but then we're not "trusting" what they're saying, just analyzing a statement for unintentional or partial truths. the assumption is not one of credibility. everything this person is doing is dubious as hell. this means every statement or action must be analyzed with the assumption is bunk, and then you pick out possible truths.

the picture of the army gear, for example, consists of gear that could be purchased at any surplus store. I'm not in the US but I could easy acquire that, and I know enough about exif data to be able to alter an image to use GPS coordinates at a US Army barracks in SK.

meanwhile if they were showing a picture of them sitting with, say, a 240B MG, or something that actually proves they're in the US Army I might believe them.

while bartending back in the day I used to have a coworker who, after a few drinks one night, eventually confessed she was a camgirl for a while. she went by April, who was really Stefani -- nether of which were her real names, but were just layers to keep stalkers off of her back. she had friends on the other side of the country take pictures of their dorm to help further the story. I totally believe a serious cracker would take similar precautions; OPSEC on OPSEC