Wednesday, June 01, 2011

CASE CLOSED! CONGRESSMAN WEINER WAS FRAMED! (An important update to "The Weiner affair: Close to solution (but I need your help!)"

Update...for those of you who came here via a right-wing site because you want to be outraged, check this out. Talk about shameless!

* * *

Readers -- please pass along the information here, including the all-important update. In that update, you'll find that we have made an important breakthrough. Weiner was framed, and we know the name of the framer.

First, the original post, as it appeared this morning (and I apologize to newcomers for the "in medias res" opening; if you just now showed up here, you may want to skim the first few paragraphs:

I owe an incredible debt to my readers, particularly one who comments under the sobriquet "milowent." We may be very close to a resolution of this case.

First, we have what appears to be damning evidence -- the date stamp:
There is another problem with the mysterious 800x600 file came from from Dan Wolfe's (@PatriotUSA76) internet cache. The larger file has a create data of 5/30/2011 at 01:26:24AM.

Yet the medium size file shows a create data of 5/27/2011 at 1:32:58PM
It appears that the image allegedly found in the browser cache was created on the date it was discovered, not at the time of the alleged tweet. For whatever reason, Dan did a copy-and-paste of that photo (thereby creating a new file) on the 30th, instead of passing along a copy of the original.

Folks, I need your help! Reader milowent offers the most intriguing possibility to arise out of this entire case:
easiest way to pull off this as a hoax would be if you knew weiner's yfrog email address. email a blackberry pic to that email address with (@subject) in text and you'd create exactly what happened here.

would require no password hacking (you wouldn't even need to know his password to do it).

the chance that somewhere along the way that weiners yfrog address had been leaked? pretty damn high. it would happen if weiner or an aide simply forwarded a pic he emailed to his yfrog account to anyone else (thus showing the yfrog email address in the chain).
Is this true? I never would have suspected that such a thing was possible, or that the answer could be so simple. Let's conduct the experiment.

My yfrog address is I won't tell you the password, and I'm pretty sure that you can't guess it. Right now, there are only two images in my account, both mentioned in previous posts: One is the Burne-Jones painting, while the other is a picture of my dog.

Can anyone get a third picture into that collection? No hacking, please. And keep the pic safe for work.

Would it be possible to use a technique like this to get an outsider's message into the congressman's Twitterstream?

I'll be back later with more about the EXIF data, if you're into arcana of that sort.

And now here's the UPDATE: Reader "milowent" took up the challenge. Without knowing my password -- without hacking into my account -- he got a third image into my Yfrog account, using the simple technique explained above. Here's the image he sent me:

Kind of creepy, isn't it? I'm reminded of those "ransom" photos you see in the movies, where the kidnap victim holds up a current newspaper.

Here is the image as it appears on my Yfrog account:

If you click on that link, you may notice something important. By using this technique, milowent (or is it Tony?) was able to create a header that does not contain the URL of the image below the account holder's name. As we've seen in previous posts, that URL does appear if the account holder uploads a picture. Apparently, it does not appear if someone else emails a picture to that account.

The screencap of Congressman Weiner's page -- the one featuring the infamous "crotch shot" -- lacks the URL. As far as I can tell, the only way to create that anomaly is when someone other than the account holder places an image on Yfrog, using the simple strategy outlined above.

The comparison image given here should explain the situation to anyone I've accidentally confused. (Click on the image to enlarge -- and I'm very embarrassed by the misspelled word.) The first header was taken from the Weiner screen cap as it appeared on Breitbart. Note the lack of a URL beneath "RepWeiner" -- just blank space.

That's very unusual. Under normal circumstances, Yfrog never puts blank space there.

I demonstrate those "normal circumstances" in the second example. This is what the header looked like when I uploaded a picture to my own Yfrog account. Note that the URL for the image appears right below my pseudonym. (As noted in an earlier post, I opened the account under the name "G. Dowson," which happens to be the name of an illustrator whose work I like.)

The only way to create a URL-free header is to have someone else send a pic to one's Yfrog address. Milowent did just that. You can see the result: The header now has a blank space beneath Dowson's name.

Why does Yfrog work that way? I don't know. Ask their programmers.

The important point is this: The anomaly in the header indicates that the image was not sent by Weiner. It had to have been sent by someone else.

Not only that. Believe it or not, when an outsider sends a pic to someone else's Yfrog account in this fashion, the action creates a message in the "twitterstream." The message seems to originate with the Twitter account holder -- but it doesn't. It comes from somewhere else -- from someone mailing a picture to the account holder.

This is a serious security flaw in the design of Yfrog and Twitter. It allows a malicious outsider to "spoof" a tweet that seems to come from someone else.

Click on the image below (to enlarge it) and examine the "twitterstream." You'll see what I mean.

Please understand that I have never sent a single tweet in my entire life.

The first two instances were created automatically, when I uploaded those first two test pictures to Yfrog (as outlined in previous posts). The third instance was created when milowent sent a pic to my Yfrog address.

Both the tweet and the image seem to originate with me, but they did not.

This was the perfect frame. We know it was a frame because of the URL address beneath the header -- or rather, the lack thereof in the Weiner "crotch shot" screen cap.

I knew that there was something significant about that anomaly!

Granted, my initial preconceptions about the cause of that anomaly were mistaken. Please forgive me for thinking in terms of photo manipulation. By nature and by trade, I'm a Photoshop guy -- not a Twitter user and not a Blackberry user. Naturally, my first instinct was to presume image manipulation.

When I first began to look into this affair, I had no idea that it was so easy to inject data into someone else's "twitterstream" and make it appear that the data came from that person.

We must emphasize once again: All of this was accomplished WITHOUT HACKING.

Who did it? All evidence points to Dan Wolfe. I believe that he framed Congressman Weiner. I state this directly, without equivocation.

What signs point to Wolfe?

1.We now know that a frame-up existed.

2.Only the framer would have or could have drawn attention the "crotch shot" immediately after it was appeared on Weiner's Yfrog account.

3. Here is a screen cap of Wolfe's tweets during the time period. Reading these tweets in the context of the above information, only one conclusion is possible.

The timeline reveals much. For these tweets to have been posted at the tail end of May 27, they had to have appeared very soon after the image was uploaded. The framer had to jump up and down and draw attention to his handiwork immediately after the upload. If he waited, the image might have been deleted.

Wolfe was the only person drawing attention to that image.

4. Dan Wolfe is not only a partisan zealot, he was obsessed with Congressman Weiner. His obsession strikes many as downright pathological.

5. Dan Wolfe had "predicted" an alleged sex scandal ahead of time.

6. There is also the matter of the 800x600 image which Wolfe (days later) said that he had "found" in his browser cache. The date stamp on this image is May 30, not May 27. The EXIF data is strange in other ways.

7. Dan has told contradictory stories about whether he did or did not click through to the largest version of the image, as it appeared on the Yfrog site.

8. The screencap published on Breitbart's site shows a 640x480 image. This means that a 640x480 image should be in Dan's browser cache. Cannonfire reader milowent has experimented with his Blackberry and found that the EXIF data (otherwise known as "metadata") for this image should contain the exact make and model of the camera that made the photograph. This information would allow us to exclude Weiner's camera -- if it were made available.

Dan, tellingly, gave us another photo.

It all adds up. If you have any ability to follow a moderately technical argument, only one conclusion is possible. We know that Congressman Weiner was framed, and we know the name of the framer.

The framer did not hack into Weiner's account. There was no need for hacking. The framer used a much simpler, more ingenious scheme, involving a design flaw in the architecture of the application.

Nota bene:
I'll repeat here something I've said in the comments. A quote -- by Upton Sinclair, I believe -- had been gaining a lot of traction lately:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Substitute "ideology" for "salary," and that quote describes the probable right-wing response to the arguments given here. Let me predict one such response (which you can find here):
Congressman Weiner admitted to deleting the tweet and image involved. You are clearly blind to the facts.
Did he make that admission? Why is it that we never get a citation, a quotation or a link to back up these statements?

More than that. Think about the matter objectively for a few seconds: Even if Weiner had deleted the photo, so the fuck what? As proven above, an outside miscreant had uploaded a lewd photo onto his account. I sure as hell would have deleted the thing immediately, and I'm not a congressman.

Look at it this way: Hours after my first post on this topic, I was forced to censor a crudely anti-Semitic comment sent to this blog. That insincere, over-the-top racist slur was an obvious attempt to plant something on this blog that could be used against it. (As in: "You're quoting Cannonfire? That place is a hotbed of bigotry!")

Am I guilty of a cover-up because I deleted that outsider's attack?

Of course not.

Would Congressman Weiner be guilty of a cover-up for deleting an outsider's attack?

Of course not.


milowent said...

It worked.


i just posted that to your yrfog account by emailing the screencap jpg to your yfrog email address (from my own email account, milo_went at yahoo dot com). it also appeared in your twitter feed - note that I did it as an "@pumapower" tweet, simply by placing "@pumapower" in the text of the email. it thus appears as a tweet directed to that account. i chose that account because pumapower had tweeted about your blogpost. Not sure where the "none" comes from in the tweet, maybe that comes because i had no subject line.

here's the same pic on my photobucket:

this proves that anyone with weiner's yfrog email address could pull off what happened a few days ago. you would not need any of weiner's passwords as long as you somehow became aware of his yfrog email address.

Does this mean this is exactly what happened? No. But its a pretty simple way to accomplish it. In terms of what private information you would need to know to pull off the prank, it is pretty minimal.

milowent said...

btw, here is screenshot of the email i sent:

glennmcgahee said...

It seems so ridiculous to me that anybody has a tweet account much less a Facebook account. I notice my emails now will show the picture of anyone that has a Facebook account when I open up the email. How's that linked? I don't know many of the people who email me for business purposes. I certainly don't need their picture holding a beer or whatever. Seems alot us this is out of control and most would be smart to get out of every social media contact they can. But I bet a cache remains of anything you've ever entered into it.

Anonymous said...


The lengths people will go to. Amazing. And why all the hate anyway? Cos he stands for Medicare? Anyway, well done on the detective work. Doesnt this mean that there doesnt need to be any spook involvement. The lone sh*thead theory seems quite appealing.

Dear lord.


soren said...

I still think Weiner was the one who sent the picture but this looks very interesting...

milowent said...

Cannon re the update: Re the url header in yfrog, when I pull up the link you put to the shot, I CAN see the URL. see this screenshot:

but you apparently do not see the URL below your header (as your screenshot shows). this is strange.

However, I tested this and found that if you email a pic to your yfrog email address from an email DIFFERENT than your registered email for yfrog/twitter, then the URL doesn't show up on yfrog when you are LOGGED into your own yfrog account to view the image.

This is convoluted, but if this holds up, it means that the screenshot of the weiner pic had to have been taken by someone who was actually LOGGED INTO weiner's yfrog at the time they took the screenshot. presumably ONLY patriotusa76 could do this.

however, this would mean that that the hacker (whoever it was) did more than simply possessed weiner's yfrog email address. it would mean that they had some means of logging into weiner's yfrong to get the screenshot -- assuming our hypothesis is correct about when the URL appears on yfrog and when it does not.

i would like others to verify this analysis before laying blame. this is no need to rush to judgment.

Joseph Cannon said...

soren, I realize that my argument was modestly technical, but I tried to use the simplest language possible. An intelligent child should be able to understand what I've said.

Weiner is excluded. It is technically impossible for him to have sent the image.

If he had sent the image, a URL would have appeared below his name in the header. That is how Yfrog works. Try it yourself.

The URL goes missing only when an outsider inserts an image onto someone else's Yfrog account.

I don't know why Yfrog works that way. All apps have glitches, don't they?

RedDragon said...


The "Fail Stream Media" needs to take a course in "How to do your job" from you Joe!

Want to place a bet that the media either ignores this?

Doesn't fit their narrative!

Anyway...Thanks for the time you put into it Joe. You never cease to amaze.

Gus said...

A very cheap and easy smear, made by someone who quite obviously had it in for Weiner. Yet some people still assume guilt. I guess they are anxious to pin some sin on a Dem, instead of the normal Republican scandals that happen every few months (and are admitted by said Republicans). Funny that to have a Dem scandal, they have to create one, and I'm no fan of Dems, believe me. Very nice detective work Joseph and milowent.

Bob Harrison said...

Great work Joe & Co.! I've followed all this closely and I'll do my part trying to get the word out. Really a terrific investigation.

milowent said...

If i didn't post before, a key fact that needs verification here is whether the lack of the URL in the yfrog screenshot really does only occur when a yfrog photo is posted from an outside email account. If that is true, I agree that weiner must have been "framed." However, it appears that sometimes the URL takes a few minutes to appear after posting (so it would not have appeared in patriotusa76's really early screenshot, but may have appeared soon after). But here Cannonfire's screenshot still shows no URL after over 20 minutes after I posted that pic to his account.

