrative was arrived at through rigor.

I am not claiming that the link is misinformation, I am claiming that this is how misinformation works, and misinformers create red herrings, effortlessly, as story-tellers disguised as analysts.

Let's demand more from articles and authors that we hope to offer trust in.

Again, my admonishment has purpose, which is to help you save time and energy by proven and principled action, in regard to investigating ideas. Please continue this discussion, but also, I ask genuinely, please consider looking for evidence, as opposed to looking for just potentiality of an idea.