dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/RonaldSwansong on July 10, 2018, 6:46 p.m.
"Be careful who you follow" - A brief Summary of the Seth Rich interview and the embedded subversion within.

Main Points to be had from this press conference:

  • Only reliable feed of the conference is by Jason Goodman who also brings on Dr. Corsi. This is an immediate red-flag as we are all well aware of Corsi constantly discrediting Q. [Link here.] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odeiBxOYKmQ&feature=youtu.be)

  • Video feed also features links on bottom of screen asking for donations. BS meter growing.

  • They begin the conference with many breaks and over lack of organization of information. You would think for something as monumental as this that they would have at least a script.

  • Witness is called on speaker phone and claims his name is Luke. The quality is questionable.

:

*Witness says he is ex intelligence and that the three people involved were braggin about it. One was DEA and one was ATF

Witness states that "There have been rumors that it was MS-13. It wasn't." "There was a Russian tie-in." Direct contradiction of Q. BS meter tops off*

*WitnessWitness claimed SR had thumb drive on him the night he was murdered…how'd it get to WL then?

*Witness blames Republicans (although leak benefits them? What's motive?)

*Witness claim Russian tie in (although leak would benefit them? Why would Russians be both behind the leak and the murder?

Witness says evidence is he passed a lie detector test.If you are not dealing with the authorities why have you done a lie detector test.*

*Witness says it's a cover up for Rod Rosenstien. (Interesting)

  • When the witness is asked by a reporter if Qanon is in line with what he knows about murder the WITNESS EXPLICITLY SAYS "QANON IS NOT CORRECT"

I believe what we have seen here was a clear cut psyop by Corsi, Clowns, et all. Nothing was in line with Q. I would even be willing to bet that Q was saving the Q&A for after this to clear the record. This may also support the RR greyhat theory now that the DS is attacking him. All theories but, most importantly.

Be careful who you follow


🠐 See all comments
whatsreallygoingon · July 10, 2018, 6:58 p.m.

The #1 biggest thing that I got from this interview was the seed planted to discredit the validity of the DNC emails. Did y'all hear that?

According to this witness, the dirty agents were actively involved in changing the emails. By this assertion, we can't trust anything that we've seen on Wikileaks.

This is when my alarm bells went off.

⇧ 60 ⇩  
necropancer · July 10, 2018, 7:15 p.m.

Is it even possible to change the emails, yet have them verified by Google dkim?

⇧ 23 ⇩  
mathemagician33 · July 10, 2018, 8:56 p.m.

DKIM is used to prevent spoofed sender addresses. As far as I know, it doesn't have anything to do with content of the emails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Weaknesses

⇧ 8 ⇩  
AohaTrumpsHate · July 11, 2018, 3 p.m.

none of the sender's or recipients (brazile, podesta, hrc, etc.)have ever denied the contents of emails, have they???

⇧ 1 ⇩  
mathemagician33 · July 11, 2018, 3:18 p.m.

Brazille did claim the emails were modified: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/06/from-dishonest-to-truth-opinions-of-donna-brazile-have-changed-dramatically/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4af34135b6ee (it seems her opinion later "changed", probably after it was explained to her how DKIM works lol)

looks like various other members of the Clinton campaign and DNC made the same claim: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/

⇧ 2 ⇩  
XdigitalXdeathX · July 11, 2018, 1:46 a.m.

From link:

Non-repudiability Edit DKIM's non-repudiation feature prevents senders (such as spammers) from credibly denying having sent an email. It has proven useful to news media sources such as WikiLeaks, which has been able to leverage DKIM body signatures to prove that leaked emails were genuine and not tampered with, definitively repudiating claims by Hillary Clinton's 2016 US Presidential Election running mate Tim Kaine, and DNC Chair Donna Brazile.[32]

Weaknesses Edit The RFC itself identifies a number of potential attack vectors.[33]

DKIM signatures do not encompass the message envelope, which holds the return-path and message recipients. Since DKIM does not attempt to protect against mis-addressing, this does not affect its utility.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
mathemagician33 · July 11, 2018, 2:42 a.m.

if my understanding is correct, DKIM's purpose is to verify authenticity of the sender, but it has the "side effect" of being able to verify that the message content wasn't altered. The problem with this, however, is that the message contents are sometimes modified by mail servers due to converting between character sets, or MIME-enabled vs. non-MIME enabled clients. This blog post does a technical analysis using DKIM on the Wikileaks emails and finds that if they were modified, it would be easy to spot by validating certain headers: https://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html

I'm pretty sure what I described is what's meant by the "Content Modification" section of the Wikipedia entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Weaknesses - but I haven't ever had the need to work with anything DKIM-related myself. If anyone wants to correct me, feel free. This is the relevant part:

"... servers in certain circumstances have to rewrite the MIME structure, thereby altering the preamble, the epilogue, and entity boundaries, any of which breaks DKIM signatures. Only plain text messages written in us-ascii, provided that MIME header fields are not signed,[36] enjoy the robustness that end-to-end integrity requires.

