Current Events > So... The Russian hacker narrative may be fake after all.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Caution999 posted...

Although I'd like to say it's fairly obvious that you're butt-flustered about this and my previous posts if you have to resort to personal attacks.

College, while great for many people like you and me, isn't always best for everyone. In no way does it determine whether someone has developed/learned critical thinking skills. Those skills can be learned in a variety of ways/careers throughout life. I hardly believe it is exclusive to College. Doesn't hurt to have the College degree, obviously.

You didnt go to college though.

And yes, of course you can. Reread my post, I didnt even imply that.
---

You guys are reminding me of South Park

"The 9/11 conspiracy was actually *gasp* a government conspiracy! "

You Trumpanzees and DonnieDetectives fit the neckbeard profile they gave the truthers as well.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

That is deductively, assertively absurd.

If the hack occured on the 13th or 14th, what would have occured is the hackers would have download the database of information as it was on the 13/14th to their computer. Any changes made to the documents after that on the DNC server would not be reflected on the documents that were leaked to Wikileaks.

It is literally, conclusively illogical.

That's a great point, actually.

I've been trying to find what the actual dates on the leaked files were, but haven't found anything about it yet.

@Pogo_Marimo posted...

That is deductively, assertively absurd.

If the hack occured on the 13th or 14th, what would have occured is the hackers would have download the database of information as it was on the 13/14th to their computer. Any changes made to the documents after that on the DNC server would not be reflected on the documents that were leaked to Wikileaks.

It is literally, conclusively illogical.

So... Do you have proof that the files WikiLeaks received were dated before the 15th and did not have the "Russian" footprints?

Because without that, we can't know for sure where they received the leaks either way. You absolute insistence that it's "illogical and absurd" has no ground without that.

CowboyDan posted...

Caution999 posted...

Although I'd like to say it's fairly obvious that you're butt-flustered about this and my previous posts if you have to resort to personal attacks.

College, while great for many people like you and me, isn't always best for everyone. In no way does it determine whether someone has developed/learned critical thinking skills. Those skills can be learned in a variety of ways/careers throughout life. I hardly believe it is exclusive to College. Doesn't hurt to have the College degree, obviously.

You didnt go to college though.

And yes, of course you can. Reread my post, I didnt even imply that.

Ok genius. I was holding back, but not anymore. Let's make it illegal for people to vote who don't have degrees. Guess what? The Democratic party THRIVES on the votes from the poor. The poor, largely, are a result of no education. Without them, your party would fall. Did you think about that one? All this talk about "critical thinking" and you've done none of it yourself. You should be kissing the ass of the poor - because, if not for them, Obama would never been president.

And for those wondering: The other day CowboyDan advocated that people shouldn't get to vote if they don't have a bachelors degree.
---

If this is real wow, DoneNC
---

voldothegr8 posted...

If this is real wow, DoneNC

It's not, lol. Just The_Donald attempting to muddy the waters. The DNC has done enough to hang themselves without applying baseless conspiracy theories to them.

Lmao at those liberals who accuse other people of conspiracy theories.


The fucking irony.
---

Caution999 posted...

CowboyDan posted...

Caution999 posted...

Although I'd like to say it's fairly obvious that you're butt-flustered about this and my previous posts if you have to resort to personal attacks.

College, while great for many people like you and me, isn't always best for everyone. In no way does it determine whether someone has developed/learned critical thinking skills. Those skills can be learned in a variety of ways/careers throughout life. I hardly believe it is exclusive to College. Doesn't hurt to have the College degree, obviously.

You didnt go to college though.

And yes, of course you can. Reread my post, I didnt even imply that.

Ok genius. I was holding back, but not anymore. Let's make it illegal for people to vote who don't have degrees. Guess what? The Democratic party THRIVES on the votes from the poor. The poor, largely, are a result of no education. Without them, your party would fall. Did you think about that one? All this talk about "critical thinking" and you've done none of it yourself. You should be kissing the ass of the poor - because, if not for them, Obama would have never been president.

