BOMBSHELL: New Report Shows Guccifer 2.0-DNC Files Were Copied Locally—Not Hacked

a reply to: Xcathdra

I read an evaluation of this on 4chan several months ago and the original article today, not OP article. I am not savy enough to understand it but this just to say the evaluation has taken months. I would not dismiss.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

Have you ever hit 23 other than on a lan for data dl? Hell, have you ever even hit 10 for a sustained time?

Well, no, I haven't - my line is rated slower than that. But if you have gigabit speeds, it's well within the realm of possibility. And we're likely not talking residential internet here. Anyway, my point is that, with that piece of data being the "most important aspect", this is far from a conclusive analysis.

The point isn't your dl speed, as pointed out above upload speeds are the choke point. Most don't care about up speed and they are even more notorious than down speeds for being grossly exaggerated by service providers.

Yes, understood. Google fiber, for example, is 1 gigabit upload.

Again, since the "bombshell" seems to rely on the copy time of the file, I'd want to see more data before accepting a claim like this. But that's just me.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not a computer guy so I don't understand a lot of this.

But if this computer guy figured it out, wouldn't the feds have figured it out a long time ago?

And if they had, then why haven't they released the information?

Why keep with the Russian narrative?

My guess would be to deflect from Democrats own illegal activity... The claim Russia helped trump win. Its a way for them to delegitimize trump while blaming the Russians for clintons loss.

As I said before for democrats its bad enough they lost. What they cant accept is who they lost to. I think certain Democrats banked on the Russia narrative thinking the American people would accept it without question. Each time the narrative blew up in their faces they pushed another lie to cover / deflect. You eventually get to a point where its no longer salvageable and coming clean is no longer an option.

The more info that comes out... Well I would bet certain democrats will start trying to drag others down with them / try to shift / blame someone else.

a reply to: DBCowboy

We simple fools can only watch what they roll out for us to consume, be they CNN or official DC.

Too many top people in intelligence agencies have revealed that their loyalties evidently are with the democrats (regardless of the antics of Hillary) and strongly against Trump. They tend to shade it as being the man that they hate. Maybe not. It would be nice to know who really is running the FBI.

Surely, the NSA could put an end to this whole business if it really was an agency for the American people and an aspect of an honest and truthful government. More and more we see evidence of behind the scenes actions and even inaction. Faith in government at all levels is dwindling at an incredible rate.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Xcathdra

I love how when there's anonymous sources disclosing info on Trump or associates, it's immediately dismissed; but a 'mysterious' IT says it wasn't a hack but a copy, because you can copy emails on external data drives, somehow, mentalists declare a nail in the coffin...

this goes both ways. to the believers, no evidence is needed, to the delusional​, there's never enough evidence....

This is in the context the servers were never handed over to the FBI.

A third party declared the Russia hacking, not the FBI.

The CIA can hack a network and make it look like other persons/countries.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Xcathdra

I love how when there's anonymous sources disclosing info on Trump or associates, it's immediately dismissed; but a 'mysterious' IT says it wasn't a hack but a copy, because you can copy emails on external data drives, somehow, mentalists declare a nail in the coffin...

this goes both ways. to the believers, no evidence is needed, to the delusional​, there's never enough evidence....

This is in the context the servers were never handed over to the FBI.

A third party declared the Russia hacking, not the FBI.

The CIA can hack a network and make it look like other persons/countries.

As I recall, the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine their servers, insisting, instead, on having third-party, Crowdstrike do the forensic examination.

Why would the transfer out be upload. It should be download from the source host to the host computer getting the data.

a reply to: Aliensun

a reply to: Xcathdra


Thanks for the answers! I guess the alternative would be to assume that the government tells us the truth.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aliensun

a reply to: Xcathdra


Thanks for the answers! I guess the alternative would be to assume that the government tells us the truth.

Listen, I believe in UFOs and triangles but you ask for the impossible!

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

Have you ever hit 23 other than on a lan for data dl? Hell, have you ever even hit 10 for a sustained time?

Well, no, I haven't - my line is rated slower than that. But if you have gigabit speeds, it's well within the realm of possibility. And we're likely not talking residential internet here. Anyway, my point is that, with that piece of data being the "most important aspect", this is far from a conclusive analysis.

