Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks  (Read 1148 times)

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2019, 04:51:45 AM »
In my opinion to refute VIPS in a straightforward manner one would need to do one of two things. Show that download speeds have no relation to the question of the distance of the hack. Or that VIPS measurement of the download speeds were incorrect or unreliable. I am not seeing that in your article.

Two honest personal questions:

1) A you a "computer person"?

2) Have you done any research on the technical aspect of the issue?

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2019, 04:59:11 AM »
It is not a matter of their dissenting, but rather that they never assented.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-rather-large-new-york-times-correction

The Washington Examiner, huh?

"Right Bias and Mixed Factual Reporting," according to mediabiasfactcheck. com

https://mediabiasfactcheck-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15656685090414&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2Fwashington-examiner%2F

If you're attracted to "news sources" like Washington Examiner, I'm guessing you believe we live in a "Deep State".

Am I correct?

« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 05:25:05 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2019, 05:03:12 AM »

"17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

-- MWT   ;)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 05:06:35 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2019, 01:55:02 PM »
"17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

-- MWT   ;)

 Lets keep in mind the mainstream has been aware that it is not 17 but still repeatedly make the claim anyway. I have called some of our local hacks in the SF Bay Area and the just can't bring themselves to face the facts on this . It says something about the confirmation bias

 Alsop their opinions did not work out too well on Iraq WMD's, so I will stick with GWB's rousing invective on being fooled again on this issue

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2019, 04:07:08 PM »
Lets keep in mind the mainstream has been aware that it is not 17 but still repeatedly make the claim anyway. I have called some of our local hacks in the SF Bay Area and the just can't bring themselves to face the facts on this . It says something about the confirmation bias

 Alsop their opinions did not work out too well on Iraq WMD's, so I will stick with GWB's rousing invective on being fooled again on this issue

It sounds to me as though even if Clapper and Clinton had said, "Well, four of our seventeen intelligence agencies believe the Russians hacked the DNC's and Podesta's emails, and the other thirteen either agree or have no opinion because the issue's out of their area of expertise," you still would have disbelieved the findings because ... gasp ... the FBI didn't take possession of the DNC's servers, and ... and ... and ... regardless, those four agencies always lie in order to advance the interests of the evil, evil, evil Deep State!

LOL

-- MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 04:13:23 PM by Thomas Graves »

Online Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2019, 04:31:31 PM »
It sounds to me as though even if Clapper and Clinton had said, "Well, four of our seventeen intelligence agencies believe the Russians hacked the DNC's and Podesta's emails, and the other thirteen either agree or have no opinion because the issue's out of their area of expertise," you still would have disbelieved the findings because ... gasp ... the FBI didn't take possession of the DNC's servers, and ... and ... and ... regardless, those four agencies always lie in order to advance the interests of the evil, evil, evil Deep State!

LOL

-- MWT  ;)

 So when you say take possession of the DNC servers you mean investigate who hacked them? I understand it would be preferable to have a Clinton funded private company to get the result you want. If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed then they would have been counted as agreeing. You are slipping away from a rational discussion and into the land of innuendo, memes etc. Enjoy the trip
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 06:05:48 AM by Matt Grantham »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2019, 04:43:00 PM »
So when you say take possession of the DNC servers you mean investigate who hacked them? I understand it would be preferable to have a Clinton funded private company to get the result you want. If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed they would have been counted as agreeing. You are slipping away from a rational discussion and into the land of innuendo, memes etc. Enjoy the trip

Well, what if anything would have convinced you that the Russians were behind the hacks?

Nothing, because your mind was already made up by the likes of William Binney, Julian Assange, and that Greenwald guy?

PS  Wasn't it you who mentioned the servers earlier?

PPS  Are you a "computer guy"?

PPPS  Please translate into normal English for us your sentence, "If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed they would have counted as agreeing."

Didn't the CIA, FBI and NSA come to independent conclusions that the Russians had done the hacking?

Or do you fervently believe that they conspired to arrive at that "wholy unsubstantiated conclusion"?

In other words, do you believe we live in an evil, evil, evil Deep State?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 06:06:45 PM by Thomas Graves »

Online Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2019, 05:43:45 AM »
Two words, Demonstrable Evidence

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2019, 06:41:58 AM »
what, specifically, wo
Two words, Demonstrable Evidence


Dear (putative?) computer guy,


1)  Please give me some examples of what you would consider to be GRU-incriminating "demonstrable evidence" in this case.


2)  What, specifically, would be required to convince you that the GRU hacked the DNC's emails?


3)  How would you know whether of not some computer-based evidence was "demonstrable" or "compelling" here?


4)  How do you know "demonstrable evidence" hasn't already been uncovered and published?


5)  What in this article, and to the articles it links to, do you disagree with, or maybe it's impossible for you to answer that question because ... you're not "a computer guy"?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/13/17568660/russia-dnc-hack-indictments-gru-mueller-guccifer-dcleaks


6)  Do you believe DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were fronts for GRU agents?

If not, why not?


« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 07:15:45 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
Re: Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2019, 01:41:10 PM »



4)  How do you know "demonstrable evidence" hasn't already been uncovered and published?




 If there is, I just know you, and all the sources I have ever listened to, have not presented it.

 

Mobile View