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.

 

DNC Russian Hack Exposed: False

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo

They said the other day that trump was shown communications intercepted between Putin and russian intelligence agents ordering them to mess with our election and to help trump get elected. Right from the horses mouth. This was back before he was inaugurated about Jan 6th in 2017.
I'm sure we won't see that unless Mueller includes it in his report but trump has had this proof this whole time and still continues to call it a witch hunt. He's lying every time he says that because he does know.




posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AutisticEvo

They said the other day that trump was shown communications intercepted between Putin and russian intelligence agents ordering them to mess with our election and to help trump get elected. Right from the horses mouth. This was back before he was inaugurated about Jan 6th in 2017.
I'm sure we won't see that unless Mueller includes it in his report but trump has had this proof this whole time and still continues to call it a witch hunt. He's lying every time he says that because he does know.


Trump has acknowledges the Russians meddled in the election numerous times. You've been lied to.

Pick a video

What he calls a hoax and a witch hunt is the attempt to find "collusion" between him and the Russians. The media is aware of this distinction, but they purposefully conflate the two to confuse people like you who believe anything they say. They can say Trump doesn't believe it was Russia and you believe them, even though he's on record multiple times saying it was Russia.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo

Is exposing truth considered interfering in an election? Sounds like it is. To be honest, presidential candidates are the best deceivers in this country. Putin explains that they did not directly interfere in the election down farther. That is their opinion. Now the US government uses propaganda techniques to point out the bad properties of other countries candidates, that is not considered to be interfering with an election.

Putin is using the same tactics our government uses. Influencing an election would be telling lies about someone, not pointing out their deceptions.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: AutisticEvo

Is exposing truth considered interfering in an election? Sounds like it is. To be honest, presidential candidates are the best deceivers in this country. Putin explains that they did not directly interfere in the election down farther. That is their opinion. Now the US government uses propaganda techniques to point out the bad properties of other countries candidates, that is not considered to be interfering with an election.

Putin is using the same tactics our government uses. Influencing an election would be telling lies about someone, not pointing out their deceptions.



Yeah I mean apparently they're forgetting when the US tried to # with Netanyahu's election and ironically when the Clinton State Department tried to # with Putin's.

And people wonder why Putin didn't want Clinton to win?



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

He continues to call it a witch hunt so don't tell me he's accepting the information.
He knows without a doubt that Russia did this. He still calls it a witch hunt.
It's like he holds out his hand then snatches it back if you try to shake. I believe my intelligence people... Its a witch hunt.
Those two things don't jive. You either believe it or you dont.
His problem is he is so scared it will deligitimize his win.
It wont. He needs to just relax and let them do their work and even support them in their efforts.
Unless he has something to hide that is. Then he has a reason for his strange handling of this.
Right now every law enforcement officer under Obama is his enemy according to him.
It's a plot to get him he says. The FBI and the CIA are out to take the presidency away from him. It's paranoid. They are not. They are seeking the truth. If that is that trump didn't do anything then he has no reason to stand in their way.

But that isn't what he's doing. He's acting like someone who has something to hide.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

He continues to call it a witch hunt so don't tell me he's accepting the information.
He knows without a doubt that Russia did this. He still calls it a witch hunt.
It's like he holds out his hand then snatches it back if you try to shake. I believe my intelligence people... Its a witch hunt.
Those two things don't jive. You either believe it or you dont.
His problem is he is so scared it will deligitimize his win.
It wont. He needs to just relax and let them do their work and even support them in their efforts.
Unless he has something to hide that is. Then he has a reason for his strange handling of this.
Right now every law enforcement officer under Obama is his enemy according to him.
It's a plot to get him he says. The FBI and the CIA are out to take the presidency away from him. It's paranoid. They are not. They are seeking the truth. If that is that trump didn't do anything then he has no reason to stand in their way.

But that isn't what he's doing. He's acting like someone who has something to hide.


You're wrong. My previous post explains precisely how. You've been misinformed, like you are on every topic I see you post on. Trump accepts and has repeatedly acknowledged that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Didn't that require a degree of psychic abilities? To know they were going to find corruption if they illegally hacked us? You buy that?



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

Didn't that require a degree of psychic abilities? To know they were going to find corruption if they illegally hacked us? You buy that?


Corruption and lies plague our politics. If they are not deceivers when they go to washington, they are soon converted and have to make deals with other politicians to get anything for the people they represent.

The chance of finding deception and coverups on the DNC server or Republican servers is actually really good.
edit on 23-7-2018 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

“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).”


This is something I've seen kicked around in discussions of this lately that I've yet to see anyone refute. That would seem to conclusively prove it wasn't a remote hack. Does anyone have anything to counter this?


