Most of the "servers" were cloud based to start with and not owned by the DNC — Benkei

Here is a little investigative exercise for you, because it would be unfair of me to assume you already have this information.

How large are the Guccifer 2 files, megabytes, and what rate of transfer would be required to send such sized files to “the cloud” and therefore also to “hack” from the “cloud”?

This “rate of transfer” is in relation to the length of time the “hack” was designated to have taken.

Data’s transference consists within it ‘timestamps’ which determines time of download or hack.

How large are the Guccifer 2 files, megabytes — raza

1,976MB.

and what rate of transfer would be required to send such sized files to “the cloud” and therefore also to “hack” from the “cloud” — raza

181.6Mbps (22.7MBps), apparently.

And FYI, given that Virgin were offering 300Mbps (45MBps) internet for £80 a month in January 2016, I think the Russian intelligence would easily have had an internet connection fast enough to copy the files at that speed, so this conspiracy theory you're alluding to that it must have been copied locally and leaked (by Seth Rich, I suppose?) is nonsense.

Michael, pray tell us. What's the speed of a leased line in the USA? :rofl:

And let's not get into the ease with which metadata can be falisified or the fact they are changed by copying them. But yes, let's let raza trust Forencicator (an unknown person) above CrowdStrike, Secureworks, FireEye, FBI, CIA, NSA, intelligence committees, GCHQ and the AIVD (Dutch intelligence agency). It's not just a deep state conspiracy but they even co-opted their international allies. What a muppet.

FYI, on your FYI, a leased line:

T1 (1.544 Mbit/s)
T2 (6.312 Mbit/s)
T3 (44.736 Mbit/s)

See my edit.

And let's not get into the ease with which metadata can be falisified or the fact they are changed by copying them. But yes, let's let raza trust Forencicator (an unknown person) above CrowdStrike, Secureworks, FireEye, FBI, CIA, NSA, intelligence committees, GCHQ and the AIVD (Dutch intelligence agency). It's not just a deep state conspiracy but they even co-opted their international allies. What a muppet. — Benkei

Didn't you hear? It's Trump against the entire world. He's the God-Emperor, the saviour of mankind, destined to bring about the Golden Path, and the corrupt New World Order of the Illuminati is out to stop him.

original Guccifer Romanian hacker

When WikiLeaks were getting ready to publish emails Guccifer 2 appeared

Guccifer 1 regards gucc 2 as a fabrication

Guccifer 2 claimed gucc 1 hacked dnc for the Russians

Guccifer 2 put data for supposed hack on web

Data shows amount of bytes, or bits, + timestamp at end of the file

- timestamp after timestamp. You can take between any 2 timestamps and calculate the number of bytes involved and also, then, the rate of transfer of the data. With every file this can be done.

The rate of transfer to make web transfer of these files possible was 49.1 megabytes per second.

It is known that this rate cannot go across the network

Some claimed it could, so tests were done of this.

Tests were to send this size data from the US to places such as Belgrade, Netherlands, Albania, UK.

The fastest rate achieved was between a data center in New Jersey and a data center in the UK.

This rate, of 12 megabytes per second, is less than a 4th the speed required as listed by gucc 2.

So, an impossible transfer at that rate (the highest rate possible, 12 megabytes per second).

But it is the perfect download rate for a thumb drive.

This makes it technically and scientifically provable that it cannot have been a hack from an overseas location, thereby including Russia.

The transfer of this data had to be local from computer to another physical device.

Gucc 2 put out 2 sets of data, on the 5th July 2016 and the 1st September 2016.

When analysing Guccifer 2’s data and ignoring the hour and the date and instead concentrating on minutes, seconds and milliseconds these two data sets merge.

This means Guccifer 2 manipulated the data - by taking one file down (the complete download into a physical device), splitting it into two parts, then issuing one for the 5th of July and one for the 1st of September.

So the upshot is that intelligence officials are using data to make a decision that has been tampered with.

