Yeah, like I said there's zero evidence just scary reporters opinions and Chinese whispers.
The first one says:
The second two are basically the same but using more convincing language because they are less important so have less to use by overstating/hyping a story.An anonymous source alleges that the Russian government is behind the breach. The New York Times reports that another anonymous source shares that opinion. According to a number of anonymous sources, they’re probably right.
This is the problem with sites citing each others anonymous sources as a sources and expecting it to carry weight because of the name of the cited site. You end up with an article with loads of worthless sources and a story which is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion piece.
When hackers do "mistakes" it's rarely unplanned.
You copypasta'd your links from somewhere that abbreviates them with ellipses; none of them work.
OMG 13:37 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Cleave unto me, and I shall grant to thee the blessing of eternal salvation."
And His disciples said unto Him, "Can we get Kings instead?"
There are no evidences provided in said "investigation". Just as in the anti-Putin film by BBC: only interviews of some criminals who fled the country who say that they saw something or heard something or someone else said to them. Just like all of accusation USA made against Russia for the past 2 years when asked to provide evidence, the State Dept spokesperson always says: "based on publications in social media". Give me a break.
I understand you guys are being paid to make such posts on popular forums, so I'm not even trying to change your mind on the subject. I just hope other people will stop believing everything a random warmongering guy writes on the internet.
Last edited by Ottius; 2016-08-29 at 02:55 PM.
I jst pasted them improperly. The links still work just fine. They did the investigation, they found the evidence, and they based their conclusions on that evidence.
- - - Updated - - -
Firsthand accounts are evidence. Calling someone a criminal doesn't mean they cannot provide evidence. It's like the doping scandal all over again.
Strange, all i see is this. Don't get me wrong, i'd like to see the opinions.. i mean.. speculatations.. ehh evidence as well.
He-he, good old double standards... American computer security experts report that they have good reasons to believe that these attacks were committed by Russian hackers - "There is no proof, muh!". Some rando from RT says something bad about the US, or something good about Russia - "I told you!!!"
No it was alleged comments from anonymous sources.
I don't because it's not evidence, it's barely opinion. I.E if I posted on twitter that Justin Beiber was the king of the lizard men that would not be evidence.
Indeed.
If they said that they why hasn't anyone linked to the statement? All we have had is links to news sites claiming anonymous sources and/or citing each other as sources.
Nice attempt to respin the leaked documents by reporters. Kinda who cares at this point because the damage has been done.
[QUOTE=Kaleredar;42062240]
What network are we talking about again? Because that sounds like Fox right there.
QUOTE]
msnbc is worse and you know it