#like also the fact that the redacted line is a name is unclear but to the reader it is

[mirror-ralsei]

MINI THEORY: Egg-veryman

Look, I'm not the first or only person to believe the man behind the tree might be Everyman. Just from a quick search, here's a theory and depiction preceding mine: 1 (huecycles), 2 (JJayBlaze123).

But as of the Spamton Sweepstakes, I do agree they're our most likely candidate. Here's a breakdown of all the evidence that personally led me to that conclusion.

Let's take a look at details we know about the egg man that might help us identify him:

The room's layout resembles mysteryman and “[redacted]”

He seems to exist in a cat state, just like the eggs he gives.

Noelle's story may imply, if the man is anything like his eggs, that the man is disturbing in some way.

There is graffiti clue of the egg tree in the same color as the ICE-E spraypaint in the alley. (Credit to VGFM for noticing this!)

He can be seen in a car.

While in the car, he is waving at us, and he “might be happy to see” us.

Spamton may know him.

He has never spoken out loud.

Comparing this to Everyman:

Everyman has not appeared in the overworld yet. (Unconfirmed)

We don't know enough about UTDR's cat states or Everyman to confirm or deny this point. (Unconfirmed)

Everyman is disturbing enough to have their first appearance be in the True Lab lmao (Likely)

Graffiti of Everyman is right next to the ICE-E graffiti. (Plausible)

We don't know if Everyman can drive lol (Unconfirmed)

We don't know if Everyman would wave to us or not, since we know little about them, but they are described as “Just a good guy who shows up on occasion,” and “might be happy to see you” seemingly would either be a reference to a cat state (as in “they might be happy, they might not be”), or referring to being uncertain if the egg man is happy (as in “they might be happy, but I could be wrong”) - the latter would make sense, as Everyman has never emoted with their face in any appearance so far, and would thus be difficult to read. (Plausible)

We don't know for sure if Spamton knows Everyman, but we do have this interesting line: “WE DON'T NEED ANY [Man, Woman or Child] [At Half-Price]!” While it's unclear what character, if any, “[At Half-Price!]” is referring to*, every other bracket in these “WE DON'T NEED...”s seems to indicate a character Spamton knows: [Easels] seems to be Swatch, [CRTs] seems related to an upcoming Chapter 3 character from the “cathode crew,” and obviously there's Mike. And I suspect that “[Man, Woman or Child]” may indicate “Everyman.” It includes the “man” part while throwing out a generic umbrella for a lot of people - "every." (Plausible)

Everyman has never spoken out loud. In fact, their silence is such a notable part of their character that their Queen battle cameo has them give a noticably blank dialogue bubble, in stark contrast with all the others. They visibly fall to their knees in agony when overtaken by butterflies, but cannot scream. Even their visual design has them noticably lacking a mouth. (Likely)

As you can see, many of these points range from plausible matches to confirmed ones. And the remaining points are left inconclusive, not deconfirmations.

There's also these additional clues:

The egg given to Noelle was titled ““SPECIAL”” in quotations and without a period. In the first documentation of Everyman's name, Fox replied “”Everyman”” exclusively in quotations and without a period.

Noelle notes that the egg “didn't seem to be doing anything" - in most of Everyman's appearances, they do not move, with the exceptions being after they are attacked and taken over by butterflies, and while they are propelled by a carousel (but still stationary themself).

Everyman is made of round shapes, which could concievably allow them to appear in Cat Petterz.

Subjectively, Everyman resembles a white, embryonic-looking bird, all of which relate to eggs. Spamton even mentions the white color of the egg man's eggs when saying “A WHITE ONE, THAT'S SURELY [another man's treasure].”

Subjectively, I think the Waltz of Seccom Masada, or whatever the egg room theme is called now, suits the Everyman character very well: starts in major key to indicate friendliness, but something is slightly, unnervingly off about it...strange, even. (ba dum tss) Everyman's visual design is similarly made up of round, friendly shapes, yet is very disturbing due to a variety of factors.

“Just a good guy who shows up on occasion” perfectly describes the egg man's appearances behind the trees.

Again, Everyman is also heavily tied to the term “man”: both with “Everyman” and “strangeman.”

Literally clones their head like an egg.

We know little about Everyman, but what we do know seems to line up with the man behind the tree.

*(If I could hazard a guess, I don't actually think [At Half-Price!] is referring to a character, but a property about [Man, Woman, or Child]. Specifically, I think Spamton means that the character has been "cut in half" in some way. Why do I think this? See my theory about division through reflection, a motif that seems to be cropping up a lot.)

[pathsofoak]

I think I'm going to explicitly mention Thomas's age The Early Rise. There is a scene where Janson shows him his file, there is no reason why that wouldn't be in it, his mother willingly gave him up, they would have gotten those documents somewhere. Since Thomas basically turns away from WCKD on the basis that he's a child in the Night Winds, I think it would make sense.

Random hc's in the tags they're just a thought dump

[impfamiliar]

5, 6, 12, 17, 19, 21, 37, 44, 49, 61, 62 any or all! for whoever you’d like! 💕

hi thank u so much king.

5. do they follow a higher power? what are their thoughts on divinity?

this first one got really long lmfao. the others are a little shorter bear with me.

skit is funny because for all her "i'm a revolutionary" shtick she has pretty orthodox and also vaguely chauvinistic views on religion. she still believes that the Boar, Sovereign is the last living god which is funny because skit has now very much been to the celestial plane. but in her head she's like, ok, well, those are divine beings, they might be gods but they're not really thee Gods, like, the originals, so. only the Boar, Sovereign is God. and we need to kill that thing btw.

