From Stormcloudgathering (SCG),
posted Aug 28th
Are The Leaked Britam Defence Emails Fake?
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R7knc-G360
From SOTT,
posted Aug 28th
_http://www.sott.net/article/265666-Syria-Chemical-Weapons-and-the-Britam-Defence-emails
One email had "Syrian Issue" in the subject field and the other has "Iranian Issue" in the subject field. Both emails appeared to be from David Goulding, the actual business development manager of Britam Defence, and appeared to have been sent to Phillip Doughty, the actual founder of Britam. Many alternative news web sites have used these emails as evidence that the recent alleged 'chemical weapon' attack in Syria was the work of the Western-backed Syrian rebels rather than the Syrian military. The problem however is that the emails appear to be have been faked.
Interesting coincidence on the dates there but does anyone know why they were faked? From the video, it appears all other emails were genuine apart from these 2 particular emails.
All I will say about these emails is that given the technical wizardry of today, they could have been hacked or could be real and made to appear like the were hacked. Carter-Ruck appears to be in the habit of defending entities that are guilty and making them come out the other end squeaky clean. But for now, as the narrator in the video said, the onus of proof is no longer on Britam so for that reason, we have to conclude they are most likely fakes unless one can figure out what sort of wizardry went into making them appear as such.
What amazes me is the 'coincidence' above. The below has a date stamp of 26th June 2013
_http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/daily-mail-%C2%A3110k-libel-payout-over-syrian-chemical-weapons-story
Yet both stories broke on SOTT and SCG on 28th Aug.
If you do a search on google for "Britam email leak fake" from the first few pages, you see date stamps that only go back as far as 28th Aug. Yet the daily mail thing is on the 26th June. Did no one catch that at the time? What happened over the last couple of days for everyone to come out with the story that it is fake??
Clicking on most of the top links on google on this issue, they all roll back to SCG.
Anyways,
Further google searches reveal interesting details as to the forgery of the Britam Emails
_http://syriancommando.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/britam-trap/
Date stamp
29/01/2013.. Clearly some bright tomatoes out there who caught on quick:
c) Why now?
If you can entertain for a minute that this hack was indeed well-planned and not accidental as the hacker claimed, you would ask then, why would they release it now? If it was unplanned, they would have no reason to delay its release. In fact, there is a very good reason:
The Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has recently released a large amount of emails directly from Qatar’s email servers. Earlier the SEA hacked into the Saudi defense ministry’s servers and was able to completely transfer the database and access the content management system. The leaks so far are damning and have been confirmed by the Al Akhbar Lebanese newspaper as being “genuine”. The media, has mostly ignored this massive leak, including alternate media, who would normally be swarming around any mention of a “leak”… Instead, some very odd things have been happening.
Suddenly, a few days after the announcement and release of the hack, Anonymous has decided to launch a “warhead” campaign, complete with a slick media campaign and loud promises… a clear attempt to OVERSHADOW the massive and real SEA leaks. This “chemical weapon” loud horn is sounded by the leak, gathering much more attention than minutes between gulf leaders (puppet Arabs of America). Putting these together, we can ask one final and simple question.
d) What is the purpose of this leak?
Why the leak, with a single email? Why now? Why only one email? It’s clear. A single email is very easy to dismiss as fake. In fact, during the Stratfor hack, anonymouSabu’s henchmen planted an email by CEO George Friedman claiming he had resigned, when in fact he had done no such thing. When you control a server you are able to fabricate any kind of email you want to “leak”. Only a long conversation with realistic time stamps follow ups and reference emails to check for the writer’s style, can possibly be used to confirm the authenticity of an email.
And BritAm has been silent!
Which means that this leak can be quickly dismissed as nothing more than a fabrication. The hack will of course be acknowledged as in the case of Stratfor. Who will you believe, BritAm or the hacker?
That’s the problem. Soon, by undermining the validity of the leak in the minds of the media consumers, it will by extension, undermine the validity of the SEA leaks even though the latter is comprehensive and includes signed, scanned documents and a huge amount of cross references. That won’t matter, a single “fake” can spoil all the real leaks.
But not this time! By anticipating this strategy and demanding a complete archive from “JAsIrX” before discussing the leak any further, we can burn this possible Trojan horse before it enters our gates.
Below is another source that appeared to have smelled the trojan horse early but cited back to the syriancommando:
_http://my.firedoglake.com/ctuttle/2013/01/29/mena-mashup-benghazi-the-britam-hack-the-fordow-hoax-and-syria/
Interesting discussion here, it's amazing after-the-fact, the guy that called it being accused as a nutjob at the time but now, was he right or was he right?