The press seems to be getting more and more ready to say weiner did it, simply because he is getting pissed with the press. This is not much different than how Richard Jewell was convicted in the few days after the 1996 Atlanta bombing. There's no need to rush to conclusions.

On Weiner's side, its very strange that he would post that pic to a public place (yfrog) where it would be easily viewable by all, even if he had intended to send pic as a DM. The use of the yfrog email to pull off the prank would be very easy, all you need is the yfrog email (which would be easier than hacking other things, I think.)

This event fascinates me because there are so many factors that merit real analysis. Unfortunately the press is doing a lot of horrible analysis. Calling a CNN producer a jackass as proof of guilt is not analysis.

Anonymous said...

Excellent detective work, Joe. Congratulations to you and milowent both.

I'm amazed that anyone gives Breitbart a nanosecond's credencem given his history of dishonesty. Fruit of the poison tree doctrine, and all that.

Or as my farm-raised mother used to say, you can't dip Chanel #5 out of a cesspool.

Anonymous said...

Forgot to sign again. That was me.


Anonymous said...

Joe Cannnon has spent an awful lot of time and thousands of words which will be read by about 10 people trying to debunk something that Weiner himself doesn't seem able to simply deny. Your "scientific" arguments are simply too convoluted to stand up to the simple human questions of why Weiner can't issue a simple denial that a) the picture is of him (that should be easiest; he either recognizes the picture or doesn't; b) he sent it.

More importantly, the press and blogs have moved on from whether this even was a hacking/framing (which Weiner himself has declined to report to authorities) to the more interesting question of why a married Congressman is following random 20 something young women on twitter AND DM'ing them who have no connection to him or his constituency other than that they admire him physically.

The Liberal Grouch said...

GREAT JOB!!! Of course, it will make no difference until someone walks CNN and MSNBC through the process. But I knew it could be done (wrote about it earlier today at

-- I'd like your permission to share your content on my blog.


soren said...

I understood your blog post just fine... it's just, I'm still skeptical that it wasn't Weiner...

I'm also skeptical that if there was a hacker that it was patriotusa76... he didn't have to give up the pictures for the exif comparison and he isn't that computer literate it seems...

There was an Weiner parody twitter account called repneedledick that has mysteriously disappeared though....

If this is how that photo and tweet happened, I think Weiner has a good lawsuit on his hands against imageshack/yfrog and whoever did the deed...

I've been running a "pastebin" of links of sort about this scandal that has gotten some linkgage and I linked to this post...

The Liberal Grouch said...

I just tried sending a photo from my iMac to your yFrog. Let me know if you get it.

Bill Schmalfeldt

Anonymous said...

You seem to be unable to keep the facts straight in your own screed.

Is the "cache" image dated 05/30 or 05/31? You state both in your ramblings...

Mr. Mike said...

This guy, Dan, could appear on national broadcast TV wearing sack cloth and ashes to admit he was behind it and republicans would still believe Rep Weiner is a pervy pantie picture purveyor.

Anonymous said...

I 2nd Red Dragon's comment: you've done the investigative/analysis work that our media should be doing. Instead, they're way too interested in pursuing the juicy 'what-ifs,' saying the standard garbage--it's not the act, it's the coverup--and getting off in hanging Weiner out to dry.

Just another day at the circus.

As one reader, I applaud your efforts. And yes, the right-wing's reaction is predictable: Weiner's guilty and Breitbart, the King of Slime, is a frigging hero. The propaganda-meister lives on!

Joseph Cannon said...

Anon 10:48 caught me in a typo. I've fixed it. It's a distinction without a difference, of course. (Whereas the date stamp is of great importance to Dan Wolfe, since he is an actor in this drama.)

milowent said...


here is the pic you just posted to cannons' yfrog. it worked. also shows no URL for me.

Anonymous said...

Hi again, Joseph

I accidentally posted this question on an earlier thread (new here and can'r get to grips with your interface), so here it is again:

This is facinating, Joseph - great work!

Please don't get annoyed if you've already explained this, but milowent knew your yfrog address because you told him.

How did Dan Wolfe find out Weiner's yfrog address? Is it something you can guess from the twitter user name? If not, how do you think he might have gotten hold of it?


Tweetingdonal said...

Just one more thought... on Twitter, anything that flies past is subject to deletion by anyone with the account password.

I don't know if the Congressman's staff also tweets for him on that account. It's possible that a staffer found or heard about the pic and then took action. It wouldn't be abnormal.

It doesn't matter. And it certainly isn't something that calls for law enforcement involvement that the Lame Stream Media has been pounding on. On twitter, you find something odd, you delete it and move on. This isn't a court record for gods' sake. It's social media.

This trick was trivial, and we see the Conservative Extremists on twitter bragging about this sort of exploit all the time! They're pretty uniform, they usually have a flag in their avatar, pray to Ronald Reagan and Wall Street, and foam at the mouth when challenged. Perhaps CNN, ABC, CBS, et al should ask those guys some pointed questions.

Anonymous said...

Just wondering...wouldn't there be an e-mail trail on the file that was posted to Weiner's Y-Frog account? If the application allows someone unrelated to the owner of the site to post pictures, seems like there be a forensic trail on where the incoming file was e-mailed from.

Of course, if Weiner deleted it already, maybe that evidence is gone.

Pangolin said...

Any public figure who keeps a private social media account after this is a freaking idiot. If it was not obvious already that Windows based software is about as secure as a cheese fence on a hot day you have to add the fact that social media programs are written fast and dirty and are regularly hacked.

The reason that Anthony Weiner isn't denying that it's a picture of his personal package is that, like every other adult male, he's been in multiple rooms with at least one other adult, undressed, and cell phone cameras available. Nobody wants an all-celibate congress modeled after the Catholic priesthood.

Tweetingdonal said...

One more thought and I'll stop. A person in the public eye, like Rep. Weiner cannot afford to make a flat statement about what was posted, especially if he did not see it. That would be going "on record" about something he cannot verify.

The fact that he does not confirm or deny any of these idiotic questions tends to imply that there's an internal investigation going on and one day he may be willing to answer the question. But it's not going to happen directly from him, perhaps from his lawyer, and never without confirmation.

The new dominant paradigm where "ideology trumps facts" is driving this situation, and it's got all of the people on the Hill running scared. Whatever he says, the spinners will try to use it against him or to his advantage. The truth will die abandoned and neglected in some dark undiscovered crypt, covered in partisan spin.

Matt Osborne said...

This is excellent work. Sharing.

davidgs said...

I have just verified this 'hack' using my own yfrog account and 2 email addresses that are not "authorized" for yfrog posting.

Works EXACTLY as described here, including the post to my twitterfeed from yfrog.

In fact, you can see the results here: including an @gdowson153 so it shows up there. Also learned that it says "None" because there was no subject given in the email.

One can even make it an @ reply on twitter:

Anonymous said...

Just minutes ago, Weiner could "not say with certitude" the picture is not him. This rambling "investigation" of the framing of Weiner is beginning to seem as desperate as Weiner's "I will not be distracted" screeching.

Three simple questions - Is the picture him? Did he post the picture anywhere where it could be accessed and if so why? Out of the 200 people he follows, why is he following and sending private messages to random young women who are not constituents (present or past), colleagues, friends, relatives or his wife?

If he continues to evade these questions with bizarre non-responsive responses, then Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation here is not that someone "framed" him but that he messed up one key stroke and inadvertently sent this picture to his public account when he meant to send it privately. I have known many a colleague who did a "reply all" when they meant to "reply" or sent a very embarrasing email to the wrong person. Believe me - convoluted explanations as to how their system got "hacked" only are right about 0.0000000001% of the time.

Anonymous said...

Just how exactly was he able to control which twitter follower this was sent to...

Anonymous said...

This is so awesomely easy, it probably happens to members of Congress, like, totally all the time and junk!

Anonymous said...

"Windows-based software" has nothing to do with it - these are cloud applications you're speaking about and by their nature don't interact with the local OS. Don't make baseless accusations or you'll sound like a Republican.

willyjsimmons said...

re: the appearance of the URL...

I'd ask yfrog.

It's something in the "view" doing it and they can tell you exactly what it is. Assuming they're willing to share, but I suppose if this is a genuine security issue they ought to be very interested.

x0x0x said...

did anyone, other than patriotusa76 see the tweet OR the pic on yFrog? Is there any actual evidence, other than a screenshot taken by patriotusa76 of yFrog, a screenshot taken by patriotusa76 of a tweet, and the crotch pic in question, which also happens to have only one source, guess who, patriotusa76.

Screenshots are easy to fake, without any image manipulation.

Here's how:
1. take an HTML class at a local community college.
2. go to any yfrog user's page.
3. right click -> view page source.
4. save this as an .html file to your desktop.
5. look through the HTML file.
6. replace all relative URLs with absolute URLs pointing to yfrog.
7. replace the URL of the image with another one of your choosing from your own hard drive.
8. save this modified HTML file.
9. open this new HTML file in your browser.
10. take a screenshot, cropping out the address bar of your browser, and the live jscript iframe on the right because you couldn't figure out how to get that to work...

that image was never uploaded to your account. but check it out, it has over 1 million viewz...

a skilled person could hack together a web app that would take any user's page, put any image you want on it, take a screenshot, and email it to his mom in about 3 hours. you could do the same for any twitter feed.

screenshots are easy to fake, flawlessly, no shopping or account hacking required.

here's the thing. if that pic ever was on yfrog on his account, or a tweet ever hit twitter, its still there. you can push delete all you want but its still on the server, just flagged as "dont show this anymore". if he did it, we'll know. if it was a hack, IP logs lead straight to their door, and if it is a hoax, there's only one guy who could be responsible, and he'll be crawling with forensics...

isnt there some service that archives all the tweets from congress? shouldn't there be a copy there at least? just one person, other than patriotusa76, who saw this in any form other than a screenshot?

QitQat said...

I'm GLAD I don't tweet much. Just trying to stay under the radar. :)

Joseph Cannon said...

"The simplest explanation here is not that someone "framed" him but that he messed up one key stroke..."

Occam's razor holds that the simplest explanation which covers ALL of the facts is likely to be true. You haven't explained the URL anomaly. You probably didn't even read that part -- or, if you did read it, you couldn't understand it, despite the simplicity of my language.

You also haven't explained Dan Wolfe's strange behavior, and the fact that he never coughed up the 640x480 image which should have damning EXIF data. (If he comes up with such an image belatedly, dismiss it. He now knows that there are apps which can change EXIF data.)

The congressman's statement means that he is probably being very careful. Who knows what kind of pictures he might have taken in the days before he was married?

But a pre-marital crotch shot (presuming one was somehow made available to the framers) would not have served the purpose of the framers. Few would have given a damn. Especially in New York.

Come to think of it -- someone who felt rejected by Weiner when he married Huma might have been willing to hand out both the pic and the yfrog address.

That's just a guess. As reader milowent points out, there are lots of other ways Dan could have gotten hold of that address. We know from Gennette's account that Dan has been using smarmy tactics to try to find personal information about her.

And we really have no evidence that the shot is of Weiner's crotch.

Joseph Cannon said...

Another Anonymous poster wrote...

"Just how exactly was he able to control which twitter follower this was sent to..."

Gennette never received anything. Nothing was ever sent to her.

Her address was easy to include in the spoofed tweet. Read what milowent has to say in the very first comment.

Jonny V said...

I hope this Dan Wolfe guy gets in lot of trouble for this.

I'd also be very curious to see who else may be involved...

Anonymous said...

You are right, Joseph. I did not read the URL stuff you posted or pretty much anything past about the first paragraph of your post. That's my point. No one is going to pay attention to something that seems like it's a desparate attempt to obfuscate what is more important to virtually everyone - what explains WEINER's very strange behavior? If the picture could have been taken before he was married and posted somewhere - he could say that, rather than the "can't say with certitude it's not me" weird answer. And, I repeat - why is he following young women with no connection to him? Unless he explains that with clarity, NO ONE other than a few diehards will care about URL's, Dan Wolf or anything else.

Anonymous said...

Even though your politics and mine differ significantly, I enjoy your passion & was glad to see your site alive and kicking again.

Nice investigative work on trying to get to the bottom of this...any defense attorney would be glad to have you on their team. You raise and flesh out some intriguing points, but miss out on the two big ones.

1) I think that you are looking to defend a person who is not defending himself. Rep Weiner has had every opportunity since his initial “hack or prank” denials to go to the mat in order to defend himself, yet he timidly defers. This dude is a f’n flamethrower every time he is in front of a camera, and yet, when his personal honor and personal accounts are “hacked”, he turtles and/or insults the producer. Have you seen his appearances in the last 48 hours? This is not the Weiner I have come to know and dislike...this is a classic example of a person who was busted doing something and doesn’t want to be caught lying about it after the fact.