Skit is both religious and very sacrilegious in the way that most people from Seapink are. she fears the Boar, Sovereign because she's afraid to die, which i guess is a kind of reverence? but she also fully buys into the whole "time of the gods is over" thing, which kind of grinds reverence under the boot. skit hates the idea of a divine higher power exerting influence on her life. she only wants sexy tyrannical women to do that.

as for amandine, yes she is a cleric yes she is the only "living" devotee of the Boar, Sovereign, but amandine kind of isn’t religious in a traditional sense. she very much views 'religion' as like, comparable to duty to her mom...... (starts coughing). her connection to the divine is very deep and very important to her but also mundane. amandine is mildly to moderately afraid of her God, as she was of her real mother. her relationship with the Divine isn't... completely lateral, but maybe the word is familiar. amandine and her God are a lot closer than if she had been an acolyte of some deity in some church somewhere, mostly because of their closeness and onlyness to one another

but! a crucial thing informing how amandine views God / divinity is the fact that the Boar is not a god that can just take a human form and chat; She’s a manifestation of the Natural, and in many ways, a wild animal. i don’t think She and amandine can ever fully communicate and understand each other. they're both at peace with that, but because of this, i think its unclear to what degree amandine's ideas about the Boar as a God are projections onto this huge unknowable ancient inhuman Being.

for ex, the Boar taught amandine to find people who were near death out there in the forest and do a little rite to commit their bodies back to the earth and their souls to the Boar. but i think it was amandine who started trying to heal the ones  who she felt could be saved. the Boar didn't stop her, which amandine took as a sign of approval, but it just as easily could have been indifference. to a god, especially one as old and weary as the Boar, what do a few years or decades matter? they're going to die eventually :)

i genuinely don't know if the Boar, Sovereign actually cares about merciful death. She might? amandine thinks She does. The Boar definitely isn’t the malevolent bogeyman that She’s painted as in Seapink culture, but i think the value judgement of mercy is in some ways very human. possibly amandine saw that the Boar, Sovereign did not relish in killing or kill gratuitously, but instead took those who were already dying and ended their suffering. and amandine saw in that mercy instead of pragmatism, because that was what she wanted to see. so it’s anyone's guess what part of amandine’s religion is just amandine and what is the Boar, where that line is, if there is one

all that matters is that amandine trusts her God, loves Her and wants to please Her, and feels, maybe, that the Boar, Sovereign, in Her way, cares about amandine. but also... there's this other shoe that’s gonna drop one day.... the matter of coming back to life the Way She Did. meeting altair has planted a ghost of a thought in amandine’s head that she cannot consciously think about yet. the matter of why altair came back 'right' and amandine came back 'wrong'. the matter of why did the Boar did not tell amandine that she was dead. so that’s gonna be fun

6. which party member do they relate to the most?

for skit it was gaerokas, but honorable mention to sena because she and skit came from a sort of similar place and had compatible politics, and sena reminded her of her sister. other honorable mention to nethal for being skit’s intolerable mirror <3

for amandine it's definitely altair. undead bffs. honorable mention to ahe (amandine ahe 🤝quest for closure, devotion to a villainized god), and, interestingly also garo. garo amandine 🤝being lost in the woods for a long time, being the ghost in ghost stories told about them (which amandine doesn’t know about so i guess it doesn’t count) and having a fairly private but profound connection to God/nature. their clash in personalities and loyalties tends to get in the way of amandine seeing the overlap there. but that’s starting to change i think. also we will see how this plays out but i have a feeling that the more amandine remembers about her life before, the more she will relate to n’ethal actually.amandine nethal 🤝growing up privileged, Vhurask and Lady Iris being Like That

12. have they ever been in love?

skit is obviously in love with myev, and i think she was maybe in love with daya too? possibly? but it was complicated. amandine has not. yet.

17. what do they dream about, when their dreams are their own?

amandine doesn’t really dream anymore. she stopped sleeping mostly because of her dreams. amandine used to dream about dying, even if she didn’t realize that that was what it was for a long time. it was all distorted and hazy and amandine is missing huge chunks of memory so her mind free-form fictionalized to fill in what wasn’t there. she couldn’t make sense of it, only relive the sensations :) which were unpleasant :)

skit has two main genres of recurring dreams. one is redacted, and she doesn’t really dream about it that much anymore. in the other, there are two of her and the other skit is psychologically tormenting her. OR she’s tormenting the other skit. it isn’t clear

19. what haunts them? what doesn’t?

skit is obviously haunted by redacted, but she’s also haunted by what happened to vega, but also what she saw starting to happen to sena, who had been so lighthearted and trusting at the beginning :( she’s also haunted by when her sister was conscripted, and the fact that her dad almost died in the war. i don't think failing to prevent the apocalypse really haunts skit that much. she's like. well we ALMOST stopped them.... and WE didn't open those portals. so. but she is haunted by what happened to senele (i think that was its name? ahe's town that burned). but she’s not haunted by leaving Val in the celestial plane 😔

amandine is haunted by the flickers of memory from before her death and the flickers of memory or the dream distortions, whichever they are, of her death. amandine is haunted by her reflection. amandine is occasionally haunted by gaerokas. amandine is, now, also haunted by her mother's face and the memory of how she felt in the company of her mother. she isn’t haunted by the lives she's taken or all the bones and bodily fluids and entrails she's seen. i think the only body that haunts her is her own

21. do they follow their head, their heart, or their body?

skit: head and heart

amandine: body and heart

37. what is their favorite thing to hold?