And for those wondering: The other day CowboyDan advocated that people shouldn't get to vote if they don't have a bachelors degree.

Bahahahahaha
---

Siaperaz posted...

Lmao at those liberals who accuse other people of conspiracy theories.


The fucking irony.

1. I'm not a liberal
2. The Russia-Trump investigation is hardly a conspiracy theory. At most you can call it an investigation that'll prove false. There aren't massive bipartisan investigations or special prosecutors appointed over conspiracy theories.

Ampelas posted...

It's not, lol. Just The_Donald attempting to muddy the waters.

Yet your only way of refuting it is "lol The_Donald."

Another mystery cracked by Reddit. The third one since the Boston Bomber and Pizzagate.
---

Thanks for the laughs, kids. This is almost as amusing as Trump trying to pass it off that he supported Marcon for the entire election over Le Pen xD

Keep the derp train rolling, Trumpanzees
---

So out of ~60 posts, I've had one person actually respond to the content of the post.

I really don't know why I was my time trying to have an actual exchange with people in this heaping shit pile of a community. I'd get better argumentative input and probably see stronger reading comprehension from a 3rd grader.

Vertania posted...

@Pogo_Marimo posted...

That is deductively, assertively absurd.

If the hack occured on the 13th or 14th, what would have occured is the hackers would have download the database of information as it was on the 13/14th to their computer. Any changes made to the documents after that on the DNC server would not be reflected on the documents that were leaked to Wikileaks.

It is literally, conclusively illogical.

So... Do you have proof that the files WikiLeaks received were dated before the 15th and did not have the "Russian" footprints?

Because without that, we can't know for sure where they received the leaks either way. Your absolute insistence that it's "illogical and absurd" has no ground without that. In fact, that makes your claim...literally, conclusively illogical.

Are you implying two sources literally leaked the same two dumps of information ("Guccifer" and the DNC) to Wikileaks, who, in this bizarre hypothetical, never mentioned that they obtained two identical dumps from two extremely disparate sources with a very slight change to the metadata? Or are you implying that Guccifer never leaked his dump after cracking the DNC servers, and the entirety of the dumps were leaked by the DNC and that Guccifer, after hacking the DNC, did not leak the dump? There is no scenario in your question's implication that makes sense assuming rational actors.

If the leaks occured, they occured exclusively before the 15th (By every security firms conclusion and your sources admission). Thus, the documents stolen would have originally had no metadata for the 15th and after, because there is no such thing as time traveling. Unless you mean to imply the DNC spoofed the metadata after the leaks then leaked an identical dump as that of Guccifer, that was never mentioned by Wikileaks or anyone. Two identical dumps, save for some metadata changes, from two different sources would have raised incredible doubts and worries inside of Wikileak.
---

Vertania posted...

So out of ~60 posts, I've had one person actually respond to the content of the post.

I really don't know why I was my time trying to have an actual exchange with people in this heaping shit pile of a community. I'd get better argumentative input and probably see stronger reading comprehension from a 3rd grader.

Come back with a better source than The_Donald. I'd take a Breitbart article or even an Alex Jones video over the garbage from that reddit.

On the one hand:
a post by user "byecomey", clearly an unbiased party.

On the other hand:
the testimony of every intelligence and cyber security group with any authority whatsoever

:thinking:
---

Vertania posted...

Amputation posted...

Lol, literally one of the worst sources available online.

Literally posting "fake news" and getting upset that people are calling it out.

You are worse than someone who knows absolutely nothing, because you actually believe in the opposite of reality.

There is nothing in the post that is "fake news." The OP was examining metadata directly from the leaked files.

You keep using that as a defense because you don't want to take the effort to actually read anything that you've already brainwashed to believe is "insane." You're the one choosing to believe in the "opposite of reality" by repeatedly covering your ears and shouting "FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!"

you know the thing people do here in your threads
to argue and have different opinions ?
that isnt allowed in the source you are using
---

Ampelas posted...

