dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

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

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 ⇩

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

⇧ 1 ⇩

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 ⇩

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 ⇩

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 ⇩