for skit its uhh myev. for amandine, i feel like she's someone who reaches out for people a lot and likes to take her friend’s shoulders or rest a hand on their back or grab their hands (when they are ok with it). it's kind of a grounding thing and helps her feel less lonely. she is also comforted by holding fauchet, who is soft even if he unnerves her

44. what do they need to learn?

god where do i START.

i think the main thing skit needs to learn is how to look at herself -- who she really is without the smoke and the mirrors and the masks -- with self-compassion and honesty. skit also desperately needs to learn to communicate and be vulnerable with other people, to ask for help when she is afraid and overwhelmed. i think beginning to repair her toxic relationship with herself and letting people see her will massively help her feel more secure in her relationships, treat others with more kindness, and maybe, one day, face her problems instead of running from them. this is my sincere wish for her. skit is so so terrible but she isn’t irredeemable and i very much want to see her grow ;;

amandine needs to learn uhhh that puppy mills are bad. she also needs to learn how to let people in and ask for help. she’s not as bad as skit, but i do think amandine is scared of seeming weak or useless, and she also struggles to verbalize her thoughts so would sometimes rather not try. also, we haven’t seen this play out much yet because it’s mostly internal, but she does have a problem with internalizing blame for things that aren’t her fault, but also blaming others for things that objectively are her fault. maybe most importantly, amandine needs to learn that her life before was not idyllic and she can’t ever go back. i do think unconsciously lurking in her head all this time has been this feeling like 'oh if i learn who i Am and what happened to me i'll be able to reclaim what i lost and come Back" but... uh.... rip.

they both need to learn how to face their pasts and heal, to build a life that’s no longer chained to What Happened to them

49. what makes them smile?

their friends and loved ones! fucking with people and dancing also makes skit smile. what makes amandine smile is giving friends little trinkets and getting pretty things, going to festivals, being victorious, and Getting a Good Grade in Being a Sort of Dead Sort of Alive Girl

61. what kind of flower would they choose to pick from a meadow?

skit would choose uhhh tacca chantrieri. i’m interpreting the word ‘meadow’ expansively. amandine would of course choose an iris!

62. outside of otherworldly forces, what do they believe in?

skit believes in communism. and Love. kind of. amandine believes in growth from decay, that kind of thing. and friendship :)

[adorkablegrrl-blog1]

Regarding Andrew Blake

So I deleted my last post because it was truly a TL;DR word vomit that made me, personally, seem incredibly manic and disorganized. I was pissed when I was writing it, because I keep seeing AB’s stan, Chris, making comments calling my best friend’s honesty and integrity into question. And, while I feel like everyone in the “Andy Awareness” biosphere has been doing a good job of calling that nonsense out for what it is (thank you @theteablogger​, thank you @kumquatwriter​, thank you @returnofthenecromommycon) seeing Molly and/or Chris and/or any of our friends who interacted with AB dragged in any capacity makes me feel quite stabby. It’s probably the pregnancy hormones that have exacerbated it to the word vomit state... I blame everything on pregnancy hormones right now. As is fair. I am growing a human.

I have pretty much said what I needed/wanted to say about the chronology and facts of what happened with Andy in LA here, so I’m not going to rehash the entire timeline. Besides it’s not my story to tell, really. It’s Molly’s. And, she’s doing a fine job of doing just that. And, I have been assured by her that she is not afraid of or worried about being dragged by either AB or his minions. (I still worry, but I will take her word at that and try to not go Mama Bear on people talking shit about her unless she asks me to.) 

That being said, as a witness to these events, there are a couple of important things I feel like I want to share. These are conclusions I came to after spending an ungodly amount of time going down the Andrew Blake rabbit hole this past weekend to try to wrap my mind around the largeness of this mindfuck of a story which is his life.

#1: Andy has all the hallmarks of an addict -- in so much as he “lies, cries, and denies.” He lies about his past and present circumstances. He cries/deflects/minimizes to make it seem like he’s a victim of gossip and mean-spirited people projecting their own personal problems/experiences onto his behavior, and when confronted with the truth he denies that he has done either of the previous two actions. He also claims frequently to be reformed with no tangible evidence that he actually is (further signs of an active addict.)

I have intimate experience with addicts. Both those who are active in their addiction and those who are in successful recovery. And, I am here to tell you -- that the number one bedrock, hallmark, tenant of recovery is accountability. You have to be completely transparent about your life, where you are at, your past mistakes, and your present struggles. If you are lying about ANY of this, you are not a recovering addict. If you are minimizing your behavior (past/present) you are not a recovering addict. If you are deflecting responsibility for what you do and have done onto other people... you are not a recovering addict. Andrew Blake is not out of fandom. He is not done with leading cults. He is not done using people for money, connections, concrete daily needs for living. This has been clearly demonstrated by not only how he behaved in the past, but how he behaved with us before we even KNEW his past. And, this behavior was enough to set me on edge (and I only met him IRL twice) and set at least 8 other people outside myself, Molly, and Chris on edge. We were all creeped out by him, none of us wanted him around...  Here is a brief list of 5 major things he lied to me directly about: 1. He said he’d never been to LA before and acted shocked at how expensive living here was.

2. He said he was working “in-house” for the summer for an established costumer who was working on a “big” project. For those not familiar with the industry, that implies he was working in a more permanent capacity, for a film or television production -OR- that he was a staff member at one of LA’s various large costume production houses. That was not the case, he was doing piece work on an “as needed” basis and that alone was not foundation enough to warrant moving to LA for. (Nor was it lined up before he got to LA, to my understanding.)

