It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

#Guccifer2 and #Guccifer3 Trending on Twitter

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


A private individual (such as the original Guccifer) might have, but the fact that they only hacked the DNC and not the RNC suggests partisanship one would not expect from WikiLeaks or Anonymous.

You infer partisanship because whatever person or group did not hack the RNC.


Correct; it is an inference. Given the definition of "partisan" and the fact that only one party's secrets have been disclosed, do you find it an unreasonable inference? If so, please explain why.


I don't know who did it, who all else that may have hacked or tried to hack.


Correct, but I will not attempt to stifle your speculation and theorizing; freedom of expression and all that. Besides, isn't this supposed to be a conspiracy theory site?


You don't know either.... or you would provide some proof.


Correct, that is why I am using conditionals in expressing my theory.


Because you have no idea if they did try to hack the RNC and were unsuccessful, you have no proof that there is any partisanship involved.


I have indicated that there might be partisanship. Can you prove there was not?


What is so hard to understand?


You tell me. You're the one who doesn't understand conditionals.




posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Who are the hacker(s)?

Who all have they hacked other than the DNC?

Who all did they attempt to hack, other than the DNC?

What attempts were successful other than the DNC?

I don't think you have any answers to those questions.

But you want to argue that the hackers are partisan?

They may well be, but my point is that there is no proof of that.

Now, the important question:

What if the hacker(s) are partisan?

Does that mean that the DNC is absolved of what we see in the leaks?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


Who are the hacker(s)?


I don't know for sure, but I've given my reasons why I think they may be KGB. Who do you think they are?


Who all have they hacked other than the DNC?


If I'm right, just about everyone they can.


Who all did they attempt to hack, other than the DNC?


If I'm right, just about every government, political party, important person, university, corporation, etc, etc, etc. It's their job you know.


What attempts were successful other than the DNC?


If I'm correct:

en.wikipedia.org...


I don't think you have any answers to those questions.


You thought wrong.


But you want to argue that the hackers are partisan?


Are you arguing that they are not?


They may well be, but my point is that there is no proof of that.


What part of speculating do you not understand?


Now, the important question:

What if the hacker(s) are partisan?

Does that mean that the DNC is absolved of what we see in the leaks?


There is nothing requiring absolution; they have committed no cardinal sins, only played politics. Now: what is your theory about what is really going on?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Time Warner doesn't exist anymore.

They were bought out by Charter.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001





You thought wrong.

Yet, you provide no proof of any of those postulations of yours.
You did provide a link to the Wikipedia page that says the Russians engage in cyber warfare generally.
Like I said before, whatever.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


Yet, you provide no proof of any of those postulations of yours.


If I had proof, they would not be postulations, they would be fact. You set out a number of questions for me, all of which I answered; I posed a series of questions relevant to the thread for you which you have ignored:

1. Given the definition of "partisan" and the fact that only one party's secrets have been disclosed, do you find it an unreasonable inference? If so, please explain why.

2. I have indicated that there might be partisanship. Can you prove there was not?

3. Who do you think was responsible?

4. Why have they disclosed the DNC data but not the RNC if they have the ability to hack both?


Like I said before, whatever.


If you don't care, why don't you just give up?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
@GUCCIFER_2 is now active on twitter for anyone interested in following along there.

It's always fascinating when we get a peek behind the curtain at the man pulling the levers to see who comes out and tries to deny, distract, and obfuscate while others are doing their best to analyze what they've been given.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


@GUCCIFER_2 is now active on twitter for anyone interested in following along there.


And you believe it's the real deal because..?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Because from looking at all of the documents, it is very internally consistent within itself.

It may very well be a result of FSB's activities, that doesn't make the information any less damning to the DNC and the Clinton machine.

You've laid out your reasons why you believe it to be their work and I agree that your supposition is sound, but none of that means that the information is not what it is purported to be.

If the Ruskies are helping peel back some of the obscuring layers our politicians have shrouded themselves in and are only showing what they have from one side then you are also correct in that the release would be partisan in nature.

But it does not make me a fan of Trump's (I don't think he is much better than Hillary, in case you are under the mistaken assumption that I am one of his supporters) to gleefully dissect information that shows Hillary and the DNC for what they are.
edit on 20-6-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Because I wanted to see you post again about how you posted no proof yet.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: DJW001

Because I wanted to see you post again about how you posted no proof yet.


What part of "speculation requires no proof" do you not understand? Once again you are making this thread about me. If you do not answer the questions I have posted to bring you back on topic, I will have no choice but to respond with "rickrolls" from here on.
edit on 20-6-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 04:27 AM
link   
UPDATE


I’d like to announce the next piece of docs from DNC.

I found something like a dossier on Hillary Clinton on the its server. It’s a heavy folder of docs that will attract your attention. You’ll like it.

Expect it. I’ll publish them on June 21 at 10 a.m.


Guccifer 2.0 @ wordpress

Not sure what time zone is meant, and several bloggers have asked with no response, but if you have an interest I figured I would let you know so that you could be on watch.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

10am ET he says below!


From the screen shot example it doesnt look to incriminating..

Peter Schweizer is the author of the Anti-Clinton book.
Brian Fallon is Clintons Press Secretary

I hope I am wrong but its probably just boring memos about what the pro clinton reps need to say while being interviewed on mainstream media.
talking points kinda thing.

If the leaker was wanting attention, he would have put a screen grab of something worth while.. the juiciest piece of muck he could find. This doesnt appear to be juicy


edit on 21/6/16 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
UPDATE


I’d like to announce the next piece of docs from DNC.

I found something like a dossier on Hillary Clinton on the its server. It’s a heavy folder of docs that will attract your attention. You’ll like it.

Expect it. I’ll publish them on June 21 at 10 a.m.


Guccifer 2.0 @ wordpress

Not sure what time zone is meant, and several bloggers have asked with no response, but if you have an interest I figured I would let you know so that you could be on watch.


I heard it will be released at 10:30am.
edit on 21-6-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


It may very well be a result of FSB's activities, that doesn't make the information any less damning to the DNC and the Clinton machine.

You've laid out your reasons why you believe it to be their work and I agree that your supposition is sound, but none of that means that the information is not what it is purported to be.


Thank you. Actually, looking at the WordPress blog linked to below, it does appear to be the work of an amateur, and a not very skillful one at that. The blurred document looks genuine, but it is of extremely low importance, and there would be no need to classify it.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop


I hope I am wrong but its probably just boring memos about what the pro clinton reps need to say while being interviewed on mainstream media.
talking points kinda thing.

If the leaker was wanting attention, he would have put a screen grab of something worth while.. the juiciest piece of muck he could find. This doesnt appear to be juicy


It would appear you are correct, though there still might be some interesting tidbits within:


It’s not a report in one file, it’s a big folder of docs devoted to Hillary Clinton that I found on the DNC server.

The DNC collected all info about the attacks on Hillary Clinton and prepared the ways of her defense, memos, etc., including the most sensitive issues like email hacks.


(disclaimer: the documents at the link below may have been acquired through illegal methods, proceed with caution)

Dossier on Hillary Clinton from DNC


edit on 21-6-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: what kind of methods?



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yep.. just scanned through the docs.. mostly old tax returns and majority of it is reviews of media statements on a variety of positions.. very little substance here.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I saw mention of a 'primer' for Clinton workers to 'request' large donations from millionaires without breaking campaign finance laws.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join