I don't think the DDoS attacks were Julian's supporters at all, nor would he tweet that. The tweet saying it was his supporters sounds like a misdirection scheme for both the public and his followers. That's why I no longer trust the integrity of the Wikileaks tweets this week, and I also believe their main channels of communication to the public have been compromised. It's too coincidental to the events of the Ecuadorian embassy cutting off the internet. All this right after Obama removes ICANN from Congressional oversight... so ICANN could be used to fabricate DNS and keep the website, twitter, etc going with disinformation, allowing the Clinton campaign to turn its greatest threat into an asset. This is all very coordinated.

treason troops at McConnell Air Force Base

the 184th Intelligence Wing.

they will have something good to put on their post service resumes.

'subverted the elections and committed treason against the people of the USA'

They can do anything for 'national security'.

Until a new regime is installed and then considers them treasonous, lines them up and shoots them.

Actualy with military, people are expensive, so they will probably put them into an LSD torture tank for a few weeks and give them a new identity through constant abuse to dissociate them into a new self. So it's only the top people who will be shot / hung

You know too much

Torture via LSD... Fuck.

Environment is key. Nothing is scarier than your own worst nightmares. This would break a mind beyond recovery quick.

So it's only the top people who will be shot / hung

that works

If it's like Nuremberg everyone will hang. Officers, enlisted, contracters, mercs... everyone. As it should be.

You're kidding yourself if you think a 'regime change' will do anything to stop this runaway train.

media saying russia or china unless theyve updated that

The 184th is national guard. I really, really don't think they are behind this.

"According to the public web site of McConnell Air Force Base, the first -and perhaps most important function -- of that base is . . . the 184th Intelligence Wing."

-uh, no. McConnell's primary mission is refueling and transport. It really hurts any points made here when people make stuff up.

Source: McConnell was where I was stationed for my 3 year tenure in the air force.

http://www.184iw.ang.af.mil/resources/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=13563

In April 2008, the 184th Air Refueling Wing was designated the 184th Intelligence Wing making it the first Intelligence Wing in the Air National Guard. With the loss of the flying mission the "Flying Jayhawks" are now the "Fighting Jayhawks".

You were saying?

Well, I mean.. the majority of McConnell isn't guard. It's active duty. That website isn't McConnell's website, it's the 184th's website. But to be honest I didn't know that the guard side was only intelligence so I will concede the point even if the above quote isn't accurate.

Source: You

Yeah that tweet was suspicious. That would be something someone would say if you had Assange tied up in a chair with tape over his mouth sitting right next to you. It's almost to stupid to say, like this whole thing could be a double blind to get people invested in the outcome for some future plot...

[deleted]

It does have a point though, let's suspend judgment. Hillary would want people to be suspicious of wiki leaks as more and more emails are comming out about her criminality.

[deleted]

I want a photo of JA. What's the big deal?

I agree, it would really ease alot of peoples minds. Is it true that since that first time after they cut his internet the embassy has refused to confirm anything about him? Why is asking after his well being such a ver botten thing to ask? Its easy enough to confirm no.?

Because as it builds momentum it has the potential to drown out whats really going on I guess. I probably wouldn't want to silence you, but I would be worried about a psy-op conning people to support a black job on wiki-leaks.

Because people flood threads with "Wikileaks is compromised", it's untrue and hurtful, if it was true it would have been known by the wikileaks staffer and they would have spoken out, maybe not in the US but i'm in europe and knows very leftist outlets, and there were no such thing as a concerned friend of assange saying there were problems.

That 4chan post makes sense though. Thanks for posting it.

you don't get a hacker joke so you suddenly think wiki is compromised, but nope, their twitter is pretty consistent with a leftist anti clinton view, the changes are likely due to the fact that there is now one of of the moderator of the twitter offline (assange) but the rest of the line stayed the same before and after (pro green). There are reddits that have proved that the emails couldn't have been doctored because they were also in chains that weren't doctored (the same emails that failed the test passed it when in a chain). Conspiracy theories are good as long as they don't undermine truth tellers, which now they do, you can't just doubt of everything with no reason because without facts you can't make a good judgement.

actually, they don't even need ICANN.

The NSA has a tool that can clone a website, upload infected software and display hashes for said software and have everybody downloading without issue. The worst part is that no one, not even the website or account holder would see a difference in traffic or anything.

maybe wikileaks was just trying to imply that the american people were on their supporters, and not the russians. idk.

