posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 03:44 PM
The first night of the attack I started hearing this term over and over when they were referring to their incontrovertible "proof" that Assad was
behind the chemical attack. This new bulletproof term was called "open source" sources! Coming from the tech world, this term is not new and it is
the first place I heard of this, about 20+ years ago and it has no relation to how it is being used. It does however carry some kind of "authority"
in it's use when it comes to classifying a type of software and even hardware. When used as proof of an event, I can't imagine how this term would
apply in any way shape or form, other than drawing on the recognition in the tech world and relying on people having possibly heard the term and maybe
have some confidence in it. Since one of the most successful server operating systems is an open source model, it has garnered some name recognition
and to those who don't know better, may translate this to this new "open source" source for the chemical attacks as being some kind of irrefutable
When I saw the PM of Great Britain, or the UK (for get which May is..), use this term many times, I knew there was something wrong with the story.
They rolled out this term for this event and I think it is because they specifically did not have reliable proof of the action. Using a new term like
this in so many outlets had to have been some kind of coordinated scheme to help solidify support for their actions and to stifle and potential
dissent as to the veracity of the claims.
open source reports,
They have used the terms: Open source reporting, open source investigation, open source sources, open source reports, open source survey's, Open
Source information, open source outlets,
For those who don't know what open source means, it is used to describe the coding that makes software, apps and operating systems work. The code is
open to be viewed so that it can be examined and reviewed and Linux is an example of this. The opposite is proprietary code, which is basically
"encrypted" (well, difficult to decipher and usually no notes/citations) and can't be viewed and seen unless reverse-compiled, examples of this are
Microsoft operating systems. It is really difficult to see how or why this term would translate to news sources other than maybe saying that the
sources are "public". The use of this term is most definitely deliberate and a way to mooch off it's trust and notoriety in the tech world and should
not be used as proof for the use of weapons of war.
edit on 4 16 2018 by DigginFoTroof because: (no reason given)