16 ms·

From the bowels of 4Chan https://i.imgur.com/abcVS6q.jpg https://i.imgur.com/abcVS6q.jpg

by unixhero 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago
Scary timing. So one possible reason this could be is to stop him from rallying the troops.
- arkitaip 10y ago
  You actually believe some 4channers when he says he is a intelligence officer? I have a bridge to sell you...
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    No, I don't believe it, but it is a possibility I had not thought of and the fact that Assange's internet access has been shut off lends at least a little bit of credibility to the comments (note how that post was made already 8 hours ago). also, why would I believe some anonymous HN'er about anything. Information is either true or false, the source isn't really relevant, all that matters are the facts.
    - fnovd 10y ago
      >Information is either true or false, the source isn't really relevant, all that matters are the facts. Absurd. Of course your sources matter. A credible source is more believable than an incredible source. Ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? Looking only at the material presented and not at the presenter of the material is only giving you part of the picture.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Yes, sources matter if all you do is to look at the information and it's source. But if you look at the information and you can find independent verification of rejection of the information then you can form a conclusion that is a lot stronger than just speculation based on info+source. Possible facts: Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) Assange has been extradited (status unknown at this point, you seem to want to discredit it based on the source I simply withhold my judgment until there is more information about this)
        fnovd 10y ago
        How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? If you're ignoring who presents the facts and who presents the verification, how do you determine whether or not the reporter of the verification is independent from the reporter of the fact? Sources matter. And there is no such thing as a "probably true possible fact". There are facts and there are allegations.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        > How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? By your reckoning no anonymous source can ever be credible. Some pretty interesting stuff has come out over the years from anonymous sources and turned out - retrospectively - to have been accurate and likely to have been a leak by an insider. Given that nobody is ever (Snowden excepted) to go on the record about an imminent operation from inside some government agency the only way such information could ever come out is through anonymous sources. See also: watergate.
        fnovd 10y ago
        An anonymous source is vetted by the news agency which reports on the story. You're trusting the news agency to do their due diligence and think critically about the information they are given. The source is rarely completely anonymous as their identity is known by the news agency. If the NYT says they got a tip from an anonymous source about Assange, it means more to me than if my neighbor Steve says HE got a tip from an anonymous source.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Whether you like it or not, the world has moved on and sources are now able to post stuff directly without having to go through intermediaries like the established press. This causes all kinds of havoc and requires more skepticism on the part of the consumer but that does not diminish the fact that it might be true and that the timing is interesting. Now chances are better than even (a lot better) that this is false, but so far it fits the facts as good (and in some cases better) than most other theories about why this is happening other than the one about today being the day of the 'interview' with the Swedish representatives.
  - rndgermandude 10y ago
    n-no?! http://i.imgur.com/r1G68EN.jpg http://i.imgur.com/r1G68EN.jpg
    - fru2013 10y ago
      Getting those badges is trivial. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BPKRVZ0 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BPKRVZ0
  - ZoF 10y ago
    This particular 4channer posted this well before Assange's internet was cut. We now have complete radio silence from for >12 hours and embassy employees are no longer allowed to talk about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_jhLcvoZqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_jhLcvoZqc
    - harryf 10y ago
      > embassy employees are no longer allowed to talk about him "no longer" ? It's quite likely that they were never allowed to talk about him
      - ZoF 10y ago
        Very true, I am just worried, and clearly not thinking completely rationally. I guess time will tell.
    - awqrre 10y ago
      He posted before the claim that his Internet was cut out... if his Internet is truly cut out, who knows when it happened.
  - reacweb 10y ago
    Maybe you should watch Men In Black.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    Look at the timestamps, this was from yesterday.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      That's the whole point.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    There was another poster this summer who claimed to be an FBI insider. He spilled a lot of info about their corrupt investigation into the Clinton emails. He made a lot of predictions that ended up being true. So I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility; 4chan is a known safe place for anonymity online.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      You don't need to be an intelligence anything or work for any 3 letter agency to make a prediction like "HC will not suffer any consequences", which is essentially what it all boiled down to.
  - microtherion 10y ago
    A 4channer who appears to have an abstract image of Pepe the Frog as his avatar, at that.
fractal618 10y ago
I'm afraid to look
- KevinEldon 10y ago
  It's a screen cap of a comment. SFW
- noer 10y ago
  It's not that bad, it's an imgur link and the only thing objectionable about the image is an abstract version of pepe. That said the content of the post is pretty unbelievable. TL;DR: a 4chan poster claiming to be an intelligence officer says that the United States forced Ecuador to allow extradition of Assange.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  It's safe for work.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jfoster 10y ago
Difficult to imagine this being "influenced" by Clinton. It feels like it would be to Trump's significant advantage if this happens. It plays directly into his narrative.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Not necessarily. If she is fearful of very damaging leaks in the pipeline, Clinton would want to make sure that, at the very least, they don't come out through Wikileaks, which has a 100% track record of real leaks and can't be denied.
  - mejari 10y ago
    http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... 100%, huh?
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      Don't twist my words. I said that they have never leaked fake documents. They clearly have an agenda in what they select for publishing. ================================================ In response to mejari (both of his replies) below, I'm rate-limited: ================================================ Did you even read that article? That's not what it says. They just didn't publish the documents. What it does say is that the hackers that stole the documents were joking about editing them before sending them to wikileaks.
      - mejari 10y ago
        They faked the documents by editing their contents to remove data they didn't want released. How is that twisting your words to show that your claim they've never leaked fake documents is false?
        stale2002 10y ago
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Well, 12 hours have passed and no one is dead or imprisoned, so more 4chan lolz here it seems. No one in their right mind working for an intelligence agency would leak on such a public forum. The risk would be too great.
- anotheryou 10y ago
  I immediately thought the 12h are strange, no half-insider would know the exact time schedule, yet it's also plausible to just exaggerate from "soon" to "within 12h".
anotheryou 10y ago
If it wasn't so grim I'd get my popcorn now. Unprovable, yet plausible claims on 4chan... thrilling
wbhart 10y ago
Extradition is a process that involves an extradition court and a right of appeal. There is absolutely no way they are bundling Assange onto a plane without Wikileaks screaming blue murder. This is highly unlikely to be credible.
- rasz_pl 10y ago
  Are you joking? This is beyond rule of law. If Ecuador caves Assange will be(or already was) transported unconscious (if not dead) in a black bag by same rendition team that organized and operated concentration camps in Poland, Romania and Ukraine.

