I've had time to reflect on the positive things - and you know what? - There have been significant steps made in the last 2 months and there are some people I need to acknowledge for making that possible.
Some have been skeptical of Forensicator, worried he could be used as a strawman to discredit my work, however, this is precisely why he kept his analysis separate and created a blog for it, so that our efforts would be insulated and so nobody could legitimately use one person's research to undermine the other.
It should be pointed out that it was actually Forensicator's analysis that caught the attention of VIPS members, which, in turn, also brought their attention to my work and is the reason we've managed to even have any of this information considered by VIPS and consequently, covered by the mainstream press.
Forensicator's analysis is painstakingly detailed, he's expanded on it over time, he's tried to tackle all legitimate objections and done well to defend his conclusions. Behind the scenes his strategic thinking has helped in a number of ways both in strengthening the validity of his work and also in handling the inartful and often misleading criticisms that came from some quarters of the mainstream press.
I've been impressed, learned a lot and have been lucky to have support from (and subsequently have my own efforts elevated by) someone as competent as Forensicator.
Forensicator, thank you.
Being noticed by VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity) has been one of the most significant developments and the reason we've even had a chance of getting noticed by mainstream press.
This has given independent media and even some in the mainstream (that have been wary of what I've reported until recently) the confidence needed to finally report on this now.
While my communications with them have been limited to them checking facts and gathering data, etc. (and as a relay between them and Forensicator) - it's great to know they're taking this seriously and that they're pulling in experts to go over everything and validate the analysis and research that Forensicator, myself (and others who have helped produce information I've hosted on my site) have carried out.
All VIPS Signatories & Supportive Associates, thank you.
On August 9th, 2017, an article by Patrick Lawrence titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack". This highlighted recent actions by members of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) and efforts to raise awareness of new discoveries about the alleged hacking of the DNC server, specifically anomalies observed regarding the Guccifer 2.0 operation.
I know Lawrence has taken a lot of flak for this and have been trying to defend him from the more hostile & disingenous attacks from a number of individuals (they do, after all, try to attack the underlying research dishonestly too - so it has been my duty to pull their nonsense apart!), showing they have more of an agenda to attack than any intent to duly inform their respective audiences (including but not limited to Tait, Biddle, Wemple, Bolt & Uchill)
It took a lot of courage to make a bold move that goes against the mainstream narrative on this issue, a narrative seemingly set in stone by the press through disinformation (usually unwittingly rather than complicitly) peddled to audiences over the past year by the mainstream press.
I also suspect that Lawrence's editor, publisher and everyone involved has likely also been under intense pressure, especially from those connected to the Democratic party, to retract the article (it is just an assumption on my part but one that should be easy to see has a very high probability of being correct!).
For me, it's been a big relief to see this finally appear in a mainsteam publication. It has made the first 6 months of effort feel so worthwhile and without it we would unlikely have seen Salon, Bloomberg & others in the mainstream even give 2017's Guccifer 2.0 discoveries any coverage.
Patrick Lawrence (and The Nation), thank you.
On August 15th, 2017, Danielle Ryan writing for Salon wrote an article titled "What if the DNC Russian “hack” was really a leak after all? A new report raises questions media and Democrats would rather ignore".
The article was fair, the writer gave more context than many others had in their articles and the appeals to reason and to further investigation/debate/etc were great to see, especially in a Salon article (which people could hardly portray as right-wing, same as with The Nation).
Unlike the cacophony of anonymous sources cited by the media over the past year, these experts are ready to put their names to their assertions. They expect that pundits, politicians and the media will cast doubt on their findings, but say they are “prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.” That is more than any other investigators or intelligence agencies have offered to this point.
Indeed, some of the most prominent members of VIPS have been willing to put their reputations at stake over this in order to have the research and analysis taken as seriously as it should be.
Danielle Ryan (and Salon), thank you.
On August 10th, 2017, Leonid Bershidsky published an article titled: "Why Some U.S. Ex-Spies Don't Buy the Russia Story". Bershidsky, too, was very fair, he went through the original sources of the research too and used that as the basis for his reporting. This is evident in the fact that he included things that others had missed entirely in Forensicator's research.
