An interview with a hacker (Says Anti gravity is real!)

Originally posted by GT100FV
The NIPR and SIPR are separated by hardware not software.

In part only and the same old vulnerabilities still exist.

www.forscom.army.mil/pubs/Pubs/PAM/FCPAM25-25.doc Read the relevant parts concerning what might result in breaches of security. Tell me why password security is so important when it's hardware that separates others from gaining access?

The bandwidth issue you quoted was in reference to the satellites the Air Force was using.

I realised that but it's not ONLY the case for the air force but for all US military commands.

Even if the info about anti gravity is true, it would have been classified at a higher level than SIPR,

Why? Why is it that secret in your opinion when our physics tells us rather expressly that it's logical and very much possible? Why classify the abundantly obvious?

meaning on an even more secure network, definitely not accessible from a home computer.

Speculation i can't really disprove beside for the obvious 'impossibility' that probably wont be all that impossible. If there is one way to get me all up in arms it's to suggest that something is 'impossible' as i have found that most people who use the word seem to assume that their ignorance is a telling indication of what might be.

www.afa.org...

www.afa.org...

Some document but PDF has pretty pictures of intelligent looking people that would disagree with you.

I have yet to hear it explained how the encryption would have been overcome, even if we assume there were no hardware issues with hacking into the secure network.

Because encryption assumes no standards are breached. Remember ENIGMA?

Although the Enigma cipher has cryptographic weaknesses, it was, in practice, only their combination with other significant factors which allowed codebreakers to read messages: mistakes by operators, procedural flaws, and the occasional captured machine or codebook.

en.wikipedia.org...

In theory such security is great and all but in practice that matters nothing as long as there really is no physical separation of data transmission.

Originally posted by GT100FV
You might also consider that folks who work with NIPR/SIPR systems might could be considered a reliable subject matter expert vs. Wikipedia/Google/etc...

Well it's clearly not separate so why not just give up the foolish attempts to prove something that can not be?

What I consider is that personal experience carries more weight, than assumptions based on open source browsing on the internet.

Personal experiences are in the end no better indicators of objective reality than tenth hand opinions. Don't tell me that i can't know because i am not dealing directly with this issue in my daily life.

For example let's say you make widgets for a living(and have a lot of experience with widgets), then you have someone trying to tell you about widgets that has never seen a widget, but has read about them on the internet. And furthermore this person is trying to inform you that you are incorrect about your information on widgets, because they have read about them.
What would your feelings be regarding the opinion of this widget debunker?

I would check out his claims and compare it with my beliefs and then see what others who know as much as i do, about my area of expertise,have to say about his claims. With the Internet everyone can be a honest to god 'expert' in that they can support ( by shear accident if you wish to believe that) the objectively accurate point of view without having any background information. It is simply no longer enough to claim to be a expert and you must be able to defend each and every minuscule part of what you believe as others can easily exploit your ignorance on even the remotest contradiction in your field of expertise.

My opinion can never establish objective reality independent of what it really is so there is no point to have a opinion about what you can in fact be relatively sure about by standard investigative techniques.

Stellar

Answer this- why do you take at face value what you've read on open source internet sites, yet question those with personal experience? You're assuming that the site is as credible or moreso than those who have hands on experience.

As for your question regarding password security- even on unclassified systems, password security is important. As for the encryption being compromised- that's a lot of what ifs, and you do realize that crypto is changed regularly, so the leak would have to be the individual(s) developing the crypto itself. The classification level that things receive is based on a variety of criteria, so even if anti gravity is in theory possible(not saying if it is or isn't), that doesn't mean that the means by which it is achieved or the implications of disclosure might not warrant a high level of secrecy. In fact, the implications of disclosure is the prime measure for classification levels.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Answer this- why do you take at face value what you've read on open source internet sites, yet question those with personal experience?

I do it because i can validate ( to the best of my abilities) what i find online and in books while i can not do so when people with supposed knowledge ( That they can not defend based on open source material ) make claims without any known foundation in reality. Too many of these people can be proven to be blatantly ignorant of the topics they are supposed experts in which leads me to presume that there are many more liars than experts that bother bringing up their educational background.

You're assuming that the site is as credible or moreso than those who have hands on experience.

For the sake of my own sanity i can not rely on hearsay as foundation for my investigation of reality. What i can not prove i keep in mind as in the future i might very well have changed my perceptions and knowledge base.

As for your question regarding password security- even on unclassified systems, password security is important.

Why do you tell me obvious things?

As for the encryption being compromised- that's a lot of what ifs, and you do realize that crypto is changed regularly, so the leak would have to be the individual(s) developing the crypto itself.