Come back with a better source than The_Donald. I'd take a Breitbart article or even an Alex Jones video over the garbage from that reddit.

There's no reason to dismiss a poster who is examing direct data because it's from reddit. It's nothing more than a convenient excuse for you to not have to put any effort into challenging your views.

No reason to entertain or legitimize this absurd theory any longer.

Meme time


---

Vertania posted...

Ampelas posted...

Come back with a better source than The_Donald. I'd take a Breitbart article or even an Alex Jones video over the garbage from that reddit.

There's no reason to dismiss a poster who is examing direct data because it's from reddit. It's nothing more than a convenient excuse for you to not have to put any effort into challenging your views.

so
can you prove he isnt lying ?
---

Vertania posted...

Ampelas posted...

Come back with a better source than The_Donald. I'd take a Breitbart article or even an Alex Jones video over the garbage from that reddit.

There's no reason to dismiss a poster who is examing direct data because it's from reddit. It's nothing more than a convenient excuse for you to not have to put any effort into challenging your views.

Do you have anything besides an investigation located in a redditors basement?

shockthemonkey posted...

So the DNC leaked their own emails in order to lose the presidential race and hurt their standing in Congress, then kill Seth Rich to make it look like he was going to leak them instead, and then blamed the Russians. Because.

i can't believe conservatives are actually crazy/stupid enough to believe this. :/ but then again they got tricked by an orange charlatan so what can I say.
---

marc55 posted...

so
can you prove he isnt lying ?

Since he posted how he found the data, it's entirely provable or disprovable by examining it yourself. Feel free to do so if you don't believe him.
shockthemonkey posted...

So the DNC leaked their own emails

I'm just going to stop reading there because that's clearly not what the post said.

Bluster posted...

On the one hand:
a post by user "byecomey", clearly an unbiased party.

On the other hand:
the testimony of every intelligence and cyber security group with any authority whatsoever

:thinking:

its a tossup
---

Bluster posted...

On the one hand:
a post by user "byecomey", clearly an unbiased party.

On the other hand:
the testimony of every intelligence and cyber security group with any authority whatsoever

:thinking:

Do you have those testimonies in the form of a long Reddit post?
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Are you implying two sources literally leaked the same two dumps of information ("Guccifer" and the DNC) to Wikileaks, who, in this bizarre hypothetical, never mentioned that they obtained two identical dumps from two extremely disparate sources with a very slight change to the metadata? Or are you implying that Guccifer never leaked his dump after cracking the DNC servers, and the entirety of the dumps were leaked by the DNC and that Guccifer, after hacking the DNC, did not leak the dump? There is no scenario in your question's implication that makes sense assuming rational actors.

It appears you're fundamentally misunderstanding the post. It's claiming that Guccifer 2.0 is the DNC. WikiLeaks claims to have gotten the info during a handoff from one of the sources (Rich, according to the post). If the DNC/Guccifer did leak them, WikiLeaks claims they were not the source.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

If the leaks occured, they occured exclusively before the 15th (By every security firms conclusion and your sources admission). Thus, the documents stolen would have originally had no metadata for the 15th and after, because there is no such thing as time traveling.

Exactly; they shouldn't have metadata from the 15th. But the Guccifer leaks do. That's because, according to the poster, they were edited on that date to include a fake Russian footprint.

Since, as you said, the leaks occured exclusively before the 15th, this would support WikiLeaks' claim that they obtained the data from a handoff. This could be shown conclusively if we saw the metadata from WikiLeaks files, but without that, you don't have the grounds to call it "deductively, assertively absurd."

What's fundamentally unclear in this story, which everyone is alluding to, is how the DNC would have the ability to retroactively plant false Russian metadata after the leak had already happened.
---

COVxy posted...

What's fundamentally unclear in this story, which everyone is alluding to, is how the DNC would have the ability to retroactively plant false Russian metadata after the leak had already happened.

The power of Buttery Mails

shockthemonkey posted...

