Reply With Quote
It's a logical conclusion.
So now Crowdstrike is Guccifer2.0.
Conspiracy gets bigger every day.
It's a logical conclusion.
So they're in on the murder too.
Never said that and you're confusing the 2 breeches again.
Why would CrowdStrike not be a logical conclusion for the guccifer 2.0 hack?
Am I?Hey, asking to prove a negative. These are your claims. Not mine.Why would CrowdStrike not be a logical conclusion for the guccifer 2.0 hack?
Yes, you are confusing the two breeches once again.
>>June 14, 2016: DNC announces their server was "hacked" back in April, and the perpetrator stole "Trump opposition research".
>>June 15, 2016: DNC/Crowdstrike announces "it was the Russians!", with very thin evidence, some of which they subsequently retracted.
>June 15, 2016 (yes, the same day): Guccifier 2.0 appears, takes credit for the "hack" and sends the Trump opposition research to several media outlets. Do ents appear to have "Russian fingerprints", but it's a sham.... the do ents were first created by an English language user -- possibly in the office of a Democrat politician -- and then opened and saved again on a computer with Russian language settings, all within 30 minutes on 2016-06-15: http://g-2.space/
>>July 5th James Comey Makes public statement concluding Clinton Server investigation
>>July 5, 2016: On that same day 3 weeks after DNC/Crowdstrike announces they were "hacked", And Seven Hours After James Comey's Public conclusion of the Clinton Ivestigation, a second set of files are copied onto a USB memory drive or over a local area network. File modification timestamps indicate it was probably done with Linux, and a copy speed of 22.6 megabytes/second -- too fast to be done remotely: https://theforensicator.wordpress.co...data-analysis/
>>July 10th 2016: Seth Rich is Shot, 5 days after the second breech was made.
Considering what you know about CrowdStrike and it's ties to the DNC and DNC servers would CrowdStrike be a logical conclusion for the guccifer 2.0 hack?Hey, asking to prove a negative. These are your claims. Not mine.
So the second breach, just like you said. Not confused at all.
Crowdstrike is in on the murder, according to you.
Considering what I know, it would make more sense to conclude it was an amateur serial killer hitman who didn't know about metadata, but that also seems to be bull .Considering what you know about CrowdStrike and it's ties to the DNC and DNC servers would CrowdStrike be a logical conclusion for the guccifer 2.0 hack?
It's your conspiracy theory, TSA -- you are free prove it any time you please.
so now, independent cyber investigators believe the alleged "hack" was not a hack but an inside job. certainly, plausible. remember who we are dealing with here: the intelligence community. why are "liberals" suddenly so enamored with the intelligence community?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...e_job_20170724
Working of this timeline as assuming the attributions are correct, where are you getting the first breech of CrowdStrike/Guccifer 2.0 has anything to do with the second breech?
Again, why are you conflating the two separate hacks and trying to tie the first breech to Seth Rich?
Considering what I know, it would make more sense to conclude it was an amateur serial killer hitman who didn't know about metadata, but that also seems to be bull .
It's your conspiracy theory, TSA -- you are free prove it any time you please.
Speaking of the first breech, considering what you know about CrowdStrike and it's ties to the DNC and DNC servers would CrowdStrike be a logical conclusion for the guccifer 2.0 hack yes or no?
"Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology U.S., who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report led “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,”
Been trying to find this since yesterday but have had no luck.
Speaking of girl Chalupa
The quote is yours, not mine.
So now someone else is responsible for the first hack? Who? The conspiracy widens once again.Again, why are you conflating the two separate hacks and trying to tie the first breech to Seth Rich?
Not after you confused everything, no.Speaking of the first breech, considering what you know about CrowdStrike and it's ties to the DNC and DNC servers would CrowdStrike be a logical conclusion for the guccifer 2.0 hack yes or no?
Too bad she already said she spoke to the DNC. You might have been onto something, scoop.
You are the only one confused here. Please point to the event in that timeline that has you conflating the two separate breeches.
Chalupa was your girl not mine.
Sorry, that was you. Quotes were there.
Now that you say two different parties were responsible for each breach and Seth is responsible for one, who is responsible for the other?
Nope, she's your conspiracy, not mine.
Provide the quote.
Already did. I will accept that you are correcting yourself.
Now that you say two different parties were responsible for each breach and Seth is responsible for one, who is responsible for the other?
Or is there another part to your conspiracy you haven't let us in on yet?
I do have to tell you, all the conspiracies make even less sense if Rich isn't responsible for the most damning leaks. Is this really the way you want this to go?
You haven't provided any quote to back your claim. Try again.
BOOM! Game overl
Oh wait didn't time that right
Post another knockout blow TSA I'll be like your hype man
Already did in the quotes I posted above. If I am in error, I apologize. If you want to stonewall over this, that's fine too -- but I'm letting you define what your conspiracy is right here and now. Go ahead and tell us who you think is responsible for each breach and we can discuss them. I am perfectly willing to move forward and discuss your conspiracy as you see it.
The ball is completely in your court.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