Bershidsky, for balance, also cites Scott Ritter (who offers some sincere criticisms). Another thing I noticed was that this was the first mainstream article I've seen that links through to both Forensicator's and my own work, giving people a good chance to see the research for themselves.
Further into the article, just after citing Ritter and mentioning the fact that there are some detractors/dissenters out there, Bershidsky makes a point that is familiar to everyone I've worked with and to the VIPS members pursuing this:
And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power.
With the volume of research, the number of factual findings made since the beginning of the year (on which most of the mainstream press have remained completely silent) and the presence of some verifiable evidence that discredits assessments made in the JAR report (fingerprint fabrications, etc) - we ultimately are just seeking qualified scrutiny and a thorough investigation, one that isn't tainted by partisanship. I believe this, specifically, is one of the primary objectives of VIPS too.
So really, in this instance, what Bershidsky is calling for, is what we're wanting too.
Overall, an informative and balanced piece, taking the extra time out to look at the underlying research and criticize it on its own merits.
Leonid Bershidsky (and Bloomberg), thank you.
All at Disobedient Media (especially Elizabeth Vos), Caitlin Johnstone, H. A. Goodman, Tim Black, Jimmy Dore, Lee Camp (and Redacted Tonight team), Sane Progressive, ZeroHedge, Mark McCarty, Tracy Beanz, BullTruth Magazine, Hard Bastard, Rick Amato, Casandra Fairbanks, Big League Politics, Breitbart, Global Research, Steve Cunningham and many more (left, right and center) that have now covered this.
To many of you in independent media, thank you.
WikiLeaks also tweeted about my efforts to collate primary sources back on April 8th, I never have and never will pretend it was an endorsement of any conclusions. It was just WikiLeaks solely pointing out the use of sources - but it still generated a phenomenal amount of traffic and helped bring a lot of attention to my efforts.
WikiLeaks, thank you.
Julian Assange, for the sacrifices you've made and unjust punishment you continue to receive for the sake of providing reliable and accurate information, thank you.
There are MANY people on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, 4Chan (especially /pol/), Facebook, Voat, Gab and other platforms that have been trying to get the word out too and have been fighting against bullshit efforts to derail the research. I can't list names without forgetting and upsetting people, so I'll just say, there are many of you, some of you I see authoritatively battling against bullshit and doing so effectively, I'm proud of you and impressed by your comprehensive knowledge of all that I've been reporting on.
To the thousands (or more?) of you now awake and getting the word out on various social media platforms, thank you.
There are also a lot of people who have contributed research, I've covered most of these in a recent article but it's worth mentioning u/tvor_22 (aka нет) specifically for discovering what is pretty damn close to a "smoking gun" with his discovery of the RSID correlations as this made it clear there was a deliberate effort to manipulate the first batch of documents to appear as though they had been mishandled by Russians.
To everyone that has contributed to the research in any way, thank you.
There is also a friend who often serves as an editor for me, proofing my writing and converting it from incoherent, illiterate ravings into something people can actually read. They choose to remain relatively anonymous and never ask for credit but they certainly deserve it.
To that friend, for frequently helping my writing have more clarity than it would otherwise have, thank you.
Just because I'm thanking a lot of people, it doesn't mean my efforts (or those of other parties) are over. I just wanted to write a nice article to show appreciation because I was miserable from writing negative articles defending and counter-attacking against disingenuous hacks and their efforts to protect their own reputations after spreading deceit and misleading speculation over the last year.
We should all keep pushing this to the surface and waking others up to the reality of what Guccifer 2.0 was.
Hopefully, more memos go out to various people from certain groups (and/or their associates) and we see some movement on investigating things properly (including an apparent relationship between Guccifer 2.0 and CrowdStrike/DNC).
I'm now seeking legal advice about contacting DNC donors whose privacy may have been intentionally violated last year.
...and there's something else that will happen that I'll tell you about once it's done but that should amplify the pressure on the US government to investigate this issue thoroughly (within the next couple of weeks!)