Did you see his response to Luke Russert’s question? WTF?!?! A simple yes or no would do quite nicely here. While, “You know, I can’t say with certitude. My system was hacked. (bold mine)Pictures can be manipulated, pictures can be dropped in and inserted,” might seem a reasonable response; I am pretty sure all the guys out here would have a pretty definitive response if some one asked us if we have ever had a picture of our encased boners taken in a POV fashion without breaking out the 2011 version of, ‘depends what the definition of is, is.’

His responses have not been logical responses from an innocent victim.

2) “Hack”(ed)” is a pretty strong term, and one he has used on multiple occasions. I dare say that 99.999% of the population, if faced with a similar “hack” would deny that they were responsible until they were blue in the face…then they would pass out, wake up and repeat the process. And somewhere in the aforementioned process they would file a police report. I do believe Hacking is a felony (please correct me if I am wrong)… If so, why wouldn’t a upstanding member of Congress, file a police report to report a serious, FBI level crime? It just doesn’t follow logical sense that he has not done this if he was violated in this way. Someone commented before that victims call the police, perps call their lawyers. What did he do?

Make compelling cases on why he is now a deer in the headlights when asked about this issue, and on why this violation (hacking) of a Congressman’s electronic communications is not being presently pursued by the FBI, and I’ll entertain more esoteric reasons for his innocence. And if the vast right wing conspiracy is behind it, you’ll have my full support to throw the book at the guilty party. But until these two basic points are addressed, you are just trying to get a guilty person off on a technicality.

Joseph Cannon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rocks said...

This is very interesting but it doesn't mean much till you explain the lack of "None" in the tweet from Weiner's account.

Joseph Cannon said...

Before he lawyered up, Weiner reacted pretty much as I would. I would have made a joke, said "this is nonsense" and hoped that people would turn their attention to more important issues. After he lawyered up -- well, he's talking like a man who has lawyered up. Ultra-cautious.

The point is, nothing he has said seems strange to me.

As for following young women...come off it. If his social network has men in it, you'd accuse him of being gay. If it has older women in it, you'd accuse him of being a cougar hunter.

The only alternative is not to use social networks at all -- which I've long felt was a damned good idea. Maybe now others will understand why I give that advice.

I'll repeat something I said above: Maybe Weiner took a crotch shot of himself before he was married. Maybe he broke up with a paramour who became miffed that he married Huma Abedin. Maybe the rejected female contacted Dan (or one of Dan's associates) and offered up the Yfrog address and the photo.

That scenario would explain why Dan could not divulge the actual 640x480 photo. The EXIF data of the real photo would have a date stamp. If the photo was taken before July, 2010 (the date of Weiner's marriage), nobody would have given a damn about the crotch shot.

Well, maybe a few people would have complained. But noses aren't so very blue these days.

It's also possible that Weiner has taken photos like that back in his bachelor days, and he's simply, honestly not sure whether this is one that he took.

It's also very possible that the photo is not him.

For present purposes, it is enough to prove that he did not send that photo to Gennette. And we've done that. This is a frame.

Anonymous said...

You should send this vital info to the FBI and the Capitol Police ASAP! Have you done that?

Anonymous said...

Weiner has basically admitted the picture was of him. Seems like you need to re-open your case.

Anonymous said...

So which is it "
Gennette never received anything. Nothing was ever sent to her.

Her address was easy to include in the spoofed tweet"

by the way...the screeshot of the supposed solution looks nothing like a normal tweeted image or for that matter, the screenshot of Weiner's tweet...Can you just not admit that he did this and move on.

Anonymous said...

@patriotusa76 has not been contacted by authorities and welcomes an investigation. nice try...

willyjsimmons said...

Slight correction...

A "cloud" server instance is still an OS...running in a virtual environment. Buuuuuttt, the imageshack api (while I'm kinda sure twitter is all ruby on rails) appears to be written in python sooooo, more than likely a linux stack.

Not that this has anything to do with the subject at hand.

(sorry joseph)

As to "why" Weiner can't explain what happened, he doesn't have to...yfrog can simply look at their mail log and see where that pic came from. If it was done with this email trick.

If Weiner did do it from his blackberry...his IP address would be in the logs. Now, that too could be spoofed, but that would require another level of expertise that this Dan guy doesn't seem to possess. First of which would be getting the IP address for the phone.

Anonymous said...

The @repneedledick account shared a distinctive style with @patriotusa76's friend @jihadhunter.

@Fairly_Balanced said...

Excellent testing and technical analysis. Yfrog server should still have the information about the picture including the email address and IP address the picture came from.

C4 said...

I just send your YFrog a picture of a Canadian flag. I think you are right about all this! I have tweeted Weiner and multiple CNN anchors with a link to this article! Maybe use this or create your own: @{insert name} Highly likely source of prank vs. Rep. Weiner using Twitter image app called "Yfrog". No hack required!

Anonymous said...

repweiner might have just used a different email account too which would likely explain the missing URL.

Also the missing URL can be attributed to a firefox extension known as SafeScript. When active it blocks java script from executing, the photo is displayed but the URL among other things not.

Also, @Davidgs on the DOPE photo you put up I do get the URL shown, so there oges the whole theory. Try for yourself from different browsers without logging in to your yfrog account.

Anonymous said...


He was FRAMED! FRAMED, I tell ya!

Yes, it could not possibly be that the perv sent the crotch shot himself.


Anonymous said...

here's some help topics at yfrog that document that this is intended functionality. Seems stupid why they would allow e-mail to an address to work like this, since the source of the e-mail can not be verified.

Opti said...

Nice work. Very very nice work.

Pundit said...

I know zero tech and I followed this entire article perfectly. Well done catching the frame job and writing it up so clearly.

Joseph Cannon said...

"Yes, it could not possibly be that the perv sent the crotch shot himself."

Absolutely true, for the reasons given. You seem incapable of comprehending an argument of any complexity. I'm under no obligation to print further comments from ninnies who refuse to address the issues.

And there is no evidence that Weiner is a "perv."

"repweiner might have just used a different email account too which would likely explain the missing URL."

Ridiculous. He was using his normal twitter account at the time. Why would he use another email account to send a lewd photo to his own Yfrog account?

I can't think of a more absurd suggestion.

"Also the missing URL can be attributed to a firefox extension known as SafeScript."

Make the experiment.

By the way: Since this post has attracted many newcomers to this blog, I have allowed many exemptions to the rules for posting. But no more. There will be no more anonymous comments, even if they are filled with praise.

You need not formally sign in. Just use some sort of nick, the way you would sign a snail mail letter.

Other blogs ask for all sorts of log in information, including email addresses. So my rules are far more lenient.

JustOneMinute said...

"For present purposes, it is enough to prove that he did not send that photo to Gennette. And we've done that. This is a frame."

Very interesting, and well done.

I was following the argument to the bit about about how anyone who knew Weiner's yfrog address could send this photo to his account.

I missed the bit proving that only a political enemy, and not a tasteless staffer, drinking buddy, or Weiner himself with an unlinked cell phone, actually sent the photo.

And since Weiner is lawyering up, downgrading this from "hack" to "prank", won't deny or confirm that he is the object of the photo and won't deny being aware of who is responsible, well - I guess we have different notions of just what has been proven.

Rocks said...

How would the person sending the email know Weiner's yfrog email address? It's random.

Anonymous said...

"Weiner is excluded. It is technically impossible for him to have sent the image."

Uhhh, why not? Couldn't he have done thus if he had multiple accounts? One for work, one for cheating?

Is it that hard to believe he goofed and sent it to the wrong account? Especially if he had jumped from the computer he had been using to another device in order to get the pic?

pbump said...

Unfortunately, I don't think this is proof. I explained in detail at my blog:

But in short - if Weiner deleted the tweet before the image page was visited, a similar gap would appear, since yFrog couldn't load the content of the tweet.

DaTechGuy said...

Certainly an interesting theory, you seem to have clearly established the YFrog vulnerability. Like the accidental cellphone split theory it has the virtue of a simple explanation logical explanation.

It would certainly be worth while to question Patriot on it.

The problems I see with the theory are certain inconsistencies (not the technical side) but I'll deal with them in a post on my blog.

But anyway well done.

Eddy said...

Good work proving that it can be done. You have no evidence that it actually WAS done. This could all be proven out with a quick investigation tracing the source of the file. However, the picture is no longer the story. Why is there no investigation of hacking? Why is Rep. Wiener not calling for that? Why is he unable to answer questions like, "Is that a picture of you?" or "Why were you following a coed in Seattle?" etc. Who do you think looks more guilty, a man calling for an investigation in this matter (Dan Wolfe) or a man who avoids any direct quesitoning whatsoever (Wiener). On a side note, Anthony Wiener could barely fill a Starbucks to hear his, always hate filled never substantive, dithering let alone a 45K seat venue.

Rocks said...

Why would the hacker know Weiner's randomly generated Yfrog email account?

Phelps said...

I don't see how this excludes Weiner. Everyone has multiple email addresses. That's the main use of the email function. If he emailed it from another account (say his Congressional .gov account) then it would look exactly like your "frame" scenario.

Phelps said...

Ridiculous. He was using his normal twitter account at the time. Why would he use another email account to send a lewd photo to his own Yfrog account?

If he took it with his Congressional .gov blackberry, then that would be the email account associated with it.

Anonymous said...

two things: One, Wolfe would have to know Weiner's yfrog email address.

Two, all that stands between the left and total victory over us right wing nut jobs is Weiner dialing up the cops or FBI, asking them to trace the IPs that accessed his account on Saturday, and then arresting Mr. Wolfe and having your victory parade along with MSBNC 24 hour coverage.

Wolfe, is saying: "bring it on". He says go ahead and and scour my records and slice and dice my IP activity. Why would he say that?

That is the OPPOSITE of what Weiner is doing. He isn't asking for ANY criminal, police or FBI investigation. Even though some guy out there that hates him has access to his Twitter and yfrog account!

How's this for a theory: If Weiner reports it is a crime and knows it is a false filing, it is a FEDERAL CRIME.


Dave Lucas said...

Wow! I am impressed by the "cybersleuthery" here! I've been following the WeinerGate antics on my blog and I will now link back your post as soon as I leave this comment!

SarahW said...

You wrote "The only way to create a URL-free header is to have someone else send a pic to one's Yfrog address"

But can't he do it simply by using another device? All that is necessary is another device. If Weiner has a "cheater phone" for pervy business and private texting.

James said...

First of all, if he was hacked as he said he was, and he wasn't, then how did he remove the pic just minutes after? Hacked means you have no control over you account. And when asked if the picture was his, he said he couldn't say. He indicted himself on that account alone. You cannot defend the indefensible. Move on and serve a greater cause then trying to defend this Napoleonic twit!

James J. said...

Whether he was hacked or not no longer is the issue. The issue is: is the picture him? He hasn't denied it and that's basically a confirmation that it is. So someone hacked him and stole the picture and posted it on his Twitter. The question now is who was Weiner sending naked pictures of himself to?

Aquaman300 said...

Hey, my test worked, too. You now have a picture of Aroldis Chapman pitching at Great American Ball Park for the Cincinnati Reds against the Florida Marlins in your yfrog account. That sure seems like a gaping security hole.

Pangolin said...

So is or is it not common for people's Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter and what-not accounts to be hacked by various means?

Reading some boards I won't care to mention this seems to happen rather more often than people like to admit.

What's the frequency Kenneth?

soren said...

Anthony De Rosa is skeptical...

soren said...

BTW, if you believe Weiner was hacked in this manner you still have to explain how the tweet was almost instantly deleted... the hacker would not have been able to do that... Weiner's last public tweet was 3 1/2 hours old... after the lewd tweet went out he starts babbling about hockey... Weiner and his spokesperson have twice lied about the order of events and put the hockey tweeting before the lewd tweet went out.

You also have to explain why Weiner can't recognize whether or not that is his penis...

darue said...

yfrog support answers my question. proves that if someone knows the yfrog email addy, they can twiter as you...

sm said...

Here is the citation you requested, he did in fact say that he deleted it himself:
Relevant text: For the first time, he also gives a personal account of the incident itself, saying he was online when the allegedly hacked tweet appeared. "I was literally there tweeting about hockey," he tells Blitzer, "and I see this thing pop up. I immediately delete it."

In any case, these are very interesting revelations. However, I think you're doing some selective listening yourself. Several points have been raised, that you have not addressed.

Among them:
1. (most problematic to your argument) Apparently the URL anomaly is not as specific as you seem to think. Milowent himself pointed out to you that the URL IS VISIBLE to everyone but you. Indeed, when I click over to the picture that he uploaded to you, the URL is there. Milowent further commented that based on the URL evidence, which you tout as essential to your case, the screenshot appears to be taken by someone logged into Weiner's yfrog account, which kinda blows your whole theory. Hmmm. OR the circumstances determining whether or not that URL is visible aren't what you seem to have determined.

