Cryptic Assange tweet ignites concern for his well-being

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: introvert

They did. Now tell me how that is relevant to the topic and how it changes the fact they just outed themselves as being not only biased, but pushers of fake news.

Only fake news I am seeing here is your statement above.. Prove it!

Go to the link I provided and read.

His account is back on, then?

a reply to: introvert

Can you explain how they outed themselves? I dont always see every headline.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FauxMulder

I did not say that was fake news. Did you not read that wikileaks purposefully pushed fake news about the NYT and the Clinton State Department?

You said

they just outed themselves as being not only biased, but pushers of fake news

Hmmmmm sounds a lot like your calling them biased fake news.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't so.

Why are people who read the published emails stupid?

I didn't say that either. Reading issues this morning?

Umm are you having trouble remembering the things you type? Here, let me show you what you wrote:

that relies on the stupidity of it's readers

Hmmmmm, looks like you're calling their readers stupid.

Twitter.

When did Twitter become Wikileaks?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: introvert

So, wiki leaks did or did not publish emails exposing the corruption of the DNC? Is that just fake news? Or would you rather just keep pretending that didn't happen? Maybe Russia did it.

They did. Now tell me how that is relevant to the topic and how it changes the fact they just outed themselves as being not only biased, but pushers of fake news.

Hahaaa! You should be a stand up comic because you are just hillaryous!

a reply to: eisegesis

I would not be woried about that tweet. The number is looks to me like an MD5 hash string.. It is a one way encryption. It means you can do a data dump for example and generate a hash. If anyone else comes along and changes your data dump (even just a full stop ) it will change the hash dramatically. It

Have a little play. Here is an online one.
www.xorbin.com...

Julian is no longer at the embassy. That is something I am now sure of. He does not post for no reason. This is a message and its not the first one.

Dont want to tap it all out again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Happy days and thank you for the thread.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Chadders my little bean!

if you are going to determine something as fake please supply some evidence. A link does not do much to a thread by itself. Why not explain in your own wordl.

I see no proof in you thread. Remember many time wikileaks have been taken to caught to show they have been publishing fake news and every time dear Chadders Wikileaks have won!


They are been publishing for years before you ever heard of them. Won lots of awards too for fantastic journalisms. Now that they post something that does not fit with your political narrative. You have a problem with them. Very very telling.

Anyway Happy day to you Chadddrs my little

a reply to: introvert

It has been confirmed

Confirmed, you say?

that Wikileaks has begun to push false narratives and "fake news"

I never understood how publishing raw, unfiltered, documents with no superfluous data, could put Wikileaks anywhere near the same ballpark as [insert televised pundit here].

Show me just one document published by Wikileaks that was proven to be false.

Wikileaks is now a pro-Right Wing political operation and they are relying on the stupidity of others to not fact check them.

How do you fact check a leaked private conversation that you weren't apart of?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: introvert

What fake news was that again?

Here is a thread on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I looked through the thread and cannot see any evidence that WL post fake news.. I asked you to prove it you have failed to. Thought you would..

Happy days

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I never understood how publishing raw, unfiltered, documents with no superfluous data, could put Wikileaks anywhere near the same ballpark as [insert televised pundit here]. Show me just one document published by Wikileaks that was proven to be false.

You are correct. WL publish objective verifiied data. Thats a first for journalism. People may not like what they publish but as the saying goes.

The Truth has no agenda

Happy New Year

a reply to: FauxMulder

Hmmmmm sounds a lot like your calling them biased fake news.

I did. But I did not say anything about emails being fake news, which was your claim.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't so.

Ok. Still does not change the fact that you comment was irrelevant to what I had said.

Umm are you having trouble remembering the things you type? Here, let me show you what you wrote: that relies on the stupidity of it's readers Hmmmmm, looks like you're calling their readers stupid.

Yes, but I did not say people were stupid for simply reading the emails, which was your assertion.

Please read your own posts for proper context.

When did Twitter become Wikileaks?

That seems to be a very dumb question that is completely irrelevant.

You asked how they could push fake news. The answer is twitter.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I never understood how publishing raw, unfiltered, documents with no superfluous data, could put Wikileaks anywhere near the same ballpark as [insert televised pundit here].

I never claimed they were in any "ballpark".

Show me just one document published by Wikileaks that was proven to be false.

I did not claim they did publish a false document. Please go read the thread linked for proper context.

As of now, it seems you guys are just making # up and hoping something sticks.

How do you fact check a leaked private conversation that you weren't apart of?

Go read the link. Wikileaks pushed a fake story, even though they were part of the deal themselves.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: introvert

What fake news was that again?

Here is a thread on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I looked through the thread and cannot see any evidence that WL post fake news.. I asked you to prove it you have failed to. Thought you would..

Happy days

Can't you read? Two links have been provided.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: eisegesis

I am in doubt as to the validity of that account, and I have been following it for months but last weeks hiccup with it and the sudden following of an additional 24 individuals and the activation of other identical accounts (ie: @AltAssange) all around the same time, something is amiss with all of this, and here is why - Wikileaks is bankrolled, in part, by George Soros

This fact is undeniable, it's right there on the Wikileaks website and must be accounted for with any action that Wikileaks or 'Julian Assange' take. Soros is in the business of anti-nationalistic open-border policies and a redistribution of wealth from 1st to 3rd world countries.

So, what does this latest tweet all me for me? Well, I'm waiting to see what that code (or whatever it is) does / activates. I'm waiting to have Julian Assanges whereabouts verified but most importantly, I'm trying to wrap my head around Soros' involvement in all things Wikileaks and by association - Assange' himself.

Many folks claim Assange' acts out of pride and ego-stroking to keep himself relevant (alive), he has been tabled at the UN human rights council. My 'proceed with extreme caution' meter is going berzerk.

I just dunno about this - it's suss.

a reply to: introvert

Ahhhhhhhhh I see. It's the same ol' double speak with you.

Say one thing but mean another.

It's like talking to a teflon wall.

soz

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: introvert

Ahhhhhhhhh I see. It's the same ol' double speak with you.

Say one thing but mean another.

It's like talking to a teflon wall.

I meant what I said and what I posted is there for all to see.

It is not my problem if you cannot read or must rely on claims I have not made to make some sort of point.

originally posted by: intrptr

More hexadecimal code.

Because none of the letters exceed F in the alphabet. 16 bit base numeric and letter system, 0-9 a-f.

Anybody figure out the lsat one yet?

It's an encryption key or hash. He's sending a message to someone.

skizoprenia detected

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FauxMulder

Hmmmmm sounds a lot like your calling them biased fake news.

I did. But I did not say anything about emails being fake news, which was your claim.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't so.

Ok. Still does not change the fact that you comment was irrelevant to what I had said.

Umm are you having trouble remembering the things you type? Here, let me show you what you wrote: that relies on the stupidity of it's readers Hmmmmm, looks like you're calling their readers stupid.

Yes, but I did not say people were stupid for simply reading the emails, which was your assertion.

Please read your own posts for proper context.

When did Twitter become Wikileaks?

That seems to be a very dumb question that is completely irrelevant.

You asked how they could push fake news. The answer is twitter.

This banter is insane.