3 ms·
These claims don't need to be credible. They're propaganda and theater to fire up the base, not something intended to stand up in court or convince anyone who k
by api 5y ago
These claims don't need to be credible. They're propaganda and theater to fire up the base, not something intended to stand up in court or convince anyone who knows what they're talking about.
Very few people know what actual cyber forensic data would look like, and any packet capture would be meaningless without a lot of context information about when, where, and how it was captured.
My favorite bit of propaganda leading up to the "pot dispensary putsch" of January 6th was the comical Qanon military LARPing in some of the Q drops. Shit like "testing alternate satellite route code (let cat walk on keyboard) trust the plan, Q". Meanwhile this junk is being posted on a shitty chan board with no cryptographic signature, because that's exactly how a real "Q-level" intelligence expert would communicate.
A real spy would never ever even use a PGP signature to authenticate their literally world saving information. They would also pre-announce their intent to take down a super-powerful global criminal cabal to make sure their adversaries knew ahead of time.
Absolutely hilarious nonsense for people who know nothing about computers, telecom, encryption, the military, or intelligence.
Con artists often deliberately make their con stupid and ridiculous to select for gullible marks. A con artist wants fools.
- dvogel 5y agoObviously the packet captures would have included a tag line like "mess with the best, die like the rest."
- not2b 5y agoBesides, any packet captures are irrelevant. The swing states, for the most part, were using machine-countable paper ballots. There were manual recounts in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. These recounts agreed with the original counts to within a tiny fraction of a percent, way too small a difference to affect the election outcome. Had the machines been hacked, the recounts would have exposed it. (I'm not taking about the current "audit" in Arizona, but the previous recounts there that were conducted by experienced people who didn't call themselves "Cyber Ninjas").
- dukeofdoom 5y agoThe way "Cyber Ninjas" was doing of actually counting each paper ballot. Which is not what the previous hand recounts were doing. Be careful with the definitions, because for all we know the previous hand recounts were just summing up batch totals written on the pallets. They couldn't be much more than that since it took them days to come up with. Whereas an actual hand recount of one county by Cyber Ninjas is taking months.
- not2b 5y agoYou are misinformed. The previous recounts were not conducted the way you describe, and it does not take months to count up the paper ballots from one county, unless perhaps if you have no experience at all with ever conducting or auditing an election and you waste time investigating ridiculous theories, like looking for bamboo.