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.

 

Mueller Indicts 12 For Russian Hacking

page: 22
78
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: theantediluvian

Fair enough, now that we acknowledge the huge difference between MB/s & mb/s , and i'm sure you've already considered how your LAN comparison is null for comparing internet speeds ; What is the probability that someone in Romania (guciffer) is actually getting 20 megabytes/s or more transfer speed out of the U.S. across the atlantic ? Not very likely.

It's hard to get those speeds from a high-end data server that's only 13 hour drive away, and I have a 250mb/s connection and I rarely tap it out.



This has all been discussed back when it happened. Leftist posters insisted it was just a typo. No matter what evidence is provided they insist it was a mistake. Like a private server, just a mistake.



(post by ArmyOf removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

TOR is different. Its built for randomization and encryption.

Google
edit on 7 13 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

Not run hide. Not honor Putin with the visit. Jesus .
Or confront not ask. What the hell do you think Putin is going to do? Tell the truth? Admit it? Say let me get those Russian nationals extradited to your country?
What is trump going to say?
Oh Vlad.....


This may surprise you..but alot of us are not motivated by fear and hate of these humans and political actions.

And are bored of fake news as well as not being able to visit wherever the hell we like.

Things never get better when people act in the manner the left is stuck in.

INCOHERENT MISDIRECTED FEAR.

These people are not the enemy....NEW enemies are in town and they are not Trump Putin Hillary Obama...but they sure do enjoy the panic you lefties are currently feeding them ALL.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

Mueller seems quite capable of delivering the surprises. No leaks. Not a peep!


What surprises are those?

The entire lack of substance and an even more embarassing waste of time than any of the incestigations that have ever been conducted before?

Haha if i was a leftie i would have figured out by now Mueller and team is NOT going to deliver anything of value.

But hey gotta have a reason to live for........false hope works.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: theantediluvian

GRU right to the Kremlin's door.
Let's hear how it was Seth Rich again boys and girls.
Really??? Really??? Hillary and the DNC wouldn't let the FBI inspect the servers...They have no evidence Russians hacked anything...They're making it up again...They found a new judge who agreed with them that any evidence has to remain secret for National Security Reasons...What a load of bunk...



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Interesting...

Apparently these 12 indictments come from page 4 of the Republican memo Nunes released several months ago.


Devin Nunes
‏Verified account @DevinNunes
7h7 hours ago

Devin Nunes Retweeted Mollie

Specifically you only had to read page 4 findings 7-10. Just reading Chapter 2 you would have got the gist of it..all this despite the ridiculous redactions. Sadly the media ignored most of our findings on March 22 and the whole report since April 27.


As I said this is nothing but smoke and mirrors by Mueller / Rosenstein.

Also articles of impeachment against Rosenstein are in Mark Meadows possession and will be introduced on Monday from what I am seeing.
edit on 13-7-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: Lumenari

The indictments are quite in depth in regards to how the Democrats were hacked by those being indicted. it doesn't matter if they show up or not. The FBI just gave us all the evidence proving that Russia was behind the hack and it all conveniently started the day Trump asked Russia to find the emails on national television.


That was a bit after Uranium One and millions and millions of Russian dollars going into the Clinton campaign coffers, correct?

What I'm really impressed at in this whole charade is that the hack showed that the DNC rigged their OWN primary, among other things. Lots of dirty laundry there.

But instead of focusing on how crooked the DNC turned out to be, let's get those hackers!!!

It's mind boggling how people lost sight of WHAT the hacked information showed.

Kill the messengers!!!

/facepalm



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 12:23 AM
link   


Mark Meadows
‏Verified account @RepMarkMeadows
7h7 hours ago

Remarkably, we learned new information today suggesting the DOJ had not notified Lisa Page of Congress' outstanding interview requests for over 7 months now. The DOJ/FBI appear to be continuing their efforts to keep material facts, and perhaps even witnesses, from Congress.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

President Trump already has it on good word (Rosenstien)
that no American citizens were knowingly involved and
Further the election results were not affected!

Do you comprehend English?



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust



Wtf. Two threads to post in now?


One is deep state compromised, but which is which

Everythings under control





Do not adjust your set, we are controlling transmission



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Fire up robocopy, xcopy or whatever you favor and do a large batch copy. I'll bet you'll get a sustained transfer rate of about 20-25 MB/s.


Why are you comparing HD to HD copying, with file transfers between two locations thousands of miles away over the atlantic connection ?


I missed a bunch of these responses and then I went to watch WSOP (and now I'm playing poker lol). No, I was not. I was offering a more plausible scenario. You should check my breakdown of the analysis to Network Dude.

The evidence of a batch file copy isn't great to begin with. If for the sake of argument, we assume that there was one, the method for arriving at 22.6 MB/s is pretty iffy. Basically, he took the oldest and most recent mod times to get a range and then the time in between mod times, he added up and then deducted that "gap time" from the total of the range. The result was about 14 minutes with only 80-something seconds which he attributed to the transfer time for the files considered. The author even notes that a plausible explanation for the "gap time" could be that it's "think time" — the files were being selected individually or in small groups and copied and the time in between was when the person copying was deciding what to copy/navigating to files.

So then he divided out the total of the file size by the 80-something seconds and arrived at 22.6 MB/s. That's not great methodology either. The assumption is that the gaps represent files transferred in this hypothesized batch copy that were excluded from the archive. He's only got end times for the hypothesized file copies and he's got no idea what if anything is missing. Those gaps could have been filled with any number of files of any size because he has no idea when any particular file copy was begun.