2. You have not explained the absence of the word "none" in Weiner's tweet. There was no other text in his tweet aside from the girl's screenname and the link, and according to your experimentation, if it had been the result of an email without that additional text, it should say "none."

3. How did someone, specifically the person you accused, get his unguessable yfrog email address? You offer some pretty far fetched methods for this

4. Occam's razor (hand in hand with #3, above). I just want to point out that you offered the possibility that someone did ALL of the following:
- possessed a lewd pic of Weiner's weiner,
- held onto it until after he was married and
- ALSO possessed his yFrog address AND
- apparently the knowledge that this little trick could be performed with these two items,
- sought out and found a random twitterer who disliked Weiner
- offered the picture and yfrog address to Wolfe, who then uses it, despite any possibly consequences for tampering with the accounts of a freaking congressman!

Seriously, there's nothing simpler?!

Further, your evidence against Dan Wolfe is downright weak. You claim that he drew attention to the yfrog pic immediately after it was uploaded. That's just not true and it's an important distinction. He drew attention to the public TWEET that was posted from Weiner's account. Ok, so he saw it before it was deleted, and retweeted. That's evidence? All he had to be is ON Twitter for that to happen. And ok, so he hates Weiner. Some of his former staffers do, too, and they're about a zillion times more likely to have known his yfrog email... Ok... I think I'm done.

John Doe said...

Why would Weiner claim that his account was hacked? Why would Weiner admit that the wiener photo "possibly" is his junk? Every guy recognizes his own junk, so a non-denial is an admission.

How did this conservative dude get a photo of Weiner's wiener in order to send it to Weiner's yfrog account? Answer: he didn't. You are twisting logic into a pretzel to protect one of your guys. And making yourself look like a partisan ignoramous in the process.

Joseph Cannon said...

Right-wingers are so hilarious.

Many of the concerns voiced by Wolfe's increasingly desperate defenders are addressed in the body of the article. Learn to read.

First you have the contention that Weiner deleted the image "immediately." According to the screencap, it was up for 27 minutes. And judging from the twitterstream, he was online at the time this all went down.

Then there's the ABSURD notion that he uses a separate blackberry to send pictures to his own twitter account. Why? Why on earth? God, you freaks are reaching. You're emotionally wedded to your scenario, and you are willing to bend all logic and reality to fit your preconceptions.

As for Wolfe saying "Come and get me" -- this is the same guy who said "I have nothing to hide" right before he hid his tweets. He tried to frame a congressman, and now he's hoping to bluff his way out.

Call the cops? Why? The account was not hacked. I keep writing "the account was not hacked" and you fools keep reading words that I did not write.

Since no hacking occurred, what violation of the criminal code are we talking about? Cite the law that was broken.

Defamation and libel are civil matters. Most lawyers advise clients not to pursue such cases.

You latch on to the statement that he isn't 100% certain that the pic isn't his as though it were an admission of guilt. But it isn't. He denied that he did this. Explicitly. If he were lying about the denial, then logic dictates that he would be willing to lie about everything else.

As I've said before -- you people refuse to address the issue -- there's always the possibility that he used to trade naughty pics with various ladies in times past. So maybe he's simply not sure if this isn't some pic from (say) 1998 come back to haunt him.

Jon Stewart, who used to go swimming with Weiner, insists that the guy in the shot can't possibly be him. ("As I recall, there was a lot more Anthony and a lot less Weiner.") Stewart seemed sincere in that. Really damn funny, but also sincere.

Years and years ago -- before this blog started, and well before I met my current lady -- I was stunned to discover how many young ladies in various chat rooms were perfectly willing to send me shots of their breasts after, like, 90 seconds of conversation. Like it or not, that's how a lot of flirty singles communicate these days. (In my case, I never reciprocated. I never have aimed a camera at the Downstairs Cannon.)

You people perfectly embody the point I made in my post: It's impossible to get someone to understand an argument if his ideology depends on his not understanding it.

Thomas PD said...

Some of the most convincing evidence of Rep. Weiner's innocence is that he appears to be fairly experienced with women. And no guy who's experienced with women actually thinks the typical woman is sitting around craving a male crotch shot.*

Now, of course, men generally enjoy such shots of women. But only a naive doofus would be so confused as instinctively project that the other way around.

(* Yes, I know there are exceptions to every generalization. They're called "generalizations" for a reason...)

drbcladd said...

(1) Surfing with NoScript enabled turns off the yfrog URL, too. Just played with it. Don't see "None" nor any of the links above the image (there is one, Reply, in the Weinergate screen capture). Toggling NoScript toggles the URL (and button) display.

(2) I know anyone on the intertubes can claim to be anything they want but I am a fan of Rep Weiner (live too far upstate to vote for him). That said, I do not find it impossible that he could have e-mailed the picture to his account from a different e-mail account. Not saying that happened, just that it is not completely insane to consider it.

In fact, I thought about it while reading the conclusions to the original article and wondered, since I don't use yfrog, whether or not it could have been from his original account. As soon as I understood how the matchup with registered e-mail account was done I wondered if it might be from a different account. I use multiple accounts to separate most work mail from most personal mail.

(3) I was sorely disappointed with his evasive answers to the questions. I understand why he has to answer that way and that disappoints me. I like it when progressives can hold the moral high ground over diaper-wearing, Appilachian-trail-hiking hypocrites; his answers were disappointing.

Anonymous said...

Really??? I guess for the liberals it is. BUT for others there's just a few questions that HAVE to be answered.
I appreciate all the trouble you went to to show us how to do the 'hacking' of his or anyone else's account. It's only fair I didn't read all of it because if you really want this CASE to be CLOSED, then Weiner has to answer only two or three questions, honestly, with a simple yes, or no.
1. Did you send the pic?
2. If not do you know who did?
3. Then your account was 'hacked'?
4. Did you or anyone associated with you erase those posts?
5. Is that particular pic part of your pic collection, before all this started?

There are a few more but suffice it to say these should be able to "CLOSE the CASE!
But hang in there, I have no doubt this will get lost in the pile just like other little 'things' that liberals have hidden.

Joseph Cannon said...

"That said, I do not find it impossible that he could have e-mailed the picture to his account from a different e-mail account. Not saying that happened, just that it is not completely insane to consider it."

Yes it is. You're saying that the guy bought another Blackberry and is paying for a second service in order to send pictures TO HIMSELF? Presumably so he could avoid the obscure "URL anomaly" which nobody noted until I pointed it out? You're saying that he would go to those lengths instead just sending an email?

That is nuts.

Wolfe's own behavior that night crosses the line separating "suspicious" from "incriminating." He did this. It was easy to do.

Oh...for those who keep asking "How did he learn the Yfrog address?" I'll say it AGAIN: That issue is answered in the body of my post. Learn to read.

We know that Wolfe was so obsessed -- so sick, frankly -- that he called up Gennette's relatives to find out personal information about her. He adopted various ruses to get the data he wanted.

Any person so motivated could have gotten the Yfrog address.

Wolfe did this. If you are are still defending him, you are just desperate.

Joseph Cannon said...

As for Surfing with NoScript: From a Blackberry? Do they make Mozilla (with NoScript) for Blackberries?

udermuder said...

he woulda showed us his real birth certificate and bris certificate and then the dna from the fbi and the twitter forgetter would still say HE DID IT. small minds are also closed so why even try to explain beyond ur original statement.

Joseph Cannon said...

Okay, I just tested the NoScript thing.

You're right: The URL is now gone.

Y'know what else? The word "reply" is also gone. Yet there it is, in the screencap presented on Breitbart.

So far, the ONLY way to create a Yfrog page that matches the Breitbart screencap is to send a pic to someone else's account, as described in the body of this post.

Joseph Cannon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Some of your suggestions have been proven not to be correct.

Blogs from the right and left are posting rebuttals to your post.

Here are a few for example.

Red State ::
Daily Kos ::
GatewayPundit ::

Some of the most puzzling statements are coming from Rep. Weiner himself. His refusal to answer the question of is that leg and groin in the image. I don't know about anyone else, but I know how many shots of my leg and groin have been taken -- beides x-rays - NONE.

And if he was hacked as he claims he needs to get the Feds involved and figure out who did it. Rep. Weiner made a comment back in 2009 (paraphrased) that cyber-attacks and hacking represent a major threat to our way of life. Now, he sits back and acts carefree about this, which I add, goes against the way he portrays himself as a lion battling the evil conservatives.

In case some people don't bother reading the links. The short version is that even in the email link to post to an account have generated characters besides what the user wanted as an email address.

Also, the URL does come into play after a period of time. There is some discussion if it shows up after the person logs into their account -- but it does show up.

Last thing I would like to say is that many of his fellow Democrats are getting the uncomfortable feeling that he is not telling the truth, in part. And that he is turning this into a circus.

I would have to agree.

Btw, nice detective work, but I think you just needed a little more time to discover some of the discrepancies in your blog.

Phelps said...

Yes it is. You're saying that the guy bought another Blackberry and is paying for a second service in order to send pictures TO HIMSELF?

No. We are saying that we know he has a blackberry issued to him by the government (like all Congressmen) which would not be setup with his campaign account ( that he is required to have to avoid running afoul of campaign finance laws which prohibit candidates from using government resources for campaign purposes.

So we know he has multiple email accounts. We know the twitter account is not on his government account, or that would be a campaign finance violation if he did any campaigning on twitter, which is the whole point. Therefore, his blackberry is most likely a separate account. If he took the pic with his government blackberry, then the email method would be the easiest way to upload it. (It might even be the only way he knows -- I've seen weirder things from non-tech people.)

Really. What is more likely? All these convoluted "prank" steps, or "a Congressman was flirting with someone and sent them a racy photo?"

Phelps said...

Call the cops? Why? The account was not hacked. I keep writing "the account was not hacked" and you fools keep reading words that I did not write.

Right. They keep mistaking your speculation for what Weiner actually said.

Joseph Cannon said...

kajunman, I don't mind people who come here who disagree. But I'm getting really pissed off at people like you, who reply to my post without having read it.

"1. Did you send the pic?"

Weiner ALREADY answered with the simple yes or no you asked for. He said that he did not.

I get the feeling that he could say those words a hundred times and you will still be hallucinating that he never gave an answer. That's the way birthers and other cranks traditionally act.

"2. If not do you know who did?"

It would be irresponsible for him to answer that. I am certain that it was Dan Wolfe, for the reasons given in my post. (Which you may want to read one of these days.)

"3. Then your account was 'hacked'?"

You really have a hard time deciphering the English language, don't you kajunman? I've said repeatedly that the account was not hacked.

And now some clown will surely pipe up with these all-too-predictable words: "But...but...Weiner SAID he was hacked!"

What other terminology would you expect him to use? He didn't know (and may still not know) that Yfrog has a serious security hole, a hole that allows for hack-free spoofing of tweets.

Even if you told Weiner what really went down, he might nevertheless continue to use the term "hacking" incorrectly or overly-broadly. He's not a computer nerd, although he kind of looks like one.

"4. Did you or anyone associated with you erase those posts?"

What would it matter if he did? I would have done so. If I were a Twitter user, I certainly would have immediately deleted an obscene photo which someone else uploaded to my Yfrog account. And I'm not even a congressman.

Are you saying that he should have kept a frame-job visible on Yfrog? For what purpose?

By the way -- I addressed this very issue at length at the bottom of my post. There's this thing called "reading" which you might want to look into, kajunman.

"5. Is that particular pic part of your pic collection, before all this started?"

Only he could say. I tend to doubt that it's him. But the only germane question is: Did he try to tweet it to Genette, or did Wolfe frame him? If he didn't send it to Gennette -- and he clearly did not (she did not receive it, and the URL anomaly proves that he did not upload it himself) -- then everything else about that pic is inconsequential.

Talking to the Weiner-haters is like talking to birthers or 9/11 CD weirdos. You guys are so emotionally wedded to your favorite scenarios that you refuse to allow any new information into your noggins.

Why don't you clowns even TRY to address the fact that Wolfe can't provide a 640x480 with proper EXIF data? And why don't you try to explain the dating discrepancy?

I know why you don't make the attempt: Because you got nothin' -- and in your hearts, you know that Wolfe is guilty of trying to frame a congressman.

Anonymous said...

If this guy Wolfe is as guilty as you claim, why is he welcoming an FBI or other law enforcement investigation?

Why does Weiner NOT want a law enforcement investigation?

These facts alone do not make it look good.

A law enforcement investigation would quickly determine where the image and/or tweets came from.

sm said...

Hi there. I commented, a rather lengthy one, about an hour ago. It came from "sm," did you see it? Is there a reason it might niw have been approved or did it not make it to you?

Phelps said...

Congressman Weiner admitted to deleting the tweet and image involved. You are clearly blind to the facts.
Did he make that admission? Why is it that we never get a citation, a quotation or a link to back up these statements?