When it comes down to it, we are talking about the United States government. Would they even need to hack a twitter account to take control of it? I imagine that if wikileaks was posing a credible threat to the powers that be that they could simply tell twitter to give them control and it would done within a matter of minutes.

Then again. Wikileaks has put out some very damning stuff in the past so if the government were really interested in stopping them, then why wait till now? Is it really the ICAAN thing?

I'm the author of the thread mentioned in the OP about how to verify the Podesta Wikileaks emails.

I double checked the email in question:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25829

and it verifies correctly.

https://i.sli.mg/Eqg6c2.jpg

It's quite possible that the OP just made a mistake in copying/pasting the raw source (don't use "view source" on Wikileaks, do it via the method outlined in my post).

Otherwise even the slightest byte being off/missing/added will lead to a failure in verification.

You need to be at the top brother.

Top of what?

That email mentioned 25289 is an earlier version of an email chain that was already released on the 13th in podesta emails part 6. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8882

Correct - it was just forwarded onto 3 others (and back to Podesta) like an hour later.

Hey, I will be back in my office shortly and once I get there, I will address what's going on with this particular email (it may take some typing lol).
You're correct in that it fails via the online tool (apologies - I work on the CLI, so I don't use that particular method of verifying them, but you're correct about that)

 

I'll just leave this comment here as a placeholder for now; and so you know I've seen your question.

The problem with the version of dkimverify being run on that website is that it has an unfixed bug.

 

The DKIM signature verification fails if message Content-Type is: multipart/alternative

  As you can see in the 25859 email:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

So that's really a false negative.

 

 

Yeah OK that's great but WHY is that happening?

Well, the (unfixed) problem seems to be that internally, in the code, write() will flush the stream after transcoding the content in cases where the content is not already in its target encoding. So what happens is that an extra '\n' is added when being flushed and the buffer doesn't end with a '\n', while the canonicalization methods only require to add a '\n' if the body DOES NOT end with a '\r\n'.

In the current version, as the body is being written when the last line was not a newline ('\n') is a state which can be true even if we are not yet at the end of the body.

The unfortunate reality is that these kind of failures are relatively common with DKIM (that problem was only really noticed a year ago, for example).

 

tl;dr

—> Newline problems \n vs \r\n
…the bane of programming for over 3 decades. People shouldn't get overly excited if something fails, because false negatives aren't a rare thing when you have all of these permutations of OS systems, MIME encoding types, line endings, etc.

The easiest emails to verify will usually be ones between relatively few people (or if a lot of people, then with most of them using say, Gmail or Yahoo).

Personally, I've seen a lot of issues when emails have an intermixture of 7-bit and 8-bit encodings, that type of thing tends to f* things up pretty easy.

 

Anyway hope that helps. Sorry again for not double-checking the website verifier at first - I was just in a rush.

Thanks for noticing that, I'll probably update the post with a link to these comments here for anyone having problems.

If you find anything good and the verification thing is being wonky, I'd be happy to take a look. Just send me a PM or page me to the thread and I'll check it out~

Maybe edit your post to add that it's entirely possible that the emails are still authentic.

Replying to bookmark this

just saw this new topik here on this sub: I guess CNN got over that whole, "only we can read the wikileaks emails" thing since they're linking to wikileaks directly now

Devide and so on, hope enough damage is done, iv this is their damage control

Weird right? Now look at this:

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/789279261832146944

fuck hillary: she cant stop bragging about her crimes and hits ...like Gadaffi , she made a statement about Seth Rich too after he was murdered : “Surely we can agree that weapons of war have no place on the streets of America.”- she does not lie directly but here she implicates that he had to die.

“Surely we can agree that weapons of war have no place on the streets of America.”

so that should also included police MRAPs as well as police MGs and civilian rifles.

That was from her speech at the charity dinner/roast.

That's likely now that i look at it yeah, but the sentence doesn't really make sense in the context, she said no to jokes? What does that mean

https://youtu.be/yGgxr4Sxoas?t=2412

Yep, op should include this too, i was unaware

Your point?

Just giving some context as to where this this tweet came from. It would maybe be more suspicious if it came out of the blue and wasn't from a speech. If anything, it's just following along their tactic of marginalizing the damage coming from the leaks by acting like they're not a big deal.

It's a mocking of wikileaks. She's basically saying that wikileaks will come out with all the jokes she chose not to use because they crosses a line.

She still tweeted it. She said it and tweeted it. She wants to point people to wikileaks now huh? Just one more crazy coincidence huh?

Wikileaks has been compromised.

While I also think Wikileaks has been compromised a couple things on the joke/tweet.

