POLL: WITD

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2003 @ 11:42 PM
link   
It may be easy to spoof an IP,
but how easy is it to backbone?

Just a thought.

-B.




posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I think maybe it's time for D-R to discuss the calibre of the person who did the IP trace for him... Well, as this person probably wants to maintain his job, perhaps D-R can say something that will show that he wasn't just any other internet security expert?



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Not at this time...



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Understood.

I just want to say that I believe that the trace back to the DoD computer was solid.



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 02:32 PM
link   
.. but the original message of WhispersInTheDark has been completely wiped. No edit mark or anything!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now if WITD did this then I think, William, you've got some security hole in this forum that needs addressing.

Also does any of WITD alias' have access here?



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 03:36 PM
link   

If you think his message was real, but that HE was not (IE not a gov insider) your vote is NO.


Could you please operationally define "gov insider"? I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to vote a certain way based on an assumption (i.e. he works, worked, never worked but has contacts in the intel community, etc etc?).

Thanks-
MK



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MKULTRA

If you think his message was real, but that HE was not (IE not a gov insider) your vote is NO.


Could you please operationally define "gov insider"? I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to vote a certain way based on an assumption (i.e. he works, worked, never worked but has contacts in the intel community, etc etc?).

Thanks-
MK



Hmmmm... I define an 'insider' as someone who hears about a story, some information, or a plan of action BEFORE it is crafted and played-out to the press/public... that is, a guy who's in the room when someone says, "So, how is this going to look on CNN tonight?"

Yes, a loose, anecdotal definition... But I think, if you abstract on what I'm saying, you get what I mean. An insider is someone who hears the non-public version of the truth (though this may also be fake... That is, an 'insider' isn't necessarily a 'core' player).



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Hmmmm... I define an 'insider' as someone who hears about a story, some information, or a plan of action BEFORE it is crafted and played-out to the press/public... that is, a guy who's in the room when someone says, "So, how is this going to look on CNN tonight?"

Yes, a loose, anecdotal definition... But I think, if you abstract on what I'm saying, you get what I mean. An insider is someone who hears the non-public version of the truth (though this may also be fake... That is, an 'insider' isn't necessarily a 'core' player).


Thank you, yes that definitely clears it up. Given this definition, my vote is "yes". I vote this way assuming that "WhispersInTheDark" DID add in the 'Watch Jakarta' comment via an exploit in the board.


[Edited on 5-9-2003 by MKULTRA]



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 12:23 AM
link   
A service brought to you by Honest Vote Counting systems (given that we can't do thinks either the ATS poll way, or the Diebold way, at the moment)...

Votes YES - 10

Votes NO - 9

Abstention - 1.



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Ok,
Now that we've discussed it, I'd like to see a show of hands:

If you think that WITD was real, say YES
If not, say NO

If you think his message was real, but that HE was not (IE not a gov insider) your vote is NO.

If you're unsure, don't vote. Re-read the other WITD thread and post when you are ready.

Please, ONE WORD REPLIES. If you have comments, put them on that other thread

[Edited on 4-9-2003 by onlyinmydreams]




NO.

Misdirection:



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Who abstained? Ahhh it doesn't matter...

Bottom line: Thos of us who got the U2U form William the next day should KNOW what happened. If any of the "Yea" voters did NOT get the U2U then you can potentially reverse their vote.

However I have found in instances of this type of controversy that my signature can come into play present company excluded of course...

Does that change the outcome?

PEACE...
m...



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Looks like quaneeri has knotted it all up at 10-10 !!



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Well I just joined the secret forum. Best 3500 points I ever spent. Great topics being discussed here. Now onto the poll question.

I see that a lot of people are very quick to dismiss WITD as a hoax. But there are still many unanswered questions here. I think DR makes a lot of valid points and he raises some very important questions about this whole thing.

As far as my vote... as of right now I vote YES. Unless someone proves conclusively otherwise.



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Observer was the abstention.

Springer, I am not ignoring you or friendly U2Us, but staging an unnoticed and pointless protest about the state of my U2U facility, which still has hundreds in it that i haven't deleted, and didn't have to delete until it came to pass that I would have to pay for something that was previously my "God-given right".

I understand the U2U limitation was NOT just because of the TCA{WyTX} as HotMom & Hyatt hacking, but that in fact having too many U2Us in a large membership database starts growing hairs on the palms of the hands of the Forum for technical reasons.

Ergo, you feel ignored but are not ignored.

For translation of heretofore unseen acronyms, visit the Dictionary Of ATS Acronyms 2003 thread, making whatever annotations are appropriate. Best to view when over one's bout of SiGMAtosis...




posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Congratulations Ocelot on your safe landing!

You have made it 11Y - 10N - 1 abstain.



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 01:25 AM
link   
For all the yes voters.



www.abovetopsecret.com...




Re: post number 169864



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Understood... Hopefully all will be resolved soon in the U2U arena...

I am GLAD to see that REALITY seems to have carried the day on this thread!


Please read my brief lecture on the reality of interest rates and the economy in genreal on your "Patriot Act" (I HATE typing the word "Patriot" in refernce to that shameful legislation) thread...


PEACE...
m...



posted on Sep, 7 2003 @ 08:24 PM
link   
My answer: yes. because =the opposing side simply "whispers" and winks when asked if hes a hoax. The no side has simply not given basic hoaxing for dummies information on how, why ect, he manipulated his posts, ect, or the contact with the gov determining it a big hoax.

Until i have solid proof that he wasnt,

Ill stick with yes.



posted on Sep, 7 2003 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I already voted YES, and it will remain such until my main 2 questions are answered. As yet, no one has so much as taken a stab at them.

I would move that if Admin really wishes to discredit Whispers they should publish (if not in the secret forum, at least in cosmic) the FULL, COMPLETE, and ACCURATE CONTENT of all conversations with the FBI regarding this matter.

On a side note*

MA, why are you not at least purchasing additional U2U capacity? Since your points starting inching upwards, you have more than enough to take care of that need!



posted on Sep, 8 2003 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Yes. And by the way, I read post 169864, didnt see anything there.

I was gone during the whole Whipsers thing, i came back on the board a couple days after the mess. iw asnt here, I dont know what was said, what was done, ect.

I did not recieve the U2U. Hell, i dont even know what was said between the FBI and this forum. All we need is a simple post stating how it was done, what was said, basically debunking what he said, that he was a hoax.

DR traced him to a DoD computer. DR had private convos with him. A couple other members say they have screenshots showing that the posts werent edited.

When debunking anything, you have to give like step by step details on how and why its a hoax. Just syaing, I talked to the govornment, its a hoax, is not enough to really debunk it well.

For those of us gone during the whipsers incident, we really would appreciate it.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join