Yeah, he did. Because his press statement said it. Here's your cite.

It's also where he said he was hacked. And when he was questioned about it Monday for over ten minutes, his only answer was "look at my press statement." So we looked at the fucking statement, and tried to take him at his word.

Turns out his word is pretty useless.

Joseph Cannon said...

"Right. They keep mistaking your speculation for what Weiner actually said."

I'm not speculating. A lot of people have replicated the experiment. There is no other way to explain the "URL anomaly" -- which you refuse to address.

As for what Weiner said -- I addressed that issue in my comment above. Yes, he said he was hacked. What other terminology could you expect him to use? How could Weiner know about the security hole in Yfrog? YOU didn't know about it until I pointed it out. (And I didn't know until a reader pointed it out to me.)

There's also the possibility that he might be using the term "hacking" incorrectly. Is that a crime?

I will admit that we need a better term for what happened here. Exploiting that security hole is too simple to be covered by the word "hacking." But what term would work better...?

Your suggestion that he uses a GOVERNMENT phone to send obscene pictures to himself is so ludicrous that I cannot even comment on it.

Jeez -- as this evening progresses, I'm reminded more and more of what it was like to argue with the "controlled demolition" nuts.

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, the supposed "framing" could be a reverse-frame. If you can really send from any email account, then anybody in Weiner's camp could have sent the email with the picture attached and call it a framing! Then, when Wolfe's camp noticed the picture and tweeted about it, it was easy to point fingers and try to make them look bad. Conspiracies within conspiracies? Politics sucks and so do politicians. Pretending to want to do something grandiose, and then getting caught up in games and B.S.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't mean anyone else but Weiner did it and so far he hasn't denied it. Meanwhile Redstate blows this out of the water.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Great work!

I'd also like to add in that the photo doesn't even appear to be what is claimed...

Joseph Cannon said...

I accidentally let some Anonymous comments through. Last time.

But I will respond (again) to the comment about Wolfe saying that he welcomes an FBI investigation. Jeez, what do you expect him to say? "I do NOT welcome an FBI investigation"?

The fact is -- and I'll say it ONE MORE TIME -- this is the same guy who said "I have nothing to hide" and then hid his tweets.

He can come up with no explanation for the date anomaly on the 800x600 photo (which is damning evidence against him) and he cannot explain why his cache does not include the 640x480 version which (according to the experiment conducted by my reader) would have provided EXIF data divulging the exact camera used.

He said that he did not click through to the largest version of the photo, and then he said that the 800X600 is the largest version of the photo.

His behavior toward Gennette was indefensible. I'm not sure that it constitutes stalking, as the law defines the term, but we're in that territory.

I'll repeat what I've already said about Weiner going to the authorities: Defamation and libel are civil matters, and any lawyer would probably advise him not to pursue such a case.

He wasn't hacked, so what law was violated? I suppose one could make a case based on some part of the criminal code, but we're in iffy territory.

And now the clowns will no doubt pipe up: "But...but...he SAID he was hacked!" I've addressed that twice now. Not again.

Joseph Cannon said...

My god. You should see some of the Anonymous comments I've deleted. The stupidity is unfathomable. This really IS like arguing with birthers!

These clowns keep saying "Why doesn't Weiner simply deny that he sent it?" But he DID.

This seems familiar. "Why doesn't Obama simply release his birth records..?" I'll bet that somewhere out there in birtherland, there are clowns who are STILL repeating that magic mantra.

Unknown said...

And I see this thing pop up. I immediately delete it. OK? I immediately delete the photo – I thought I deleted – I mean, I’m not a hundred percent sure – I deleted the photo and then this – this – without any password or anything, I was able to get into the account where this photograph was hosted somehow. And I deleted that and other photographs in there as well, although it was nothing very controversial in there. But I deleted everything, and I immediately tweeted “my system has been hacked.” You know, darn it.

All said by Weiner.

Joseph Cannon said...

Thanks for the cite, PapaJ. And now would you please tell me what he did WRONG in any of that?

As I have already said about four or five times now, I would have done much the same thing if someone put crap on my account.

Read the final paragraphs of my post before saying one more word.

Janie B said...

Someone please alert CNN to this immediately. MSNBC too. It would help debunk immediately.

Anonymous said...

In the first comment above, "milowent" writes "It worked."

However, that test case inserted the word "None" in the tweet before the @[recipient].

The actual tweet from @RepWeiner as recorded by the Congressional Twitter website didn't contain the word 'None'.

milowent explains the "None" happens when the email subject is blank. So if a hacker left the email subject blank the tweet would have contained None before @Gennette (and if a non-blank subject was used, that word or words would have been in the tweet before her name instead of None).

Therefore, while interesting, this experiment doesn't appear to replicate what happened. True?

- Best regards,

robtr said...


Don't quit your day job. There are very large holes in your half baked theory.

1. To email Weiners account you have to have his secret email. The only possible way for someone to get that is to hack it or know it. yfrog adds random letters and numbers to the account name for the secret email.

2. In order for that to work Weiner would have to approve access to twitter from his yfrog account, or click on a picture from his yfrog account which would take him to yfrog. Weiner claimed in his interview with Wolf Blitzer that he had never seen the yfrog space before so he didn't authorize it if you believe him.

3. Sending a picture from a blackberry automatically creates a yfrog account where the picture resides, most people don't know that and weiner probably didn't.

4. If a twitter uses doesn't manually approve yfrog nobody can email a picture to yfrog plus he would not have a yfrog email address if he had never seen it as he claimes.

5. The yfrog connection and his denial he has ever seen it before makes him look more guilty not less.

6. yfrog is the same as twitter or anyother social media, it requires a password which is the last half of the secret email address that weiner claime he never saw.

7. Your guess that Weiner sent someone an email from yfrog would be impossible if Weiner never saw yfrog before like he says.

Your entire post proves nothing because his secret email would have to have been hacked and Weiner would have had to approve someone posting to yfrog unless he did it himself with his blackberry.

Nice try though but you failed.

Anonymous said...

I notice that Redstate is claiming that it would be too hard to guess the Twitter-name-dot-random-character email address.

I would imagine any spammer worth their salt would be able to generate a bunch of email messages to Twitter-name-dot-random-characters and eventually get the right combo.

Anonymous said...

I'm missing something here. You show a screenshot of the image milowent sent with "Hello sweet babes" across the front. It's shown below your alleged Weiner screen cap and the one you uploaded: comparison-weiner-dowson-final.jpg

You show no url in that image for the milowent file yet, when I look at the yfrog account, I see:

None @pumapower

And that appears where you said, and show in your screen cap, that nothing should appear. So, why is that?

theOtherOne said...

"Talking to the Weiner-haters is like talking to birthers or 9/11 CD weirdos. You guys are so emotionally wedded to your favorite scenarios that you refuse to allow any new information into your noggins."

Funny, I was thinking this same thing about your failure to even consider the most logical scenario, which is that he accidentally publicly tweeted something which was meant to be private.

If, and it is a big if, your theory is correct, why isn't going after the person who did this. I won't say that he has an obligation to get the authorities involved to clear his name and bust the hacker, but really, why wouldn't he? Even considering your point that his account wasn't hacked, at the least, the responsible party is trying to frame a sitting Congressman...doesn't that merit police or FBI involvement? All logical roads lead to police involvement & that is the one road he has not gone down. Again, why would he not do this? And if anyone believes that he is really concerned about saving govt money or resources, I have a bridge to sell you.

I must say I look forward to seeing what you'll do if/when he is finally forced to issue a mea culpa and come out and acknowledge that he, "made a serious mistake and had an error in judgement and hopes that people and the press will respect his privacy during this time."...or some such tripe which politicians, from both sides of the aisle, put out there when they think with their other head. Unfortunately, if he does come clean,it will probably not end with his resignation since he has a 'D' following his name... but one can hope.

Also, you are getting some link love from some good conservative watering holes (redstate & hotair to name a few).

Anonymous said...

I understand your frustration with some of the comments. I assure you that I have read your entire argument in this case across multiple posts.

You do however fail to address numerous questions.

You fail to address RepWeiner's behavior during this entire matter. His behavior is turning the media against him and this thing will blow up in his face.

Today during an interview with Wolf Blitzer Weiner claimed ignorance regarding the yfrog hosting service account. That was clearly a lie. He has used yfrog in the past to post images and he also had to have setup the authorization process connecting yfrog to his twitter account.

Here is screenshot of RepWeiner posting an image from last Election Day using yfrog for the image...

Your technical arguments appear to have numerous holes. Regardless, you fail to completely address how this man has behaved over the past few days and the mounting lies he is telling.

The media is not going to let this incident die. Weiner himself is making worse with every passing day.

Joseph Cannon said...

"Today during an interview with Wolf Blitzer Weiner claimed ignorance regarding the yfrog hosting service account. That was clearly a lie."

And you are clearly delusional. I'm watching that interview right now. He never said that.

What IS it with you people? Once someone in your group makes a mis-statement (or a deliberately false statement), you repeat it mindlessly.

Here are the exact words:

"I deleted the photo and then this – this - without any password or anything, I was able to get into the account where this photograph was hosted somehow. And I deleted that and other photographs in there as well, although it was nothing very controversial in there. But I deleted everything, and I immediately tweeted "my system has been hacked." You know, darn it."

That's the only paragraph I can find that has any bearing on Yfrog. And you clowns can somehow contrive to read something sinister into THAT?

You people are mad. Absolutely mad.

As for his behavior: I can't see how I would have done much differently.

Jesus, you know what this is like? I'm reminded of the arguments I had with the Obama cultists back in 2008, concerning his big NAFTA fib.

I find it cute that you claim that my technical argument has holes, yet you don't specify. The "holes" that others claim to have found have -- must I say these words YET AGAIN? -- have already been addressed.

Anonymous said...



Yfrog, like every other service out there (including Twitter, WordPress, Flickr, Blogger, and Tumblr), has a photo upload service by email. If you are logged into your account, you have access to that email.

Furthermore, if you authorize Yfrog to do so, you can post a picture to Twitter from the account using your secret email.

Gateway Pundit debunked your conspiracy with step by step instructions. Rachel Maddow's on his own blog agrees...


Joseph Cannon said...

Oh, the only technical issue I've not talked about so far is this: The "None" business.

So what? I have tweets in my twitterfeed right now that don't have the word "None."

For example, three hours ago I got one that read thus:

"gdowson153 3 hours ago via Yfrog

In terms of formatting, this is exactly the same as the tweet ascribed to Weiner.

And as I've said before, I have never sent a tweet to anyone in my life.

So that attempt to knock down my argument on tech grounds goes poof. There's nothing there.

Joseph Cannon said...

By the way: Some of the pictures allegedly tweeted from "gdowson" are funny. One was pornographic; I deleted it. But the best image there is the one of my dog.

milowent said...

Very interesting: yfrog has now disabled posting pics via yfrog email address!

screenshot of email I just got trying to post a pic to yfrog:

Anonymous said...

If this is the case (and I have no reason to doubt it) then I will delete my yfrog account and urge all my friends to do the same.

I think Twitpic works the same way - you can post a pic and tweet a link to it by sending an email. Now that I think of it, Posterous allows blogging via email as well.

BBridges said...

maybe I missed it here but Weiner has admitted that the photo was sent from his account and he deleted it. He of course says that it was sent after somebody hacked his account. And he said that his FB account was hacked at the same time.

If that is the case then this scenario is not how it happened.

Joseph Cannon said...

Thanks for the link to the Gateway Pundit. Oh GOD was that funny!

"Furthermore, if you authorize Yfrog to do so, you can post a picture to Twitter from the account using your secret email."

So. Congressman Weiner decides to send a dick picture to himself using his "secret email."

I dunno. Wouldn't it be easier for him to just sort of, you know, look down? I mean, I would have to suck in my gut. (I'm not young anymore.) But Wiener looks rather scrawny.

"When you sign into your yfrog account, you can do so with Twitter, which authorizes you to post to Twitter.

It’s not a hack. It’s a security feature that requires you to be logged into Twitter to sign in, just like Facebook connect."

Where did I say otherwise? I will certainly stipulate that when you sign into Twitter, you are authorized to post to Twitter.

All of this is beside the point. This ridiculous rightist is attempting to bamboozle his way past the problem.

Nothing that Gateway Pundit says has proven me wrong. In fact, little of it is in any way germane.

Look, if what I have to say is incorrect -- then how the hell did all of those pictures appear on my Yfrog account? Why are there so many tweets which seem to come from me, even though I've never sent a tweet in my life?

Why doesn't Gateway Pundit mention anything about the URL anomaly?

But that's not the funniest part. Gateway Pundit says:

"He [Weiner] says he had never been there [Yfrog] before."

This is "proven" with a lengthy quote from the Wolf Blitzer interview. I've given the same quote, above. Nothing in that quote confirms this contention!