She didn't write her jokes or any of that material.

She doesn't do her own tweeting. Whoever her social marketing mouth piece is maybe just thought it was funny.

OR-- you might be right. Just offering perspective.

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

She summons daemons and selects the most henchworthy for her social media managment strategy. This week its Belphegor on the mic.

Hillary did not endorse Wikileaks on Twitter nor was she pointing people to it. She was simply tweeting all her jokes from the Al Smith Dinner: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/21/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-al-smith-dinner-best-worst-jokes?client=safari

Your up/down vote count is hidden, not to mention how anti-Wikileaks Hilary and anyone/everyone that is voting for/paid by her has been up until now, I mean CNN said it was illegal to access the WikiLeaks until now, Hilary blamed Russia as a measure to make people not want to be influenced by "Putin" aka an exKGB enemy of the USA, Donna Brazile said the emails were doctored, and NOW people should read them and judge for themselves? Give Me A Break, she wouldn't post a joke on Twitter that could possibly be misinterpreted as encouragement to look at files that show her in a light of being potentially (but very likely) unelectable (depending on what you value in a leader), dishonest, cruel (arguably evil), treasonous, hypocritical, egotistical/extremely arrogant and unethical (to say the very least).

I feel really bad for Julian Assange wherever he is and whatever condition he is in. Even if he is on a private island with 100 virgin concubines, an open bar w/ bartender, a movie theatre with access to Netflix & HBO (but no computer), and anything else he wants. Assange would be miserable if he knew what they were doing to his forced transparency regarding Hilary, Podesta, and the DNC.

I feel like the threat to Hilary was one thing because the election could easily already be rigged in her favor. The threat to the DNC was another thing but it didn't impact anyone powerful enough to really matter. Even most of the Podesta emails didn't matter that much. BUT the threat to Obama, his administration and his "legacy" matters to the few people that have the capability to silence/alter/control WikiLeaks; if I had to guess as to why the foot finally dropped on WikiLeaks, that would be my best guess.

EDIT: CHECK MY POST HISTORY if you think I'm suspicious

The joke was roasting wikileaks, saying they post worthless things like unused edgy jokes, certainly not praising them

I'm assuming you mean saying the joke at the Al Smith Dinner and then quoting that joke, along with all her other unfunny jokes, on her Twitter page? That doesn't seem that odd to me. Maybe saying that joke originally at the dinner, yes, but not quoting it on twitter. On the other hand, she's also joked about email/server scandal. Does that also mean HRC wants us to pay more attention to that scandal and look into it more or is she trying to get us to feel like it's really no big deal and just brush it off? Campaigns aren't above changing tactics or adding some when previous threats aren't working. I'm getting worried CTR is concern trolling to discredit WikiLeaks. I'm just not sure who to believe anymore.

Oh yeah, btw if you actually aren't CTR and think I'm CTR, CHECK MY POST HISTORY. If you still accuse me of being CTR after checking my post history then I know you are CTR and completely full of shit.

Your post history indicates that you did not give a shit about r/conspiracy prior to this story breaking, kinda guessing you found this on accident and decided to try and keep people's faith in Wikileaks alive despite all evidence pointing towards Julian Assange and Wikileaks both being compromised. Oh yeah, I took the red pill a long time ago, so yeah, at least I sound like conspiracy theorist in my post, you definitely aren't one to question much and don't sound like a conspiracy theorist either, besides the general sentiment among conspiracy theorists that something is amuck regarding Wikileaks. Oh yeah, and if you cite that I haven't been coming to r/conspiracy that long, I kept search conspiracy theory in the front page search box, once I finally tried just conspiracy months later, I found what would become my primary news source.

I'm sorry, I never meant to imply you were CTR but that they're in this sub much more than even a couple months ago and they are infiltrating this sub with misdirection, distraction and of course trying to discredit wikileaks. Just because regular posters aren't CTR doesn't mean CTR's ideas can't take hold in the minds of regular posters. Obviously I don't know whether or not wikileaks is compromised. Of course I'm very concerned about that and very much hope Julian is alive. I just don't want everyone to stop reading the podesta emails. Yes, let's be skeptical and cautious but let's also not stop reading them in case we're just being played by concern trolls.

As a disclaimer, I lurk a lot on reddit and am still somewhat of a newbie. I am embarrassed to say but I'm clueless on how to spot CTR by their comment history. Do you have any tips on how to spot them?

