Anonymous ID: 3e6e07 May 3, 2018, 11:01 p.m. No.1293620   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3654

#CopiedNotHacked

== #HNWSR

 

ITfag here

 

The evil we're up against is on their last leg and guilty of much more than the muh Russian collusion but once that card's been taken out of play then their entire house of cards begins its inevitable collapse.

 

"But ITfag, that's easier said than done," you say.

 

THERE'S ONE SIMPLE FACT THAT PROVES RUSSIANS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DNC HACK

 

IT'S

IMPOSSIBLE

TO TRANSFER THAT

AMOUNT OF DATA

IN THE

AMOUNT OF TIME

IT WAS TAKEN IN,

OVER THE INTERNET!

 

June 12, 2016:

Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."

 

June 14, 2016:

DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

 

June 15, 2016:

"Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."

 

We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.

 

The Key Event

 

July 5, 2016:

In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

 

It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.

 

> https:// consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

 

> https:// theforensicator.wordpress.com/2017/08/24/peak-38-mbs-transfer-speed/#more-1025

 

WHY

IS THIS INFORMATION NOT BEING

BLASTED EVERY WHERE?!

 

#CopiedNotHacked

== #HNWSR

Anonymous ID: 3e6e07 May 3, 2018, 11:11 p.m. No.1293653   🗄️.is 🔗kun

#CopiedNotHacked

#HNWSR

 

ITfag here

 

The evil we're up against is on their last leg and guilty of much more than the muh Russian collusion but once that card's been taken out of play then their entire house of cards begins its inevitable collapse.

 

"But ITfag, that's easier said than done," you say.

 

THERE'S ONE SIMPLE FACT THAT PROVES RUSSIANS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DNC HACK

 

IT'S

IMPOSSIBLE

TO TRANSFER THAT

AMOUNT OF DATA

IN THE

AMOUNT OF TIME

IT WAS TAKEN IN,

OVER THE INTERNET!

 

June 12, 2016:

Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."

 

June 14, 2016:

DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

 

June 15, 2016:

"Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."

 

We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.

 

The Key Event

 

July 5, 2016:

In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

 

It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.

 

> https:// consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

 

> https:// theforensicator.wordpress.com/2017/08/24/peak-38-mbs-transfer-speed/#more-1025

 

WHY

IS THIS INFORMATION NOT BEING

BLASTED EVERY WHERE?!

 

#CopiedNotHacked

#HNWSR

 

I DON'T WANT TO SPAM THIS BUT I'M ASKING THAT YOU FAGS SEE HOW CRUCIAL THIS INFO IS AND PUSH IT MORE

<3 U

NO HOMO

Anonymous ID: 3e6e07 May 3, 2018, 11:18 p.m. No.1293697   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3735

>>1293654

 

(again…ITfag so bare w/ me. I'm not great at putting things into words.)

 

I agree and I don't think you're being a dick.

 

But it's a fairly simple concept to grasp and if explained better than I do then it has the potential to flip on the light bulb in A LOT normies' heads.