The internet is abuzz with the hilarious discovery of a Weather Channel reporter caught faking like he’s barely able to stand in hurricane-force winds while two guys casually stroll down the street behind him.
Hilariously, he’s leaning in the wrong direction, since the correct maneuver is to lean into the wind. As you can see in the laugh-out-loud video below, he’s actually leaning away from the wind while faking like he’s barely able to stand. This is yet more proof that many so-called journalists are actually just “crisis actors” who use TV broadcasts to carry out elaborate hoaxes and staged crisis events.
An on-screen number shows the wind is actually just 29 mph where this reporter is located, which explains why other people are able to easily walk around in shorts.
See the full video at this REAL.video link, where it won’t be banned:
The Weather Channel is the same fake news network that repeatedly claims hurricanes are caused by man-made “climate change,” insisting that the world never saw hurricanes before humans started burning fossil fuels.
Not only is the Weather Channel fake news; it’s also fake science. Now, we have video proof that the so-called “weather reporters” are really just hilarious hoax actors who pretend to create a crisis scene where none exists.
REAL.video users are having a field day with the hilarity. A user channel named Rainbow Rising has posted a parody of the Weather Channel, where a man hilariously claiming to be barely surviving a vicious storm while his hand manually shakes a palm tree to simulate hurricane-force winds.
The case of the death and resurrection of the Russian journalist A. Babchenko in Kiev is even more surreal than it seemed so far. According to Ukrainian sources and court documents the whole hoax was part of an attempt to raid and take over a private company. High levels of the Ukrainian security services staged the whole affair not only to blame Russia but also for someone’s personal gain.In 2017 Arkady Babchenko, despised in Russia for his open hostility against its people, came via Israel to the Ukraine. He was welcome in Kiev for his anti-Russian position. Babchenko found a job with ATR, a Crimean Tatar TV station. The fine-print on the ATR websitesays that it “was supported by the Media Development Fund of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine”.
On May 29 the Ukrainian government claimed that Babchenko had been assassinated. As usual the death of a journalist hostile to Russia was used by NATO aligned media to blame Russia, the Kremlin and Putin. That there was zero evidence that Russia was involved did not matter at all. A photo of the allegedly killed Babchenko laying in his blood emerged.
The very next day the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko and the head of the National Security Service (SBU) Vasyl Grytsak (also written as Hrytsak) held a press conference and presented a very alive and happy Arkady Babchenko. He had not been shot at all. The whole hoax, it was explained, was launched to find the people behind an alleged assassination campaign originating in Russia. In this official version the Russians hired some Ukrainian “operator” who then hired the “killer” to assassinate Babchenko. The hired killer told the police about it and the hoax of Babchenko’s death was staged to find the culprits behind the plot.
All those western “journalists” who had believed Ukrainian government claims without any evidence and wrote unfounded accusations against Russia were not amused. The Ukrainian government exposed them as the mere propaganda tools and fools they are. The “journalist” Babchenko himself, interviewed by Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky, comes off as a naive and rather dim light.
Yesterday the “hired killer”, one Alexey Tsymbalyuk, wentpublic. He is a Ukrainian nationalist who had fought against the the Russia supported entities in eastern Ukraine. He has since become an orthodox priest.
via Alec Luhn Would an operator for Russia hire an Ukrainian nationalist and priest who had fought Russian aligned entities in east-Ukraine to kill a well known anti-Russian figure? Hmmm.The SBU did not confirm that Alexey Tsymbalyuk is the “killer” but Ukrainian media seem to believe him.
The General Prosecutor of the Ukraine named one Boris German (also written Herman) as the Russian paid “operator” who had hired Alexey Tsymbalyuk to kill Arkady Babchenko.
Boris German denies that he worked for Russia.
According to Strana.ua (Russian, machine translation), Jewgenij Solodko, the attorney of the accused “operator” Boris German, rejects the accusations against his client. Boris German (the man) is co-owner of a Ukrainian joint venture with the German (the country) company Schmeisser (also written Schmyser or Shmyser) which produces optics for sniper rifles. German’s company had good relation with his customers at the Ukrainian defense ministry. He had also supported the “anti-terror-operations” of Ukrainian nazi formations against the “Russians” in the east.
The attorney says that over the last six month German’s apartment and company had been searched by the SBU several times. The SBU, he alleges, shook German down for some $70,000. The SBU, he writes, had not presented any evidence of any Russian involvement. The attorney denies, according to the Strava.ua report, that his client had any connection with Russians.
Meduza’sreport on German’s court appearance presents a slightly different version:
The man charged with trying to organize the murder of the Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko announced in court on Thursday that he was acting as a Ukrainian counterintelligence agent.German says he started cooperating with Ukrainian counterintelligence after he was approached by an “old acquaintance” living in Moscow who “works at a Putin foundation, organizing unrest in Ukraine.” German says he was told to learn more about the flow of Russian money into Ukraine funding certain politicians and “terrorist groups.”