Also just wanted to say, I'm not much for writing, but I read just about every thread on this sub every day since April. You could give me an r/conspiracy knowledge test and I promise you, I'd pass w/flying colors. :) My worldwide has done quite the 180.

Nice try. Nobody buys it.

Nobody buys what??? Did HRC not say that joke at the Al Smith Dinner, then tweet the exact same joke, in quotes no less, via Twitter??? Because there's actual video and written proof of all those things I just said. Are you denying that that was the same verbatim joke she said at the Al Smith Dinner? Did you even watch it? I did. Would you like me to link the video from the Al Smith Dinner for proof as well?

Nobody buys your spin.

Serious question: what spin? I don't think we're adversaries here. We're probably more on the same page than you realize. I'm concerned about WikiLeaks being compromised too but I'm also wary that CTR would also like to discredit WikiLeaks. So I'm just trying to weigh all the evidence myself, and part of that is pointing out that some "evidence" gathered may be misinterpreted. Don't you think it's important to point that out in order to get to the truth? I'd like to have a real discussion. So I'm asking you politely, are you denying HRC made this exact quoted joke at the Al Smith Dinner?

She made the joke because she knew they were taking Assange and wikileaks. Get it? She wouldn't have mentioned wikileaks. She just wouldn't have. No way.

Okay, that's fair. I wish you would have said that in the first place, that it's suspect because she made a joke about WikiLeaks at the dinner and that's what was weird about it. I understand the concern, but HRC was technically the first person to mention Wikileaks at the third debate when all Wallace's question was about was are you a fan of open borders. Yes, she did it to get in front of it and spin it to being about Russia, but she still didn't need to bring them up. After reading a lot of the Podesta emails, I think her staff is just shit at jokes and humor. Most of her jokes that night weren't funny. I guess I'm still not convinced this is a missing piece of the puzzle.

I don't know how that wasn't obvious.

You talked about her tweet as if HRC is starting to advocate reading Wikileaks when it was just a tweet to quote her stupid unfunny joke from the night before.

I'm sorry you make no sense. You are suggesting that HRC made a joke about wikileaks, THEN tweeted it, but not on purpose? Just because she was retweeetin my all jokes? Cmon. I don't get your thinking.

Wow, maybe I should give up. How am I not being clear? HRC said that joke at the Al Smith Dinner, then she or staff tweeted one by one every joke HRC made at the dinner on her Twitter page for her adoring fans in case they missed her "witty" jokes at the dinner. HRC or staff even put every joke in quotes to show it was from the earlier dinner. I linked the guardian article which printed her jokes from the dinner to show the tweet was just her tweeting her quoted jokes from the previous dinner. I don't think anything nefarious is going on; HRC is just not funny.

I get what you are saying!!!!! But I don't get how you think saying it at the tucking roast means anything different!!!! She said it at the dinner. Then tweeted it. So on two occasions she pointed people to wikileaks. Two is more than one. You are trying to say two is less than one.

So you think it's highly unlikely that HRC would mention WikiLeaks in a joke? I don't find it that odd because she's also flippantly joked about her email/server scandal. Does that also mean HRC wants us to pay more attention to her email/server scandal and look into it more or is she trying to get us to feel like it's really no big deal and just brush it off? I'm just thinking she's adding a different tactic on top of the Russia fear-mongering tactic and just trying to make a joke of WikiLeaks and act like it's just one big nothingburger.

But that's just one of the several wikileaks coincidences. If it was just this, sure. But it's not. It's all the recent tweets from wikileaks. They are odd and point to some shift. And Assange is MIA.

Now you hit the areas that DO concern me. Yes, someone or multiple someones have taken over wikileaks twitter page that isn't Julian, that's obvious. Could it be his trusted associates? I would think that's as good an explanation as any. So while that has me concerned, it doesn't necessarily mean that Julian's been taken or dead.

It doesn't mean that, you are right. But it's what I think. And it really doesn't matter. Until we know, wikileaks cannot be trusted.

Okay, that's fair. I agree we should remain skeptical but still continue to read the emails. I am sort of cataloging the good ones. If no MSM source is pointing out that they're fake after a couple days or so, I'll feel it's safe to share them w/others. I'll just proceed with caution.

Imagine if they only release the non-damaging HRC emails? Imagine if they release manufactured emails that make trump look bad?

I think we should keep in mind that wikileaks may be comprised and cross that bridge when we come to it.

And no, I don't buy your explanation as plausible. That's my opinion.

Well, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. But if you don't mind me asking, why not? It seems to me that she's showing a predictable pattern of behavior.