So the DNC leaked their own emails in order to lose the presidential race and hurt their standing in Congress, then kill Seth Rich to make it look like he was going to leak them instead, and then blamed the Russians. Because.

Seriously, are you guys really this thick?

1) DNC discovered their emails were taken
2) DNC put out story that they were hacked by Russians
3) DNC knew real hacker would release these emails
4) DNC "leaked" fake/altered emails before the hacker so they can use their "leaked" stuff to prove their story

smh, not that hard to follow.
---

BillyKidd posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

So the DNC leaked their own emails in order to lose the presidential race and hurt their standing in Congress, then kill Seth Rich to make it look like he was going to leak them instead, and then blamed the Russians. Because.

Seriously, are you guys really this thick?

1) DNC discovered their emails were taken
2) DNC put out story that they were hacked by Russians
3) DNC knew real hacker would release these emails
4) DNC "leaked" fake/altered emails before the hacker so they can use their "leaked" stuff to prove their story

smh, not that hard to follow.

COVxy posted...

What's fundamentally unclear in this story, which everyone is alluding to, is how the DNC would have the ability to retroactively plant false Russian metadata after the leak had already happened.

COVxy posted...

What's fundamentally unclear in this story, which everyone is alluding to, is how the DNC would have the ability to retroactively plant false Russian metadata after the leak had already happened.

Ok, I'll try to explain it as simply as possible:

1. The DNC announces on June 14 that they have been hacked. The information was stolen on or before the 14th. Someone has a copy of the data stored on a physical drive kept privately.

2. "Warren Flood" gathers the information that was hacked and, on June 15th, modifies the files to add a fake Russian footprint to their metadata. They release the data as "Guccifer 2.0," under the understanding that the original data thief is planning to leak to WikiLeaks. Crowdstrike releases a report suggesting the Russians were behind the attack.

3. By June 16, Vice publishes an article claiming Guccifer 2.0 is a front for Russian hackers who stole the DNC info. Other media sources follow their lead.

4. Somewhere between the person in Step 1 acquiring the data and July 22, someone sends their copy of the data to WikiLeaks. This is where WikiLeaks has claimed to have gotten the info.

Why would this supposed original hacker sit on the real data for so long? Or, if not him, why would the people he gave that information to sit on it for so long?
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Why would this supposed original hacker sit on the real data for so long? Or, if not him, why would the people he gave that information to sit on it for so long?

This whole story seems to depend on two things:
1. Seth is the leaker and was assassinated for it.
2. They somehow had knowledge of the exact files leaked. And the files were only leaked in hard copy.
---

fake
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Why would this supposed original hacker sit on the real data for so long? Or, if not him, why would the people he gave that information to sit on it for so long?

I don't think it's known when they actually gave the data to WikiLeaks. They might have given it as soon as they acquired it, right before July 22, or anywhere in between. I don't know why there was the delay.

COVxy posted...

This whole story seems to depend on two things:
1. Seth is the leaker and was assassinated for it.
2. They somehow had knowledge of the exact files leaked. And the files were only leaked in hard copy.

1. It doesn't necessarily have to be Seth, but there is a lot of findings making it look like it was. His death isn't tied to the idea of DNC being Guccifer 2.0.
2. Why is it necessary that they were only leaked in hard copy?

Btw, I removed the part of Step 4 where I mentioned the physical handoff. That was reported as having happened in September in relation to the leaks around October.

ITT: Conservatives prove why they are the laughing stock of most of the world
---

CowboyDan posted...

Caution999 posted...

CowboyDan posted...

Caution999 posted...

Although I'd like to say it's fairly obvious that you're butt-flustered about this and my previous posts if you have to resort to personal attacks.

College, while great for many people like you and me, isn't always best for everyone. In no way does it determine whether someone has developed/learned critical thinking skills. Those skills can be learned in a variety of ways/careers throughout life. I hardly believe it is exclusive to College. Doesn't hurt to have the College degree, obviously.