According to reports in the Ukrainian media, German said his acquaintance in Russia is named either Vyacheslav Pivovarkin or Vyacheslav Pivovarnik. It’s still unclear if German accuses this person of ordering Babchenko’s murder.
It is curious that the attorney makes claims which are partly contradicting those made by his client.
The killing, the killer and the operator who hired the killer were all fakes. Arkady Babchenko, Alexey Tsymbalyuk and Boris German all worked with the Ukrainian security service. All seem to have anti-Russian credentials.
But wait, the mess gets even deeper.
In our piece yesterday we laid out how the Ukrainian plot and other recent incidents were arranged to discredit Russia just in time for the start of the soccer World cup in Russia. It turns out that this was only one aspect of the hapless plot.
Bloomberg writer Leonid Bershidsky points to a piece by one Volodymyr Boiko, a “parachuting instructor in Kiev”, who describes (in Ukrainian) an even darker level of the story.
Boiko quotes from official Ukrainian court reports giving their case numbers and dates. He starts (machine translated):
Just do not laugh. The imitation of the “murder” of Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko, which caused such anger in international diplomatic and human rights circles, was a way to resolve the corporate dispute between the founders of the Ukrainian-German joint venture “Schmayser”, whose head Boris Herman, SBU head Grytsak and the Prosecutor General Lutsenko was declared the customer of murder and terrorist, acting on the tasks of Russian special services.
The court papers show that the whole affair started in February 2016 and was about an attempt to take over a company. Since 2016 German, the executive director of the company, was fighting off creditors including the founder of the company. These creditors alleged that German, or the company he led, had not paid back some loans and demanded to take over the company to cover their losses. German argued that the loan had been repaid and produced receipts. The creditors said that they were counterfeit. Several cases and many motions were filed and the whole court case ran for nearly two years. German seems to have won it.
Such attempt to take over a company via fraudulent court claims have been a distinct feature of the “wild east” after the Soviet Union broke apart. In Russia, in the Ukraine and elsewhere fraudulent legal cases, physical raids, intimidation and murder were regular means to grab industrial assets. As such the German case is nothing remarkable. But its further development into an absurd hoax makes it special.
As their attempt to raid German’s company through a court campaign over minor loans failed, the raiders, with SBU chief Grytsak seemingly behind them, thought out a different way to go after German. Hence the Babchenko hoax and the “operator” allegations.
Volodymyr Boiko continues (machine translated):
But “getting” Herman through the police his opponents could not, because judges consistently refused to choose a precautionary measure due to the insignificance of the crime. And then the order was taken by the Department of Counterintelligence of the SBU. Apparently, it is a primitive provocation directed at the arrest of the head of the joint venture “Schmyser” in order to take away the share of the authorized capital of the enterprise, which he, according to the opponents, owns unlawfully.
The story Boiko tells is consistent with the claims German’s attorney made about long ongoing SBU raids of German’s apartment and company. The court paper Boiko cites seem valid. It likely is a real part of the Babchenko story, but it still may not be the whole truth.
The staged murder, with a fake cadaver, a fake killer and a fake operator behind it, was endorsed (video) at the highest levels of the Ukrainian government.
“Western” media used the hoax to accuse and defame Russia and its president Putin without the slightest supporting evidence. That alone is already a serious mess and reveals the utter failure of “western” journalism and media.
The background of the case, a takeover of a company by illegal means, demonstrates the total social failure of the “western” coup in Ukraine. The worst of the worst, robber barons like Poroschenko and criminal bankers like Kolomoisky went on to steal billions of “western” aid while the Ukrainian state fell apart. Defying the courts, the power of the state is secretly abused for slapstick worthy plots to grab up industrial assets.
The victims are the people of Ukraine who were robbed of their means and their security. Russia, the permanent boogeyman of the “west”, is least to blame for it.
People from all over the world have called Oobah Butler begging to book a reservation at his trendy London restaurant, The Shed at Dulwich.
“People were trying to blackmail me to get tables,” Butler told As It Happens guest host Jim Brown. “There were TV executives trying to get in contact with me, all kinds of people.”
There’s just one problem. No such restaurant exists.
‘It kind of just came to me when I sat one day eating toast in the place that I live, which is a shed.’ — Oobah Butler, pretend restaurant owner
The Shed at Dulwich — which was briefly the top-rated London restaurant on the review site TripAdvisor — is actually just a shed that Butler lives in.
“This is how far the housing crisis has gone,” he said with a laugh. “It’s not even cheap.”
He was sitting in his tiny, overpriced home last spring when the idea for the elaborate hoax struck him.
“It kind of just came to me when I sat one day eating toast in the place that I live, which is a shed.”
A non-existent restaurant was briefly the No. 1 rated restaurant of 18,092 in all of London, U.K. (TripAdviser)
The London writer has some experience with TripAdvisor deception. His first paid writing gig was to pen fake reviews for restaurants — which is against the review site’s rules.
