It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by schuyler
6. People who actually deal with Top Secret classifications know that number five above is a crock. 'Top Secret' is serious business. It's not a game. This is an adult activity engaged in by grown-ups who take it very seriously. Does it fail? Sure. You will notice, however, that the vast majority of failures are from people who managed to get a clearance and be on the inside, then spilled the beans for money or politics. Sometimes they manage to 'lose' something important, but for some reason this never does much harm and is quickly recovered. Rarely does anyone from the outside just wander in and pick up top secret stuff that is lying around.
7. Top Secret computers are not hooked to the Internet. There are separate systems. Anything truly classified is on an interior network. Believe it or not, but security personnel are quite aware that PCs and networks are vulnerable. “Communications Technicians” all have Top Secret security clearances and have been lectured ad nauseum about the issues.
Originally posted by xout1
I dont buy it. Hackers DONT get caught. Hacks do though.
Most hackers worth a sh*t dont do it for 'fun'. They get payed.
They get in. Then they show how to the people who pay them.
Hackers don't put garbage on Youtube. Hacks do though.
Originally posted by Forlon
The guy is smart with computers yet he can't even get a screen shot of what he finds? come on... He just has to press printscreen when he remotes in and gets a picture but he didn't? Right.....Heck even a 12 year old kid knows how to use printscreen to capture stuff he sees on the screen.
This makes about as much sense as the worlds best action photographer not getting a picture of a UFO he finds in a forest when he had all his cameras out and ready to take a picture.
Originally posted by PapaHomer
I agree with Forlon. Why is that he didn't save any evidence of what he saw? Why didn't any of the other hackers he claims to have seen in the government computers come forward and back him up? One answer may lie here, where Gary says to the interviewer,
"I was smoking a lot of dope at the time. Not good for the intellect."
I think he was right at least about that.
Ditto. I've signed that too. I feel very sorry for him, he seems really scared. Don't know if it's mentioned on this thread already but someone from the US has told him he's "gonna fry" when he's sent over there. I sincerely hope they just give him a job.
Originally posted by xiack
Gary McKinnon is the real deal. I have been monitoring his case for a good while, and have even signed his 'unlawful extradition' petition that went to 10 Downing Street. I trust him far more than any of our British politians. bare in mind, that this guy has absolutely nothing to lose/gain by talking of his discoveries. Anyhow, for a rain check, visit: freegary.org.uk...
Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
1. Los Alamos
2. The data has to get out somehow, at some point they are connected. Furthermore we can't prove anything 100% one way or another. But the idea that no computer containing TS info is connected to the net does not seem plausible to me for many different reasons.
Originally posted by schuyler
Here's a theory I cannot prove.........I can't. I’m basing this on the public knowledge we have of the issue collectively, plus some information of my own.
1. From what we know this guy is not a particularly gifted hacker. He got into some un-secure machines which still had default passwords on a dial-up connection.
2. His connection was dial-up, a maximum of 56Kbps. This is pretty darned slow.
4. Our hacker friend seems to have failed to capture screen shots that would have helped prove his case. Why did he not?
9. I believe what happened here is that our hacker did, indeed, get into a non-secure network and poke around. Whether he caused damage or not, I couldn’t say. That’s an issue for the government to prove. But I think he made up the UFO angle in an attempt to deflect attention away from the core issue that he did break into these machines.
Originally posted by kleverone
Why didn't he save any evidence? Maybe he was concerned about retaining evidence that would implicate him later? ...........
Oh and as far as the quote about smoking dope not being good for the intellect, this is true is doesn't help in some cases but in others it does, creatively its is invaluable to me so to just assume this guy is full of it because he was smoking weed is just silly. I'm high most of the evenings I'm on here....
Originally posted by SecretGoldfish
why would nasa airbrush anything?
isn't is far simpler to just no release those pics?
I trust him far more than any of our British politians. bare in mind, that this guy has absolutely nothing to lose/gain by talking of his discoveries