Hiku said:
Aura7541 said:
You forgot this particular passage: "The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released."
It's hard to take these firms' words for it if they don't provide the evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is like saying VGChartz is the only site to provide worldwide hardware and software numbers, so therefore we should trust its numbers. Want the skeptics to shut up? Stop playing the "he said, she said" game and just show the hard cold evidence once and for all.
|
By "forgot" you mean how I included it? And also referenced it myself afterwards?
Look at the bolded.
I was very thorough about not omitting that. And I don't want skeptics to shut up. I want them to be properly informed. The person I replied to said that only one (pro-Democrat, anti-Russia) third party investigated this. I don't even know if he can even back up the biased claim, but either way there were several private firms looking into this reaching the same conclusions.
|
How many is "several" and how do you know that them reaching the same conclusions is not ad populum?