He likens the job to the famous scene in the sci-fi movie The Matrix, when the lead character learns he lives in a false reality by taking a red pill.
“All of a sudden, now everything is like the false reality,” he recalls.
He began crafting his own false reality by registering The Shed at Dulwich on TripAdvisor, describing it as a small, appointment-only destination for foodies.
He got everyone he knows to write incredible, five-star reviews, praising the homemade food and cozy atmosphere, and of course, talking about how hard it is to get a table.
This is a sampling of some of the totally fake reviews that propelled the totally fake restaurant to the No. 1 spot on TripAdvisor in London. (TripAdvisor)
He also built a website, which described The Shed as “London’s best kept secret.”
“It’s all about mystique,” Butler said.
Butler filled the site with beautiful pictures showcasing the fake restaurant’s fake food.
A fudge brownie topped with whipped cream was really a painted urinal cake with a dollop of shaving cream.
This mouth-watering dessert from The Shed At Dulwich is actually a urinal cake and shaving foam. (Chris Bethell/Vice)
A hunk of bacon next to a fried egg is actually a close-up of Butler’s foot.
“I wanted people to be drooling over my foot, literally.”
A fried egg resting on a succulent cut of meat — or is it? (Chris Bethell/Vice)
‘I wanted people to be drooling over my foot, literally,’ says fake restauranteur Oobah Butler. (Chris Bethell/Vice)
Pretty soon the fake restaurateur starting getting calls from would-be customers seeking reservations.
He told them The Shed was all booked up for the foreseeable future.
That just made people want to eat there more.
“People stated applying for jobs at my non-existent restaurant, you know?” he said. “A PR agency wants to represent my non-existent restaurant. All this stuff, it got way out of hand.”
Finally, on Nov. 1, seven months after Butler began his ruse, The Shed at Dulwich became the No. 1 London restaurant on TripAdvisor.
Asked for comment, a TripAdvisor spokesperson told As It Happens:
“It is important to note that generally the only people who create fake restaurant listings are journalists in misguided attempts to test us. As there is no incentive for anyone in the real world to create a fake restaurant, this is not a problem we experience with our regular community — therefore this ‘test’ is not a real world example.”
The company also said it uses “state-of-the-art technology to identify suspicious review patterns” to stop real businesses from manipulating their rankings.
But Butler didn’t stop there.
“I’ve created this amazing reality online, now the only challenge left to do is try to recreate that in reality,” he said. “So I opened The Shed for one night only.”
He set up tables in his garden and hired his friends to pretend to be servers and patrons. Then he stocked up on instant food, like microwave dinners and instant soup mix.
His first real customers were an American couple on their first trip to Europe.
“We served them this food and they looked so miserable,” he said.
“There was this moment that I can just remember so clearly. I was looking from a distance and the woman, who described herself as a foodie, she got out her phone to take a photo of the mac and cheese, looked at it through the phone, and then just didn’t take the photo. She put it away. I felt kind of guilty at that point.”
An American couple is served a heaping plate of frozen microwave macaroni and cheese at The Shed at Dulich. (Theo McInnes/Vice)
But as they brought in new customers, people seemed to be having a good time. All of them gave positive feedback to the servers, and some even tried to book future reservations.
Even the Americans left a good review.
“The power of the internet is so strong that people will not even trust what’s in front of their eyes or what is going in their mouths,” he said.
After his one-night only experiment, Butler fessed up and removed The Shed from TripAdvisor. You can still see an archive of it here. He also wrote about the hoax for Vice News.
“You could just say that this has proven that everything we know is just essentially nonsense,” Butler said.
“But I’m an optimist, so what I would say is I think that this proves that if I can make a fake restaurant in my shed … anything is possible. There you go. What about that?”
Tell me America, you have lied about everything else, why should we believe you? China knows, and it holds all your wealth stupid Americans. Stupid, stupid Americans, do you actually believe NASA lost all the tapes from the moon landing?
With more and more evidence mounting that the Moon landings were faked for Cold War posturing, this Russian investigation could blow the lid off the hoax.
Man’s supposed greatest achievement is becoming a comically bad cover-up. In this video, Melissa Dykes from Truthstream Media reports on a Russian investigation into the alleged Apollo Moon Landings. With more and more evidence mounting that the Moon landings were faked for Cold War posturing, this investigation could blow the lid off the hoax.
It may have taken this long, but our intelligence cowboys have proven what we have long believed that the so-called Russian hacking of the DNC campaign and the entire 2016 US presidential elections, was just a hoax.
The mainstream media have yet to present their own technical proof on the matter, aside from their usual quoting from anonymous sources at the Pentagon and Langley.
In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].
Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”
Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
* * *
This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.
The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.
You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.
Copied, Not Hacked
As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.
“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.
“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”
Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.
Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a media conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)
The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”
The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.
Putin and the Technology
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.”
“Hackers may be anywhere,” he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.”
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times. This is our 50th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell’s speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone