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: 3
67
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GuidedKill

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'm saying this is a distraction effort to distract from the 4 real investigations. I'm saying that if these allegations are true then the real investigations will get to and cover them.


I think your tone and dismissive words about this speaks volumes on your moral compass....

Oh NO! I don't care about some conservative clap trap and that makes me a bad person to some random on the internet! WHATEVER SHALL I DO!?!?!


That's not what you said at all. You said they will "ignore" them cause it's right wing propaganda and then went on to explain how it was propaganda....So if you dismiss what could be possible evidence and then say they should/would ignore it then how are you for a transparent and full investigation again?

Ok. Let's reword it so you can understand better. They will ignore this article because it is conservative propaganda. If the evidence is real they'll pay attention to that eventually on their own without needing this article to show it to them. Is that a better way of explaining it? Or do you want me to start doing below the belt cheap shots against you like that paragraph I snipped from your post here?


No rewording needed...I completely comprehend your position and where you stand. You can reword it for yourself if you think it's going to make your position sound a little better.

Below the belt??? I merely confirmed your position on this from your post, it was you who said it would/should be ignored. And then proceeded to double and triple down on the reasons why....Maybe a little self reflection would serve you better.





posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
post 1


Or do you want me to start doing below the belt cheap shots against you like that paragraph I snipped from your post here?

next post


You need a break from ATS and politics mate. You are off the deep end.

lololololololol



OH the irony!!!!!!




posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
I'm actually quite wary of this as I'm very open minded. I just find it hard to believe there isn't a motivated agenda when you have:
Clinton emails: No grand jury, no FBI raids
Lynch Tarmac meeting: No inquiry, FBI lying about emails they had about the meeting
DNC primary election rigging: No investigation, No grand jury, No FBI raids
Mueller: Staffing clinton donors, FBI raids, grand juries

Well MAYBE things aren't what you keep assuming they are? When you keep being wrong about how things turn out eventually you have to come to the conclusion that the problem is you and not reality.


So my thoughts are that any actual evidence of russian interference need to be direct and well substantiated. If mueller pursues ANY process crime, it was all a simple witch hunt.

See. This is what I'm talking about. You are giving yourself an out so that when things don't go the way you want them to go you can just add this outcome to your list of failed predictions above instead of changing your thinking because you went wrong somewhere.

Here's the difference between you and I. I know you THINK I think that Trump is guilty, but I have withheld my judgement on him and his entire cabinet. Once the investigations are completed and recommendations given, THAT is when I will make my judgement. That way I don't have any preset expectations to be ruined.


No, the nation has a liberal slant. They're the oldest weekly magazine in existence (in the US).
mediabiasfactcheck.com...

Pro tip: Quit looking at who is saying it and look at WHAT they're saying.

Ok. That was my bad, but I still don't believe this will railroad the investigation and if it is true the investigators will pick up on it anyways.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Every OP from a Trump supporter about anything Russia-related starts off with some variation of, "The Russian narrative is crumbling" (collapsing, falling apart, blah blah) and yet, the investigation goes on and every couple of weeks, some other revelation like the DTJ meeting drops.

Your title is inaccurate.

Neither "Forensicator" nor "Adam Carter" are identified as ex-NSA experts. You're referring to (one of?) the VIPS people. The original VIPS claims, the "Forensicator" claims and the Adam Carter nonsense have all been posted to ATS. This is just an overly verbose regurgitation.

"Adam Carter" is the one who promoted the discredited DM's which were claimed to have been exchanges between "Guccifer 2.0" and a some has-been/never-was "erotic model" named Robbin Young.


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.


The IC has a responsibility to publicly refute anonymous blog posts? How have they "attempted to bury it" (them) exactly?

I'll have to go back and take a look at the 22mb/s claims.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

Lol. Whatever. We're done anyways. There is nothing left for us to discuss and I don't want to get into a shouting match with you.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
From the article:



These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.


YES. Yes they would.

22.7 MEGABYTES per second? Get real. In 2016 that's NOT an unheard of speed. At ALL.

That's a 181.6 megabit DL connection. Easily doable on a RESIDENTIAL ISP.

WEAK SAUCE.


ISP direct connection to server maybe possible to get those download speeds...

a hacker bouncing and masking their IP all over the world before connecting to the DNC server...IMPOSSIBLE!!! There is no way to get those kinds of speeds and still maintain anonymity.....




posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GuidedKill

Lol. Whatever. We're done anyways. There is nothing left for us to discuss and I don't want to get into a shouting match with you.


Lol, there it is.

You are predictable.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Right?

I was thinking the same when I was reading a silly thread about Trump and the Statue of Liberty.

Lol.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

What do you care? I wasn't even talking to you.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I'm surprised that ex-NSA nutjob "whistleblower" Bill Binney hasn't weighed in ... he did single-handedly keep American safe from terrorists ... until he "retired" due to trying to justify his nutty ideas as the basis for investigations.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: thesaneone

What do you care? I wasn't even talking to you.



I don't, I like to call you out when you play your baby games.

Deal with it.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GuidedKill

Lol. Whatever. We're done anyways. There is nothing left for us to discuss and I don't want to get into a shouting match with you.


Lol, there it is.

You are predictable.


Speaking of predictable, do you contribute anything to threads besides your unsolicited opinions of other posters?

Tell me, do you find the musings of ex-NSA agents credible? How are you certain they aren't agents of the "Deep State" playing a long game?

What's the barometer, pro-Trump?



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




do you contribute anything to threads


Do you gryph? I add my opinion when I want and I call out people when I want.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66




do you contribute anything to threads


Do you gryph? I add my opinion when I want and I call out people when I want.



Sure. Probably 8 out of 10 of my posts is backed up with a direct reference.

For example, I asked you direct questions about the issues at hand:



Tell me, do you find the musings of ex-NSA agents credible? How are you certain they aren't agents of the "Deep State" playing a long game?

What's the barometer, pro-Trump?


Any thoughts?

Your opinions on other posters aren't relevant.

In fact, even in the Mud Pit, your personal opinions of others are off-topic.

Thanks for your answer.

edit on 10-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: oted



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66




do you contribute anything to threads


Do you gryph? I add my opinion when I want and I call out people when I want.



Sure. Probably 8 out of 10 of my posts is backed up with a direct reference. Your opinions on other posters aren't relevant.

In fact, even in the Mud Pit, your personal opinions of others are off-topic.

Thanks for your answer.




Oh goodie, a mini mod.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
NM
edit on 10-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do, and it's simple, someone leaked the info, we were not hacked.

The only thing Russia is guilty of is the same as other super powers do and that's try to influence elections through some type of propaganda but not hacked.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do, and it's simple, someone leaked the info, we were not hacked.

The only thing Russia is guilty of is the same as other super powers do and that's try to influence elections through some type of propaganda but not hacked.


Ah. Thanks for your opinions.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
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.
What if it's the site moderators on undercover accounts simply manufacturing outrage and being purposely obtuse with never ending arguments to generate ad revenue meanwhile unbeknownst participants just keep refreshing the page and replying to silly arguments maybe theyre playing both sides, noone will change anyones mind, simply both sides accusing each other of the exact same thing it is quite fascinating.

There has to be a real conspiracy here somewhere.

I hope I don't get banned

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



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
LOL ... yeah ... called it:




Qualified experts working independently of one another began to examine the DNC case immediately after the July 2016 events. Prominent among these is a group comprising former intelligence officers, almost all of whom previously occupied senior positions. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), founded in 2003, now has 30 members, including a few associates with backgrounds in national-security fields other than intelligence. The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.


(FROM THE OP ARTICLE)

Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe and Edward Loomis are apparently the "brain trust" behind these efforts.

Coincidentally, they also happen to be darlings of Fox News and the rest of the right-wing Echo Chamber.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join