How many times has Hillary Clinton said the word wikileaks before this? How much effort has been put in to bury wikileaks from MSM reporting? How much damaging info has wikileaks exposed?

I believe she spoke the words twice, three times if you count twitter. So not a lot, but the server is still a big scandal for her that she doesn't worry about joking about. Also, campaign tactics change/evolve when previous fear tactics are wearing off or getting less effective.

like shes emphasizing.. go head look at wikileaks Wikileaks twitter is definitely compromised. Sounds like mark dice took it over. I dont know about the emails being tampered because im not sure how to verify that.

No it wasn't, ever heard of positive reinforcement? everytime you see something that agrees with your theory you only remember that, wikileaks is as harsh on hillary as always, and the difference of tone is easy to explain, assange was kept out from moderating it so it's skewed toward the other guy, and that shows, but if you look at the posts before there was already this bias (in short pro green) since a long time, just more diluted.

I believe the wikileaks twitter has been comprimised, as far as the actual leaks that remains to be seen. I dont care about candidates as much as i care about the truth.

but their twitter hasn't been compromised, as i said, you think that just because julian's perspective was shut down because of saturday's episode and that made you feel like they changed, which they did but for the obvious reason i cited, the proof is that their twitter just posted a message from julian assange about the recent death of his friend gavin macfayaden, and they make clear when it's him and when it's not, btw you also have a proof of life of assange now

wheres the proof of life.. show me

yup.

A tweet signed JA, look at it, that was pure assange style

This was a joke from the roast the other night.

Yep. Which she only said because wikileaks was under new control.

clearly not, I would have known by now

Aaannd queue a load of BS from Wikileaks in 5, 4...

Fuck...

Reverse psychology.

she's just trying to plant the seed that ...anything she said in her emails might have actually just been her "joking".

To the top: The first email linked may have been altered but it is not necessarily the case. I have noticed, in my own email, that some reply-chain emails don't verify properly, particularly those in mailing lists. I am not sure if this is a function of the re-mailer used in mail lists(which I suspect to be the case), or if this is because it does not include the quoted replies as part of the email body to hash. If there is someone such as an SMTP admin or engineer who can elaborate on this, that would be awesome.

For the second email though, from georgetown.edu, lacks DKIM header info entirely. This is not uncommon and a large portion of emails will likely not have DKIM headers. This is something that many server admins neglect to set up(as someone who ran personal SMTP/IMAP servers previously, I and many others consider it unnecessary). However, all emails sent from Gmail, Yahoo, any .gov domain or hillaryclinton.com have DKIM signatures and there may be other domains that have them as well. The fact that it lacks a DKIM signature from a corporate or .edu mail server is not remarkable, save for the fact that the lack of a signature means the email can't be verified for authenticity.

lmfao dude you are delusional. George did not call jeb bro and use 'constitooosh' in an email followed directly by biden saying he was stuck in a vending machine to obama @ gmail. get a fucking grip, Wikileaks is gone as we know it

Yeah once I got to those, I was like, oh shit. This is clearly some hardcore b.s. being shoved at us to discredit wikileaks.

Yea seems like it. What i want to know is, that did Assange manage to get out of the embassy somehow?

https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/789871378879086592

Assange surreptitious getaway from EC Consulate in London (smuggled from embassy) 51°31'49.39" N 0°07'01.46" W

https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/789235405216415744

Wrong building for Assange's EC bolt hole. Orator perch still waving flag. 51°29'56.62" N 0°09'40.51" W

And the whole tweet by anonymous in the op.

Be careful discrediting Wikileaks without absolute proof. A few tweets do not provide sufficient evidence of compromise, no matter what Hillary's shills would want you to believe

Agreed.

be careful being a nut sucking apologist for wikileaks. We'll be woefully unprepared if everyone just blindly follows it

Reading this email more, it seems to be a bunch of joking tweet options.

I think wikileaks will continue to leak real stuff, but if they are comprimised you'll find the quality to drop off, and you'll find useless email chains talking about dinner plans and speeches, and very little to do with any real corruption that might be considered admissable in court.

Cliton's tweet references the roast,saying her jokes they didn't use will be leaked. Its a joke.

The strange emails are probably faked messages among staffers for a laugh. The biden one is hilarious. Clearly making up faked delwted clinton emails on her server. Anyone can edit the > > parts of a fwded email.

The help him shit apparently is fake and the typos don't spell that. This is just hysteria.

Actually the typos don't spell that. The letters you would need to input to fix the typos do spell that.

