> even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair
This is a strange and unhealthy response. What was so hard/uncomfortable about saying "I did not realize" or "I was wrong"? It is okay to be wrong or not know something.
He did say he was wrong. He was simply stating he was surprised he didn't realise sooner, given how he had already identified a similar method of forgery in an earlier affair.
No he did not. Unless you are 5 years old "Duh, I knew that" is not the same thing as admitting fault:
"Duh, it's fake. Obviously, it's possible to set your system clock back. I was so intrigued I wasn't thinking clearly, even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair. Sorry folks, maybe if it were timestamped in the blockchain."
He played it off and says the real answer is obvious. Then he provides an excuse for not recognizing this obvious truth. Finally to make matters super strange he informs us (w/o evidence) that he was the one that pointed this "attack" out to us during the Snowden affair.
You're reading something very different into jnbiche's words than I am. I'm reading it more like this:
"[Ooooooh,] Duh[!], it's fake[!] [forehead smack of realization and insight]."
You seem to be reading more of a dismissive "Duh, I knew that, why are you telling me what I already know?" into this, whereas I'm reading a much more realization-striken tone.
"Obviously, it's possible to set your system clock back."
Thinking out loud through the realization and insight as it occurred.
"I was so intrigued I wasn't thinking clearly, even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair."
Explaining the circumstances of and implicitly acknowledging and admitting to a mistake or fault, continuing revelation. An introspective done, not a defensive one, not offered up as an "excuse".
This is a strange and unhealthy response. What was so hard/uncomfortable about saying "I did not realize" or "I was wrong"? It is okay to be wrong or not know something.