Crowdstrike had no evidence Russia -- or anyone else -- hacked the DNC server !!!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Because no one ever lies under oath, eh?

Oh so NOW they are lying?
Ahahahaha

Wowzers

The completely willingness of these people to make absolute fools of themselves is downright scary. If they're not getting paid to do this, I seriously worry about their mental health, their safety, and the safety of those around them.

They make up what they have to as the go along.
How do you know the earth isn't flat?

There are so many cultists here that you all believe that everyone else are cultists.

And yet, you have to try (and fail) to counter every word that even hints at being against your cultish narrative.

Fascinating.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There are so many cultists here that you all believe that everyone else are cultists.

And yet, you have to try (and fail) to counter every word that even hints at being against your cultish narrative.

Fascinating.

Only when you go out of your way to show your support .
Lol
Nobody made you post that.
You chose to.
Hilarious

a reply to: shooterbrody

One more little snippet to you ...

Your posting schtick is to attempt (and fail) to counter anything that you think drifts away from your chosen narrative.

I pointed out soemthing generic ... which you, in what I assume at some point was rational thought, take as an attack.

People lie under oath. Statements under oath don't mean diddly.

Now, shoo.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

One more little snippet to you ...

Your posting schtick is to attempt (and fail) to counter anything that you think drifts away from your chosen narrative.

I pointed out soemthing generic ... which you, in what I assume at some point was rational thought, take as an attack.

People lie under oath. Statements under oath don't mean diddly.

Now, shoo.

Nope
In this thread there is congressional testimony under oath, usually recognized as accurate.
Since it is cross with your bs narrative you have called it into question.
Either way ,now, according to your posts the one presenting the testimony has no credibility.

Either way your bs narritive is destroyed.

Well done!

a reply to: face23785
You are right
It is silly

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

One more little snippet to you ...

Your posting schtick is to attempt (and fail) to counter anything that you think drifts away from your chosen narrative.

I pointed out soemthing generic ... which you, in what I assume at some point was rational thought, take as an attack.

People lie under oath. Statements under oath don't mean diddly.

Now, shoo.

Nope
In this thread there is congressional testimony under oath, usually recognized as accurate.
Since it is cross with your bs narrative you have called it into question.
Either way ,now, according to your posts the one presenting the testimony has no credibility.

Either way your bs narritive is destroyed.

Well done!

This is the kind of corner they back themselves into when they can't be bothered to think for themselves. He actually thinks "Crowdstrike lies" is a point for his side.

It's basic consistency of thought, in the end.

If you disparage one "side" for something, don't defend the other "side" for doing the exact same thing.

The infallibility of testimony under oath, for example, according to the "logic" posted here ... would exonerate folks like Comey and even Hillary Clinton ferchristsakes.

C'mon.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Quick question: Do you know who hacked the DNC?

Thank you kindly.

quick question, are you sure they were hacked?

Nope. Are you sure they weren't?

Everything here in regard to this topic for the most part is willful speculation based on team preference.

I can only speak on the facts. As the facts stand, there is no proof a hack occurred. So we are in complete agreement.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Just keep repeating to yourself "Orange Man Gud!"

The rest of the screed-post is blatantly absurd. As usual.

Just keep ignoring newton's third law. One day, it may sink in, but it will be far too late.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's basic consistency of thought, in the end.

If you disparage one "side" for something, don't defend the other "side" for doing the exact same thing.

The infallibility of testimony under oath, for example, according to the "logic" posted here ... would exonerate folks like Comey and even Hillary Clinton ferchristsakes.

C'mon.

The bottom line is that the entire Russia Collusion narrative was a giant hoax.
There is nothing I would now believe from the US Intelligence Community or the media - or any politician - without irrefutable proof.
Saying that Russia might have hacked the DNC is very different from what took place in terms of reporting and official releases from the intelligence community. They can never be trusted again.

Sure we don't for certain Russia didn't hack the DNC, but at the same time we don't know that Seth Rich didn't hand over the emails to Craig Murray in Washington.

Surely the focus should be on proof at this stage. The rampant speculation - often turning to smearing - is not useful.

The Democrats should pivot quickly to help indict the people who drove the Russia Hoax - not try and double down.
If they keep this nonsense up and don't cut ties with people like Adam Schiff then there is a real danger that Trump wins a second term in November.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well, I can say you are more certain than I am about who did (or didn't do) what, when. The facts that we have certainly point in one direction, in my opinion, but the overall point is ... the elites want to keep us confused, anxious, and angry, and use the bifurcated media apparatus in that effort to obvious great if not perfect effect. "Facts" are almost impossible to come by.

The Democrats (or at least the DNC) is just as much of a sock-puppet as the RNC. Or the Libertarians. Or the Greens. Or the [insert your favorite villain here.]

All these up-front actors are merely fodder for the masses.

Did you ever play the old Illuminati card game?

This reminds me of the Boy Scouts working through the Fnord Motor Company working through the CIA working through the Vatican?

Smoke and mirrors; sound and fury.

Thanks for your response, at any rate.

And we end with the ole everyone is bad malarkey.
Bravo

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Well, I can say you are more certain than I am about who did (or didn't do) what, when. The facts that we have certainly point in one direction, in my opinion, but the overall point is ... the elites want to keep us confused, anxious, and angry, and use the bifurcated media apparatus in that effort to obvious great if not perfect effect. "Facts" are almost impossible to come by.

The Democrats (or at least the DNC) is just as much of a sock-puppet as the RNC. Or the Libertarians. Or the Greens. Or the [insert your favorite villain here.]

All these up-front actors are merely fodder for the masses.

Did you ever play the old Illuminati card game?

This reminds me of the Boy Scouts working through the Fnord Motor Company working through the CIA working through the Vatican?

Smoke and mirrors; sound and fury.

Thanks for your response, at any rate.

Oh, I am in the same place. I don't trust a single one of these people in politics or the media.
They are actors playing out roles for people we don't even know, IMO.
You can dig through the outer layers to find some truth - for example Clinton and Trump are best friends - but beyond that we're all clueless because we're never given the real truth.

I am sure of only one thing and that is we are lied to on an hourly basis.
So , to me at least, I believe nothing from these people now without very clear proof.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
And we end with the ole everyone is bad malarkey.
Bravo

Everyone? No.
The vast majority of people are not, but the people dishing out the latest headlines? Rotten to the core. All of them.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: chr0naut

You can totally erase your last operation.

Just have the malware program that did that last operation delete itself. A small program running in ram could delete itself from the hard drive (because its running in Ram) and then exit.

Yes, a program can stay resident in RAM and delete its source files. But just deleting some files still leaves all sorts of traces. Especially on modern multitasking server operating systems with redundancy, data detection/correction, operational transactionality, and built in recovery options, file/folder access control listsings (ACL's) and swap.

Deleting from the file system, doesn't even entirely remove the files from the disk (or the disk image). It marks the file as deleted (an invisible initial character overwrites the initial character of the file name), at the start of the allocation chain (in the case of NTFS). In most cases, the entire allocation chain, its ACL's, and its data remains in place except for that single overwritten character and perhaps a state flag or two.

Unless the rest of the disk is filled, the data will remain on the drive until the operating system begins to run out of unused space for file writes and then the data is overwritten. Normal file deletion does nothing but hide the file and overwrite its first character. The process of fully overwriting all de-allocated file space is long and slow on large capacity drives.

In terms of removing other transient details of a hack, there are further considerations with journalling file systems (such as NTFS), file and volume shadow copies, file and folder security database (ACL's), continual incremental and offsite backups and so forth. Simple deletions just don't cut it.

Not to mention data left behind in swap/pagefiles!

Ok.

Now I believe you that you are who you say you are.

But you're making yourself sound like you're not really an IT guy.

What Crowdstrike was finding is these "runDLL" commands in the log. Commands that normal, non-hacker, computer programs don't send to the system. That's what made one of the bears visible to them.

Dynamic-link library
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely ALL program code makes frequent calls to DLL's by way of standardized rules called Application Programming Interfaces, or API's.

Application programming interface
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Badly written malware and applications may make some calls to some DLL's in unusual ways that aren't compliant with API's, but you really do seem to have the wrong idea entirely about "runDLL" calls. They aren't uncommon.

Yes. Clearly it's not a surprise that they "make dll calls".

What can be a surprise is, which DLL's get called.

The other was using malware, and I'm not quite as versed in malware. So I don't know what the fingerprints were for that.

But basically when you see the operating system doing things it doesn't normally do, that suggests someone is tinkering with it.

Umm, yeah...

Also fake traces would be a lot more difficult than simply doing a real hack.

But the DNC could help someone real hack them by leaving them an opening.

Which they would do for what reason? To have some bizarre future weapon of dubious allegation to impeach someone who was not even President at the time?

That is a valid point. As a whole, the DNC would gain a little bit from the "false flag", but they would lose even more than they gained.


Unless someone at the DNC had determined that Hillary had secrets that would come to light upon election, which would embarass the DNC. And decided to let out a softer version of that story, with a controllable narrative, and roll the dice on whether it would cause her to lose.
(But that's pretty deep down the rabbit hole, even for ATS...)


Or a third possibility would be a Bernie follower at the DNC, using the hack as an opportunity to leak documents.

A lot of the data that Guccifer 2.0 leaked was aimed at showing that the DNC as a whole had been unfair to Bernie.


The hack may not have been how the documents got leaked. Especially when you consider that the RNC got hacked too, but nothing has yet leaked from that hack.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

a reply to: chr0naut

It just strikes me as so surprising that nothing truly "game ending" came out of that.

It's like we're somehow supposed to believe that either:

A: - Even when the DNC has its pants totally down, exposed to the wind. They *still* aren't doing anything that would really upset the public? (They're politicians.... but they don't lie very much to us?)

or

B: - Putin didn't want to do too much harm. Just a little bit.


Option C:

The dems turned over the emails to Guccifer 2.0 themselves, and cherry picked them so they wouldn't be too incriminating.

Possibly option A.

Option B is , I suppose, possible, but Putin is more of an 'all in' type of guy. There's no reason for him to pull any punches.

Option C, however, is ludicrous, motiveless, self destructive and evidenced against.

There could be other possibilities, too:

Option D, where the Trump campaign actually had an, as yet, unrevealed 'inside' resource that planted the 'dropper' files that gave the Russian initial entry.

Option E, where the Trump campaign forced Seth Rich, under duress, to steal the files, that they then leaked and killed Seth Rich to cover their tracks. The other signs of hacking were simply coincidental.

I could probably go on, inventing other possible options that you haven't really considered, either, and that are more plausible than option C.

Believing option A (That the DNC really had very little to hide) requires a person to have a very trusting attitude.

I wouldn't believe Option A about the RNC or the DNC. Neither of them.

Option B, as you admit as well, is unlikely.

Options D, and E involve giving Trump a lot of credit for being able to do things he has never shown any evidence of being able to do. Trump is a guy who has been in the public eye for more than 4 decades. Never has anything come to light that shows he has people who can carry out an assassination for him.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
And we end with the ole everyone is bad malarkey.
Bravo

Everyone? No.
The vast majority of people are not, but the people dishing out the latest headlines? Rotten to the core. All of them.

Instead of accepting dnc fbi and crowdstrike lied about trump russia bs, it is everone is bad.
It is a cop out.

I don't trust any of them.
I think they shoukd ALL be accountable.

This is an interesting article on Guccifer 2.0. Largely because of what it doesn't say.

It mentions Guccifer suddenly gaining better English skills in 2017 as evidence the moniker had been handed over to another (Russian) agent.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Russian strategy here. Wouldn't they *want* people to find out they had helped (within the limits of interstate plausible deniability of course).

After getting their preferred candidate elected, I would think they would want to undermine him as much as possible, in order weaken him. Then they get the best of both worlds : a president they like better, AND a weaker USA executive office.



Then this article is also interesting:

www.vice.com...

It's about how linguistic analysis demonstrated that Guccifer was not actually Romanian.

No smart hacker would ever answer honestly when you ask him/her a question about who he/she is or where he/she lives. So that's not really much of a surprise......