From the bowels of 4Chan https://i.imgur.com/abcVS6q.jpg https://i.imgur.com/abcVS6q.jpg

jacquesm 10y ago

Scary timing. So one possible reason this could be is to stop him from rallying the troops.

arkitaip 10y ago
You actually believe some 4channers when he says he is a intelligence officer? I have a bridge to sell you...
- jacquesm 10y ago
  No, I don't believe it, but it is a possibility I had not thought of and the fact that Assange's internet access has been shut off lends at least a little bit of credibility to the comments (note how that post was made already 8 hours ago). also, why would I believe some anonymous HN'er about anything. Information is either true or false, the source isn't really relevant, all that matters are the facts.
  - fnovd 10y ago
    >Information is either true or false, the source isn't really relevant, all that matters are the facts. Absurd. Of course your sources matter. A credible source is more believable than an incredible source. Ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? Looking only at the material presented and not at the presenter of the material is only giving you part of the picture.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Yes, sources matter if all you do is to look at the information and it's source. But if you look at the information and you can find independent verification of rejection of the information then you can form a conclusion that is a lot stronger than just speculation based on info+source. Possible facts: Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) Assange has been extradited (status unknown at this point, you seem to want to discredit it based on the source I simply withhold my judgment until there is more information about this)
      - fnovd 10y ago
        How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? If you're ignoring who presents the facts and who presents the verification, how do you determine whether or not the reporter of the verification is independent from the reporter of the fact? Sources matter. And there is no such thing as a "probably true possible fact". There are facts and there are allegations.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        > How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? By your reckoning no anonymous source can ever be credible. Some pretty interesting stuff has come out over the years from anonymous sources and turned out - retrospectively - to have been accurate and likely to have been a leak by an insider. Given that nobody is ever (Snowden excepted) to go on the record about an imminent operation from inside some government agency the only way such information could ever come out is through anonymous sources. See also: watergate.
        fnovd 10y ago
        An anonymous source is vetted by the news agency which reports on the story. You're trusting the news agency to do their due diligence and think critically about the information they are given. The source is rarely completely anonymous as their identity is known by the news agency. If the NYT says they got a tip from an anonymous source about Assange, it means more to me than if my neighbor Steve says HE got a tip from an anonymous source.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Whether you like it or not, the world has moved on and sources are now able to post stuff directly without having to go through intermediaries like the established press. This causes all kinds of havoc and requires more skepticism on the part of the consumer but that does not diminish the fact that it might be true and that the timing is interesting. Now chances are better than even (a lot better) that this is false, but so far it fits the facts as good (and in some cases better) than most other theories about why this is happening other than the one about today being the day of the 'interview' with the Swedish representatives.
- rndgermandude 10y ago
  n-no?! http://i.imgur.com/r1G68EN.jpg http://i.imgur.com/r1G68EN.jpg
  - fru2013 10y ago
    Getting those badges is trivial. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BPKRVZ0 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BPKRVZ0
- ZoF 10y ago
  This particular 4channer posted this well before Assange's internet was cut. We now have complete radio silence from for >12 hours and embassy employees are no longer allowed to talk about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_jhLcvoZqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_jhLcvoZqc
