|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 27, 2014 11:44:42 GMT -5
Welcome all to this forum - a free exchange of ideas and research related to the online live book: The Rosetta Deception The Rosetta Deception Site. This is the place to not only ask questions but also contribute your own research which could make its way into the chapters of the online book. You will be credited of course for your contributions. Please message me with category ideas for this discussion board or any other suggestions that you may have and thank your for participating in this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Curious Fellow on Oct 8, 2014 19:08:29 GMT -5
I really don't get it: you claim a "smoking gun" as evidence for your hypothesis regarding the ghost rockets incidents, but then theorize that a strike, limiting the Soviets ability to transmit double-encrypted messages back to Moscow with planted coverage of both the ghost rockets and the Paris peace talks, resulted in the Venona project being able to crack the Soviet codes used.
But there is no documentation cited, no real evidence of a "smoking gun" nature, and from my own examination of the Venona project files, the results of that decryption project were really quite spotty, almost nearly incomplete considering the volume of encrypted Soviet traffic analyzed, and there is no evidence you've produced which documents independently what you simply allege, suppose, theorize about, and have made hyptheses regarding, as far as I can see.
Can you be more explicit, and show us what documentation, if any, supports your theory? It would seem incumbent on you to provide independent sources of data or documentation by reference or online link to support your contentions, but so far you have not done so.
Can or will you summarize if there any such documentation as you assert in the known Venona files anywhere that supports your hypothesis? If not, then your contentions have no credibility whatsoever, and are simply your opinion, base it would seem in an odd kind of confirmation bias that perhaps you may even be unaware of.
Again, where's the beef? The documentation? The sources, references, evidence you so far simply claim exists, but without providing it to your readers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2014 8:18:03 GMT -5
I really don't get it: you claim a "smoking gun" as evidence for your hypothesis regarding the ghost rockets incidents, but then theorize that a strike, limiting the Soviets ability to transmit double-encrypted messages back to Moscow with planted coverage of both the ghost rockets and the Paris peace talks, resulted in the Venona project being able to crack the Soviet codes used. But there is no documentation cited, no real evidence of a "smoking gun" nature, and from my own examination of the Venona project files, the results of that decryption project were really quite spotty, almost nearly incomplete considering the volume of encrypted Soviet traffic analyzed, and there is no evidence you've produced which documents independently what you simply allege, suppose, theorize about, and have made hyptheses regarding, as far as I can see. Can you be more explicit, and show us what documentation, if any, supports your theory? It would seem incumbent on you to provide independent sources of data or documentation by reference or online link to support your contentions, but so far you have not done so. Can or will you summarize if there any such documentation as you assert in the known Venona files anywhere that supports your hypothesis? If not, then your contentions have no credibility whatsoever, and are simply your opinion, base it would seem in an odd kind of confirmation bias that perhaps you may even be unaware of. Again, where's the beef? The documentation? The sources, references, evidence you so far simply claim exists, but without providing it to your readers? Thanks for your input. It is much appreciated. I am not making a claim that this operation cracked the Soviet code, but that this was an attempt at cracking the Soviet code - its actual success may have been far less than expected. The Venona traffic that NSA has made available to the public, if truly representation of the limits of Venona's success, attests to how difficult the decoding process was. If you read the official history on Venona, one glaring thing that simply doesn't add up: How did Meredith Gardner rebuild a 10,000 word soviet code book from scratch? In Chapter 22 I point out that: ... a young analyst by the name of Meredith Gardner who went quietly about the task of analytically reconstructing the KGB code book from July-December 1946. The knowledge gained earlier about the extra encipher layer allowed Meredith Gardner to break into the second KGB code book in late 1946. The majority of KGB messages between the United States and Moscow that were solved, employed this second KGB code book and were broken between 1947 and 1952. These were based on a KGB code book which Arlington Hall had never seen. Chapter 23: Gardner’s efforts were truly impressive as by 1948 he managed to re-create 90 per cent of the 10,000 different code groups that comprised the KGB code book. What doesn't make sense about this? - That one person could accomplish this gargantuan effort through purely analytic effort and without any outside help in the form of collateral material. I am proposing that the Rosetta deception provided that collateral material and the smoking gun is showing where that collateral material would have come from. Do I have a document from the NSA that admits to how it was done? No I don't - if one was publicly available, there would be 50 books already on Barnes and Noble bookshelves about how clever the US/UK were in their counterespionage and code breaking efforts. I have cited numerous official documents in my book to back up my theory. To offer the level of proof you requested as regards Venona would require that NSA officially release more about the actual Venona decoding process and not just the partial decryptions themselves. Vague histories about how Venona worked is all that NSA has offered so far. Thank you again for your thoughtful contribution. |
|
|
|
Post by reader on Dec 3, 2014 0:41:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry if my question does not belong here. I don't know where else I should put it.
Are you familiar with Gordon Duff, editor of the website newspaper Veterans Today? He praises Michael Schrimpton, who is to be seen in various YouTube videos. In one, a speech to a club which is political, he asserts Stalin was a German spy. Do you know Duff and Schrimpton? What do you think about
Schrimpton's revelations?
|
|