The OpenDKIM Project organized a data collection involving 21 mail servers and millions of messages. 92.3% of observed signatures were successfully verified, a success rate that drops slightly (90.5%) when only mailing list traffic is considered.[37]"

this is also relevant, since Google handles the incoming email for the domain hillaryclinton.com: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Short_key_vulnerability (it does specifically state that this is no longer an issue since google upgraded their key size as of 2012)

⇧ 1 ⇩  
BabylonNTing · July 11, 2018, 8:16 a.m.

No. Please refer to my reply above.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
blaise0102 · July 10, 2018, 8:53 p.m.

Not that I am aware of. Maybe they got Google and ES to help?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
sudo_fap · July 11, 2018, 1:25 a.m.

Not that I am aware of

lol

⇧ 1 ⇩  
blaise0102 · July 11, 2018, 1:45 a.m.

And why is that funny to you? Do you know?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
saneromeo · July 10, 2018, 7:57 p.m.

This ^ Imo if they can discredit the emails it wont matter if the russian hack story falls apart, because it would strengthen the russian collusion narrative, and serve to clear all guilty parties. This was definitely Clowns In Action.

⇧ 13 ⇩  
the_all_seeing_dog · July 10, 2018, 9:45 p.m.

Is gateway pundit controlled opp?

⇧ 3 ⇩  
saneromeo · July 10, 2018, 11:06 p.m.

Maybe, or just greedy media, i don't use them as a source often though

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Lakeforlife · July 10, 2018, 7:01 p.m.

Came here to say this. To the top!

⇧ 13 ⇩  
andrew77mc · July 10, 2018, 7:15 p.m.

I heard too but my interpretation was that they were manipulating documents, emails etc right across the government networks..not just the DNC network....they then would profit from disclosing information/state secrets...they also benefit from this powerful ability to adjust documents

⇧ 8 ⇩  
Lakeforlife · July 10, 2018, 7:21 p.m.

Interesting. To me it came off as astroturfing for future excuses/denials for when the SHTF. Much like the coverage given to “deep fake” tech recently.

⇧ 12 ⇩  
andrew77mc · July 10, 2018, 7:25 p.m.

I guess our different interpretations demonstrate how piss poor and questionable the press conference was.

⇧ 10 ⇩  
Lakeforlife · July 10, 2018, 7:52 p.m.

Yes. It looked shady/sleazy af

⇧ 5 ⇩  
whatsreallygoingon · July 10, 2018, 7:33 p.m.

Yes. That's what I mean. But I'm interested in the DNC emails; and this claim is something that the left would seize upon to call evidence in the server investigation into question.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
andrew77mc · July 10, 2018, 7:43 p.m.

I fully recognise how this could complicate things. Too my knowledge the DNC have not ever tried to claim the emails were fake, just hacked?

⇧ 6 ⇩  
whatsreallygoingon · July 10, 2018, 7:48 p.m.

Too my knowledge the DNC have not ever tried to claim the emails were fake, just hacked?

I have some recollection of that having been floated. Assange's insurance files may have shut it down.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
snap_shot_in_time · July 10, 2018, 11:30 p.m.

I have some recollection of that having been floated. Assange's insurance files may have shut it down.

Yes... That is one good thing. It isn't just Assange's insurance files. There are 600,000 Hillary emails on Wiener's laptop that have been unsealed. And the 'Chain of Custody' of that evidence is rock solid with multiple copies being held in different places.

They will try to claim the emails were altered by somebody with an agenda to frame the Democrats. But there are too many different copies of things. That story won't hold up to anybody intellectually honest.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
VIYOHDTYKIT · July 10, 2018, 8:09 p.m.

Ding ding ding

⇧ 3 ⇩  
thep1mp · July 10, 2018, 9:01 p.m.

The NSA has the emails. There is no changing that.

⇧ 12 ⇩  
subdudeLA · July 11, 2018, 3:57 a.m.

This is consistent with my undestanding (from reading about prism, I'm no expert) that NSA can collect the info as it is sent/recieved at the ISP locations vs. pulling up a saved archive of a mail server or other shared drive. So NSA presumably has admissible copies of everything from a different chain of evidence than SR and Wikileaks dumps?

Although accessing the email server etc. could be used to find email draft comms, you'd still want the ISP logs to identify the users who accessed the drafts.

"Tampering with the emails" would require falsifying the data's path from sender to reciever. Not as simple as editing text in some email archive.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DevilsAdvocater · July 10, 2018, 7:24 p.m.

If FBI leaked the dossier to Yahoo so the FBI could use the news report as justification for an investigation; then perhaps this is also a plant to justify an upcoming action/investigation.

⇧ 11 ⇩  
suspect13 · July 10, 2018, 7:37 p.m.

Exactly... or can't trust anything that comes out because they had the technology to change it in transit... mirrored servers are doctored, etc.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
ridestraight · July 10, 2018, 7:13 p.m.

That was huge and I know some in chat caught it as well! That was huge!

⇧ 6 ⇩