  - harryf 10y ago
    > embassy employees are no longer allowed to talk about him "no longer" ? It's quite likely that they were never allowed to talk about him
    - ZoF 10y ago
      Very true, I am just worried, and clearly not thinking completely rationally. I guess time will tell.
  - awqrre 10y ago
    He posted before the claim that his Internet was cut out... if his Internet is truly cut out, who knows when it happened.
- reacweb 10y ago
  Maybe you should watch Men In Black.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  Look at the timestamps, this was from yesterday.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    That's the whole point.
- artursapek 10y ago
  There was another poster this summer who claimed to be an FBI insider. He spilled a lot of info about their corrupt investigation into the Clinton emails. He made a lot of predictions that ended up being true. So I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility; 4chan is a known safe place for anonymity online.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    You don't need to be an intelligence anything or work for any 3 letter agency to make a prediction like "HC will not suffer any consequences", which is essentially what it all boiled down to.
- microtherion 10y ago
  A 4channer who appears to have an abstract image of Pepe the Frog as his avatar, at that.

fractal618 10y ago

I'm afraid to look

KevinEldon 10y ago
It's a screen cap of a comment. SFW
noer 10y ago
It's not that bad, it's an imgur link and the only thing objectionable about the image is an abstract version of pepe. That said the content of the post is pretty unbelievable. TL;DR: a 4chan poster claiming to be an intelligence officer says that the United States forced Ecuador to allow extradition of Assange.
Cyph0n 10y ago
It's safe for work.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jfoster 10y ago

Difficult to imagine this being "influenced" by Clinton. It feels like it would be to Trump's significant advantage if this happens. It plays directly into his narrative.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Not necessarily. If she is fearful of very damaging leaks in the pipeline, Clinton would want to make sure that, at the very least, they don't come out through Wikileaks, which has a 100% track record of real leaks and can't be denied.
- mejari 10y ago
  http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... 100%, huh?
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    Don't twist my words. I said that they have never leaked fake documents. They clearly have an agenda in what they select for publishing. ================================================ In response to mejari (both of his replies) below, I'm rate-limited: ================================================ Did you even read that article? That's not what it says. They just didn't publish the documents. What it does say is that the hackers that stole the documents were joking about editing them before sending them to wikileaks.
    - mejari 10y ago
      They faked the documents by editing their contents to remove data they didn't want released. How is that twisting your words to show that your claim they've never leaked fake documents is false?
      - stale2002 10y ago

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Well, 12 hours have passed and no one is dead or imprisoned, so more 4chan lolz here it seems. No one in their right mind working for an intelligence agency would leak on such a public forum. The risk would be too great.

anotheryou 10y ago
I immediately thought the 12h are strange, no half-insider would know the exact time schedule, yet it's also plausible to just exaggerate from "soon" to "within 12h".

anotheryou 10y ago

If it wasn't so grim I'd get my popcorn now. Unprovable, yet plausible claims on 4chan... thrilling

wbhart 10y ago

Extradition is a process that involves an extradition court and a right of appeal. There is absolutely no way they are bundling Assange onto a plane without Wikileaks screaming blue murder. This is highly unlikely to be credible.

rasz_pl 10y ago
Are you joking? This is beyond rule of law. If Ecuador caves Assange will be(or already was) transported unconscious (if not dead) in a black bag by same rendition team that organized and operated concentration camps in Poland, Romania and Ukraine.