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: 11
67
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
As to whether the OP's citation represents propaganda or not ...




We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.”


Well, gosh, just admit that you're not searching for facts you're "countering the official narrative."

Yep, sounds a lot like propaganda, eh?




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: Outlier13

Can't expect these Clinton cronies to respond to logic in kind. After all, they are well educated in Saul Alinsky's diversionary tactics.


And yet, you folks are the only ones that ever bring Alinsky up. Seems like you know him better than we do.




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: iWontGiveUP

...if you call trivial pimply adolescent "script kitty" level phishing, "hacking".

Even low level hackers would roll their eyes at "phishing" being called a hack. It's "idiot bait".

That would be like tying a thread on a photocopy of $20 bill... and pulling on it every time someone bent over to pick it up, and calling it a "sophisticated criminal sting by the FBI and the Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force."

...I mean... sheesh.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Just to put this in context...

THE NATION ( the OP's linked article/site) is a well established LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE MEDIA OUTLET.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Interestingly, we aren't the only ones having serious concerns about the OP's article ...

The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk - New York Magazine



Yesterday, The Nation published an article by journalist Patrick Lawrence purporting to demonstrate that last summer’s pivotal DNC hack was, in fact, an inside job. Maybe unsurprisingly, it’s proven especially popular among people who hold it as an article of political faith that the Russian government and intelligence services played no role in the theft and publication of a cache of emails from DNC staffers:


Boy are you telling me ...



But this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It’s the extremely long-winded product of a crank, and it’s been getting attention only because it appears in a respected left-wing publication like The Nation. Anyone hoping to read it for careful reporting and clear explanation is going to come away disappointed, however.

If you want to get to the actual claims being made, you’ll have to skip the first 1,000 or so words, which mostly consist of breathtakingly elaborate throat-clearing.


By the way, the propaganda spiel is in the first 1000 words .... that's my point ... but to the central point ...



The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection. (Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.


Ooops.

Patrick Lawrence is at best a crank as this article points out.
edit on 11-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dasman888

It doesn't matter that it's from a well established liberal progressive media outlet because the content of the article doesn't fit in with the lefts narrative. They don't seem to understand that a 50 megabit upload speed is uncommon, and considering 8 bits make up a byte, it still comes nowhere close to 22MB/s.

Little pointer for anyone thinking this kind of speed is possible, your internet connection speed is NOT rated in megabytes per second. It's rated in megabits per second. It is impossible for a hacker to get a download speed of 22 megabytes per second after bouncing through 50 nodes, if not more, from one server. That's also not taking into account QOS settings on the server end, that may have upload from that particular server limited even more because another server on the same network may be set up for something that is a higher priority.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlysyn
a reply to: dasman888

It is impossible for a hacker to get a download speed of 22 megabytes per second after bouncing through 50 nodes, if not more, from one server.


Why do you assume this?

EDIT: Let me expand ... why do you assume the conditions existed in which your expertise (I'm allowing for that) would allow you to make this conclusion?
edit on 11-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlysyn

It doesn't matter because 22mb/s has not been confirmed.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: deadlysyn

It doesn't matter because 22mb/s has not been confirmed.



But the propaganda article SAID ... and it's a left-wing source ... so it must be ... er ... uh ... true?

So, let's see what we've got here. A nutjob article regarding the efforts of a veritable army of specialists to "counter the official narrative" is published in a left-wing source (which would usually result in it being dismissed out of hand by these folks) that accepts a series of improbable statements on their face with no verification other than ... well, the crank author wrote it.

Yeah, it must be a Friday at the ATS rock.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Successfully dodged my last comment directed towards you in favour of ad hominem drivel. Not surprised.
edit on 11-8-2017 by HorizonFall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: Gryphon66

Successfully dodged my last comment directed towards you in favour of ad hominem drivel it. Not surprised.


Why are you directing comments to me? I'm not the topic.

Also, you might look up what ad hom means.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

In order to download at that kind of speed would require the server to be connected to an ISP allowing 176 megabits per second upload speed. And that is in ideal conditions meaning a latency of 0ms. Real world figures considering the way hackers bounce through countless nodes before even connecting to their Target is going to shoot latency through the roof. It could take a few seconds before one packet of data even reaches the terminal the hacker is sitting at. And it is still limited by the upload speed of the ISP. Even with business internet packages, 176 megabit upload is very uncommon.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are detracting from said topic by bringing up irrelevant points from sources who have no more knowledge of the issue than those which the OP provided.

You should look up the definition for condescension.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlysyn
a reply to: Gryphon66

In order to download at that kind of speed would require the server to be connected to an ISP allowing 176 megabits per second upload speed. And that is in ideal conditions meaning a latency of 0ms. Real world figures considering the way hackers bounce through countless nodes before even connecting to their Target is going to shoot latency through the roof. It could take a few seconds before one packet of data even reaches the terminal the hacker is sitting at. And it is still limited by the upload speed of the ISP. Even with business internet packages, 176 megabit upload is very uncommon.


So, for example ... how many "bounces" would a Russian hacker need. Are you assuming they'd be working from Russia? (ETA: Aren't the "bounces" virtual, not necessarily geographic?)

Also, do you have any reason to suspect that the stated speed from the article is verifiable? If so, why?

You mentioned 50 "bounces" ... you say that's "standard hacking" procedures. I can imagine that's a sensitive topic to offer actual proof for but ... got any?

Who would have access to 176 megabit upload speeds?
edit on 11-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Can't expect the sheep to expose the shepherd...



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are detracting from said topic by bringing up irrelevant points from sources who have no more knowledge of the issue than those which the OP provided.

You should look up the definition for condescension.


And your comment about Alinsky was on topic? Your commenting on what you think other posters believe?

/shrug

I'm contributing actual critiques of the topic at least. You're whining about other members.

PS, I'm ignoring you now.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There is no definite number of "bounces". I've heard of hackers bouncing through hundreds of nodes in over 20 different countries just to try to make sure that they can't be traced quickly.

Those kind of speeds are definitely possible by either being on the same network, or an external hard drive or flash drive is directly connected. For reference, I can transfer files from my own desktop to my own server (both on the same network, latency is >1ms) at up to 120MB/s. As it stands now, the 22MB/s is only speculation based on what the article said, until otherwise confirmed or disproven.

If any of us can find out who has access to 176mb/s upload speed, please let me know. Telling family and friends to Google apps they need can be a real pain, but it would be nice to have an upload speed that would leave me in a position where I could just toss the relevant files on my FTP.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlysyn

So at this point, all we have are, at best, educated guesses as to the veracity (or lack thereof) of the OP's article.

Thanks for your rationality and knowledge. A refreshing change here from personal off-topic BS.
edit on 11-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are detracting from said topic by bringing up irrelevant points from sources who have no more knowledge of the issue than those which the OP provided.

You should look up the definition for condescension.


PS, I'm ignoring you now.


As par the course.

I'm sure you'll also ignore the fact that you are critiquing from the side of the establishment who has been incessantly ramming the Russian narrative down our throat without any conclusive facts whatsoever. So essentially this entire argument is moot as we are trying to discredit a story which never had any substance to begin with.

I would ask what evidence you
have that Russia hacked the DNC and colluded with Trump to rig the election, though I'm sure you'll conveniently ignore that too.


edit on 11-8-2017 by HorizonFall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Just for kicks, let's list out the "news outlets" that have picked up this article from the left-wing Nation, shall we?

Washington Examiner
Newsmax
Breitbart
LawNewz


... and that's just the top four.

Anyone notice a trend?



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join