I said I don't know because I don't. I have questions like can metadata be faked or altered? Didn't really find any answers independently, but didn't look for too long.Who hacked the DNC in 2015, TSA?You fell for Russia hacked the DNC, why not just admit it and move on?
Yeah I'm clicking those for sure
All of your questions are answered in OP's link. I really don't understand how you can read the articles by the forensicator, Adam Carter, and the Nation and not be able to answer the question. Unless of course it just pains you too much to admit to being duped.
Why don't you do a little research of your own and start a thread on it.
Guess I'll have to see what hard stance I took on Guccifer 2.0 -- I have trouble seeing why I should care so much about this when the 2015 and early 2016 hacks were the money shots. Maybe you can explain why Guccifer 2.0 do ents are more important that the Wikileaks do ents.
It pains you to admit you can't exclude the Russians.Why don't you do a little research of your own and start a thread on it.
It's not about guccifer do ents being more important than Wikileaks do ents. It's about the lie that was pushed on the American people when they were told that Russia hacked the DNC. Now that it's been proven to be a leak, and that guccifers do ents were purposely doctored to have Russian fingerprints, the next question is who created the plan and why?
I'm sure Russia, China, Iran, Israel etc were all up in the DNC servers in 2015. The DNC seemed pretty lackadaisical when it came to cyber security. What are these money shot do ents you keep referring to that you think were hacked in 2015/early 2016?
So you can't rule out the Russians. Thank you for your honesty.
If you can't rule out the Russians, then it was obviously the Russians (with high confidence).
I've never seen you dodge so many questions before. What hack and what do ents are you even talking about?
Nor dodging, just not interested in your leading question games. Rule Russia out of all the hacks and I'll accept it.
Nope. But you've always been a dishonest hack, Darrin.
You dodged again. What hack from 2015/early 2016 and what do ents are you even talking about?
No need to respond Pav. Your dodges and refusal to admit you were duped are all I needed.
If you don't know about those you have no business talking about any other hack or leak tbh.
Heard any good Cat Stevens songs lately?
If you actually wanted to discuss it you would specify which hack and what do ents you are referring to. But you won't, you'll just ask more questions and try to steer this thread away from the recent revelations concerning the DNC leak
I already said I don't care much about the Guccifer2.0 stuff. If is common knowledge and widely reported that the DNC was hacked in 2015 and spring 2016 and frankly it's comical that you know nothing about them. I have no more questions for you since you clearly need to work on your timeline.
I've repeatedly asked you to point to specific do ents from them and you've repeatedly refused.
The mere fact you have to ask about them makes this even funnier. I can't believe you've been going on about this for months without knowing about the earlier hacks. No wonder you never knew what I was talking about. I suggest you read more than one thing from now on.
What do ents were obtained during the hacks of the DNC you are referring to?
Lol 11 page thread. More like this thread over.
I can't say for sure, but Wikileaks got 44,000 emails dated January 2015 to May 25, 2016 from somewhere. Can we see the metadata for those files? Can anonymous bloggers write "game over" with those?
Anyway, the day Guccifer2.0 news broke the head of Crowdstrike himself said there was a good chance it was bull , so I don't get all the "game over" at proving it was.
If the experts in a field, and our own intelligence agencies conclude that, it is reasonable to accept their conclusions, barring contravening evidence.
"good enough" is sometimes all you get.
Feel free to provide any evidence to contradict that, short stack.
Its almost like he can only see data that proves his assumed conclusion. Nah.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote