It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66
Now, let's see the evidence that the DNC altered the primary elections as administered by the various State governments.
I'm not arguing nor claiming as such. Who is?
originally posted by: andrew778
Pulling original meta data even after deletion can be done by those who are very good with code and computers. It can be done so accuracy and if any of it is true is what matters.
originally posted by: mkultra11
originally posted by: network dude
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.
you don't have a clue how the internet works. What was the upload speed? That is the limiting factor. It's a really easy thing to check. If it was the astronomical LAN speed recorded, then super, they had the greatest internet months before it was a reality. But it's a big deal and something that's a deal breaker unless it was magic.............. magic.
That person clearly didn't read the article.
What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second. “A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”
u/qou • Apr 6, 2014, 2:00 AM
I think I can do this justice. I'm going to explain a few concepts that won't make much sense individually, but I will link them together at the end. Obviously a lot of this has been simplified.
Alright so for USB there's 4 methods of transfer files, CONTROL, ISOCHRONOUS, INTERRUPT, and BULK.
Control - Generally speaking, these take care of the USB administration, such as letting the OS know what the purpose of this USB device is. Enumeration essentially.
Isochronous - Data being transferred doesn't rely on accuracy. Think of this as streaming video or music. If a few pixels from a frame are inaccurate it doesn't bother to let the sender know it was invalid data.
Interrupt - Somewhat synonymous to the purpose of the hardware interrupts of traditional peripheral systems. This type of data has high priority if the USB bus reaches capacity. This type of transfer is typically used when you do what accuracy in your data.
Bulk - As the name suggests, this type of transfer is for large amounts of data. This type has a low priority and is what is being used for the Tom's article you linked.
Metadata - A small piece of data that contains information about what the file type is. This information is still stored on the HDD, but it generally doesn't impact the size that much. However, every piece of data, no matter how small, requires some metadata. Think of it as the ID3 tag for everything.
Paging - When you format any storage device, you have to specify the smallest addressable piece. For most devices, the default value is 4 kB. This means that a text file, which may only have 1 character on it which is 1 byte, will still be 4 kB. The higher the page file size, the faster transferring will occur, but it's easier for space to be taken up. Small page file will result in slower transferring times, but you won't fill it up as fast. This can been seen on the size properties box of files, SIZE and SIZE ON DISK. Size on disk usually refers to the size the file takes up and is divisible by the page size (although not always).
Now the fun part: When you go to copy a file, you have to copy the data of the actual file and the metadata. The recipient now has to take this information and store it somewhere, following the rules of how it was setup to page information. If you are copying thousands of files, that's thousands of data, thousands of metadata, and thousands of instances where new pages had to be allocated. All of this takes a lot of overhead and is not something you see on the transfer dialog box. The transfer dialog box only shows you the speed of transfer for the actual data, not the metadata or time spent waiting on the firmware to allocate the space. This is why transferring small pieces of information is always shown in a benchmark test. It's always going to be the slowest.
On the flip side, when you transfer something like an ISO file, which contains a large amount, but despite that large amount of data, you only have 1 metadata tag to worry about. In addition, while new pages have to be allocated to write it, it can do this all in sequence. The firmware on the device knows that it has to write 65 MB somewhere so it finds a section in memory that has 65 MB of free pages and just batch writes it all at once. For large, bulk transfers such as this, there's very little overhead that has to be done.
Additionally, I think for both types of files, these would all fall under BULK transfers. However, I think there might be some additional overhead with the way the USB protocol builds the packets (topic for another day). For the ISO file, a BULK transfer has a maximum size of 1024 bytes (I think this is right). So it basically loads up 1024 bytes worth of data and sends it. For the small data size, it does this the same way, but instead of being able to use the full 1024 bytes of each packet, it might have to break it off short (remember, we're sending multiple files). So instead of sending 1024 bytes, it might only get out 980 bytes. So again, there's some speed loss here as well.
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: andrew778
Even without this new information, the old was never proved or contested.
Someone who knows what they are talking about answer me this:
How were these speeds possible over a remote connection, THROUGH TOR, and how is a TOR exit node in Russia evidence of ANYTHING?
Nothing was contested regarding wikileaks stance on the non hack /leak.
Also, why wasnt the ORIGINAL DNC server given to the FBI?
Wouldnt this meta-data be lost if the server was only cloned and then given to the FBI?
ISNT that evidence of a crime being covered up by a perp?
The DNC mainly.....
These things are ignored by people looking with a confirmation bias.
This comes down to plain old true or not info. Not sentiment.
Show me the technical specifications making this remote download /local upload speed possible.
Show me how a single exit node on TOR is evidence of origin when the basis of the TOR network is to randomize users and bounce around information several times around the world before delivering it somewhere.
Is the transaction documented from point A to point B? So people jumped to conclusions of absurd "expert" opinion....which is not backed by the industry they supposedly specialize in.
Wouldnt TOR make the large files being hacked go at snail speed? I think there was even video and other media included.
But we deserve to be called idiots. Right.
They count on the American People being too stupid to know that the story they're trying to sell is all bullspit. Don't they realize yet that people like you can shred their lies and innuendo to shreds in a heartbeat using common sense and brains.