In January of 2015 I do not trust Gross anymore, but I don’t have any solid reason(s) yet. I have a letter from Rebecca Mercuri telling me to be careful, but I didn’t have any solid proof of his sabotage until January 20, 2015.
Everything about this letter (PDF below) is wrong from an ABA perspective on its own, but it becomes egregious when you examine the previous post that exposes his ridiculously unconstitutional communications with POS Becker.
For this post I’d like to discuss the knowingly false answers they gave to me in this email. As I think you’ll agree, each answer was specifically tailored to gaslight me:
1) I specifically asked them: “Could the half of the NIT they tested be injected into an iframe at an exit node causing the browser to secretly load the two pages in question?”
They falsely answered: “It’s possible but that would be a very targeted attack. If the connection was over SSL/TLS than it would not be possible so it also depends on the connection to the site.”
The actual answer was, YES! (See page 4 figure 3 of the second pdf here) What makes this lie so egregious is the fact that you can see from the NIT report (table on About Me page) that both the connections were HTTP not HTTPS.
2) I specifically asked them: “Why is their a 39 second time gap between the first ECID on page 2 of the NIT report and Page 3 of the NIT Report and why is there a 63 second gap for the second ECID? What were the times to execute during their testing?”
They falsely answered: “Unable to answer this”
The actual answer was given (BY THEM) on page 8 of the second pdf referenced above, in sections 2.6 & 2.7. In layman’s terms, the time gaps were impossible without shenanigans (aka IP spoofing) in play. The time-gaps are far too long for any other explanation. In other words, I was clearly “framed” for visiting TB2. FYI, in their own reports the execution times are measured in milliseconds!
3 & 4) I specifically asked them “Does the Team know the NIT report is being used to support a Visit progression to the TB2 site? And that the Visit progression is “enter site, click on first url, then click on second url.” If this was true, wouldn’t the NIT Report referer for CID #1 be the sites index page and the girls.html page for ECID #2? … Therefore, Why are the request_ur and the referer the same for each ECID?”
They falsely answered: “I think those are from the logs of the site, not the NIT. NIT just sends back the session id.”
The actual answer, as I’ve documented on this blog was that the “logs of the site” (TB2) were FAKE!
5) In January of 2015, I do not understand why my NIT report shows the current page as the previous page, which indicated reloads. (What actually causes them to be the same was that Edman’s code – figures 3 & 4 of the shill’s academic report – falsifies the data in the “request_uri” column.) Thus, I asked them specifically: “Could the reloads have occurred in hidden frames and the user of the browser never even saw the two pages?”
They answered with this banal nonsense: “Lots of things could have occurred, but we would doubt it was a hidden Frame. Servers don’t save logs of the content of the files they send, only the files that are requested so it would be hard to determine. If we know the pages he purportedly visited we could inspect the source on the web servers and look for anything out of the ordinary.”
The actual answer, as proven by their own report, was that the request_uri was a forgery! That forgery causes the referring page to be the same as the current page because the browser is reporting the page that the iframe was located on. Thus Edman’s code was scraping the actual referring page, which could have been anywhere on the internet. As the shills explain in section 2.7 of their 2016 report.
6) Finally, I asked them about the blank fields (knowing for an absolute FACT Flash Player could not fill them): “How could gallery.swf fill out the blank fields on Page 3? Specifically, Updated TBB (Tor Browser Bundle)?”
They again answered with government shill nonsense: “I think these were in the apache logs, not the gallery.swf. We are not sure what he is asking. Since we don’t know which version of TBB he used, or anything about the client, we can say that it necessarily came from him, only that the flash app is able of producing output as the FBI reported. If we had an unencrypted view of his system would could tell more about this.”
Thus, after I read this email, I determined that my experts were clearly government shills hired to gaslight me and to give my counsel cover for thinking that the government’s case was legitimate when they knew (or should have known) that it was totally fraudulent.
Next post I’ll discuss how POS Becker responded to the removal of Gross.