Adam does seem like the kind of person that would make things up to make a story more interesting. Maybe he didn't realize it would end up on YouTube?

Too bad nobody interviewed Tory, the primary source, before the shit hit the fan.

Except the article was intimating that the primary source was Grant, and not Tory.

I'm sure there are embellishments and inaccuracies in Adams speech.

But the point is that he got the gist of story 100% wrong, not just wrong but exactly opposite of what happened. The corporations were trying to help them, not stop them. No one can be that confused.

In addition to that, we all know that in general (yes I am generalizing) security through obscurity and legal threats tends to be the norm.

That's my point exactly - his story was so wrong that he couldn't even get who told him the story right. Doesn't that set off some BS filters?