From the indictment:

28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection , the Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as “X-Tunnel,” to move the stolen documents outside the
DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.

a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data from DNC computers, including opposition research . The Conspirators later moved the compressed DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU leased computer located in Illinois .


b. On or about Apri l 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer located in Illinois . Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.
www.justice.gov...

The initial theft of the documents was carried out by zipping them locally into to large files which were later transferred at leisure though encrypted channels.

edit on 7/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: face23785

“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).”


This is something I've seen kicked around in discussions of this lately that I've yet to see anyone refute. That would seem to conclusively prove it wasn't a remote hack. Does anyone have anything to counter this?


From the indictment:

28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection , the Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as “X-Tunnel,” to move the stolen documents outside the
DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.

a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data from DNC computers, including opposition research . The Conspirators later moved the compressed DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU leased computer located in Illinois .


b. On or about Apri l 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer located in Illinois . Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.
www.justice.gov...

The initial theft of the documents was carried out by zipping them locally into to large files which were later transferred at leisure though encrypted channels.


Thanks. I hadn't seen that before. So would these conspirators who zipped the files so they could be more easily transferred have to be an insider?



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785
No.

Read the indictment. It's all there.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

No one has to make it "look" like Putin is a bad guy.


You are correct they don't. SO WHY DID THEY?? Obviously they think they DO in fact "need" to.
edit on 23-7-2018 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785
No.

Read the indictment. It's all there.



Is there a particular page or paragraph that debunks the allegation that the transfer rates seen are indicative of an inside job? The size of the files having been compressed doesn't directly contradict that.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You really should read the whole indictment. The zipping was done "locally" by a Russian who was remotely operating a DNC computer, on the DNC network. Remote Desktop, but malware.

edit on 7/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

“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).”


This is something I've seen kicked around in discussions of this lately that I've yet to see anyone refute. That would seem to conclusively prove it wasn't a remote hack. Does anyone have anything to counter this?

I think ante has touched on it a bit in some of his/her threads. But, if I recall it was mostly anecdotal. Not sure, I'd have to go back and look.
edit on 23-7-2018 by Chickensalad because: sp



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785

You really should read the whole indictment. The zipping was done "locally" by a Russian who was remotely operating a DNC computer, on the DNC network. Remote Desktop, but malware.


Yeah, I got that just from the section you quoted. My question remains. The files were zipped and compressed down to a more manageable size. That says nothing about whether the transfer speeds were feasible for remote access. Is there a part of the indictment that addresses that?
edit on 23 7 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You don't seem to understand. The files were zipped locally, on a computer connected to the LAN. That is what the analysis you are quoting is about. It has nothing to do with how the zipped file was transmitted elsewhere.


Conclusion 7. A transfer rate of 23 MB/s is estimated for this initial file collection operation. This transfer rate can be achieved when files are copied over a LAN or when copying directly from the host computer’s hard drive. This rate is too fast to support the hypothesis that the DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania).
theforensicator.wordpress.com...

This is exactly the indictment says. The files were initially zipped from the LAN (by remote malware control), they were not initially zipped over the internet.


edit on 7/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785

You don't seem to understand. The files were zipped locally, on a computer connected to the LAN. That is what the analysis you are quoting is about. It has nothing to do with how the zipped file was transmitted elsewhere.


Conclusion 7. A transfer rate of 23 MB/s is estimated for this initial file collection operation. This transfer rate can be achieved when files are copied over a LAN or when copying directly from the host computer’s hard drive. This rate is too fast to support the hypothesis that the DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania).
theforensicator.wordpress.com...

This is exactly the indictment says. The files were initially zipped from the LAN (by remote malware control), they were not initially zipped over the internet.



Makes more sense now. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

This part is interesting though:


A transfer rate of 23 MB/s is estimated for this initial file collection operation. This transfer rate can be achieved when files are copied over a LAN or when copying directly from the host computer’s hard drive. This rate is too fast to support the hypothesis that the DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania).

This transfer rate (23 MB/s) is typically seen when copying local data to a fairly slow (USB-2) thumb drive.

To get a sense of where this 23MB/s (23 Mega Bytes per Second) rate falls in the range of supported speeds for various network and media storage technologies, consult the blog entry titled The Need for Speed. That blog entry describes test results which support the conclusions and observations noted above. Below, is one table from from that report.




Those paragraphs and the attached table seem to indicate the initial collection speed was consistent with someone copying files over LAN onto a thumb drive. If they were remotely moving the files from one computer's hard drive to another over the LAN, the speed should've actually been faster.



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo>>> Blaming the Russians is a convenient cover so they don't get have to investigate Seth Rich's murder.




top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join