So, libs, what say you to this?

[g5000]

Russians hacked the DNC server

Lol, a kindergarten student could've hacked it. I mean the password was password. Lol

That was not the DNC server password. That was alleged to be Podesta's password, but that was a lie.

You can't even parrot your hoaxes right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

enter the word hack, an PC magically appears.

1. "enter the word hack, an PC magically appears."
Poor syntax makes me (sic).
That should be "Enter the word hack, and PC magically appears."

Gads, you're a moron.


2. Either you follow me around, trying to nip at my heels, because of jealousy....or simply the desire to meld with your betters.
In either case, get lost.


3. Let's take a huge leap of faith and imaging that you were able to both understand and dispute the OP, or any of my posts.

You would have.

You didn't.

QED, you couldn't.


4. Whenever I have the displeasure of viewing you attempts to be clever, these posts, I have the urge to see if I can learn something, anything, as one might in studying a Vorticella, or some other organism similar to you...(you better look that up, dunce)....

Soo...this question: how do you accrue any .....any.....satisfaction via the jejune (dictionary time) posts you offer, never actually bringing anything to the table???

How?



And, no...I don't expect a cogent response.

 

[Faun]

It's just for my own curiosity. I want to see how many suckers who believe "The Russians are coming" actually exist in the real world!

There are currently 3 such votes. That satisfies your curiosity, does it?

 

[Snouter]

Care4all, quick question in regards to you "super duper" computer concept in regards to internet speed.

1. What is the upload and download speed of your internet connection?
2. It is real easy but it will be a good learning experience for you, you will get an Mbps number.
3. Divide that number by 8.
4. That is you MB/s number.
5. Compare that with an average SanDisk micro card of about 300 MB/s, they actually have much faster versions.
6. Then post how many times faster the SanDisk micro card is compared to your internet connection.
7. Then reassess your claims and post new conclusions!

 

[Snouter]

it went to the Russian Embassy home in the D.C. area who had the super duper speed

The speed of a "super duper" computer has pretty much nothing to do with file transfer over the internet.

...and was also kicked out due to their interference and involvement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

it went to the Russian Embassy home in the D.C. area who had the super duper speed

The speed of a "super duper" computer has pretty much nothing to do with file transfer over the internet.

...and was also kicked out due to their interference and involvement.

This comment on the article sees to cast the lie to your post:


“Using the above numbers, my [maximum] download speed is 4.65 Megabytes per second. In point of fact, this is almost exactly the maximum download speed I achieve.

“I usually average 4.2 Megabytes per second for sites within the United States, a difference more attributable to the limitations of the server I’m downloading from, rather than my connection.”

And that is the key problem, which if I remember correctly, is addressed in Forensicator’s original research.

No matter how fast /your/ connection, /your/ download speeds will always be limited by the speed of the server uploading the data. I have been on faster connections, and I have /never/ seen a server upload anywhere near as fast as the reported 22.7 Megabytes per second.

Yes, you could theoretically download a 4K movie, or the communications of a major American political party, in seconds. The reality is you will not find a server that can do so (unless you work for CERN or Stanford, and even then distance will limit you).

Not even among the servers in use by the DNC."

 

[Bush92]

Need I apologize in advance, before posting the following suggestion....that the DNC and Bill's wife might......could have....
.....lied????

The premise here is that there never was a 'Russian hack.'

1. "Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.


2. All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5.

3. Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths...This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.


4. ...we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” ....Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge.


5. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year.


6. There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.


7. Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group [investigating the story of a Russian hack] knew that
(1) if there was a hack and
(2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs.


8. On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

Time stamps in the metadata indicate the download occurred somewhere on the East Coast of the United States—not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone.

9. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator wrote, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”

10. Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. "
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack




SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!

My faith in the Democrats would be.......shattered!!!!

Democrats are completely screwed up. Who was that guy murdered in the park who worked at DNC?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Need I apologize in advance, before posting the following suggestion....that the DNC and Bill's wife might......could have....
.....lied????

The premise here is that there never was a 'Russian hack.'

1. "Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.


2. All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5.

3. Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths...This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.


4. ...we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” ....Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge.


5. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year.


6. There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.


7. Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group [investigating the story of a Russian hack] knew that
(1) if there was a hack and
(2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs.


8. On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

Time stamps in the metadata indicate the download occurred somewhere on the East Coast of the United States—not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone.

9. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator wrote, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”

10. Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. "
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack




SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!

My faith in the Democrats would be.......shattered!!!!

Democrats are completely screwed up. Who was that guy murdered in the park who worked at DNC?

I don't believe that "screwed up" covers the full range and permutations of corruption that is found in that precinct.