When I see the way these clowns stuff words into Weiner's mouth, I'm appalled. Are these people self-deceived? Or are they trying to deceive others?

Anonymous said...

Dude: Please do not take ANYTHING @ Gateway Pundit seriously. In my experience they have proven that they ignore reality, facts, and all evidence that contradicts the Propaganda they are trying to catapult. And that just describes the authors! The followers/posters are even worse!

Liz212 said...

I considered using milowent's trick to send you some adorable kitten picture as a thank you for this post, but unlike him, (and apparently Dan Wolfe), I'm too lazy. So thanks!

milowent said...

joe you gotta see this:

Anonymous said...

I'm the anonymous that posted at "Anonymous : 6:56 PM."

The URL has been addressed by countless of bloggers from both sides of the aisle. The URL will show up. For a simple example check out the Red State link.

You mention that GatewayPundit doesn't prove that Rep Weiner via CNN's Wolf Biltzer. I think it all depends on how you read that block of text, but for argument sake let just say it doesn't.

If you kept reading you would see that Ben Evans (24th-State blog) has an interesting image and comment that was reposted by GatewayPundit.

----“Weiner’s Blackberry was used to post yfrog pictures from his Blackberry for Twitter app in the past.

It’s the hosting service tied into the Blackberry mobile application, and it does not require you to set up a yfrog account to use it. In fact, most people don’t ever need to log into their yfrog account. In the picture above, you can see the picture says “via Twitter for Blackberry.” When you email or MMS a photo to yfrog, it says, “via yfrog.” From Weiner’s statements, he had no clue this was the case (most people don’t).

When he saw the picture pop up in his Twitter stream, he clicked on the yfrog link, and without a password, logged himself into the system via Twitter login., authorizing it for the first time. In other words, no one could have sent the picture from yfrog until after Weiner logged in to yfrog and authorized his account.

If Weiner had not deleted all of the photos, or if he opens his computer to forensic examination, this could be cleared up in a few minutes
” ----

On the Maddow show tonight Rep Weiner gave up some ground and stepped back some of his earlier statements. Perhaps he realized that he should have been more up front because both sides are questioning his statements.

There should be a clip somewhere of him on the show.

Also, on the Maddow blog they put forth the argument that even with the additional 5 characters added by YFrog into the email address a kiddie script will break that pretty easy.

Thus, my stance.

Either Rep Weiner is guilty of sending lewd shots of himself.


He was hacked.

Either way this needs to be addressed. Especially if he was actually hacked into.

Anyhow, I'm finished posting about the topic and will let others sort it out. Hopefully the Feds if he was hacked. Or, at the very least, have common decency dictate a punishment.

chilequiles said...

Poor Joseph. I give you mad props for trying to combat all the stupid. Reading through all this, it's amazing how many people go "ya but.." yet completely ignore 100% of what you're saying. Ideology > Facts apparently.

All we need now is Officer Barbrady to show up and tell everyone to go home.

Pangolin said...

This is standard Conservative Propaganda 101.

1) Tell a lie that looks incriminating.
2) Repeat the lie.
3) Repeat the lie.
4) Post as a concern troll worried that the lie really is true and it makes Liberals look bad.

When the lie is exposed for the fraud it is..... see Brietbart, Acorn, Planned Parenthood, WMD's, Climate Change, etc, etc,

5) Keep repeating the lie and ignore all FACTS to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

here is Congressman Weiner doing interview with Rachel Maddow. According to him, he saw the tweet posted on his own twitter and deleted it as soon as he saw it.

costantinnitatiana said...

The desperation is bloody apparent on the connedservatives fringe. I wish I believed in vodoo so I could place that P.O.scheister Breitbart lie hard into a frogs mouth ......

costantinnitatiana said...

In my country, Italy, we have some good ol' boys from the very south who would love a close and persona;l encounter with this P.O.S. breitbart LIE HARD.

Anonymous said...

Joe - I've followed you and then mourned when you left and then started following you again, but something is really wrong here man. You are making a mockery of your investigative skills on this case and this man. You are failing to answer the simple human behavior questions people have asked you time and again by either a) insulting them - "you're mad; you're like the Obots in the X scenario from days ago; b) retreating again to theories YOU have rather than addressing what the entire OBJECT of this growing scandal - WEINER - has actually said.

I have been around enough of these kind of scandals to see the arch of where this is going. Right wing media has now taken this to a frothing point and will not let go - plus they have at least one head of a House committee involved. They are agitating for a fed investigation which they seem to be doing because they seem pretty confident none of this will be linked to any of their usual subjects. They have all but said they believe Weiner is a liar and sent this photo himself and this may be just the tip of the iceberg.

If this does involve the feds or any official law enforcement getting involved, Weiner will have to come clean. My reading from his increasingly sweat-browed statements is that the "coming clean" will be embarrassing to him and his wife and family, although hopefully not of the illegal kind. I think your categorical pronoucements about his "framing" will not look credibly on you in hindsight. You are putting your money on the wrong horse, my friend.

Anonymous said...

However you were not able to duplicate the format of the original @repweiner tweet.

Note in your example

There is a None string before the @pumapower handle.. keep trying but so far you only get a close but no weiner!


Joseph Cannon said...

The right wing media is using every excuse to press for a federal investigation for two reasons:

1. They want to go fishing.

2. They want to distract people from the Republican attempt to gut Medicare.

Truth be told, I have not yet seen the Rachel Maddow thing. But I have seen the insane ways in which right-wingers have mischaracterized the Wolf Blitzer interview. They've outright lied about it.

And they completely twisted everything Weiner has said.

Frankly, I'm hearing a lot of doubletalk right now. None of the people who have tried to knock down this post have explained what all those outside images are doing in my Yfrog account.

Joseph Cannon said...

"However you were not able to duplicate the format of the original @repweiner tweet."

Yes, I WAS able to. Jesus, how many times do I have to write the same damn thing?

Sorry, but it's 3:20 in the morning and I'm getting cranky. I've had to repeat myself so often, I'm starting to feel like a Philip Glass motif.

Scroll up. You'll find a previous comment where I quote a "gdowson" tweet (that I didn't tweet) which looks EXACTLY like the tweet attributed to Weiner.

Hell. Do I have to offer a screen cap of it...?

Please, people -- before you send your comment, CHECK TO SEE IF I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED YOUR POINT.

By the way, I finally saw the Maddow interview. Anyone who could scry anything odd into his words is simply wacky.

The translators to the King James Bible once put it beautifully: "Cavil, if it find no hole, shall make one."

Anonymous said...

OMG, please tell me that you have forwarded this information to Congressman Weiner. I'm not his biggest fan, yet I believe him 1000% percent with regards to his accusation that the right wing has engaged in yet another instance of dirty tricks. I'm pretty tech-challenged, yet I was able to follow the logic in this post, easily. I can only imagine what this information, in the hands of the proper authorities, may yield.

Thanks to you and milowent for investigating this story and unmasking what is only the latest in a long series of bullying, harassment and trickery from the right wing. So tired of it; they need to be stopped, and whomever hacked into Rep. Weiner's account, arrested.

Rebecca Fransway said...

You're right, and Rachel Maddow last night showed simple examples that 2 members of her staff could easily perform in less than 5 minutes--the twitter hack and the Y-frog hack. You don't even have to be a computer expert; just need to have correct tools.

This means that the table can turn anytime we want to play the prank.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting and plausible.
My only problem about it is how the various parties reacted.
Anthony Weiner has been off balance.
It has made him look worse than he could have looked.

But this Dan Wolfe guy has been consistent.
From Big Gov't:
Wolfe understands that it’s his word against the Congressman’s, and he is eager for law enforcement to investigate his online activity.
Citing “tons of threats wishing me dead, murdered, etc.” in the wake of Daily Kos’s and Gawker’s articles, he states, “I wonder if I can call the authorities myself and ask for an investigation.
It would clear me in minutes.” Wolfe also remarked to blogger Ace of Spades, “I hope he [Weiner] comes after me.
Look up my IP.
Nothing to hide here.
I’d voluntarily hand anything they want over.
Check me and my IP.
I did not post that tweet.”

Nan G.

Anonymous said...


All of the pics at that supposedly don't have a url all actually have a url.

Your own Twitter feed appears to debunk your debunking.

However, the part about putting @Something in the subject appears to work as you stated.

You never did answer,
"How did Dan Wolfe find out Weiner's yfrog address? Is it something you can guess from the twitter user name? If not, how do you think he might have gotten hold of it?


You have demonstrated that anyone can send an email to a yfrog account but in order to do so they must know the yfrog email.

You have not demonstrated how Wolfe gained access to the yfrog email.

Interesting discussion.

- wodun

Anonymous said...

The case against Weiner-

- Weiner followed Cordova. Cordova lived in Seattle. Just before the "hack, spoof, prank, or whatever you want to call it" happened, Weiner himself made a tweet that cryptically referred to what time it would be in SEATTLE when he was to be on the Rachel Maddow show.
Cordova retweeted that tweet.

It's kind of edgy and naughty to send cryptic messages to your crush, and the two of you can snicker about it later on. Only, Weiner isn't snickering now.

It's like you're conducting experiments independent of either reality or what Weiner himself is saying.

The one good thing about what you are doing is that the more you smear Dan Wolfe the harder you're making it for Weiner.
Wolfe will demand an FBI investigation to clear his name. And you're not going to be happy with the result of that investigation.
You're off on tangents that are meaningless to what is obvious to everyone else.
Weiner sent the pic. He won't even deny it's not him, giving bizarre vague answers - "it might be me. But it could be a pic dropped into my account from another source."
Your guy is crumbling.

William Teach said...

Even if one can upload a picture to Yfrog and cause a Tweet to someone else's account, that doesn't take into account that it wasn't a general tweet: it was directed at a specific follower.

Can you replicate that, Joseph?

Maureen Mower said...

This is in reply to one of the "anonymous" posters above, who made this statement:

"More importantly, the press and blogs have moved on from whether this even was a hacking/framing (which Weiner himself has declined to report to authorities) to the more interesting question of why a married Congressman is following random 20 something young women on twitter AND DM'ing them who have no connection to him or his constituency other than that they admire him physically."

First of all, there is nothing even remotely questionable about following people on Twitter. I have followed several folks I don't personally know - so what?

Secondly, you assume that these young women are only interested in Weiner's looks, which is an insult to them. Has it occurred to you that regardless of whether or not they live in his district, they happen to agree with his politics? But then, that wouldn't fit with your attempt to smear him, would it?

Finally, you obviously aren't that familiar with Twitter. The whole reason this is even being discussed is because the image was NOT sent as a "DM" (direct message), but sent publicly, where it could be viewed by anyone who happened to have it in their feed and chose to click the link before it was deleted. If it HAD been sent via Direct Message, the entire episode would never have come to light unless the woman in question chose to go public with it, because no one else on either person's Twitter feed would have seen it.

So next time you want to try to smear someone, you may want to try educating yourself first. That way you won't look quite so foolish.

Eddy said...

Joseph, you have really proven nothing. I guess his buddy Stewart has proven beyond any doubt that it is not him. Please, you are the one who can not see past your ideology. It is obvious by his non response to quesitons he is hiding and there is no denying that. He is on record not answering simple questions. He may have sent it, he may not have sent it. You have proven nothing with your analysis except that it possibly, maybe, could have been, not so sure, done. said...

My guess is Weiner just got rubbed the wrong way..!!
Anthony David Weiner Facebook Account, twitter account, email Address and all …..

Ask him directly……hmmm dats better …wat do u say….B-)

Eddy said...

Joseph, reading some of your responses are hilarious. The way you accuse conservatives of distortion and dillusion clearly are projection. The fact that you continue to defend the indefensible with this guy is amusing. He will not answer questions and that is a problem for him. No matter what techincal details there are, he will not answer questions. It doesn't matter what can be done with yFrog and Twitter, what matters is what was done and Wiener will not allow the truth to be told or investigated.

An attempt to distract from gutting Medicare??? Wow, you are a nut. Most conservatives I know and listen to want to have the conversation, want to educate on why changes are necessary to a failing program. I would much rather be discussing that. However, left-wing hypocrisy in full effect on this issue is also interesting and you are right about one thing, it is a distraction but could all go away with a few simple, straight forward, answers. It is clear that he has taken a picture of himeself or he would absolutely deny it. "Certitude" are you serious??? No matter how much you try to bend into a pretzel to protect a clearly guilty, on some level, party is great entertainment.

TechnoGoddess said...

WRT people not reading your post before commenting, I saw an article at Ars Technica that said in the middle of the article (paraphrasing) "When commenting, include the word 'banana' to prove you actually read the article." LOL

Great analysis. Awesome work.

Anonymous said...

If this is the way it happened, I would expect Rep. Weiner to be suing yfrog. The damage to his reputation is probably irreparable.

