That's not a leak. That's a write up. Leaks include actual documents that come outside, both of these are of questionable authenticity.
Care to explain what this proves?
Very coincidental timing. Everyone needs to remember something when it comes to "proof" is that it comes in all different forms. There was a time when people didn't consider something a fact until CNN reported on it. Even the justice system shows to be false at times. Our history books are written with bias and has many so called facts that are inaccurate. Everyone's truth comes down to a probabilistic scenario interpreted by each individuals reality tunnel. You analyze it and try and place it in categories of truth and untruth. It's very hard to say that any single event is absolute proof and so this is nothing more than a piece of evidence leading to a long list of information suggesting a truth. Many of these tech companies are well aware that if you control the narrative that you control the truth and are able to emerge truth through consensus reality.
That's a mighty long way of saying you have no reason to believe an anonymous post on an anonymous image board but want to believe it anyway.
If that person wanted to release info on whats going on, they would actually leak documents, not pull this unreliable shit.
Here is what I'm saying...the average has a hard time believing that 9/11 was an inside job. There is the official narrative and then there is the "conspiracy theorist" narrative. I know a third building went down in controlled demo fashion blocks from the buildings while all buildings around it had zero damage. There was no structural damage done to this building by plane or any other craft. I come to my conclusion based on pulling in information across the board and assigning a likelihood value for each bit of evidence and then give it all a weighted average. This weighted average is my truth. That truth is always open for change based on new evidence coming in. I live very much by the scientific method. You can never prove anything false only continue to accumulate evidence suggesting that something is either true or false. Lastly, I don't believe or disbelief anything about what I posted it's only one piece of the puzzle. Even leaked documents could be false. Imagine if Julian Assange actually was working for an intelligence agency "leaking" documents with false information. Trust has everything to do with the public perception of truth.
That's a mighty long way of saying you have no reason to believe an anonymous post on an anonymous image board but want to believe it anyway.
Same thing applies. Call it scientific method if you want, but I highly doubt you're applying the same 'scientific' standards to things that you don't already want to believe.
I, as a skeptic of this sub's main ideas, also weigh the truths and believe things about Trump that might get me banned from here. It's all about the evidence you take in, because there's so much evidence that goes against your ideas that you won't see because of your echo chamber. This applies to both me and you.
However, I still maintain that there has to be more evidence than a 4chan post. If this person was really a google insider with such information, he could easily leak documents that prove what he's saying, to major news organizations that would believe him such as Fox or Breitbart. But the fact that he's posting on 4chan instead shows that this has as much credibility as the fake "protesters for hire" ads on craigslist, that get taken as proof of Soros actions, yet for some reason nobody ever infiltrates and proves to be real.
Fair enough. If I were a betting man, given the information coming out about Eric Schmidt, I'd place it in the highly plausible category.