3. He said he was staying the whole summer with Molly and Chris. Which was not true. As Molly told me, after I questioned her as to why she’d let someone live rent free for three months, that she had agreed to let him stay a week in exchange for a costume commission.

4. He said he had more costuming experience than he did. And, in fact, pointed me to an IMDB page for a different Andrew Blake who is an established costume designer in the UK. (And, my fault lies in believing this, as I didn’t do more than just look briefly at the page and go “oh cool, he has an IMDB page and some experience, he might be good to recommend to [name redacted] as a second assistant or something.” Had I looked more in-depth I would have realized his lie IMMEDIATELY and brought it to Molly’s attention.)

5. He told me he was 23. I believed him. He told me he was a cis-gendered man who was born a cis-gendered man. I believed him. He has a young face. I do not question people’s gender... though it gave me great pause to find out that he was transgender, presenting as cis, making transphobic and homophobic comments to my good friends. And, when confronted with those lies, he has either said “oh no, no- you misunderstood me, that’s not what I said, that’s not what I meant” (gaslighting 101) or directed his minions/stans to try to discredit those confronting him with his lies. This is addict behavior 101. 

#2 He is SO not out of fandom...

Of course he knew who the Because Science guy was when questioning my friend C about her boyfriend (the Because Science guy.) Of course he pushed Molly to introduce him to the Critical Role cast (including that RIDICULOUS menu he suggested for a dinner party... hamsters and peacocks? JFC.) Of course when he found out that both Molly and I ran close with the Geek & Sundry crowd (Molly still does, I do not convention or comic con or podcast anymore due to stuff) and that we know Wil Wheaton and Stan Lee (frankly, who doesn’t?) he pushed us to make introductions. BECAUSE HE’S NOT OUT OF FANDOM.

It was suggested by one of his stans that he wanted to make those connections because it would bring him costuming work. Um. No. Celebrities have ZERO, zilch, nada, niente, nothing to do with hiring staff at the level Andrew was/is at. Knowing celebrities is only good for two things: 1. Getting into parties, B. Stroking your own ego and sense of self-importance in a very impersonal and tough industry. And, sometimes actual friendship, but rarely. Also one rule those of us who know and/or are friends with famous people follow is that we don’t introduce randos to them, no matter how big a fan, how well intentioned we believe them to be. And, given the stalky-stalk-mcstalkerson-from stalksylvania-ness of AB’s LoTR and SPN fandom scams (and, possibly a Bucky Barnes/Avengers scam? I am unclear how close he did or did not get to Sebastian Stan) -- it’s as obvious as the nose on my face why he actually wanted those introductions. And, that is not only creepy AF, but it is calculated and not at all about getting costuming work.

#3 He’s NOT DONE with being a cult leader...

Like I said up top (I know, this one is TL;DR, too... Sorry, I have things to say) I went down the Andy Blake rabbit hole this weekend and read as much of the information out there about supernova shitstorm of a life he leads that I could before my head exploded. That includes the incredibly trainwreck-y book that was written about the LoTR scam; Abbey and Diamond’s accounts of their time with them (which ripped my heart out, I cannot even,) and the horrifying account of AB’s involvement in and exacerbation of the circumstances/climate which lead to Brittney’s murder (which is ghastly.)

What I noticed about all these circumstances was a pattern. Specifically, a pattern about how Andy interacts with couples. He finds someone who is kind and has empathy and other good attributes who shares a geeky aspect with him; he engenders himself to them and lovebombs them and disorients them and ingratiates himself into their social circle; he then moves into this person’s real life space; he creates conflict and friction between the person and their significant other or friends, thusly isolating them, making it into a “them against us” situation; and, finally he maneuvers into that that person of importance’s place in his target’s life. He then builds an insular group of people around them who share the “them against us” mentality. And, then the real fuckery begins...

He clearly did this with Abbey, he clearly did this with Brittney, he seems to being doing this with his Chief Stan... and, based on the behavior I observed, he was trying to do that with Molly AND if he hadn’t succeeded he had already decided he was going to move in on the relationship of another couple within our social circle.

This is horrifying to me to consider. Though I am proud of Molly and Chris that they recognized what was going on (before they were told about AB’s actual past and before they realized the scope of his lies.) But, it garners the thought of “what would have happened had he succeeded?” Was he trying to install himself into the LA cosplay scene and create a new cult around some fandom or another? I think he was. He surely targeted the group who he thought most likely to accept or tolerate his nonsense. He didn’t count on the fact that we’re all really close, already, and we are also adults who are pretty established in LA, in our careers, and in “the scene” and we’ve seen enough of this kind of bullshit before (though not on such an epic scale) to immediately throw up red flags when a pattern begins to appear. Where would his manipulations have led had he been successful? I don’t care to speculate other than saying it would not have been good. Which leads me to my conclusion:

#4 Andrew Blake is still dangerous....

This might seem like a given. In fact, it is a fact. And, though I honestly wish nothing more than he actually was being sincere about his desire to reform his life and start fresh, his behavior -- even in this narrow two week span of time -- belies his actual intentions. Is his pathology a sickness or is it deliberate? I don’t know how to tell. As someone with mental illness issues, I resent him blaming his bad behavior on mental illness, so I don’t think that’s true. Is it possible he is a sociopath or has a BPD that he cannot control? Maybe? But, then again, much of what he has done in the past and present show a particular cold calculation designed to best manipulate emotions and behavior of others. Some are pathetic and transparent (like The Stickening) and some are more insidious (I’ll leave others to detail those instances since I have only heard about them second hand, not experienced it myself.) Further I’m not a qualified diagnostician, so I cannot speculate on his mental stability, other than to critically look at what he has put out about himself.

I will say this, however -- personally, due to a really intense triplet of tragedies, in 2015 I had a complete nervous breakdown. Of which I was totally incognizant, but which was observed by those close to me. They intervened and pretty much strong armed me into treatment. For about a year I had a “care team” because I was considered very fragile and it was thought that I might backslide into my breakdown psychosis. That care team was in weekly, if not daily, contact with me, my husband, my parents, my friends -- and, EVERYONE had a list of warning signs to be on the lookout for that would indicate that I needed more help and support and possibly a medical intervention. And, given my diagnosis (C-PTSD, Major Depression, Social Anxiety, General Anxiety) it required the utmost focus and work from me... I couldn’t even think about making major changes to my life, let alone being social, I was in (sometimes daily) therapy and trying to recover for a whole year before I could even think outside myself enough to make changes to my work, residence, relationships, etc. And, I was never outwardly destructive, but the intervention and treatment was that intense.

I’ve read various pieces around the different blogs about AB saying he has a care team and that he’s being held accountable and that he’s better and in treatment and he’s burned fandom to the ground, etc.... all I know is this: If that is true, and multiple people have “had productive conversations” (and, yes I’m the one who talked for two hours to Chris whatshisname) with people who are supposedly on said care team (though, has someone called the Players about this LA nonsense?) saying they had witnessed troubling behavior patterns that were indicative of a serious backslide.... and the care team haven’t acted on implementing an intervention for him? That calls into question if said care team actually exists and/or if he was or is in any kind of treatment for whatever his problems actually are. Are his problems actually diagnosed or just an additional layer to his “backstory” he made up to garner sympathy? Having been there, done that, got the t-shirt with serious, in-depth mental health care, I’m guessing the latter. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test. Anyhoodle... there are my eighty-bajillion words about Andrew Blake. I am hoping that now that I’ve spit them out I can stop ruminating on his latest fuckery and it’s impact in my group. Mostly, we here in LA are just glad AF that we excised him from our lives so quickly and with such precision. And, we hope that the pro-Andy stans leave Molly and Chris and the rest of our community alone. He ain’t welcome around these parts. If you have questions, comments, please don’t hesitate. Please be aware that any aggressive, mean spirited shit will not be acknowledged. Otherwise this is the one and only Andy Blake specific post I am going to ever make on Tumblr. Because I just don’t have the time or bandwidth for this brand of crazy anymore.

[news4dzhozhar]

