BOMBSHELL: New Report Shows Guccifer 2.0-DNC Files Were Copied Locally—Not Hacked

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Xcathdra

Seth Rich was likely involved with copying the files, as we have long suspected.

EXACTLY RIGHT. The gun is really smoking now!

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Don't blow your load too quickly. Unlike unnamed sources he has a name whether an alter-ego or not. Secondly, he provides his analysis which IMATAT provided.

But the way you so readily dismissed it out of hand without even being curious says more than enough.

RIP Seth.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Seth Rich copied the files and released them to wikileaks for public consumption, was found out and murdered by Clinton (she ordered the hit) because this act exposed the DNC's deceptive conduct which Hillary knew would effect her destiny to be POTUS.

Simple.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I love how when there's anonymous sources disclosing info on Trump or associates, it's immediately dismissed; but a 'mysterious' IT says it wasn't a hack but a copy, because you can copy emails on external data drives, somehow, mentalists declare a nail in the coffin...

this goes both ways. to the believers, no evidence is needed, to the delusional​, there's never enough evidence....

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: IAMTAT

Didn't think the "mysterious IT guy.."

Was the most interesting part???

Some people will believe anything that validates their world view...

'

And you have proven this more than once.. Thanks for the insight!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Xcathdra

My internet connection is at 54 MB/s right now.

So...

Mine is around 50 however when you try to download something you wont hit 50mbs. It will drop way down to around 1mbs to about 4mbs, depending on type of connection. You wont be getting anything near 23mbs.

Well, it looks like this forensicator was saying megabytes, and they measure internet speed in megabits these days. Not the same thing. Correct me if im wrong, bit what I see is the comparison of 23megabytes per second vs 50 megabits per second (which is a lot lot slower)

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: JoshuaCox

3 replies on the first page, all trying to discredit the article. Trying a little too hard aren't you?

That's what diehard Leftist deflectors do.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

Have you ever hit 23 other than on a lan for data dl? Hell, have you ever even hit 10 for a sustained time?

You could only sustain 23 MB/s from a server.

Hacking into someone's computer, the connection would be throttled by upload speed. Usually about 10 MB/s is the max advertised upload speed.

Unless you are both connected by fiber locally.

I always leaned toward the inside job aspect.

The megabytes speed is roughly 8 times faster than megabits.

Given we won't get the inside investigation details, at least someone outside is trying.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: IAMTAT

Didn't think the "mysterious IT guy.."

Was the most interesting part???

Some people will believe anything that validates their world view...

You can believe your "unnamed sources" and we can have ours.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

Have you ever hit 23 other than on a lan for data dl? Hell, have you ever even hit 10 for a sustained time?

Well, no, I haven't - my line is rated slower than that. But if you have gigabit speeds, it's well within the realm of possibility. And we're likely not talking residential internet here. Anyway, my point is that, with that piece of data being the "most important aspect", this is far from a conclusive analysis.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

Have you ever hit 23 other than on a lan for data dl? Hell, have you ever even hit 10 for a sustained time?

Well, no, I haven't - my line is rated slower than that. But if you have gigabit speeds, it's well within the realm of possibility. And we're likely not talking residential internet here. Anyway, my point is that, with that piece of data being the "most important aspect", this is far from a conclusive analysis.

The point isn't your dl speed, as pointed out above upload speeds are the choke point. Most don't care about up speed and they are even more notorious than down speeds for being grossly exaggerated by service providers.

I only have 45 MB/s service, but can stream HD all day. Sustaining 45 MB/s is no problem as long as the source is a dedicated server.

Transferring overseas would be limited by satellite routers at 6 MB/s.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Awesome. When we admit it was one of our own rogue intelligence people we can move on. Why the other side feels that playing the CNN media arm like it was some other era as beneficial remains an unknown. What they hope to accomplish is probably being sold as more than what it is.

I'm just glad the whole Russia BS has become poison to everyone who promotes it. Liars.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not a computer guy so I don't understand a lot of this.

But if this computer guy figured it out, wouldn't the feds have figured it out a long time ago?

And if they had, then why haven't they released the information?

Why keep with the Russian narrative?

a reply to: odzeandennz
and for those who read posts a disclaimer that people will have to decide for themselves on what to believe about the article.

DNC SURRENDER THAT SERVER TO THE IC AS YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IMMEDIATLY.
UNLESS OF course your hiding something.

The transfer speed alone can't just be look at. If the creation times are accurate and close then a bulk type transfer would seem to have been done.