_http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?10612-Britam-leak
February 7 2013 said:
That syrian commando blog is a fucking nutjob paradise. He is now claiming its "obvious" that it was a fake DESIGNED to be caught as a fake in order to sheild the REAL false-flag chemical attacks.
The below is the same analysis used by SCG only difference, this was dated 29th Jan 2013. Same date as the Syrian commando.
_http://apxwn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/britam-fakes.html#.UiNRjtLFnTo
[Google Translate]
A search for the key words "Iran" and / or "Syria" in all files - no results. Except for the two emails.
These e-mails are up on the body and an obvious manipulation of the date, completely identical:
[...]
The only difference is just the date (October 16/24 December). The time is exactly equal to the second.
The process ID of the e-mail program (Qmail) is identical in both emails (18137). The chance that this match pid of broadcast at various times emails, is vanishingly small. So one or both emails are fakes.
Conclusion: the files and documents may be genuine, but all belong to the work of britam in Iraq. To note, a few of them in new folder - and "Iran" "Syria!" - Set and two fake e-mail files. Plump and made awkward but has its effect in an environment that also worked on HAARP and chemtrails.
Further interesting discussion here from back in January: (It's interesting to read after the fact)
_http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1242490
Poster: Well, if this message is fake, they've done a huge amount of work to make it look genuine, especially since Britam is an actual PMC, and that D Goulding is a director there with a 4 year registered LinkedIn account.
Poster: I heavily doubt this. Opsec is hammered into everyone's head in the intelligence and defense community and no one is stupid enough to discuss sensitive details over email, even if it is believed to be secure email.
Especially not in detail that this guy goes into. I mean c'mon in those few sentences he divulges like 10 pieces of highly sensitive information without a care in the world.
I'm guessing its either a hoax, or a really good find and the writer of the original email is just brain-dead.
"way too good to be true"
It's amazing, the guy who smelled the rat found himself 'isolated'. Its amazing to see it after the fact and how 'truth' when it initially shows itself off, in a weak way as 'at the time, the guy didn't have the facts' but just used his other knowledge, gets trampled on, by the facts that are in everyone's face i.e. the emails which appear to be genuine apart from the 2 trojan horses, and so the 'real truth'gets sidelined for the 'fake truth'. How are people meant to know this, before-the-fact? Guys we are fighting a losing battle.
My conclusion, the Britam leak is a PERFECT example of lies being mixed with truths. It makes it so much easier to believe the lies and be carried by manipulation. Now I don't know what sort of manipulation was to be had but whatever it was, it appears to have worked as I think we caught onto it to late i.e. the cycle played itself out the way it was intended to. Whatever that was... The truth went underneath the radar and was only noticed by so few at the time whose voice didn't travel far enough.
I don't know where the Aug 28th info came from nor the January 29th info but Jan 29th precedes Aug 28th by a long way. Maybe someone else caught onto it way sooner but haven't been able to locate that. What we can be sure of, is the SEA leak whatever it was, flew by unnoticed as today is the first day I have heard of it.
A search on SOTT for syrian electronic army brings up only 1 hit from 24th Feb 2012 ,
_http://www.sott.net/article/242140-Al-Jazeera-Doxed-Leaked-emails-reveals-Free-Syrian-Army-as-branch-of-Al-Qaeda
Searching for SEA leaks obviously brings up a lot to do with the oceans. :)
Final note, on syriancommando's blog, his last entry is on 29/01/2013 with an update to his previous entry, I don't know if this is recent or not. Anyways, it is interesting
The date is different, as one would expect but the TIME is exactly the same. This means that one or both of these emails has been edited from the email database. The forgery is clear, it’s time to burn this Trojan horse. Whoever made this leak purposely left this sign of fraud behind, in order to later point it out and use it as a platform to attack ALL leaks unfavourable to the US and to try and claim that a chemical weapon attack cannot possibly be a false flag.
Nice try.
UPDATE 1: Note that in both emails the date is modified throughout, but the time is left intact. Such attention to detail implies its not just a fraud, but a deliberate fraud. This turns the magic on the magician: why create this two level false flag when there is no intention to carry out a chemical weapon false flag? This highly sophisticated cyber warfare operation should indicate the stakes at play: what is the prize behind the sacrifice of a mercenary organisation like BritAm?
Games are being played.
)
