I’d like to take this moment to be (as far as I can tell) the first to point out that
is a hoax or publicity stunt.
Scroll down and look at the photo of the fire-damaged negatives he retrieved from the camera.
Now wonder to yourself why there were developed negatives in a camera.
My favorite parts are the ones like these:
“I’d been told by a friend that if the cursor ever moved by itself and there was a ‘whirring’ from the hard-drive, they were the sure signs that indicated someone was hacking into my computer.”
“My eyes bugged with surprise as I heard a ‘clicking’ sound. Someone was tapping my phone.”
Just think how distrubing it must be to be being monitored by an Classified Central Processing Agency which has the technology to monitor all of the search engines in the world, yet can’t hack a Windows box or tap a phone without tipping off the person being monitored.
(Also, would you be surprised to learn that all of the “geographic” sites are the same server?)
“That was why they had tried to destroy the photographic evidence in the first place.”
I hope when I get involved with a Classified Central Processing Agency, their operatives are as strategic as the villain in a James Bond film, like these ones are.
AGENT 99, YOU MUST ENSURE NO-ONE GETS THE FILM INSIDE THIS CAMERA. WELL, UM, WE TOOK THE PICTURES AND DON’T WANT ANYONE TO SEE THEM. YEAH, OK, I DON’T UNDERSTAND IT EITHER. NOW SHUT UP AND DESTROY THEM! REPORT BACK WHEN THE CAMERA IS HALF-MELTED AND THROWN OFF A CLIFF NEAR A TRAIL. WE WOULDN’T WANT ANYONE TO FIND IT.