It has been nearly five years since two bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, and nearly three years since the conclusion of the trial of the sole surviving Tsarnaev brother, Dzhokhar. And yet, the government continues to maintain radio silence over many crucial questions related to the bombing. Since the 2013 bombing, WhoWhatWhy has made dozens and dozens of records requests through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other records request laws, from multiple government agencies, in an effort to fill in some of the many holes in the story that remain after a secretive federal investigation and trial. The results have been mixed, to say the least. Most of the ongoing secrecy relates to the deceased mastermind and main bombing perpetrator: the older brother Tamerlan. The lead prosecutor who secured the conviction against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, William Weinreb, even admitted that “it is fair to say that there are still a number of questions unanswered about that case.” And a surprising number of Boston’s local law enforcement question whether the FBI is coming clean about what it knows about the now-deceased Tsarnaev brother. As we wrote back in July, some of these enduring questions are: * How was Tamerlan able to travel back and forth to the country from which he sought asylum in 2012, despite being on multiple terror watchlists? * Why was he not questioned about the 2011 murder of three of his friends? * Was Tamerlan working for the US government in some capacity? * Was the FBI or some other federal agency using Tamerlan’s desire to become a US citizen as leverage? * Did the Tsarnaevs have help constructing the bombs? * Was anyone else involved in planning or inspiring the plot? Besides the big questions, our ongoing efforts to track down and verify even mundane details about the bombing reveal a flawed and seemingly arbitrary system for making government documents public. Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s travel records, for instance. In September, we wrote about our attempts through FOIA to ascertain details of the confinement conditions of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. We also detailed our multiple requests to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to interview Tsarnaev. The process was nothing short of a Kafkaesque wilderness of mirrors. Obtaining “public” records through FOIA has always been imperfect. And although improvements have been made, requesters are largely in the dark about what agencies might be holding back; most agencies’ search practices and criteria are like an impenetrable black box. WhoWhatWhy’s efforts at obtaining Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s 2012 travel records are a case in point. First off, the elder Tsarnaev brother is deceased. His records are ostensibly public information — and the public has a right to know more about him. Back in July, we sent Customs and Border Protection (CBP) a request for “arrival” and “departure” records produced when Tsarnaev traveled to Dagestan by way of Moscow in 2012. According to official accounts, Tsarnaev flew out of JFK International January 21, 2012, and returned to JFK July 19, 2012. The apparent ease with which Tsarnaev flew in and out of the US to a known hotbed of terroristic activity (Dagestan), despite being on multiple watch lists, is one of the enduring mysteries about the elder brother. Consider also that the Russians, who had flagged him as a dangerous radical well before US officials watch-listed him, also allowed him to fly in and out of their country unimpeded. So it piqued our interest when it came to our attention that there were early news reports, supposedly based on documentary “travel records,” that Tsarnaev had actually flown out of JFK January 12 — not January 21 as was claimed officially. This was based on a story reported by NBC News affiliate New York 4, which makes reference to “documents” that they “obtained.” The report even describes a photograph of Tsarnaev on one of the documents. The January 12 date was repeated by multiple media outlets and was even cited by then head of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano when she testified before Congress about the bombing investigation. WhoWhatWhy reached out multiple times to the reporters who wrote the article and asked if they would either confirm — or correct — what was written in the article or, at the very least, describe what type of documents they were referencing. They “respectfully declined.” Spoiler alert: New York 4 screwed up the travel dates. But the fact that they were citing actual documents with contradictory dates was intriguing given that Tsarnaev’s travel to Russia was shady to begin with. So we tried to verify or disprove on our own. A deep dive through Tsarnaev’s 256 pages of immigration records (or A-file), much of which is redacted, is no help because it only documents his arrival at JFK airport July 19, 2012. His departure, six months earlier, is either not included in the A-file, or it is blacked out under one of the file’s many redactions. (Tsarnaev’s A-file was released to the FBI’s “electronic reading room,” which is what happens when three or more requests are made for the same records. WhoWhatWhy was one of those requesters.) So the only other option to clear up the mystery was FOIA. CBP on FOIA: LOL In July of this year, we requested “all arrival/departure records for Tamerlan Tsarnaev” from CBP. By the end of August (which is a pretty quick turnaround as FOIA goes) CBP furnished us the results of its search. There was only one problem, they provided Tsarnaev’s “arrival” records only. WhoWhatWhy called CBP’s FOIA liaison to ask how it was possible they couldn’t find a corresponding departure record. The liaison indicated that a search was conducted with the information that was provided in the request — that was the result. So we appealed, pointing out that it was widely reported in the media, and government officials were on the record stating, that Tsarnaev had in fact traveled out of the country in January 2012 and that CBP must, therefore, have records of his departure. We also included — under the assumption that maybe the name search “Tamerlan Tsarnaev” was the problem — a long list of possible name variants we collected from Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s A-file and from an Intelligence Community Inspector General (IGIC) report. The IGIC report probed some of the “intelligence failures,” like how Tsarnaev’s travels in and out of the country eluded any additional scrutiny despite the fact that he was on multiple watch lists, each of which characterized him as a dangerous individual. Part of IGIC’s determination was that some of the watch list information about Tsarnaev included incorrect transliterations and incorrect birth dates. So we included all of those too. This time, we received five pages, including a “Person Encounter List,” a “Person Encounter Detail” (the sought-after departure records), and two “Person Encounter Detail[s]” documenting his return to the US July 19, 2012. The “departure” records indicated that he indeed left JFK January 21, not January 12 as New York 4 had erroneously reported. The name on the additional records: “Tamerlan Tsarnaev.” It was unclear, then, why the search for documents in the initial request didn’t produce the same records — so we FOIA’d our FOIA request. We asked for “all records, including emails, search slips, index entries, and/or memos” produced as a result of our initial request and subsequent appeal. Surprisingly, CBP’s “final response” came the very next day. The results: “we were unable to locate or identify any responsive records, based upon the information you provided in your request.” We appealed, pointing out the absurdity of the proposition that CBP would not be able to find its own FOIA processing records. A month and a half later we finally received 42 pages of FOIA processing records. Another spoiler alert: It’s not exactly clear in the records why the initial request only came up with Tsarnaev’s arrival records. But Tsarnaev’s Alien Identification Number (A-number) does appear in the subject line of one of the FOIA official’s emails — so maybe they had searched using that. It’s hard to tell. Presumably, CBP officials would know what is the most efficient way to search for records. Why not just search that way to begin with? Instead, the tertiary initial search for records ends up exhausting one of only two opportunities available — short of suing — forcing requesters to appeal just to get the records they were entitled to in the first place. And if at that point the requester disputes the legitimacy of the redactions in the documents, or what was provided — too bad. Yes, we ultimately did get the documents we were after. But only after getting the proverbial middle finger and an all-too-common runaround from CBP. It’s tempting to chalk the terrible state of information requesting up to the usual incompetent government trope. But the responses from all of the federal agencies are so consistently bad, that one has to wonder whether it is terrible by design.

[duaneodavila]

Hacked Passwords Being Used In Blackmail Attempt — Expect More Of This

Last week I received the following email with my name and a very, very, very old password that I haven’t used in probably at least a decade in the subject line (even though I’m not longer using it, I’m editing it out of this because… it’s still weird):

I am aware, ********, is your pass word. You don’t know me and you’re probably wondering why you’re getting this mail, right?

In fact, I actually installed a malware on the adult videos (adult porn) site and there’s more, you visited this site to experience fun (you know what I mean). While you were watching videos, your internet browser initiated working as a RDP (Remote Desktop) having a key logger which provided me with access to your screen and cam. Immediately after that, my software collected all of your contacts from your Messenger, FB, and email.

What exactly did I do?

I created a double-screen video. First part displays the video you were watching (you have a nice taste rofl), and 2nd part shows the recording of your web cam.

exactly what should you do?

Well, I believe, $2900 is a reasonable price for our little secret. You’ll make the payment via Bitcoin (if you don’t know this, search “how to buy bitcoin” in Google).

BTC Address: [REDACTED] (It is cAsE sensitive, so copy and paste it)

Note: You have one day to make the payment. (I’ve a specific pixel in this e mail, and right now I know that you have read through this email). If I don’t receive the BitCoins, I will send your video recording to all of your contacts including members of your family, colleagues, and so forth. However, if I receive the payment, I will erase the video immidiately. If you really want evidence, reply with “Yes!” and I will send your video recording to your 9 friends. This is a non-negotiable offer, and thus do not waste my personal time and yours by responding to this message.

