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.

 

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

page: 7
98
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is also Rod Wheeler. He was severely silenced when he said there was evidence tying Seth to WikiLeaks.

Anyone who comes forward is stomped on hard. Someone is trying to keep this quiet.




posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Rosinitiate

I'm not suprised...


Remains to be seen but I'll take your word for it.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Nothing to see here folks.





posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Then why won't Assange confirm it???

He blantantly said it was Rich, then backtracked and refused to come confirm it..


Is Rich's family in less danger now than if Assange confirmed it??

Obviously not, the whole world knows Assange said it was Rich..

Not confirming it just looks uncredible after such blantant innuendo..



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: BlueAjah

Then why won't Assange confirm it???

He blantantly said it was Rich, then backtracked and refused to come confirm it..


Is Rich's family in less danger now than if Assange confirmed it??

Obviously not, the whole world knows Assange said it was Rich..

Not confirming it just looks uncredible after such blantant innuendo..



Because Assange never confirms sources out of safety concerns, for obvious reasons. Re: Seth Rich



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

What is your upload speed?

Upload speeds are always slower.

So even if you can down load at 100000000mb/s

If the other computer is only uploading at .5mb/s.

Your download speed will be .5mb/s.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
Nothing to see here folks.




HEY! Careful, there.
CNN sez it's illegal for you to read those Podesta emails.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: 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.

My internet connection is at 54 MB/s right now.

So...


Soooooo...... you can have a 10000TB connection....... but I control the speed from my end...... now what I mean? If I am using a 56k modem......no matter how super duper your connection.... your speed limit is 56k. I would imagine the person took into account the up/down speed of the DNCs server into calculating how long it would take online vs LAN and able to make a pretty good guess which was most likely used



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT




posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
There is a certain method to the madness (Wink).

theforensicator.wordpress.com...



Buck



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Given the circumstances Assange really needs to publicly confirm that Seth Rich was in fact his source.


He's quite literally the only one who can put this to bed. With so much evidence and analysis that point to Rich plus Assange's indirect acknowledgement, I think he doesn't need to be concerned about revealing his source in this instance.

At this point sitting on this information sends more of a negative message to would be leakers than releasing it.


What if Julian Assange did not get it directly from Seth but through a third party party who is still alive. Someone who was going to get more info (it is speculated only 1/10th may have been revealed?) but Seth was murdered and the remaining info was no longer available?!? Assange is aware that Seth Rich was the actual source, but cannot honestly say that since he was dealing with someone else altogether who has shared that detail with him. He cannot out his actual source who is still alive!
edit on 7 10 2017 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

That's a good point. If others besides Seth were involved, confirming Seth's involvement could put their lives in danger.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is also Rod Wheeler. He was severely silenced when he said there was evidence tying Seth to WikiLeaks.

Anyone who comes forward is stomped on hard. Someone is trying to keep this quiet.



Rod Wheeler didn't have any evidence tying Seth Rich to WikiLeaks. He was given some talking points by a Fox News reporter from a retracted story which he then went on Fox News to regurgitate, passing them off as "evidence" that he'd obtained himself until the whole fiasco fell apart and he changed his tune completely and walked everything back.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit
a reply to: IAMTAT

By now, you should both have read that email and should therefore know that it was from more than a year before Seth Rich's death and had absolutely nothing to do with Seth Rich or emails.

The email chain even cites the WaPo story that the conversation pertains to and it had to do with PR people blabbing to the press. He was clearly talking about firing one of them.

So either your ignorantly misinforming people or your deliberately disinforming them meaning that you're either fools or liars.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
As to the possibility of the DNC having a fast enough upload speed to be able to get the kind of throughput mentioned in the article, I would imagine it would be dependent upon where the data was actually stored. I know the DNC likely has many server farms for their data, likely outsourced.