I had to look at it twice too.

Hope you're right

I absolutely am. This was an in joke between staffers, not compromised false material. You will not find the original emails of the weird ones because they never existed.

Like George Bush using an altavista email, lol. God forbid people read through the entire chain before jumping to conclusions that the emails are compromised.

They were obviously jokes of what those politicians would email each other. I'm really bad at reading these email dump's formatting, so I'm not sure the context they're being made Something to be released publicly, and they're being vetted and deciding which ones to not include. How are so many people in this thread not realizing they're jokes though?

I think a lot of people here are either dumb or shills.

People do it at my work all the time and scientists aren't known for being huge pranksters. I imagine getting a bunch of Ivy League, silver spoon fed, bored off their rocker, 20 something psych majors a little material like this and the comedy value of the email chains can go a long way.

fabrication of emails would be wire-fraud or obstruction of justice.

jokes can have consequences.

There's no way anyone would prosecute that, and if they tried the judge would laugh them out of court for what is essentially satire, and was meant to be satire.

Wasn't there some keys for files dropped that's been scrubbed online also ?

Pulled from a 4chan thread: http://imgur.com/a/wbVXL

edit: fixed link? http://imgur.com/rK9Jfbt

Nothing there

Image is gone

I saw somewhere that before the DDOS ever started some lines of binary were posted and then quickly scrubbed, followed by the hashes/keys/whatever that came with "Eta Numeris, Sin-Topper, Project Runway, etc."

Poster over at 4chan said that unfortunately it was scrubbed before he was able to capture.

fuck hillary: she cant stop bragging about her crimes and hits ...like Gadaffi , she made a statement about Seth Rich too after he was murdered : “Surely we can agree that weapons of war have no place on the streets of America.”- she does not lie directly but here she implicates that he had to die.

Its not really hillary, she is just a reflection of our fucked up system. If anything we should be more weary of that then to focus our attention on a puppet.

you take what you can get and the first to accept are the most corrupt... ie the known politician families ruling for decades.

Yeah what has happened to/with Assange? We had this big "panic" at the beginning of the week, and then nothing?

Is he alive? Is he online again? And if not, what about that data dump?

did the d do s stop the contingency plan? and what of the new stochaastic thingamajiggy..

You´d have t evaluate the anagrams in no particular order first.

Hopefully announcement will shed some light.

Folks, they are setting it up so that they will "release" more emails that will be proven as fakes, in order to give deniability to the previous ones.

BTW, if anyone was questioning the particular email about the beanie babies, it can be confirmed via 3rd party source: https://imgur.com/gallery/1J4ONsD

Hey, I don't know if you've seen further down this thread but if you can please take a look at it. More specifically do you have an actual .eml from that source? Basically I'm looking into if the Peter Mattingly name is mentioned prior to the source from the leaked emails. 7/3/2015 is the date in the screen shot you uploaded but the original image was first recorded online 2014-10-24.

Discussion of this has been sidetracked by a shill.

I don't understand how this is relevant at all to wikileaks and the US election. Who is that person?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26263

This is one of the emails that was supposedly forged. But it was a viral email and you can see that it's the exact same as the one here: https://imgur.com/gallery/1J4ONsD

Yeah, I saw that email in the body of this post, but I have no clue why it's included. I don't know who Peter Mattingly is, and I don't know why I should care that he's trying to sell his beanie baby collection at an absurd price(other than its a pretty funny email). I tried googling his name, as well as including dozens of other keywords, but I'm not finding anything useful.

I just did a reverse image on the beanie-babies.jpg attachment.

Tineye search results give exact match

-The earliest recorded instance of use is from here:

http://thespeechroomnews.com/

Image: Beanie-Baby-creator-6.jpg

Page: tag/articulation

Crawled on 2014-10-24

Idk what to think atm. I think I've found a couple more bogus emails too will update as soon as I reorganise the insane number of tabs I have open and have a chance to check them properly.

edit: Nope, need sleepy, turning it over to community.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23748

Weird one, stood out to me.

Good for you but that means nothing to me. I clearly don't know who Peter Mattingly is, and why his beanie baby collection has anything to do with this fucking election.

Because the original upload to that website above was a year earlier by [name redacted] who is a woman. This means that Peter Mattingly is a likely a fiction in one of two contexts, either from a viral "creation" of somebody at a date prior to the sending of the email and release of the leak or as part of it. If you can prove the first part your much closer to disproving the second. Which is more than anything else so far in terms of physical verification. That's why.