The point isn't your dl speed, as pointed out above upload speeds are the choke point. Most don't care about up speed and they are even more notorious than down speeds for being grossly exaggerated by service providers.

Yes, understood. Google fiber, for example, is 1 gigabit upload.

Again, since the "bombshell" seems to rely on the copy time of the file, I'd want to see more data before accepting a claim like this. But that's just me.

We definitely need more data, which we'll likely never see. This is all just what a rando on the internet is saying. Could be completely fabricated. Hell, fabrications seem to be the current trend.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

Have you ever hit 23 other than on a lan for data dl? Hell, have you ever even hit 10 for a sustained time?

Well, no, I haven't - my line is rated slower than that. But if you have gigabit speeds, it's well within the realm of possibility. And we're likely not talking residential internet here. Anyway, my point is that, with that piece of data being the "most important aspect", this is far from a conclusive analysis.

The point isn't your dl speed, as pointed out above upload speeds are the choke point. Most don't care about up speed and they are even more notorious than down speeds for being grossly exaggerated by service providers.

Yes, understood. Google fiber, for example, is 1 gigabit upload.

Again, since the "bombshell" seems to rely on the copy time of the file, I'd want to see more data before accepting a claim like this. But that's just me.

The full report has quite a bit more than that:
theforensicator.wordpress.com...

As others have explained, if your ISP promises you 1 Gbps, you are rarely, if ever, going to actually get that kind of speed. Your true speed is affected by latency from every point between you and the source. Overseas is even slower.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Why would the transfer out be upload. It should be download from the source host to the host computer getting the data.

One side uploads while the other downloads.

This might not be the thread for you.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

I think bytes and not bitss what they meant (it is unlikely that one would make that mistake in the report. You cannot make that mistake without being ridiculed, and this guy definitely knows that. And it is a very visible noticeable mistake.)

Anyway, there is no reason a transfer speed of 184 Mb/s could not have been reached between the US and Romania.

However, if we could find out - and we might actually be able to - with what upstream speed the allegedly hacked server was connected, we might be able to rule it out, as the the maximum transfer speed would be determined by that.

If the DNC had a, say, a 100 Mb/s connection up, the speed would cap out T around 13 MB/s far below the estimated transfer speed of 23 MB/s. Anda, assuming the estimated speed is correct, then we could for all but certain rule out a remote hack.

There's a lot of confusion here on internet speeds...

8mbit is 1mbyte

Most internet service providers sell lines with a 10:1 ratio for bandwidth- a 50mbit connection is often only a 5mbit connection when it comes to taking data back out of that network.

Business connections are often different- 2:1 or even 1:1, but most businesses don't bother with connections fast enough to upload data anywhere near that quickly.

On the flip side of that, if the server were located in a data center it could very easily have that kind of bandwidth available to it.
Do we know where the server was located?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

Have you ever hit 23 other than on a lan for data dl? Hell, have you ever even hit 10 for a sustained time?

Sure.

I usually max out at a stable 500 - 550 Mb/s when downloading from US servers. From Europe.

And that is MY connection capping.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Bombshell indeed!

Collateral damage awaits!

From the looks of the replies in this thread, someone needs to author a "Max possible speed of download (locally/remotely)". That seems to be the biggest hurdle for the lefty wankers.

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
You could only sustain 23 MB/s from a server.

Hacking into someone's computer, the connection would be throttled by upload speed. Usually about 10 MB/s is the max advertised upload speed.

Unless you are both connected by fiber locally.

That is simply not accurate.

The DNC likely would not have a consumer line - granted, a 200 Mb/s upstream line could seem like overkill, but here is no reason that they could not have chosen such a connection anyway. I do not think it is even unlikely.

23mbs seems about right for a USB 2 thumb drive...

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: roadgravel
Why would the transfer out be upload. It should be download from the source host to the host computer getting the data.

One side uploads while the other downloads.

This might not be the thread for you.

haha.

If sides were operating with the same data volume as the data moves then there would be no difference in down vs up.
That seems to be what you imply.

Actually they could be the same but that not the world most ISPs give us.

a reply to: IAMTAT

From what im seeing Soros is connected to Fusiongps and crowdstrike.