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.

 

Former NSA Experts: It Wasn't Russia. It Wasn't Even A Hack. It Was A Leak.

page: 1
67
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+48 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Well, the whole Russia narrative is crumbling further. This time it's some former big wigs from the NSA. Of course, if there was no DNC hack by the Russians, then what criminal aspect could there be to the Trump-Russia collusion story? If the only Russian meddling was a bit of fake news, is that even really meddling? Does that type of meddling warrant a year long investigation?

This article is very long and very detailed, but basically they've proven that there was no hack of the DNC server. I'm going to quote some of the article's important points. Basically there are two people who have been sharing data on the DNC "hack" using a little known site. The two people are using the names Forensicator and Adam Carter.


Forensicator is working with the documents published by Guccifer 2.0, focusing for now on the July 5 intrusion into the DNC server. The contents of Guccifer’s files are known—they were published last September—and are not Forensicator’s concern. His work is with the metadata on those files. These data did not come to him via any clandestine means. Forensicator simply has access to them that others did not have. It is this access that prompts Kirk Wiebe and others to suggest that Forensicator may be someone with exceptional talent and training inside an agency such as the FBI. “Forensicator unlocked and then analyzed what had been the locked files Guccifer supposedly took from the DNC server,” Skip Folden explained in an interview. “To do this he would have to have ‘access privilege,’ meaning a key.”


Forensicator is the guy who proved the 22 MB/S download speed.


In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style .ings.”


Then there is the timeline that seems awfully fishy.


On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.
On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.
On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.


The ball is now in the court of the intel community who needs to prove this analysis incorrect. Yet, a month later, they still haven't even attempted to refute it, they've only attempted to bury it. Pretty telling really.

Here's a link to the article: www.thenation.com...
edit on 10-8-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
So the NSA works for Russia? I knew it!


+32 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

There ya go. But who's going to listen? Not the snowflakes. And the rest of us already knew.

Great thread though!

peace



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13


The DNC emails were leaked

Posdesta was hacked


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Hey. Why did you leave out the word "Former" from your title? But then again who cares what these people said? They are only analyzing released information to the public and aren't part of the official investigations. This is just confirmation bias fodder.

The ball is now in the court of the intel community who needs to prove this analysis incorrect.

No it isn't. They'll just ignore it because it is just political noise from the media. It isn't an official analysis or anything.

This is yet another attempt from conservative media (and the OP) to try to end the investigation prematurely based on flimsy reasoning. Why are you guys so scared to let this thing play its course?
edit on 10-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: iWontGiveUP

By whom?



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oversight, I'll fix it.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Better send this off to Robert Mueller then! He and his team are the ones that really matter regarding "info" like this.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



Pretty sure, we have been hacked has already been established. Even trump is acknowledging that, He just says "maybe it was maybe it wasn't." meaning Russia.
edit on 10-8-2017 by kurthall because: fix


+10 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


They are only analyzing released information to the public and aren't part of the official investigations.


Incorrect. Forensicator has access.


It isn't an official analysis or anything.


What makes an analysis official?


Why are you guys so scared to let this thing play its course?


It's not fear of it playing it's course, it's fear that the course is to manufacture anything they can against a president they obviously detest.
Now that I answered your question, you get to answer mine. Why are you so against any investigation into the foundation of the charges at hand?


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: kurthall

And once "established and accepted" it can't be proven wrong? LOL you're a great little minion!


+23 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you're happy with someone conducting an investigation ignoring possible evidence??

Wow that say a lot about your moral compass....





+4 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
What I can't figure out as someone that mostly just watches these threads:

Do the characters playing the same role on different sides acknowledge to themselves that they are arguing with someone that is essentially doing the identical thing but from the opposite perspective?

For instance someone in this thread has to be right. Both sides argue like they are 100% infallible in their knowledge of the situation, both sides accuse the others of the same things they are accused of. If it was satire it would be hilarious. If you had to fight to the death over your opinion, would you? It seems there is that much conviction but I doubt it really exists.

I don't expect actual answers even though I am speaking to and of specific people. It is just the internal dialogue I have when I see these conversations, as well as watching a movie, or reading a book. It is weird to try and assign motivation to individuals who you think are basically fabrications to begin with.

Otherwise after almost 2 years of this someone would have to sit back and say "wait a minute now" and start to wonder about their own sanity and position. It seems there is no end in sight though. It's quite fascinating if not terrifying.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Maybe our government should buy some of this to stop the leaks. The tape can seal people's mouths quickly.

www.flextapeoffer.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you're happy with someone conducting an investigation ignoring possible evidence??

Wow that say a lot about your moral compass....





Do you seriously think that if Mueller, et al had definitive evidence that the Russians didn't hack the election they'd simply ignore it? Really?

Based on the OP, it sounds like a lot of conjecture and weak linking. Mueller's team has far greater access to information than these yahoos do.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

You're a Russian bot!


Do the characters playing the same role on different sides acknowledge to themselves that they are arguing with someone that is essentially doing the identical thing but from the opposite perspective?


Obviously.


Both sides argue like they are 100% infallible in their knowledge of the situation, both sides accuse the others of the same things they are accused of.


Actually, in this specific thread, one side is providing information and the other side is literally saying it's not real information.


I don't expect actual answers even though I am speaking to and of specific people.

No you're not, you didn't speak to anyone specifically, you made some vague statements about arguments.


It is weird to try and assign motivation to individuals who you think are basically fabrications to begin with.


The people in this thread are fabricated? They're not actual people?



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you're happy with someone conducting an investigation ignoring possible evidence??

Wow that say a lot about your moral compass....





Do you seriously think that if Mueller, et al had definitive evidence that the Russians didn't hack the election they'd simply ignore it? Really?

Based on the OP, it sounds like a lot of conjecture and weak linking. Mueller's team has far greater access to information than these yahoos do.


I don't put anything past any member of the Government.....I have been alive long enough and have seen enough to know they are ALL liars.....

I just hate to see lies or someone ignore something in an effort to railroad anyone....

But to answer your questions directly....Yes Mueller and others would hide, dismiss, subvert, etc anything that would further their agenda...Now what exactly his agenda Is I don't know.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you're happy with someone conducting an investigation ignoring possible evidence??

Wow that say a lot about your moral compass....




Wow. That is a huge leap in logic from what I said.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite


No it isn't. They'll just ignore it because it is just political noise from the media. It isn't an official analysis or anything.

This is yet another attempt from conservative media (and the OP) to try to end the investigation prematurely based on flimsy reasoning. Why are you guys so scared to let this thing play its course?


So what exactly are you saying if you're not saying that you are OK with them ignoring this????

I think your tone and dismissive words about this speaks volumes on your moral compass....
edit on 10-8-2017 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Incorrect. Forensicator has access.

Sure it does.


What makes an analysis official?

When it is done by the official parties investigating this using all the information they have available that isn't available to the public.


It's not fear of it playing it's course, it's fear that the course is to manufacture anything they can against a president they obviously detest.

Which is a narrative you are inventing because you only want to accept on outcome from the investigation and not be open minded about whatever comes along.

Now that I answered your question, you get to answer mine. Why are you so against any investigation into the foundation of the charges at hand?

Because this is a conservative news source where most of the information presented is presented with a VERY slanted opinion and I take literally anything from a "former" anything with a HUGE grain of salt. That is how media outlets both liberal and conservative sooth the echo chamber. You know how easy it is to find a "former" official that agrees with whatever partisan narrative you are pushing? Stupidly easy.
edit on 10-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
67
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join