Joseph Cannon said...

"He will not answer questions and that is a problem for him. No matter what techincal details there are, he will not answer questions."

You're nuts. Totally bugfuck NUTS. He has answered all pertinent questions -- repeatedly. No matter how many times he says he didn't send the tweet, nutballs like you will continue to say "Weiner refuses to deny that he sent the tweet!"

Gennette says she never had an inappropriate communication from the congressman. Weiner says he sent her only the same boilerplate he sends to everyone else. He says he did not know anything about her. He says he did not send or try to send that image.


Anyone who says otherwise is engaging in casuistry.

Righties want a big-ass investigation for one reason only: Fishing.

Their sick game is pathetically obvious. They want a scenario where the congressman is made to sit in a chair and forced to answer endless questions not about the events of the 27th, but about his entire history.

That's they you REALLY want.

Hey, the trick worked with Clinton -- right?

As for Dan saying "investigate me" -- first, what else WOULD he say? (I've made that point about a zillion times now.) He knows that he is safe, because he knows that Weiner's lawyers, if they have ANY brains, will always advise their client not to sue for libel. From his position of safety, Dannikins can say "Investigate me!" all he wants.

Second, he's a right-wing fanatic. So he's probably down with idea of a fishing expedition, as outlined above. That scenario would no doubt justify any personal consequences. If I were he, I would want an investigation too.

Anonymous said...

I guess the only way to prove this one way or the other is for their to be a federal investigation. Once we start seeing the IP and Mac addresses that things were sent from, we will have the answer.
There needs to be an investigation - congress is using twitter to send schedule changes and appearance info (remember Rep Giffords?) so if there is a problem with it everybody needs to know it.

ArcherB said...

Great work, but I do have some questions.

1) Wasn't this post directed at a particular user (some girl in Seattle)? Can you spoof that using the yfrog email hole?

2) Is it possible to take a pic on a BlackBerry and upload it directly to Twitter? From reading the comments, it is possible and it does go through yfrog.

2a) If you can send from a BlackBerry, can you direct it to someone in particular (some chick in Seattle)? If so, how will that appear? Is it possible that it would look exactly like the test post you've shown here?

It seems more plausible to me that Weiner was watching the game in his undies, playing with Twitter and, for fun, grabbed his blackberry, took a shot of his junk and tried to send it to this chick in Seattle. As soon as he saw it was public, he said, "Oh, Sh*+, deleted it and then claimed to have been hacked.

I would like to see a test of the scenario I suggest to see if it matches what actually happened.

Phelps said...


Actually, there is. It's the one that Blitzer and Maddow both tried to get him to answer, and the one he continues to refuse to answer.

"Is the photo of you?"

Anonymous said...

This is just another side track the real issue of the day, look at the bouncing ball over here, not what we're gong to do with your health care on this side.

People need to pummel the media with phone calls and tell them, "We're not interested in Weiner's wiener, we want to know if Thomas is going to do the right thing and recuse himself on the healthcare issue. We want you media outlets to start focusing on the real issues and not be gossip rags for idiocy."

Though I'm inclined to believe he was telling the truth in his interview with Maddow. And who cares anyway?

Anonymous said...

I liked your quote by Upton Sinclair but it isn't neccessary to substitute "ideology" for "salary" because for these republiTHUGS ideolgy&salary are one and the same! This is blowback for the loss of the Congressional seat to the Democratic canidate in western New York in the recent special election. The Republican former Congessman got caught sending out his bare chest photo so the THUGS decide to frame Congressman Weiner with a planted crotch shot to get back. This is more than childish "sore losers" these are people who will do anything for the money...the money that their wealthy backers will funnel their way. Their ultimate goal is a oligarchy, an economic paradise for the less than 1% of the top and their lackeys and virtual slavery or debtors prison for everyone else. Thanks for the technical explanation about how the THUGS did it, looks good. Unfortunately this is part of the "big lie theory"...get the lie out there and it lives on even though proven to be a lie. Such is the Weiner lie. Look up Hitler's Big Lie, how it works. Goebels would be proud of Breitbart, patriotusa76 and the so-called "liberal media".

Joseph Cannon said...

Phelps, you are a persistent little twerp. Before I ban you entirely, answer a question:

Suppose it IS him? I don't think it is, but suppose it is. Suppose he took a shot of his crotch back in 1999 or whenever, and that somehow some slime-peddler got hold of the thing.

How is that relevant?

How can you make ANY kind of case for relevance?

The, and I mean THE only relevant question is whether he sent the picture to Gennette. And he did not.

She never got it. She never had an inappropriate word from the congressman.

If he had sent the picture, then the format of the Yfrog screencap would be different.

And there would be a 640x480 version of that picture in Dan Wolfe's browser cache, with damning EXIF data.

But there isn't. None of that is true.

So stop talking bullshit. It's clear what you want: You're on a fishing expedition.

This is Whitewater all over again. You want to use a bullshit "investigation" as the basis for forcing a congressman to answer all sorts of humiliating questions about everything he has ever done, even though those very person matters have no relevance to the matter at hand.

Green Eagle said...

All of this makes a good deal of sense, but it still doesn't explain who has been hacking into Sarah Palin's Twitter account and making her look like an idiot.

Phelps said...

First, I would like to know what I have done to warrant a ban. I haven't asked questions that have been properly responded to, and I have been more cordial than the original post. Is my only offense disagreeing?

If the picture is of him, then this opens another can of worms. First, why is he taking photos like that in the first place? Second, if he didn't post it (and he claims he didn't) then how many people have risqué shots of him? Even if I had a photo of myself in my underwear, there would be no chance of my political enemies publishing it under any name -- because I wouldn't give it to them.

The relevance is that if the photo is of him, then it strongly indicates that he lied about sending the tweet in the first place, and has libeled Dan Wolfe by accusing him(her?) of hacking.

And no, this isn't Whitewater. This is the blue dress. And just like that time, when another Democrat was caught with his penis places that it shouldn't be, the first reaction of the partisans on the left was to blame a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, rather than the most likely cause -- another politician had his penis somewhere it didn't belong, just like politicians have been doing since before Cato the Elder.

Known Unknown said...

The most damning evidence is the previous Seattle tweet. Unless that too, was a somehow a 'hacked' tweet.

Also, someone else mentioned the girls following him because of his politics. Some of that may be true, but ...

They are the ones he's following. You can follow anyone on Twitter -- it's open, and doesn't require a reciprocal acceptance (i.e., friend request like FB.)

So, a Representative from New York follows young, relatively attractive women from around the country on Twitter? Why? Political discussions?

Unless of course, those "follows" are a part of the hacker/prankster's handiwork.

Something about the human behavior aspect of this is what doesn't add up, not the technical ins-and-outs of how Twitter and YFrog, etc. work.

You can run these tests all you want because you are trying to prove what is possible, and not necessarily what is plausible.

Anonymous said...

Of course Wiener has no history of doing anything like this over his years of service in congress.

Contrast that with GOP perverts who were caught in men's bathrooms soliciting sex, sending pervy pictures to married women, or engaging in screen chats with underaged boys.

ALL of them had long, well known histories of their aberrant behavior. It always seems to come up when a GOP scandal breaks.

Joseph Cannon said...

"First, why is he taking photos like that in the first place?"

Are you saying that I have no right to snap a pic of my John Thomas if I have a mind to?

YOU have no right to ask such a question. None whatsoever.

The only relevant question is whether he sent such a picture to Gennette. And he did not. It is not technically possible for him to have done so. You have not made a technical counterargument.

If this was not a frame-up, then why did Yfrog suddenly close up the hole in the security?

Your reference to the blue dress proves that you know full well that this is a fishing expedition.

Eddy said...

"You're nuts. Totally bugfuck NUTS. He has answered all pertinent questions -- repeatedly. No matter how many times he says he didn't send the tweet, nutballs like you will continue to say "Weiner refuses to deny that he sent the tweet!"

Yeah, ok. I have seen nearly every piece of footage and not once has he answered the questions he is asked directly. Even lefties admit that him not answering questions is creating more problems for him. Yet, you sit here claiming otherwise. Making up BS about some speech he will never give is not an answer to a direct question period. You are lunatic, you will not address the truth, you clearly are a hack and a totally delusional imbecile. Still without evidence to prove your initial point, you claim he was framed, case closed. Whatever dude, you can deny it all you want but he is hiding and you are the orchestra on the Titanic. The simplest answer is usually the truth, he accidentally sent a pic to the universe he meant to send as a DM. CASE CLOSED, HE DID IT!!! Contort yourself all you want to help him hide the truth but the truth is, he did it.

Joseph Cannon said...

"not once has he answered the questions he is asked directly."

I am no longer going to print comments form delusional nutcases who repeat this lie. He has answered every relevant question directly.

You twerps remind me of the birthers, who kept crying "Why won't Obama release his birth certificate?" ages after he released his birth certificate.

You think that repetition can create a simulacrum of truth.

For chrissakes -- even Breitbart now seems to think that Dan Wolfe is the framer. It's time for you die-hards to give up. You're not going to get the fishing expedition that you crave.

h4x354x0r said...

Interesting, that the spoofed uploads have no URL when viewed by the account holder, but the URL is present for everyone else.

yfrog certainly has logs of where the pic was actually uploaded from. And investigation is underway. We'll find out soon enough.

If nothing else, yfrog should be patching this security hole ASAP. It's interesting that the gdowson153 account now has like 25 spoofed uploads on it. Indeed, it's trivial to do.

Phelps said...

Are you saying that I have no right to snap a pic of my John Thomas if I have a mind to?

YOU have no right to ask such a question. None whatsoever.

I disagree. I have every right to ask any question I like. You might not think it is proper to ask, but you seem to be insinuating that the First Amendment doesn't apply to critics of Democrats.

The only relevant question is whether he sent such a picture to Gennette. And he did not. It is not technically possible for him to have done so. You have not made a technical counterargument.

I have indeed made the counterargument. I have even presented a more likely scenario -- that he took the picture with his government blackberry and emailed it using his .gov account, which would be treated like coming from an outside account.

If this was not a frame-up, then why did Yfrog suddenly close up the hole in the security?

I have seen no evidence that Yfrog closed anything. I've seen an indication that someone received an error. Anyone who's seen the Failwhale knows that this isn't the same as closing down a service. They aren't apparently responding to press inquiries, so anything about their motives is pure speculation.

In any event, even if he sent it himself but a legitimate threat had been discovered, the responsible thing would be to close the threat. That's like saying that someone buying a new lock is admitting that someone broke into their house.

Your reference to the blue dress proves that you know full well that this is a fishing expedition.

Okay, without agreeing with this, let's assume that it was true.

So what?

What does that change? Does it change the lies he's apparently told? Does it change the fact that he decided to smear an innocent person after already ruining an innocent coed's life by screwing up a DM? Who care's what the motivations are for coming up with the truth as long as they come up with the truth?

Do you really think that misconduct should be excused because someone else is on a "fishing expedition?" Is that your position?

Joseph Cannon said...

Phelps, your "secret government phone" theory is so utterly inane as to be unworthy of comment.

The Yfrog exploit was the method by which the framer inserted the picture. We know this because a lot of people -- not just milowent -- are now finding that they can no longer use this exploit. For chrissakes, do a little googling, willya?

"Does it change the fact that he decided to smear an innocent person after already ruining an innocent coed's life by screwing up a DM?"

What a fucking liar you are. Gennette has made it clear that the congressman did nothing wrong. The people she accuses of ruining her life are people like you.

"Does it change the lies he's apparently told?"

Weiner has not told a single lie.

"Do you really think that misconduct should be excused because someone else is on a "fishing expedition?"

He has not engaged in any misconduct. He did not send any inappropriate pictures of commentary to anyone.

Incidentally, even Breitbart now seems to think that Dan Wolfe is the framer. When weill you die-hards give up?

You know full well that Dan will never respond to my challenge -- because he fears discovery.

I am grateful to you, however, for stipulating the obvious fact that the right is hoping to mount another fishing expedition.

Now consider yourself banned, you lying fuck.

Gary Coyne said...

Just read your article, well done.

One small technical point about EXIF data in Point 8 on your case against Wolfe. You state "... for this image should contain the exact make and model of the camera that made the photograph."

That's not always true, and with Photoshop let me point out how to save an image and completely remove the metadata information out of the image: In PS, open the image, resize if desired or needed and instead of doing a "Save or "Save as...," select "Save for web..." Select a JPEG format and in the metadata dropdown menu, select "none." click on Save and you are done. The reason for this is to produce images that are as small as possible. There are also little programs you can download from the web that strip metadata from images. These are typically used to claim (in mocked innocence) that the person who used the photo had no idea that the image in question was taken by some guy named A.

I have also seen some web sites that allow you to upload images and in the act of automatically resizing and saving the image, all metadata is lost.

Joseph Cannon said...