This was immediately obvious as a scam from a hacked database of passwords. Besides the fact that I haven’t used that particular password in ages (and even when I did, it was the password I used for “unimportant” sites), there are a whole bunch of other reasons why it was obvious that the email was fake and it would be literally impossible for the person to have whatever it was they claimed to have on me. I found it funny enough that I reached out to some other folks to see if this was getting around, and a few people told me they’d seen similar ones, noting that the final note about sending it to “9 friends” appeared to be an increase from the usual of “5” that they had seen before.

Indeed, Brian Krebs, who is always on top of these things, wrote a story about how a bunch of people got these emails last week. That one only asked for $1400, and also promised to send it to 5 friends. It has a few other slight differences to the one I received, but is pretty clearly sent by the same person/team of people with just a few modifications. Like the ones that Krebs reported on, mine appeared to come from an outlook.com email address. As Krebs notes, he expects that this particular scam is about to get a lot more popular, and will probably use a lot more recent set of passwords:

I suspect that as this scam gets refined even more, perpetrators will begin using more recent and relevant passwords — and perhaps other personal data that can be found online — to convince people that the hacking threat is real. That’s because there are a number of shady password lookup services online that index billions of usernames (i.e. email addresses) and passwords stolen in some of the biggest data breaches to date.

Alternatively, an industrious scammer could simply execute this scheme using a customer database from a freshly hacked Web site, emailing all users of that hacked site with a similar message and a current, working password. Tech support scammers also may begin latching onto this method as well.

And, at the very least, this scam appears to be working. It’s unclear just how many people are receiving these emails — and how many people are pointed to the same Bitcoin wallet address to pay — but the one that Krebs included in his post shows a single payment of approximately $2000. When I first got the email the Bitcoin wallet address in the email I received showed no transactions, but I just looked again and there are two transactions, both within a day of when I received the email (one for .23 Bitcoins or ~$1600 and another for 0.3 Bitcoins or ~$2,000).

Of course, this should be a warning for everyone on a variety of levels:

Use a password manager already, and stop saying they’re too difficult to use. They are not.

Use 2 factor authentication wherever possible

Cover your webcam with a sticker or tape or something when not in use

Don’t believe every stupid threat email you receive

Don’t randomly pay money to every stupid emailer who pretends to threaten you

Anyway, it will be worth watching how this particular scam evolves, but as Krebs notes, it’s likely we’ll be seeing it a lot more often as it seems to hit all the key points for a popular internet scam these days.

Hacked Passwords Being Used In Blackmail Attempt — Expect More Of This

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Texas A&M Wins Trademark Suit Against Soap Company In Washington State By Playing Six Degrees Of Trademark Licensing Report Shows U.S. Citizens Helped Coordinate Online Disinformation Assault From Macedonia EPIC Bravely Defeats 14 Year Old’s Mom In Court To Continue Lawsuit Against Her Son For Cheating In Fortnite

[mrwilliamcharley]

Letters From Daniel: Coffee Scene Investigation

Soooooo yesterday we reported to you on a rash of mysterious letters received by coffee roasting companies in and around the city of Portland, including well-known local Oregon roasters like Roseline Coffee, Heart Roasters, Stumptown Coffee Roasters, and Dapper & Wise Coffee. We called the story “A Portland Coffee Mystery.”

We were wrong.

In a still-ongoing and frankly captivating torrent of outreach, we have heard many dozens of coffee companies nationwide who have received similar or identical letters to the ones first published here on Sprudge. From Alaska to Florida you emailed us, commented on this rollicking Instagram post, and slid into our DMs. In the last 24 hours we’ve received 16 copies of identical or near-identical letters, all sent from the same return address—an apartment complex in Las Vegas—to roasters large and small, new and old, all across the United States.

Below is a collection of these confirmed letters you’ve sent us over the last day. We’re sharing these with usage approved by each individual recipient. At this time we are continuing with our policy of redacting out the letter sender’s full name and address.

Clearly this goes far beyond the Willamette Valley and its environs, and is instead a coordinated effort targeting coffee companies nationwide. We’ve received so many contacts and claims of receivership, and we’re working now to track down and confirm these as best we can.

For now, here’s a national map of where we’ve received reports, some of which date back as far as 2016—40 in total so far and counting, which you can peruse geographically in this handy map.



Here’s a quick rundown of what we know so far, or at least what we think we know:

1. Some person or persons has been sending dozens of handwritten letters to coffee roasters across the United States, complaining about “stale” product and requesting “replacement” coffees be sent to an address in Las Vegas.

2. Letters have been received as recently as Monday, July 23rd 2018.

3. The oldest letters received date back as far as 2016, as confirmed by Madcap Coffee Company of Grand Rapids, who also received letters in 2017 and 2018.

4. The letters all bear the same return address in Las Vegas, and are written on behalf of the same name: Daniel G. (we are not releasing Daniel’s last name at this time).

5. The letters all bear identical handwriting, formatting, spelling errors, reiteration of receiver address, demand for a “prompt explanation,” and sign-off as “Sincerely.”

6. The letters are devoid of any kind of electronic footprint and include no email address, social media information, phone number, or other means of contact beyond a return address.

7. All different kinds of roasters have received these letters: established brands as well as newcomers, small town roasters and big city companies, brands with multiple locations as well as owner-operator mom n’ pops, spots we’ve featured on Sprudge a dozen times and folks we’re delighted to be hearing of for the first time this week, in admittedly odd circumstances.

There’s much more going on behind the scenes that we can’t share with you just yet, including several leads we’re following regarding the address and purported letter writer—and let us assure you that the more we learn, the creepier and freakier and less cut and dry this all appears to be. Look for much more from us on this mystery in the coming days, including—by repeat and popular request—a special podcast presentation of the facts and theories and fan cult nicknames surrounding the mysterious case of Daniel G.