You didnt go to college though.

And yes, of course you can. Reread my post, I didnt even imply that.

Ok genius. I was holding back, but not anymore. Let's make it illegal for people to vote who don't have degrees. Guess what? The Democratic party THRIVES on the votes from the poor. The poor, largely, are a result of no education. Without them, your party would fall. Did you think about that one? All this talk about "critical thinking" and you've done none of it yourself. You should be kissing the ass of the poor - because, if not for them, Obama would have never been president.

And for those wondering: The other day CowboyDan advocated that people shouldn't get to vote if they don't have a bachelors degree.

Bahahahahaha

So, this is the College educated and "critical thinking" put on full display here. Nice.


Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

ITT: Conservatives prove why they are the laughing stock of most of the world

No, ITT I silenced CowboyDan for good.
---

Vertania posted...

You fuckers aren't even reading the post.

tl;dr: The metadata of the first leak files (before WikiLeaks) from "Guccifer 2.0" had a fake Russian name sloppily edited in by a DNC tech official.

Hahaha someone post that OPM "ok" pic so that this guy feels safe.
---

marc55 posted...

you know the thing people do here in your threads
to argue and have different opinions ?
that isnt allowed in the source you are using

That's why I bring it here. I was hoping to have it challenged. Unlike people at The_Donald, Voat, /pol/, etc., I'm not hardwired into believing everything they post. If someone would actually provide an argument for why findings like the one in my first post are wrong, I might change my mind. But all I get is "lol (source CE doesn't like)," "lol Trumpanzee," "lol FAKE NEWS," and "lol conspiracy theory."

at least this guy is dedicated .....
---

Caution999 posted...

CowboyDan posted...

Caution999 posted...

CowboyDan posted...

Caution999 posted...

Although I'd like to say it's fairly obvious that you're butt-flustered about this and my previous posts if you have to resort to personal attacks.

College, while great for many people like you and me, isn't always best for everyone. In no way does it determine whether someone has developed/learned critical thinking skills. Those skills can be learned in a variety of ways/careers throughout life. I hardly believe it is exclusive to College. Doesn't hurt to have the College degree, obviously.

You didnt go to college though.

And yes, of course you can. Reread my post, I didnt even imply that.

Ok genius. I was holding back, but not anymore. Let's make it illegal for people to vote who don't have degrees. Guess what? The Democratic party THRIVES on the votes from the poor. The poor, largely, are a result of no education. Without them, your party would fall. Did you think about that one? All this talk about "critical thinking" and you've done none of it yourself. You should be kissing the ass of the poor - because, if not for them, Obama would have never been president.

And for those wondering: The other day CowboyDan advocated that people shouldn't get to vote if they don't have a bachelors degree.

Bahahahahaha

So, this is the College educated and "critical thinking" put on full display here. Nice.


Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

ITT: Conservatives prove why they are the laughing stock of most of the world

No, ITT I silenced CowboyDan for good.

Imagine being Caution999 and pretending to be college educated
---

Stay in your lane, Amputation.

Unless you're his joke alt. Joke boy.
---

Vertania posted...

I'm not hardwired into believing everything they post.

could've fooled me lol
---

Caution999 posted...

Stay in your lane, Amputation.

Unless you're his joke alt. Joke boy.

Haha, just you pretending to be college educated is hilarious
---

Caution999 posted...

Stay in your lane, Amputation.

Unless you're his joke alt. Joke boy.

Halfway through this topic, Amputation became the first poster to ever get put on my ignore list.

Doom_Art posted...

could've fooled me lol

That's because you don't actually read anything I post. You just see it's related to a conspiracy theory and dismiss it at face value.

I just ignored him now as well. I've never ignored anyone on this site. I won't even ignore guys who have bested me in arguments.
---

Vertania posted...

Halfway through this topic, Amputation became the first poster to make me pull off my safe space

---

Caution999 posted...

I just ignored him now as well. I've never ignored anyone on this site.

You tend to ignore most things actually.
---