Did you read the Army times article at all or were you in too much of hurry to disagree with me instead of the information ?

The classification level that things receive is based on a variety of criteria, so even if anti gravity is in theory possible(not saying if it is or isn't), that doesn't mean that the means by which it is achieved or the implications of disclosure might not warrant a high level of secrecy.

You might have had a point in mind but it's not obvious to me.

In fact, the implications of disclosure is the prime measure for classification levels.

Which means what exactly? Have you read the article and if so did not not note that they said SIPR would only provide BETTER security?

Stellar

[edit on 11-1-2007 by StellarX]

Just like to post my opinion on this story.


1. the title of this post claims Gary says anti gravity is real. I,ve watched the videos and from what i remember he says he was looking for proof of this fact, he never said he found proof(correct me if i,m wrong). It was just his opinion that it did exist.

2. After reading many posts on this site, those who do not believe his story because he has no proof in the form of photographs or video, would probably shout fake even if he did have them. I doubt there is one post on this site that has been proven 100% because no matter what evidence is produced there are always those who will be skeptical.

3. This whole thing about the encryption being impossible to break. He didnt say he broke the encryptions. He got administrator rights iand didn't need to break it.
Online banking is encrypted which makes it hard for people to steal your passcodes. However, if they hack your computer while you were online and placed a keylogger on your system. They dont need to break the encryption.

4. As for people not believing every conspiracy going. The guy is facing 70 years in jail and a big fine.
Hes not someone trying to convince you he worked in an underground alien/gov base with the only evidence some drawings and the promise if he disapears then video and photos will be released that will 100% prove everthing he said.

Just wanted to have a bit of a rant. All we can do is wait to see what happens, and see if he has anything else to say.

I'm not saying it's impossible to gain unauthorized access to systems. I was just saying that one has to have access to certain networks in the first place, before they'll be able to get on with admin rights, hacking in under someone else's account etc. Obviously nothing is absolutely full proof, if one has the technical means at their disposal, and help from others.

that dudes a fake, all military computers that contain secret or higher info are on their own network, it is impossible for outsiders even to break into it from the regular internet

i remember this story. hes the one that hacked nasa and decided that if he can hack nasa he can hack the government. it was a successful hack till he got caught. im surprised he didnt know they were trailing him. but to each his own. im also surprised that the British government decided to turn him over instead of claiming him and making him hack for them. they could have made a story that they imprisoned him in their country while in fact be working for them instead. but whos to say hes not working for the US now.

Espionage is a very serious business.

I don't know who his lawyer is, but for his sake, I hope he's been advised to stop talking about the case online.

His indictment:

fl1.findlaw.com...

Originally posted by xreactx
that dudes a fake, all military computers that contain secret or higher info are on their own network, it is impossible for outsiders even to break into it from the regular internet

Well, Grady's link to the indictment says:

"...the defendant intentionally accessed a computer belonging to and used exclusively by the US Army, Fort Myer, Virginia, with the Internet Protocol address of xxxxxx

If there is an IP address, isn't it hackable?

I remember meeting someone over 11 years ago who said he hacked into a lot of computers and had all kinds of stories about information he found. I was thinking he seems intelligent, is that why he's living in the boondocks? He was full of stories and seemed to be an inventor as well. He claimed he built the first prototype virtual reality visor.

He had other stories about floating craft in government experiments he read about after hacking into certain computers. He even claimed he could build a 3D tv but it had one major problem. The lasers would be so powerful they would burn or cut you up. I decided to stop listening to him when he said he was out in the woods one day and looked up. He said there was a saucer shaped craft hovering right above his location.

He seemed smart and claimed he hacked into a lot of computers. However you have to wonder about someone who borrowed my big old Thermodynamics book for entertainment and claimed he read the whole thing in just a few days.

Maybe for fun I should try to contact him again and see if he ever built the new engine design he created for automobiles. I believe he said he had to redesign the transmission and other parts to go along with it. I don't remember how it was supposed to be superior to existing engines.

To hear this guy talk about anti-gravity woud be no big deal. I just don't know how much you can believe without evidence.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by orionthehunter]

If that man knew secrets of that import and secrecy, he'd be dead. If he was skilled enough to penetrate that deep into the government's networks, even accounting for the usual gov. incompetency, he wouldn't have been caught.

Assuming this is the same person that I'm thinking about, and I'm sure he is, his stated purpose for all that hacking was to find evidence of a ufo coverup by the government. I don't condemn his purpose, but that alone means anything he says is biased.