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.

 

FBI never looked at the server REDUX

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CriticalStinker



Considering I was responding to your remark that the copy to the FBI should have sufficed, I think it fits into context. I was illustrating that a copy might possibly not be enough by including a hypothetical.


Well, that creates a slippery slope fallacy when you start talking about possibilities.



As oppose to saying a copy is enough?

Talking about possibilities is worse than ignoring them?




posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Then you're a proven liar now.

Congrats.



Unless you want to state your position again?

Because from your posts it seems like you're implying that...


All of the info the FBI would need is in those copies they were provided.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
Does a server copy include deleted files?


Yes.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



As oppose to saying a copy is enough?


That is my opinion. What you are saying is not a matter of opinion. It's a logical fallacy.



Talking about possibilities is worse than ignoring them?


Did I say that?

What I said is that creates a slippery slope.

I could also say that it's possible aliens came down and hacked the server.

It's possible, right?

Do you see the problem with your line of reasoning?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: whargoul
It does not. And that´s the point.

Except you know zero about filesystems and think of your garbage bin icon. But then you should not give answers like that.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: whargoul

Assuming that the deleted files were not overwritten by new data, which is possible for a server considering the amount of traffic that goes through it day in and day out. Depending on when the breach was detected and when the investigation begins it is a possibility.

That said, I realize you are addressing if they purposefully deleted files right before handing a copy to the FBI, which would be improbable but not impossible. Though to your point, they would likely see evidence of that.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

What if most here consider your opinion a logical fallacy?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

a reply to: Grambler

The FBI has NEVER LOOKED AT THE SERVER!






posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou



Then you're a proven liar now. Congrats.


What did I lie about?

What you posted was not/is not what I was saying.



Unless you want to state your position again? Because from your posts it seems like you're implying that...


Yes, That is what I said. What I did not say is:



in other words, manners and grammar, that the FBI requested direct access to the server, got denied by the DNC, which then hired a third-part firm to look at the server and provide only a copy of the results found, which, by the way, do not show everything that could be discovered if the FBI had direct access. And that there's no way this company, lead by an ex-FBI agent, was working with a bias in favor of the DNC, and that the American public should blindly believe in the results provided by some private and independent company?


That is what you posted and that is not what I said, or even implied.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: introvert

What if most here consider your opinion a logical fallacy?


Most? Is that an appeal to the majority...a logical fallacy in and of itself?

Ok.

If most people consider my opinion to be a logical fallacy, that is fine. I'd like to know which logical fallacy, specifically.

Which fallacy do "most" here think I am using?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


That is my opinion. What you are saying is not a matter of opinion. It's a logical fallacy.



You have on opinion on what suffices in an investigation? But someone having an opinion on why it isn't is a logical fallacy?

Gotchya. Any other goalposts we need to move before we continue?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
That you think others are dumb and won´t see what you´re doing here, thread after thread, post after post.

You move goal posts, spin words around, avoid answers to direct questions but demand them on the other hand.




posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



You have on opinion on what suffices in an investigation?


Yes.



But someone having an opinion on why it isn't is a logical fallacy?


When you employ a logical fallacy in the expression of that opinion, yes. It is a logical fallacy.



Gotchya. Any other goalposts we need to move before we continue?


No goalposts need to be moved. You've said that line a couple times, but I'm not sure you know what it means.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
That you think others are dumb and won´t see what you´re doing here, thread after thread, post after post.



Again, which fallacy are you accusing me of using?

Be specific.



You move goal posts, spin words around, avoid answers to direct questions but demand them on the other hand.


I have directly answered the questions I have been asked.

I answered the questions I was asked according to the literal definition and presentation of the words.

The problem here is the in the wording of the questions itself.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: whargoul

Assuming that the deleted files were not overwritten by new data, which is possible for a server considering the amount of traffic that goes through it day in and day out. Depending on when the breach was detected and when the investigation begins it is a possibility.

That said, I realize you are addressing if they purposefully deleted files right before handing a copy to the FBI, which would be improbable but not impossible. Though to your point, they would likely see evidence of that.


Which is EXACTLY why the FBI didn't need the physical servers and Crowdstrike's images were the best data.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: whargoul
It does not. And that´s the point.

Except you know zero about filesystems and think of your garbage bin icon. But then you should not give answers like that.



Maybe you should look up slack space and inform yourself a little about how file deletion works before you start making blanket statements.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
All these phony computer "experts" lying about forensics is better than the global warming scientists' reports 😃

The fact remains -- the Democrat DNC withheld the evidence 💥😃💥


"So obvious they are born (and paid too) liars isn't it"



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: whargoul

Assuming that the deleted files were not overwritten by new data, which is possible for a server considering the amount of traffic that goes through it day in and day out. Depending on when the breach was detected and when the investigation begins it is a possibility.

That said, I realize you are addressing if they purposefully deleted files right before handing a copy to the FBI, which would be improbable but not impossible. Though to your point, they would likely see evidence of that.


Which is EXACTLY why the FBI didn't need the physical servers and Crowdstrike's images were the best data.


And when you add to that the fact that hundreds to thousands of others systems were affected by the same hacking effort, the FBI got all the info they needed from the copy of the DNC server.

Hell, the FBI knew the DNC was hacked before the DNC.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

We don't know the intrusion method, we don't know if the means of extraction or if a virus could cover their tracks.

I'm sure a copy would sometimes be enough for investigators to get what they need, but often times they need more.

The network data is crucial in many circumstances to identify what ports are open, what packets are being sent, received and where all the destinations for the above. ISP's, internet domains, and any other clients or providers are often looked into to see if there is a vulnerability that exists outside of the server, but with access to the information.

Sure, sometimes a copy is enough. Ok, I understand that is your opinion, but illustrating how it may not be is not illogical.

We're all speculating, none of us have inside knowledge of this investigation, we do not know all the facts.
edit on 30-8-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No, as always, you are assuming that the people doing this copying and providing were being honest. It seems to always be the assumption from people defending these guys that they were operating according to law. It seems clear to me that these people are/were not operating according to the law, and so your premise, in my mind, is false. At this point I think it is naive to assume that these people were being lawful, and so, I think it's naive to trust that the DNC/Crowdstrike actually provided a complete copy of the server.

IMO




top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join