But it is the perfect download rate for a thumb drive. — raza

and this

- timestamp after timestamp. You can take between any 2 timestamps and calculate the number of bytes involved and also, then, the rate of transfer of the data. With every file this can be done. — raza

When you copy a file, the access and create timestamp change. When you move a file, it changes the create timestamp only. So, to avoid a traceable path online the dangers of which a hacker is very aware, you download all the shit you got through your hack over the net (a hack that took weeks, not 87 seconds) on a thumbdrive and taadaa, there's your explanation for all this.

It is also quite easy and possible to bulk edit timestamps, which would be useful as ahacker as well to make it more difficult for agencies to piece together when and where the files were obtained. See: how to change timestamps

And that's not taking into account that it even would be possible to do this with a leased line (you can wiki this shit). People saying it isn't possible don't know what they're talking about. I also know from experience since I've negotiated quite a few co-location and fibre-optics agreements for financial companies and am quite aware of the available speeds in the market for enterprises.

As usual, the idea some unknown internet troll is more trustworthy than various intelligence agencies across the world is only revealing of bias and demonstrates a serious lack of critical thinking.

As usual, the idea some unknown internet troll is more trustworthy than various intelligence agencies — Benkei

Here are three of these "unknown internet trolls".

1. Former National Security Agency official, William Binney.
2. Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern.
3. Former CIA officer and current executive director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi.


Whistleblower William Binney, a former National Security Agency official, is speaking out against the Central Intelligence Agency’s claims that Russia hacked the Democratic Party

Binney, a cryptanalyst-mathematician and a Russia specialist at one point during his 30 years with the NSA, is a signatory of an open letter released Monday from six retired intelligence officials, calling themselves the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity,” who assert that the allegations that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are baseless.

Binney details points clarifying that the WikiLeaks email releases are not hacks at all, but actually insider leaks.
“In order to get to the servers, they [hackers] would have to come across the network and go into the servers, penetrate them, and then extract data out of the servers and bring it back across the network,” Binney explained. “If it were the Russians, it would then go to Russia, and it would have to go from there across the network again to get to WikiLeaks.”

Binney explained that “anything doing that would be picked up by the NSA’s vast surveillance system, both in terms of collecting the data as it transits the fiber optics inside the US, as well as internationally.”

The retired intelligence analyst also noted that traceroute packets are embedded in hundreds of switchers around the world, and that email messages are easily traced.

“With all the billions of dollars we spend on this collection access system that the NSA has, there’s no way that could have missed all the packets being transferred from those servers to the Russians,” Binney said. “I mean, they should know exactly how and when those packets left those servers and went to the Russians, and where specifically in Russia it went. There’s no excuse for not knowing that.”

If it was a hack, Binney reveals, the NSA would know who the sender and recipients of the data are, thanks to mass internet surveillance programs. The intelligence apparatus does not depend on “circumstantial evidence,” as has been reported.

“My point is really pretty simple. There should be no guessing here at all, they should be able to show the traceroutes of all the packets, or some of them anyways, going to the Russians and then from the Russians to WikiLeaks,” Binney explained. “There is no excuse for not being able to do that — and that would be the basic evidence to prove it. Otherwise, it could be any hacker in the world, or any other government in the world, who knows.”

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern also signed the letter, and has been outspoken about his disbelief that the information came from a Russian hack — or that the breach was, indeed, a hack.

“Today they are talking about having ‘overwhelming circumstantial evidence.’ Now we have overwhelming technical evidence. We have the former technical director of the National Security Agency that tells us that this is really just drivel.”

“This is really just an operation to blacken the Russians and to blame the defeat of Hillary Clinton on the Russians.”

Former CIA officer and current executive director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi, has come to the same conclusion as Binney and McGovern.

“If the intelligence community is nevertheless claiming that they know enough to conclude that it was directed from the top levels of the Russian government, then they should be able to produce documentary or other evidence of officials’ ordering the operation to take place,” Giraldi wrote. “Do they have that kind of information? It is clear that they do not, in spite of their assertion of ‘high confidence,’ and there is a suggestion by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, a persistent critic of Russian spying who is on the House Intelligence Committee, that the information they do have consists of innuendo and is largely circumstantial.

more trustworthy than various intelligence agencies — Benkei

How trustworthy were these agencies over "weapons of mass destruction" conclusions about Saddam Hussein?