Are you beginning to see how flimsy this is?

Then he produces a table:



Notice that there's nothing there for internal mechanical drives, just SSDs and USB drives? What about the average for recent 5400 and 7200 rpm drives? Anyway, based on that, he takes his dubious estimate of 22.6 MB/s for the hypothetical transfer and says, "Oh look! It's close to the USB-2 average so that's probably it!"

And circling back to what you responded to initially, what I was saying is that for a batch copy between two average business desktops (assume Windows, probably with 5400 rpm drives), on a gigabit LAN, a sustained transfer rate of ~20-25 MB/s is entirely reasonable.

So even if we assume that there was a batch copy and accept the dubious transfer speed estimate, there are a number of equally and more plausible scenarios which would explain the observed mod times. One of those being that the files were copied across a LAN (at the DCCC, back at hacker HQ, wherever). It's also possible that it was between a couple of bitcoin-leased VPSes that aren't on opposite sides of the globe. Like I said, I regularly get sustained transfer speeds around ~20 MB/s between a VPS at a Houston, TX datacenter and another in Windsor, ON with a different ISP and they're nothing special.

Oh, and did I mention that the file mod times were all 7/5/2016 — nearly a month after the DNC hack was revealed? After some of the files from the DCCC had already been released by "Guccifer 2.0?"

There's really little to no reason to put any stock in the transfer to a USB drive theory. And even if there was a transfer to a USB drive, it could have been done anywhere. The whole thing is wildly absurd all by itself but then there's this mountain of evidence of a hack which contradicts the theory that this analysis tries to push (that the files were exfiltrated by a leaker).

And now we have a very detailed indictment that sure af looks like the product of a heap of evidence. Yet more than a couple people are still throwing out "the transfer speeds indicate that it was a local copy by a leaker!"
edit on 2018-7-14 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

And circling back to what you responded to initially, what I was saying is that for a batch copy between two average business desktops (assume Windows, probably with 5400 rpm drives), on a gigabit LAN, a sustained transfer rate of ~20-25 MB/s is entirely reasonable.


The only way your scenario would be possible is if both computers were connected through a LOCAL LAN network.
Hence, meaning the computers were in the same building and/or infrastructure.

So, are you trying to prove that the "hacker" was on-site? Go ahead.

edit on 7/14/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:02 AM
link   


Wired Sources
‏ @WiredSources

BREAKING: DOJ official tells Wired Sources that Robert Mueller's indictments likely intended to 'distract' from yesterday's damaging Peter Strzok testimony



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

Use one conspiracy to prove another...priceless.

One FISA warrant on a clown who was no longer a part of the trump team when it was issued. (Lawfully issued I must add).
Why would this warrant be of interest to anyone?
And if it was illegally obtained why has trumps DOJ renewed it....TWICE!
edit on 7142018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)

edit on 7142018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: efabian


The only way your scenario would be possible is if both computers were connected through a LOCAL LAN network.


What other kind of Local Area Network would I be referring to?


So, are you trying to prove that the "hacker" was on-site? Go ahead.


Nope. That's a total non sequitur. There's no real evidence of a batch copy to begin with. But for the sake of argument, if we assume that there was one, it's entirely plausible that it was between two computers on the same LAN. The files could have been copied from a share on another PC, file server, etc on the same LAN.

And again, there's no real evidence that proves that there was even a batch copy to begin with. The method used to estimate a transfer speed for the hypothesized transfer is garbage. And even if we assume that there was batch copy and the estimated transfer speed is accurate — and we shouldn't do either, but again, just for the sake of argument here — there are a number of equally or more plausible scenarios which could explain a transfer rate in the 22.6 MB/s range.

And even if there was a transfer to a USB drive on 7/5/2016, there's nothing to prove what computer that was done on.

Meanwhile, there's all sorts of publicly available evidence that there was a hack. The hacked parties claim that they were hacked. The USIC agrees they were hacked. Now an extremely thorough investigation by an all star team of investigators has resulted in indictments and it's clear from that indictment that they have the goods.

There's nothing left to hide behind for people who desperately want to be in denial about this.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Funny no one in any 'real' authority thinks that.

NEXT!
edit on 7142018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


That I can agree with, the transfer could have been done after the initial extraction.
I guess the only way to verify the claim would be to see the physical server itself and analyze the network logs, but that ship has sailed.

That said, the fact that they were hacked does not confirm that the data was extracted during said intrusion.
It is more of a circumstantial evidence, which by it self would not confirm without reasonable doubt that the data released was acquired from the foreign hackers.


Short of a confession there is nothing here other than the charge of hacking, which by itself does not say much in terms of collusion.
edit on 7/14/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

That's not even from the DNC leak! Jesus I'm not going to bother. You guys have all your servers and emails and facts so friggin screwed up.
That particular bit was from a Hillary state department email and of course had been long ago explained and didn't mean what you think.
So come back when you get it all sorted out boo.
edit on 7142018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: efabian

Meanwhile, there's all sorts of publicly available evidence that there was a hack. The hacked parties claim that they were hacked. The USIC agrees they were hacked. Now an extremely thorough investigation by an all star team of investigators has resulted in indictments and it's clear from that indictment that they have the goods.



So what you are saying is that there is no actual evidence but you believe what you've been told.

1) There is no public evidence that shows there was a hack - there is a public humiliation for the 3 intelligence services that released a ridiculous document that proved nothing.
2) Who in their right mind would believe USIC on face value???
3) It's cute that you believe your 'all-star' team.

I will wait for actual evidence.
edit on 14/7/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
78
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join