With that in mind I went poking around a little and came up with the following:


Democrats.org is hosted on IP address 54.230.194.106 which is located in Seattle, and it is owerned by Amazon.com and its ISP: Amazon Technologies


ipindetail

And also:


DNS Records

Domain: democrats.org.
Added: 2009-07-19
Last updated: 2017-01-21

What points here by: CNAME / NS / MX / PTR
View: SubDomains / Check DNS Propagation / Dig .
SOA - (history:5)

2015-12-12 -> 2017-01-21
MName: ns-360.awsdns-45.com
RName: awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com
Serial: 1
Refresh: 7200
Retry: 900
Expire: 86400
NS - (history:6)

2015-12-12 -> 2017-01-21 ns-1561.awsdns-03.co.uk
2015-12-12 -> 2017-01-21 ns-360.awsdns-45.com
2015-12-12 -> 2017-01-21 ns-1000.awsdns-61.net
2015-12-12 -> 2017-01-21 ns-1273.awsdns-31.org
MX - (history:55)

2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 ->
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 ->
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 ->
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 ->
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 ->
A - (history:71)

2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 54.240.162.47
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 54.240.162.181
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 54.240.162.10
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 54.240.162.43
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 54.240.162.173
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 54.240.162.82
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 54.240.162.219
2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 54.240.162.254
AAAA

CNAME

PTR

TXT - (history:7)

2017-01-21 -> 2017-01-21 "v=spf1 ip4:208.69.4.0/22 a mx a:demmail.democrats.org a:demmail2.democrats.org include:bluestatedigital.com include:amazonses.com include:_spf.google.com ~all"


dnshistory.org

So, with Amazon hosting democrats.org, I would venture to guess (could be wrong, if so please provide additional info) that Amazon hosts all DNC related data. Amazon likely has the capability for the kinds of upload speeds necessary to achieve the data transfer rates listed in the OP article, we'd need to know what sort of hosting package the DNC has and where the actual data came from in order to have a better idea of the capacity possible for uploading data.

 


side note: Amazon and CIA are cozy cozy, and don't forget Bezos has beef with president Trump.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Or... Rod Wheeler was threatened into silence.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

E-mail is not always stored on the same server as the web site and not necessarily even with the same host or the same location.
With most large companies, email is not stored on the same server.

They are using googlemail, so it could be using Google services, or it could be using Google services to redirect to a server someplace else.


edit on 7/10/17 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian



Rod Wheeler didn't have any evidence tying Seth Rich to WikiLeaks.


you talk like you know that. how do you know that?



He was given some talking points by a Fox News reporter from a retracted story which he then went on Fox News to regurgitate, passing them off as "evidence" that he'd obtained himself until the whole fiasco fell apart and he changed his tune completely and walked everything back.


so you think this man was willing to put his entire professional reputation on the line by instilling all of his trust into unverified talking points from Fox News? what are you basing that on?



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

True. When looking at the leakyplace, all of the DNC emails have the domain of dnc.org

Searching the same sites above yields the following:


Dnc.org is hosted on IP address 13.32.246.245 which is located in Norwalk, and it is owerned by Xerox Corporation and its ISP: Xerox Corporation


ipindetail.com

And


DNS Records

Domain: dnc.org.
Added: 2009-07-26
Last updated: 2017-07-10

What points here by: CNAME / NS / MX / PTR
View: SubDomains / Check DNS Propagation / Dig .
SOA - (history:5)

2015-10-10 -> 2017-07-10
MName: ns-1238.awsdns-26.org
RName: awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com
Serial: 1
Refresh: 7200
Retry: 900
Expire: 86400
NS - (history:5)

2015-10-10 -> 2017-07-10 ns-1238.awsdns-26.org
2015-10-10 -> 2017-07-10 ns-1584.awsdns-06.co.uk
2015-10-10 -> 2017-07-10 ns-323.awsdns-40.com
2015-10-10 -> 2017-07-10 ns-1007.awsdns-61.net
MX - (history:24)

2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 ->
2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 ->
A - (history:2)

2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 54.192.44.162
2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 54.192.44.50
2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 54.192.44.221
2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 54.192.44.15
2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 54.192.44.95
2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 54.192.44.171
2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 54.192.44.124
2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 54.192.44.186
AAAA

CNAME

PTR

TXT - (history:10)

2017-07-10 -> 2017-07-10 "v=msv1 t=2350EA59-AE14-492F-B26D-67D08F187F8D"


dnshistory.org

Keep in mind the same caveats BlueAjah mentions in the post to which I am replying.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

E-mail is not always stored on the same server as the web site and not necessarily even with the same host or the same location.
With most large companies, email is not stored on the same server.

They are using googlemail, so it could be using Google services, or it could be using Google services to redirect to a server someplace else.


Yep.
Hillary had data stored with a company that has a facility about 5 miles from where I am sitting right now, and that place was outed in an article as being unsecure.... no guards, unlocked doors and things like that.

Daily Mail



new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join