One last thing. ABC News has written that the Yfrog security exploit has been shut down.

So, Mr. Phelps, it appears that you were full of shit.

I'll say it again: They would not have closed down the loophole if that loophole were not the way Wolfe tried to frame Weiner.

It's over, Phelps. Your side lost. Even Breitbart now pretty much admits it.

I believe that, among right-wingers, the relevant expression would be...BWAHAHAHAHA!

Hope I spelled that correctly.

Joseph Cannon said...

Gary, it's true. There are lots of ways to sneak past the EXIF barrier.

I talked about that in a previous post. But as I said then, if someone takes a questioned photograph yet refuses to provide EXIF data which match the claimed circumstances under which the photo was taken...that's pretty good indication of fraudulence.

A screen cap of metadata can always be doctored, so a screen cap is not good enough. That's why I want Dan Wolfe's drives.

Joseph Cannon said...

To this who question why I say that Breitbart has now become suspicious of Wolfe...!/AndrewBreitbart/status/76152678366973953

Coach Jim said...

I have forwarded this "Solution" and Dan Wolfe's likely "hack" of Weiner's yfrog to both Blitzer at CNN and to Jack Cafferty around 5pm on 6/2/11.

Thanks for working on this so thoroughly and effectively, everyone!


Anonymous said...


"No matter how many times he says he didn't send the tweet, nutballs like you will continue to say "Weiner refuses to deny that he sent the tweet!""

But he did say that a tweet was sent from his account.

Your whole premise relies on a person having access to Weiner's yfrog email, which is only used for yfrog not normal emailing activities.

You have yet to demonstrate how that email was a attained by a 3rd party.

You want Wolfe's hard drive but you don't think Weiner should allow his to be inspected. How about they both allow the FBI to take a look?

Toward the end you comments spiral into Beckian conspiracy theories.

Just face it, Weiner made a mistake when he tried to send a private pic to a lady.

The only reason this is significant, is because of the way your side of the isle attacks anyone that caught up in a similar situation. Hold your own politicians accountable to the same level you hold Republicans.

- wodun

Joseph Cannon said...

"But he did say that a tweet was sent from his account."

No he didn't. He has said continually that he was pranked. You pathetic, lying punks rely on misquotation and selective quotation. And outright deception.

"Just face it, Weiner made a mistake when he tried to send a private pic to a lady."

Just face it, Dan Wolfe tried to frame a congressman. Even Breitbart has come around to that point of view, it seems.

You know why? Because the leaked emails between Breitbart and Dan reveal that Dan threatened to reveal more photos.

I don't like Breitbart, but at least he -- unlike dummies like you -- is bright enough to understand the clear implication of that promise. Dan more or less admitted that he did not come across that photo by happenstance. This was but the first part of an attack that he has planned for a long time.

That's not speculation: He SAID so in his communication with Breitbart.

So right there, you know that Dan's whole story about what happened on the 27th is a total lie.

"You want Wolfe's hard drive but you don't think Weiner should allow his to be inspected. How about they both allow the FBI to take a look?"

Under no circumstances. Weiner did nothing wrong. He is not accused of any crime.

Wolfe is a criminal. His communications with Breitbart prove the point beyond reasonable debate.

Why investigate Weiner? He's the victim.

This is not a Beckian conspiracy theory. This is a Ken Starrian conspiracy FACT. This whole business looks like a plot to go on a fishing expedition -- just like Whitewater.

I'm starting miss Phelps. At least he came close to admitting (if only in a hypothetical sense) what the Republicans are up to.

Ed said...

Now Weiner is throwing reporters out of his office. The young woman's mother is acting as though Weiner knows more than he is letting on. Left-oriented commentators like Chris Matthews clearly don't believe him.

On top of that, we have bloggers all over the place showing us why your theories are incorrect. I would think you would want to pause a bit before you continue in this vein.

On a positive note, this is probably the most readership you've had. Congrats!

Anonymous said...

This guy blows your whole theory out of the water....

To quote him...

"Joseph Cannon has no clue what he’s talking about, as he has demonstrated in several blog posts where he makes things up as he goes along, without any technical knowledge to back it up.

I say this as a web developer with a BE in Computer Engineering, and an avid Twitter user."

Anonymous said...

"Weiner acknowledged "it could be" the case that one of his private photos spilled onto the Internet."

Oops. Want to try your conspiracy again?

Alone In A Full Room said...

May I point out in all the whining that he couldn't have been hacked that Google announced that several hundred Gmail accounts were hacked this last week or so? Some accounts are reported to belong to a lot of government higher-ups, so it is not that hard if someone really wants to frak up someone. And, if you have Breitbart backing the efforts, it's like a walk on the beach...

Anonymous said...

As for the question of how the secret portion of the yFrog address was obtained, milowent was mentioning a page with an explanation:

An experiment showed the algorithm for generating this code repeated with about 25 tries, so it was estimated only 600 combinations may exist. The yFrog staff responded to the security question by stating the secret code was enough.

I can accept your assessment of why Weiner refused to categorically declare it was not himself in the photo. Perhaps he could have made the controversy disappear by saying so, and there were no identifying features to prove him wrong. Instead, he said the photo could have been somehow obtained and/or altered, which demonstrates he has integrity, making a truthful comment regarding his confusion, rather than trying to make his life easier with an inexact or inaccurate claim of blanket denial.

I sincerely doubt Weiner was attempting to cheat on his new wife with someone eager to insist she has no inappropriate relationship with him.

Joseph Cannon said...

Gooding? Read my latest. I expose him as a liar. (If lying by omission counts as lying, as it does.) He presumes (without evidence) that Weiner used an app called Tweetdeck -- and HE DOESN"T EVEN MENTION THAT YOU CAN'T USE TWEETDECK WITH A BLACKBERRY!

The others who have tried to knock me down are also resorting to casuistry and deception. Face it -- if I'm wrong, then why is Yfrog plugging the very security hole I pointed out?

(And why do none of you clowns try to answer that question?)

Chris Matthews hardly represents me. I never liked the guy.

""Weiner acknowledged "it could be" the case that one of his private photos spilled onto the Internet.

Oops. Want to try your conspiracy again?"

That buttresses what I've been saying. You haven't been reading me, have you? See, here's the way it works: You have to respond to the words I've actually written, not the words you THINK I've written.

Ever see "The Contender"? The point of the movie is that you have no right to ask certain questions. Dan Wolfe's ginned-up frame-job is no excuse for asking a congressman humiliating questions about everything he has ever done.

The only thing that matters is what he did on the night of the 27th -- and that is known. He was the victim of an OBVIOUS frame up perpetrated by Dan Wolfe. He didn't send any lewd photos. He never said an inappropriate word to Gennette. If you say he did, you are calling her a liar.

The idea that he would send a crotch shot to a girl who didn't know and whose reaction he could not predict -- a girl who, as far as he knew, might have been ancient and ugly -- is ridiculous.

This is obviously meant to conclude in a fishing expedition. But it won't work. No laws were broken, and nothing in appropriate happened.

Give up on Wolfe. He's a proven liar. He won't face the music. He's ducking Breitbart, and he's ducking me. He's ducking everyone. You think Weiner has acted oddly? Bullshit. Wolfe is the one who is acting GUILTY AS SIN. And you know it, even though you won't admit it.

kabage said...

Impressive, I considered myself an expert on computers and never heard of this exploit.

Congressmen Weiner should give some of those lawyer/consulting fees to you!

Maybe even put you on retainer.

Pangolin said...

Joseph_ You did a great job here but it's WAY past time you simply closed this thread.

It's pretty clear to me you are dealing with the paid trolls of the conservative net-war. Just as you will see on their Climate-Change denial arguments addressing one of their talking points with factual information doesn't mean they will stop repeating it.

What they will do is present supporting arguments to source A, B, C, D and E in turn, all bogus, and then as you work through and address each bogus argument they will simply start referring to argument A as if you had never addressed it.

This is a "Gish Gallop." It's purpose is to waste your time and convince the gullible who aren't willing to do their own source checking.

Unknown said...

Why all the rightwing pearl clutching over the young women who follow Weiner? Jealousy? The woman in question states she's never met Weiner and never saw the picture in question.

Typical Republican dirty tricks. I knew it from the start.


methuselah said...

i'm proficient in photoshop, twitter, various cms that interact with twitter, emails and....congressional email systems. If you can get a direct email response to a heartfelt letter or, can get on a general mailing list for a congress member, you will likely get their email address in time.

Example, I get about 250 emails a day from various congressional members like Pete Stark, John Cornyn, Paul Ryan, Dennis Kucinich, John Culberson, Fmr Alan Grayson at the time, etc...many more. Some use a 'info@' style email but a few use a more personalized email if you write for a specific response.

So it isn't hard to get an email to hit a yrfrog account, if it is set up to simply receive from email without filter. Not very smart, but clearly demonstrated above.

But the main point of the article is that can't change time and predict that Anthony Weiner will do what you wrote about in your scumbag circle before he does it. You'd have to have amazing clairvoyance to accomplish this and this idiot has no such talent.

Suzy said...

I appreciate the work you did here. Many have said, even if the tweet was not from Weiner, "well, why doesn't Weiner deny with certainty that this picture is of him, if he's so innocent?" Well, maybe he DOES have pictures like this--but is that a crime? The man is only fairly recently married. It's not even a naked picture! Big deal.

Anonymous said...

You bunch of fucken loser. Weiner sent the dam tweet, deal with it.

Greg said...

To your point of a picture of not having a URL, here's a picture from TSG of a screencapture of a picture taken from Weiner. This pic doesn't have URL either. You can even see Weiner on the TV screen taking a pic from his phone. So he can indeed post from his phone exactly the same type of pic as he did with his crotch.


Anonymous said...

Thank you, and thank milowent.

Now the matter is getting wide media-dissemination of your analysis.

Have you set it to the major "news" sources (NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, TV networks......)?

Unknown said...

I have a question... What happens if YOU send an image to your Yfrog account USING THE EMAIL ADDRESS instead of the upload tool?

I'm leaning toward this coming from someone else, but this isn't proof unless the URL shows up when YOU use the email address option.

Joseph Cannon said...

Bex, we cannot now test what happens if you email to yourself, because Yfrog changed their security -- apparently in direct response to THIS blog post (and the ruckus it caused).

But if you are using email, you should email directly to the person.

That brings up another point which very few have noted, even though it is pretty damned obvious. If you use twitter to send a photo, that photo shows up in YOUR Yfrog account as well! And it is thus available to anyone.

I discovered that after one night of experimentally using Twitter. Any seasoned twitter user would know this.

It just does not make sense that Weiner would make a picture like this public.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, man. For what it's worth, I'm impressed!

Tucanae Services said...

Might be a great bit of detective work. However for all your effort, you can't answer the question of -- Why all the defensiveness on Rep. Weiner's part?

Most folks, faced with this kind of charge, knowing that they did NOT do it flat out deny it. That is human nature regardless of their knowledge base of the tech or the events as they unfolded.

Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...

So great detective work there...but Rep. Weiner is on CNN right now admitting he posted that picture...

Bob said...

Well? DO you still believe that he was framed? He is on TV at a press conference and admitting to doing the entire thing himself. Now what do you have to say?

Anonymous said...

CASE CLOSED! You are an idiot! Weiner has admitted that he was responsible. Now what?

ArcherB said...

I'm curious. Now that Weiner has admitted to sending the photos, will all that defended him and blamed others now admit that Weiner truly is a slimeball and apologize for accusing others based on nothing more than politics?

While the authors of this blog did great work trying to absolve Weiner of this act, will they post an update and say, "Well, what do you know. It was possible for Weiner to send this pick."

I'm not trying to gloat here, but I just want to point out how stupid people look who were claiming that is was an obvious setup and tried to use this as proof as to how evil conservatives are. This is why you can't have nice things!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Ha ha!

Anonymous said...

LOL! You are so gullible to believe this lying bastard. Put your head back in the sand and come up with a conspiracy theory for the moon landing and 69/11 while you are at it! Another lying democrat - what a surpise!

Anonymous said...

If this photo was sent from Meagan Broussard to Brietbart, then it was just a big, huge coincidence that Weiner "accidentally" posted it publicly on his Twitter soon afterward?

Evidently, Breitbart is so used to being sleazy that he couldn't just run the story as it was, but he has to dirty it up a bit.

Breitbart had the photos, but he and Dan Wolfe conspired to set up a guilty man - in an albeit ingenious way - and watched as Rep. Weiner denied he posted the pic on Twitter - because he didn't!

You really have to give those scumbags credit. Evil genius, but genius nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

Pretty cool article, maybe he was hacked after all? Nobody can know for sure, even if he admitted it that can't be mistaken for the truth - it's just lying in another way.
One thing is for sure: this is not the first time in history where an individual has falsely admitted to a crime but is innocent, while the real perpetrator goes free - this happens quite often.