In the meantime, if you know anything more about the sending of these letters, please get in touch with us. If you have received a letter nigh-identical to the one above, get in touch with us. And most important: if you work in coffee and have received similar letters over the last decade—handwritten on lined paper but with different messaging, and from a different city in Nevada—please, please reach out as it relates to a major set of clues we’re tracking in this case. Anonymity guaranteed and no sources or images used without express consent.

Of course if you happen to be Daniel G. and you’d like to say hello—please feel free. We want to hear your side of the story and also to better understand what you mean by “stale” coffee, because it is unclear. You have our utmost cooperation.

info@sprudge.com

1-888-55-SPRUDGE

@Sprudge on Instagram 

The post Letters From Daniel: Coffee Scene Investigation appeared first on Sprudge.

from Sprudge https://ift.tt/2NK9hcF

[nickyschneiderus]

What to make of the erratic redaction in the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia report?

On Friday, April 27, the House Intelligence Committee formally marked the end of its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election by releasing a final report on its findings.

As with every element of every investigation into Russia and the 2016 election, the reaction to the report has fallen almost entirely along party lines. President Donald Trump cited it as proof the investigation as “a Total Witch Hunt,”while Democrats blasted it as “misleading and unsupported by the facts.”

Just Out: House Intelligence Committee Report released. “No evidence” that the Trump Campaign “colluded, coordinated or conspired with Russia.” Clinton Campaign paid for Opposition Research obtained from Russia- Wow! A total Witch Hunt! MUST END NOW!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2018

While the partisan rancor surrounding the investigation will be picked apart by pundits on both sides, one aspect that’s baffled virtually everyone is the amount of redaction in the report.

It’s not unusual for an intelligence report to redact sources or methods that need to be kept secret, but the redactions in this particular report has struck experts as somewhat over the top. Huge chunks are blacked out, including full paragraphs, footnotes, and even entire pages. The report contains a list of referenced persons where many entire people are redacted entirely.

House Intelligence Committee

The reason for the heavy redaction was given as the intelligence community trying to protect active investigations, but as Republican Committee Chair Mike Conaway pointed out, “many of the redactions include information that is publicly available, such as witness names and information previously declassified.”

Names and dates are redacted when it’s obvious to anyone familiar with the Russia saga who is being discussed—and redaction of some names seems to change page by page.

One particularly odd redaction is of “Trump’s former head of security (REDACTED).” This is obviously Keith Schiller, the Trump confidante and bodyguard who left the White House in 2017.  

House Intelligence Committee

At other points, the report leaves names unredacted, only to redact them later, sometimes on the very next page.

So why are certain names redacted throughout the report, even at points when it’s plainly obvious who’s being discussed?

One possibility is that some sections were given to intelligence agents who were heavy-handed with redaction, and others were given to agents who weren’t. Another is that some of these people are still being investigated or are actively cooperating in investigations.

Among the names that appear to be redacted are a number of high-profile Russians and people directly connected to Donald Trump, his businesses, and/or his campaign.

Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov and his son Emin, who helped arrange the Miss Universe pageant held in Moscow in 2013, appear to be redacted in the list of “referenced persons” but are mentioned numerous times in the report itself.

House Intelligence Committee

House Intelligence Committee

Another prominent Russian connected to Trump who appears to have his name initially redacted is Felix Sater, a real estate billionaire who had an advisory role in the Trump Organization. But again, Sater’s name (and his company’s name) can be found in the report itself, as emails and texts between Sater and Trump fixer Michael Cohen are cited in numerous footnotes in a way that makes it obvious where Sater’s name is redacted.

All of the Russian attendees of the infamous “Trump Tower meeting” in June 2016 also appear to be redacted, though, like the others, their names pop up in the report’s section on the meeting; an entire graphic on page 80 is devoted to just the meeting.

House Intelligence Committee

It’s unclear why these Russians were redacted from the House report, and why that redaction appears to be incomplete.

One possible reason is that the redacted names might be linked to other concurrent Russian investigations. The Agalarovs are under scrutiny by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for their real estate deals with Trump, while Sater appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee on April 4, just weeks before this report was released.

There are also a number of Americans that appear to have been redacted by the intelligence community beyond Schiller.

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski might be the most high profile, as on page 69, his name is blacked out while his title is left uncensored. His name is also blacked out in reference to House Intelligence Committee testimony he gave on Jan. 17—but the date wasn’t redacted, making it obvious who is being talked about.

House Intelligence Committee The same holds true for testimony on Nov. 30 (likely that of Blackwater founder Erik Prince), and Dec. 12 (probably Trump advisor Sam Clovis).

Carter Page, a Trump advisor heavily linked to Russia, also appears to be both redacted and unredacted, and Trump campaign digital director Brad Parscale is referenced by title on page 74—with his name redacted, and his title not.

Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, who is referenced by title on page 89, also has his name blacked out.

House Intelligence Committee

Page, Parscale, and Lewandowski are all major figures in other Russian investigations, including those by the Senate and FBI. But Robby Mook is unconnected to any investigation, while none of the figures actually indicted by Robert Mueller, including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, appear to be redacted in any way, nor were other figures who have testified before the House.

While the report itself will probably be consumed in partisan rancor, the redactions might provide a fascinating glimpse into who the next targets of the Special Counsel or FBI could be. Or maybe they’re just the result of FBI agents who like using black highlighters.

from Ricky Schneiderus Curation https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/house-intelligenec-russia-report-redactions/