[removed]

I don't know who Peter Mattingly is, and I don't know why I should care

Good for you but that means nothing to me. I clearly don't know who Peter Mattingly is

I've known Peter Mattingly since we were both in second grade

Shill confirmed.

I was just getting fucking frustrated of my clearly expressed question being ignore. You kept rambling on like an idiot about how he's actually fake blah blah blah, when I obviously had no clue why I should fucking care.

Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed. 1st warning.

Interview with Michael Best, state of Wikileaks and Assange: https://youtu.be/KXim4Zdacy0

Let's not jump the gun until we have something verified false. We are some of the only people putting wikileaks out there. If we get nervous about dong that they have won. Creating doubt is as good for the establishment as actually getting into the releases.

What email is even questionable so far?

If we continue to do the due diligence and dig hard subjecting them absolute scrutiny and still find nothing that's great in my book! I'm actually very surprised by the number of people who are against even looking as you'd think they'd want to be proved right as to the provenance of the releases.

8enjAm1N f1scH831n => Benjamin Fischbein

I wasn't familiar with the name, so I did some quick google work. His twitter feed is HEAVILY pro-hillary/anti-trump, probably CTR involved.

Developed an online tool called SparkPoint as an "Online Community Mobilization Tool". He is/was the VP of BlastRoots, which offered a service which uses "Technology and Data to Optimize Public Affairs". BlastRoots was acquired by BIS Global in 2015, but that's mostly a dead end.

I'm sure both of the software tools he's been involved with are right up CTR's alley as far as a project management system for their heinous agenda. Who better to set up/manage those systems than the founder himself?

Not sure what it means coming from wikileaks, didn't find anything in the Podesta e-mails.

Benjamin Fischbein

Digital Director @ CTR The US LinkedIn has been removed, but this is available

https://www.linkedin.com/in/fischbein

It's possible it's one of his people tweeting now that he can't?

Benjamin Fisch_____? Anyone?

Stay safe and Be good.

Why do people write stuff like that?

Because if your eyes are open you see that shit is about to hit the fan.

So treating us like children will make a difference?

[removed]

Rules 4 & 10. Removed. Final warning.

It's a code. That's all I will say about.

I wish people would stop accrediting tweets to Trump and Hillary when they didn't sign them.

Only tweets signed - H are actually written by Hillary, otherwise they were probably crafted by one of her social media cronies like Karen Civil.

3 Downvotes?

my thoughts exactly ...

I just don't understand why that would be downvote worthy haha

Thanks for the thanks!

Interesting....https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/58uoxh/fyi_mentioning_benjamin_fischbein_on_pol_results/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I think Wikileaks was using the code "help him" in reference to, now dead, Gavin MacFayden.

Wikileaks site was also down a bunch last night/this morning. And that beanie babies email. I'm seriously starting to suspect they've been compromised and the emails have been tampered/mixed in order to discredit them all.

Honestly, can you even think of a better plan if you're clint0n?

you're saying the same shit that /r/wikileaks is now saying, after being compromised. /r/conspiracy is about to fall to CTR?

Put the update at the top

uda man. please be ok julian

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/new-world-hackers-claims-responsibility-internet-disruption-cyberattack/?client=ms-android-motorola No real hacker group Would call them selves new world hackers. This is obvious.

Why should we trust this over Wikileaks's vetting process? And why is this being spammed across subs now?

It's CTR. If they claim wikileaks is compromised they can claim the same with their leaks. Don't buy into it

My first thought... The emails are odd but then again whose to say his email wasn't hacked at some point back in the day and he fixed it before the leaks. We've all been sent odd emails from family members followed by "sorry everyone my email was hacked".

Good point.

[deleted]

daily reminder that wikileaks/assange is "annoyed" by 9/11 truthers and quiet on israel

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-annoyed-911-truth

http://www.maskofzion.com/2010/10/wikileaks-is-zionist-poison.html

http://wariscrime.com/new/assange-admits-wikileaks-a-fraud-run-for-israel/

I can't say for sure what's going on with WL/Assange, what they're really about, just asking people to ask questions and do research

question Snowden too: http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/06/25/snowden-an-exercise-in-disinformation/

Does this mean Obama and Hillary have taken over Wikileaks and are now fakeleaking to control the conversation?

So can we mark any leaks from this point on as suspect leaks?