 

[Snouter]

Based on hundreds of videos of assaults and robberies on LiveLeak, etc., perps never leave a body without emptying the pockets and removing the jewelry. Takes less than 2 seconds in most videos. So Seth Rich was a first if the Swamp excepts us to believe it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Based on hundreds of videos of assaults and robberies on LiveLeak, etc., perps never leave a body without emptying the pockets and removing the jewelry. Takes less than 2 seconds in most videos. So Seth Rich was a first if the Swamp excepts us to believe it.

Thanks for sharing that bit of autobiography.

Unfortunately it appears to belong int the thread "My Favorite 24-Hour All Cartoon Network."

Try to read more carefully.

 

[Care4all]

it went to the Russian Embassy home in the D.C. area who had the super duper speed

The speed of a "super duper" computer has pretty much nothing to do with file transfer over the internet.

...and was also kicked out due to their interference and involvement.

This comment on the article sees to cast the lie to your post:


“Using the above numbers, my [maximum] download speed is 4.65 Megabytes per second. In point of fact, this is almost exactly the maximum download speed I achieve.

“I usually average 4.2 Megabytes per second for sites within the United States, a difference more attributable to the limitations of the server I’m downloading from, rather than my connection.”

And that is the key problem, which if I remember correctly, is addressed in Forensicator’s original research.

No matter how fast /your/ connection, /your/ download speeds will always be limited by the speed of the server uploading the data. I have been on faster connections, and I have /never/ seen a server upload anywhere near as fast as the reported 22.7 Megabytes per second.

Yes, you could theoretically download a 4K movie, or the communications of a major American political party, in seconds. The reality is you will not find a server that can do so (unless you work for CERN or Stanford, and even then distance will limit you).

Not even among the servers in use by the DNC."

not true

The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk

 

[Snouter]

Thanks for sharing that bit of autobiography.

Unfortunately it appears to belong int the thread "My Favorite 24-Hour All Cartoon Network."

Try to read more carefully.

So you think Seth Rich's murder was a "robbery?"

This comment on the article sees to cast the lie to your post:


“Using the above numbers, my [maximum] download speed is 4.65 Megabytes per second. In point of fact, this is almost exactly the maximum download speed I achieve.

“I usually average 4.2 Megabytes per second for sites within the United States, a difference more attributable to the limitations of the server I’m downloading from, rather than my connection.”

PoliticalChic, you are obviously clueless in many areas of discussion.

I will give an example you might find "autobiographical." My internet speed is about 117 Mbps at this time of day, or 14.5 MB/s. It doesn't matter how old or new the computer is that is the internet speed. In contrast, the download speed to an average SanDisk is 300 MB/s.

 

[Faun]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

^^^ Alternative facts.

We know the DNC was not only hacked, they were hacked by Russians. We know this because former FBI Director James Comey confirmed this when he testified under oath and there had been zero evidence discovered to refute that.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?

COMEY: No, no doubt.​

There is NEW evidence according to data analysis by computer scientists, programmers, etc., that the leaks came from inside the DNC and the emails were copied to a thumb drive that was physically inserted into the computer. Lol.

You're wasting your time. Faun is told what to believe and repeat by those all knowing, disembodied, anonymous sources she prays to each day. It's a matter of faith, not factual science or evidence.

Imbecile. I quoted the former Director of the FBI. Who told me to believe him?

Hell, I'm asking that of someone who couldn't even accurately figure out I'm a guy. :eusa_duh:

 

[The Original Tree]

The Truth Always Offends Liberals on Witch Hunts Manufactured by their Party's Hit Squad.

Need I apologize in advance, before posting the following suggestion....that the DNC and Bill's wife might......could have....
.....lied????

The premise here is that there never was a 'Russian hack.'

1. "Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.


2. All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5.

3. Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths...This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.


4. ...we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” ....Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge.


5. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year.


6. There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.


7. Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group [investigating the story of a Russian hack] knew that
(1) if there was a hack and
(2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs.


8. On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

Time stamps in the metadata indicate the download occurred somewhere on the East Coast of the United States—not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone.

9. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator wrote, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”

10. Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. "
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack




SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!

My faith in the Democrats would be.......shattered!!!!

 

[Care4all]

it went to the Russian Embassy home in the D.C. area who had the super duper speed

The speed of a "super duper" computer has pretty much nothing to do with file transfer over the internet.

...and was also kicked out due to their interference and involvement.

I didn't say super duper computer, I said super duper speed, available for big big business accounts and the FSB located at the Russian embassy spy head quarters we CLOSED around D.C. and kicked the Russian, cough cough Diplomats out of and shipped them back to Russia....due to their involvement in the election interference.

 

[ChrisL]

(upt) Julian Assange has claimed since the leaks from the DNC started coming out that they were not from Russia hacking the DNC despite Hillary Clinton and the DNC blaming Russia for the hacks.

