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.
Russian hackers weren’t the ones behind the theft of Democratic emails that upended the 2016 presidential race, conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi told his InfoWars fans last year. Instead, Corsi said, Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had stolen the emails and was murdered in revenge for the heist. But Corsi was lying. In an email to Trump confidante Roger Stone in 2016, Corsi acknowledged that in fact hackers were behind the email theft, according to newly released messages.
“Time to let more than [Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta] to be exposed as in bed with enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC,” Corsi wrote. “That appears to be the game hackers are now about.”
Cognitive distortion - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org... The cognitive distortions listed below are categories of automatic thinking, and are to be distinguished from logical fallacies. Always being right. Being wrong is unthinkable. Blaming. Disqualifying the positive. Emotional reasoning. Fallacy of change. Fallacy of fairness. Mental filtering. Jumping to conclusions.
originally posted by: DJMSN
Wiki Leaks has repeatedly denied that the treasure troves they released did not come from Russian sources. No investigation to my knowledge has yet to prove otherwise. It maybe the individual who did supply the information received it from Russian sources, but in very public statements it has been repeatedly denied.
It is at this junction of the investigation, that it is just as likely that a source inside the DNC or someone inside our government supplied the information to WikiLeaks. Since the investigation is really not much more than a fishing expedition, I doubt we will ever obtain clear and factual answers.
Nothing but speculation, much of it an attempt to cover over mistakes and criminal acts by other individuals who are apparently not subjects of the investigation, which appears by design. Non Disclosure Agreementd and blanket immunity deals are used to bury the whole manufactured truth.
According to Corsi, when prosecutors asked him if he’d figured it out through “divine intervention” on his flight to Italy, he said, basically, yes.
In two major developments this week, President Trump has been labeled in the parlance of criminal investigations as a major subject of interest, complete with an opaque legal code name: “Individual 1.”
Maybe dha causes mental effects in the negative realm.
RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) - An active ingredient used in spray tanning may be harmful, and even cause cancer, according to the FDA. We've heard the warnings about tanning beds for years. ... Now, health professionals are concerned by the active ingredient in the spray, called Dihydroxyacetone or DHA.Jul 23, 2013
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TheOne7
Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BlackJackal
"Paid For" experts.
Sure thing every time 😁
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TheOne7
Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TheOne7
Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.
Binney says the highest transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible from a remote online connection. He says some colleagues challenged this assumption and ran various tests, from the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and in the UK and he says, “The fastest rate we got was from a data center in New Jersey…to a data center in the UK and that was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the rate necessary to transfer the data, as it was listed from Guccifer 2.0…However, it is the perfect download rate for a thumb drive.” He says their findings don’t prove who did it but they do prove that the data breach was local and did not consist of an overseas hack.
The USBSTOR located in the SYSTEM hive (SYSTEMCurrentControlSetEnumUSBSTOR) USBSTOR contains details on the vendor and brand of USB device connected, along with the serial number of the device that can be used to match the mounted drive letter, user, and the first and last connected times of the device.
The MountedDevices key (SYSTEMMountedDevices) Allows investigators to match the serial number to a given drive letter or volume that was mounted when the USB device was inserted. It’s possible that the investigator won’t be able to identify the drive letter if several USB devices have been added, since the mapped drive letter only shows the serial number for the most recently mounted device for each letter assigned.
The MountPoints2 key found in a user’s NTUSER.dat hive
(NTUSER.datSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionExplorerMountPoints2) This information will reveal which user was logged in and active when the USB device was connected. MountPoints2 lists all of the device GUIDs that a particular user connected, so you might need to search through each NTUSER.dat hive on the system to identify which user connected a particular device.
The USB key in the SYSTEM hive (SYSTEMCurrentControlSetEnumUSB) This key provides investigators with vendor and product ID for a given device, but also provides the last time the USB device was connected to the system. Using the last write time for the key of the device serial number, investigators can identify the last time it was connected.
The setupapi log (ROOTWindowsinfsetupapi.dev.log for Windows Vista/7/8)(ROOTWindowssetupapi.log for Windows XP) Searching for the serial number in this file will provide investigators with information on when the device was first connected to the system in local time. Examiners must exercise caution, as unlike the other timestamps mentioned in this article which are stored in UTC, the setupapi.log stores its data in the system’s local time and must be converted to UTC to correctly match any timeline analysis being performed by the investigator.
originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: BlackJackal
Wikileaks acted just as every other responsible journalist organization that has printed classified material.
On inspecting the full data analysis, Binney agreed: “It’s clear G2 is messing with the data. Everything G2 says is suspect and needs to be proven by other sources/means. I agree there is no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done.”
He added: “The merger of data from 5 July and 1 September ... makes all the G2 crap a fabrication ... we should only say what we can prove with evidence.”
[Updated 13 August:] Binney subsequently repeated and confirmed his views in an interview with the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee, a campaign vehicle for the controversial seven-time presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
Privately, Binney says his colleague Ray McGovern, who has also pushed the Forensicator theories, accepts that there is no evidence where the files were really copied. “Ray no longer argues that point – except to call it an ‘alleged location’,” said Binney. McGovern has refused to confirm this, or to answer questions about evidence for his claims.
Despite accepting that there was no evidence, Binney and McGovern have not retracted the claims in the 2017 VIPS report at the time of writing.
originally posted by: BlackJackal
originally posted by: DJMSN
Wiki Leaks has repeatedly denied that the treasure troves they released did not come from Russian sources. No investigation to my knowledge has yet to prove otherwise. It maybe the individual who did supply the information received it from Russian sources, but in very public statements it has been repeatedly denied.
It is at this junction of the investigation, that it is just as likely that a source inside the DNC or someone inside our government supplied the information to WikiLeaks. Since the investigation is really not much more than a fishing expedition, I doubt we will ever obtain clear and factual answers.
Nothing but speculation, much of it an attempt to cover over mistakes and criminal acts by other individuals who are apparently not subjects of the investigation, which appears by design. Non Disclosure Agreementd and blanket immunity deals are used to bury the whole manufactured truth.
Those WikiLeaks guys, known worldwide for their honesty and trustworthiness. We should definitely trust them when they deny getting their information from Russia.
Sorry, the Mueller investigation has already proven that Russia hacked the DNC and supplied that data to WikiLeaks. While the evidence to back it up is referred to in the indictment documents it is not currently available to the public. However, as with any indictment from the Mueller investigation, it must come from a grand jury. That grand jury would have been presented the evidence and made the decision whether or not to indict based on that evidence.
So just because we the public don't have the evidence the Mueller investigation does and a grand jury thought the evidence was compelling enough to sign an indictment.
How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TheOne7
Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.
Except that's complete bull# that has been repeated ad nauseam by people who don't know any better. Not only was it a craptastic analysis on its face, making wholly unsupported conclusions, the source turned out to be sketchy af.