I hope people had archive.is'ing the podesta emails that were already leaked. Or screenshotted

Nobody buys what??? Did HRC not say that joke at the Al Smith Dinner, then tweet the exact same joke, in quotes no less, via Twitter??? Because there's actual video and written proof of all those things I just said. Are you denying that that was the same verbatim joke she said at the Al Smith Dinner? Did you even watch it? I did. Would you like me to link the video from the Al Smith Dinner for proof as well?

The problem with the version of dkimverify being run on that website is that it has an unfixed bug.

 

The DKIM signature verification fails if message Content-Type is: multipart/alternative

  As you can see in the 25859 email:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

So that's really a false negative.

 

 

Yeah OK that's great but WHY is that happening?

Well, the (unfixed) problem seems to be that internally, in the code, write() will flush the stream after transcoding the content in cases where the content is not already in its target encoding. So what happens is that an extra '\n' is added when being flushed and the buffer doesn't end with a '\n', while the canonicalization methods only require to add a '\n' if the body DOES NOT end with a '\r\n'.

In the current version, as the body is being written when the last line was not a newline ('\n') is a state which can be true even if we are not yet at the end of the body.

The unfortunate reality is that these kind of failures are relatively common with DKIM (that problem was only really noticed a year ago, for example).

 

tl;dr

—> Newline problems \n vs \r\n
…the bane of programming for over 3 decades. People shouldn't get overly excited if something fails, because false negatives aren't a rare thing when you have all of these permutations of OS systems, MIME encoding types, line endings, etc.

The easiest emails to verify will usually be ones between relatively few people (or if a lot of people, then with most of them using say, Gmail or Yahoo).

Personally, I've seen a lot of issues when emails have an intermixture of 7-bit and 8-bit encodings, that type of thing tends to f* things up pretty easy.

 

Anyway hope that helps. Sorry again for not double-checking the website verifier at first - I was just in a rush.

Thanks for noticing that, I'll probably update the post with a link to these comments here for anyone having problems.

If you find anything good and the verification thing is being wonky, I'd be happy to take a look. Just send me a PM or page me to the thread and I'll check it out~

She made the joke because she knew they were taking Assange and wikileaks. Get it? She wouldn't have mentioned wikileaks. She just wouldn't have. No way.

Okay, that's fair. I wish you would have said that in the first place, that it's suspect because she made a joke about WikiLeaks at the dinner and that's what was weird about it. I understand the concern, but HRC was technically the first person to mention Wikileaks at the third debate when all Wallace's question was about was are you a fan of open borders. Yes, she did it to get in front of it and spin it to being about Russia, but she still didn't need to bring them up. After reading a lot of the Podesta emails, I think her staff is just shit at jokes and humor. Most of her jokes that night weren't funny. I guess I'm still not convinced this is a missing piece of the puzzle.

Until a new regime is installed and then considers them treasonous, lines them up and shoots them.

Actualy with military, people are expensive, so they will probably put them into an LSD torture tank for a few weeks and give them a new identity through constant abuse to dissociate them into a new self. So it's only the top people who will be shot / hung

How many times has Hillary Clinton said the word wikileaks before this? How much effort has been put in to bury wikileaks from MSM reporting? How much damaging info has wikileaks exposed?

Oh yeah, btw if you actually aren't CTR and think I'm CTR, CHECK MY POST HISTORY. If you still accuse me of being CTR after checking my post history then I know you are CTR and completely full of shit.

Your post history indicates that you did not give a shit about r/conspiracy prior to this story breaking, kinda guessing you found this on accident and decided to try and keep people's faith in Wikileaks alive despite all evidence pointing towards Julian Assange and Wikileaks both being compromised. Oh yeah, I took the red pill a long time ago, so yeah, at least I sound like conspiracy theorist in my post, you definitely aren't one to question much and don't sound like a conspiracy theorist either, besides the general sentiment among conspiracy theorists that something is amuck regarding Wikileaks. Oh yeah, and if you cite that I haven't been coming to r/conspiracy that long, I kept search conspiracy theory in the front page search box, once I finally tried just conspiracy months later, I found what would become my primary news source.

Imagine if they only release the non-damaging HRC emails? Imagine if they release manufactured emails that make trump look bad?

No it wasn't, ever heard of positive reinforcement? everytime you see something that agrees with your theory you only remember that, wikileaks is as harsh on hillary as always, and the difference of tone is easy to explain, assange was kept out from moderating it so it's skewed toward the other guy, and that shows, but if you look at the posts before there was already this bias (in short pro green) since a long time, just more diluted.

clearly not, I would have known by now

yup.

I just don't understand why that would be downvote worthy haha

A tweet signed JA, look at it, that was pure assange style