The CIA director recently came out saying that Russia could be indirectly involved which is not proof at all. Either they are involved or they are not.

Let’s not forget that the CIA also said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we all know that was a lie now.


Now former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan has come out saying that he knows who the person leaker is and they are not from Russia but rather from inside the DNC!

According to Craig Murray.org:

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

There is no direct evidence pointing to Russian involvement. Only those that have had their dirty secrets and lies exposed are the ones claiming that. Hard to imaging why?

It appears as if someone from the DNC is releasing the files. Destroyed from inside is the perfect way for these corrupt politicians to go down.

There is no direct evidence pointing to Russian involvement. Only those that have had their dirty secrets and lies exposed are the ones claiming that. Hard to imaging why?

It appears as if someone from the DNC is releasing the files. Destroyed from inside is the perfect way for these corrupt politicians to go down.

Julian Assange associate: It was a leak, not a hack and the DNC insider is NOT Russian – Anonymous

 

[ChrisL]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

the article, which I read in full, has sort of been debunked...

Also, the Russian embassy homes in / near D.C. were shut down and diplomats kicked out because our gvt believed they, the Russians in these embassy homes, were involved with the DNC theft and leaks and it was reported that they had super duper spying equipment in them...

These Russian embassy centers could have easily had a server fast enough to download the files in the 87 seconds the article mentions.

But this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It’s the extremely long-winded product of a crank, and it’s been getting attention only because it appears in a respected left-wing publication like The Nation. Anyone hoping to read it for careful reporting and clear explanation is going to come away disappointed, however.

If you want to get to the actual claims being made, you’ll have to skip the first 1,000 or so words, which mostly consist of breathtakingly elaborate throat-clearing. (“[H]ouses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the ‘hack theory,’ as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so.”) About halfway through, you get to the crux of the article: A report, made by an anonymous analyst calling himself “Forensicator,” on the “metadata” of “locked files” leaked by the hacker Guccifer 2.0.

This should, already, set off alarm bells: An anonymous analyst is claiming to have analyzed the “metadata” of “locked files” that only this analyst had access to? Still, if I’m understanding it correctly, Lawrence’s central argument (which, again, rests on the belief that Forensicator’s claims about “metadata” are meaningful and correct) is that the initial data transfer from the DNC occurred at speeds impossible via the internet. Instead, he and a few retired intel-community members and some pseudonymous bloggers believe the data was transferred to a USB stick, making the infiltration a leak from someone inside the DNC, not a hack.

The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection. (Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.

If that’s your strongest evidence, your argument is already in trouble. But the real problem isn’t that there’s a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. You could try to go on, but to what end? As an example: Lawrence writes that “researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don’t know what “metadata” we’re talking about, or why it comes in “layers,” and all I’m left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn’t either. Even if you wanted to take this seriously enough to engage with, you can’t, because it only intermittently makes sense. There may be evidence out there, somewhere, that a vast conspiracy theory has taken place to cover up a leak and blame Russia. But it’s going to need to be at least comprehensible.

The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk

So far the metadata analysis which has been analyzed by former Top intelligence officials has revealed that the "hack" was an inside job and that the data was copied to a thumb drive and that this all occurred on the East Coast and not in Russia or any other country. This is the only physical proof that has been submitted as to where the hacks have come from. It is definitely more proof than the Russian conspiracy theory. Lol. Metadata doesn't lie.

if you read my post and had gone in to the link provided it shows that analysis is simply inaccurate and merely supposition using faulty assumptions.

They guessed it had to be a thumb drive download, because of the speed of the download, and they said the average internet speed could not have achieved that in 2016.

BUT THEY WERE WRONG, Places like the DNC and any big business or Russian Intel agents living on embassy properties surrounding the DNC headquarters could achieve this speed back in 2016....

SO, the conclusion it had to be a thumbdrive for that download speed is demonstrably WRONG....which makes your original article, fall flat.

Oh, so it was Russians who live in the US, Russian spies? ROFL. OMG. You people have totally lost your collective mind. Don't pull a muscle with all of those acrobats. Anyhow, I'm sure more information is forthcoming, so we shall see. Seems veterans of the intelligence community are of the idea that the leaked emails were an inside job based on the metadata that THEY analysed.

 

[ChrisL]

It's just for my own curiosity. I want to see how many suckers who believe "The Russians are coming" actually exist in the real world!

There are currently 3 such votes. That satisfies your curiosity, does it?

It makes me feel good that perhaps the world isn't as insane as I think it is.

 

[ChrisL]

It's okay liberals. Denial IS a normal part of the grieving process.

 

[flacaltenn]

Merged with 2nd newer thread. Same source link..