Should Bush had, as he did, put all his faith in the conclusions of these intelligence agencies?

Following from this:
Should Bush had, as he did, put all his faith in the conclusions of these intelligence agencies?

Who is the Commander-in-chief?

Is it various intelligence agency officials or is it the United States President?

Here are three of these "unknown internet trolls".

1. Former National Security Agency official, William Binney.
2. Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern.
3. Former CIA officer and current executive director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi. — raza

Are any of these Forensicator? Let me help you with that: no they aren't. So it's irrelevant.

Here's what happened:

How Russian hackers stole information

Should Bush had, as he did, put all his faith in the conclusions of these intelligence agencies? — raza

Bush already made the decision to go to war and Colin Powell had to defend it in the UN based on material they and Congress believed to be true but which wasn't supported by the intelligence community. It was the CIA who debunked the WMD story in the first place.

Are any of these Forensicator? — Benkei

Who is the "Forensicator"? Does this person or persons have a name or are they in a category you mentioned earlier, that of "unknown"?

Bush already made the decision to go to war and Colin Powell had to defend it in the UN based on material they and Congress believed to be true but which wasn't supported by the intelligence community. It was the CIA who debunked the WMD story in the first place. — Benkei

So you do not think that Trump's opposition had also "already made the decision to go into war" against his bid for presidency before he won election?

Who is the "Forensicator"? Does this person or persons have a name or are they in a category you mentioned earlier, that of "unknown"? — raza

He's the unknown person who started this whole theory about the download times, which apparently is being uncritically copied by all sorts of "experts" like Binney and McGovern. Who, by the way, are fucking dinosaurs that don't seem to understand how the internetz works.

So you do not think that Trump's opposition had also "already made the decision to go into war" against his bid for presidency before he won election? — raza

They might have. However, since Republicans control Congress and the Senate and are uncritical of Trump and that the intelligence agencies acted independently from Bush in the past (disproving the WMD story even), so the assumption is they would do so now again, that is neither here nor there. Not to mention, for the umpteenth time, that even if YOUR intelligence agencies would be part of some deep state conspiracy, the European ones aren't and they corroborate the facts independently as well. As I said, we pretty much have live footage of break ins by the Russians.

You can throw this in google translate: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/hackers-aivd-leverden-cruciaal-bewijs-over-russische-inmenging-in-amerikaanse-verkiezingen~b32c6077/

I just discovered there's actually a special English version for this:

https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/

that even if YOUR intelligence agencies would be part of some deep state conspiracy, the European ones aren't and they corroborate the facts independently as well — Benkei

This is a belief of yours.

Conspiracy theorists do not see independence. And it is evident that the supposed conspirators collaborated with British intelligence agencies. The Steele "dossier" is merely one example of non-independence of US agencies.

since Republicans control Congress and the Senate and are uncritical of Trump — Benkei

Ah, no. Only particular Republican congress-persons back Trump on this one. There is quite an array of never-trumpers in the Repub party.

Don't be fooled by the dog and pony show that Washington theatrically demonstrates.

https://www.facebook.com/shylou73/videos/10217002404069735/

The protection racket is bipartisan. Obamas and Clintons were mere extensions of Bush Sr and Jr.

No facebook account held by me to view this, btw.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ — Benkei

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/dutch-cozy-bear-farce-does-not-show-dnc-emails-were-hacked-by-russians/

Yesterday saw the publication of an English language version of an article written by Huib Modderkolk by Dutch news site the Volkskrant, titled “Dutch agencies provide crucial intel about Russia’s interference in US-elections.”

Congratulations for getting your news from a site that contains malware. I couldn't read it as a result.

The protection racket is bipartisan. Obamas and Clintons were mere extensions of Bush Sr and Jr. — raza

Ah. The protection racket that first lets Trump win only to then beschmirch him. Totally logical. How do you come up with this shit?

This is a belief of yours. — raza

My belief is at least statistically likely whereas yours... is well... tin foil nonsense.

Congratulations for getting your news from a site that contains malware. I couldn't read it as a result. — Benkei

I encountered no malware.

Ah. The protection racket that first lets Trump win only to then beschmirch him. Totally logical. How do you come up with this shit? — Benkei

They didn't take into account the voters. It was felt it was all sewn up.

Essentially the non-sophisticates were the DNC with characters such as John Podesta.
They were celebrating winning long before the election.

The non-sophistication is evidenced by Hillary's sloppy private unlawful server and evidenced by her dealings with Classified material ("I thought 'C' stood for an order in the alphabet", "Bleahcbit?" Is that when you wipe it with a cloth?'). I mean, Jesus! Only the moronic or those that treat the intel squads as the priesthood would by that crap defense.

Why so sloppy? Because she thought she was untouchable.

So who had to mop up their mess? The sophisticated ultra-resourced intel spy agencies.

"I thought 'C' stood for an order in the alphabet", "Bleahcbit?" Is that when you wipe it with a cloth?'

So how believable are these statements?

Damn there's that cooing again.

Congratulations for getting your news from a site that contains malware. I couldn't read it as a result. — Benkei

Suggestion.

You perhaps need better security software. And the free stuff, if you use it, doesn't work particularly well.

Here are three of these "unknown internet trolls".

1. Former National Security Agency official, William Binney.
2. Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern.
3. Former CIA officer and current executive director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi. — raza

They're all part of a Shallow State conspiracy against America, being Russian and/or Big Business shills.

Suggestion.

You perhaps need better security software. And the free stuff, if you use it, doesn't work particularly well. — raza

Or you have an infected computer now. In any case, disobedient media is more conspirational nonsense with stories invented by William Craddick so I'm not even going to waste my time on it.

EDIT: one of the stories Obedient Media invented: Merkel bullshit

Well, more of less yes... this is an important point in regards to reasoning about ethics. Just because someone does something terrible, it doesn't mean other people should be let of the hook for terrible behaviour.

If someone is behaving poorly, pointing out the behaviour other shouldn't be used to excuse it. Someone else's wrong doesn't make another's right. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Thank you Willow, I do understand that point in regards to ethics and to read my post you would think I don't have a good grasp on the concept, so I understand your response.

@Banno and I have been on this discussion of asylum seekers for years now (both on the forum and off) about how Australia handles it and how America handles it.
The temporary parallels are horrifying, I know it, he knows it and is somehow getting some satisfaction out of making sure I am aware of the comparison. I have tried to express this correlation in this thread without it coming across as Australia's system is worse than what is happening here in the USA but length of detainment and the duration of time this Zero Tolerance policy are VASTLY different and that is "A" factor.

They're all part of a Shallow State conspiracy against America, being Russian and/or Big Business shills. — Michael

Yep.

But you see, money talks and bullshit walks. If you become a whistleblower, there's a crowd for you in the Alex Jones Prison Planet realm, but not anywhere else. And you have get income.

I listened to an interview of William Binney once well before the Trump era. Came out as an intelligent person who truly avoided doing anything criminal. But then… Binney stated that Russia didn't invade Eastern Ukraine? Heck, I could see the GRU unit flags on the APCs. Yeah, obviously everything a forgery...all the various Russian armoured vehicle columns caught by smartphones.

It's actually sad that whistleblowers have to choose sides and become talking heads of the other sides agenda. The only exception is Valerie Plame, who was outed by Cheney, and was forced to become a "whistleblower".

I won't go into that here, because that's a complicated issue (check Moliere's thread on lying to oneself), and it's not the issue here. The issue is being deceitful toward someone else, lying. And the point is that you can be true to yourself and still be lying to others. This stems from a selfish disposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you for referring me to @Moliere s thread on Lying and in reading over Moliere's last two days posts on lying seems to support my theory

We tell someone a falsehood we know to be true. Maybe there's a motivational component to this but that seems to be the bare minimum of what a lie is.

I don't think I'd say that believing such and such without rational justification counts as a lie. It may be irrational, but without justification we do not know, and if we do not know then we couldn't be telling ourselves a known falsehood. — Moliere

I was talking about knowing if thy self is telling a false hood, if we don't know it is a false hood, is that knowingly telling a lie?