Guccifer 2.0 - Game Over

What about the US trolls who just want to believe the truth they like ... because the real truth and the real facts make the trolls' self-image and belief look like Ground Zero?

I certainly do not want to unleash a **** Storm with all the well-known phrases about the alleged average intelligence of Americans walking around the world outside of your US borders ... but seriously wonder why many in the world do not like the US if you prefer to live in fairy-tale castles of Walt Disney than in reality and are so arrogant?
Yes, according to Trump, bad Russia intervened in the 2016 election campaign. Shame on Russia and revenge calls for it ... but that the US did and does exactly the same thing in dozens of other cases is, of course, something completely different. You may represent your interests and claim them, but not the others ... at least until they don't endanger your US interests!
You start a legitimate trade war with China, but kick all your allies in the ass as well and wonder ... no ... you even complain that they will not follow you at your side in the trade war with China you still for it and insult and shout on them with stuipd chattering like "then be a slave of China" etc.! How ridiculously arrogant and stupid is that behaviour of you Americans please?

For purely internal US affairs such as your idiotic weapons law I hold myself completely out since longer! You want it that way, then live with the consequences and do not howl! If y an 18-year-old can buy legal firearms, but can not legally go to a bar and drink a glass of Whiskey, then as a Foreigner it says everything for about US ridicule and hypocrisy ... but this is your internal problem, not my one!
But when some US trolls then at this topic claim that with the same gun law as in the US, the Nazi's Holocaust would not have happened, then I interfere, because this outcast is an infamous lie and not even a spark of true. And I have this right in this forum!

 

To me, it's pretty simple. The original VIPS analysis is based on the premise that the download speeds implied in the metadata could not possibly have been achieved if the data was stolen via remote hack over a VPN.

But the third-party analyst identified at least two common ways in which the observed metadata could, in fact, have been generated as part of a remote hack over a VPN.

Thus, the VIPS analysis fails, as far as "proving" it couldn't have been a hack.

But maybe I'm missing something. So answer this: Given that we now have three possible ways in which the observed metadata could have been generated, and two of them involve a remote hack over VPN, how does the VIPS analysis rule out a hack?

 

And so, unable to actually address the technical rebuttal, you fall back on "everyone who disagrees with me is blind/stupid/sheep".

I think you're done.

 

Which would explain the reason for/and the murder of Seth Rich?

 

Yes, if it was a russian intel operation, they are being run by idiots. I think that has to be a consideration. So the question is, who is this Gufficer, really? I think we can dismiss it being russian intel. I find it fascinating, but also even more nefarious than a typical russian intel hacking operation. So I am curious as to what the motive of this so called russian hacker? To bring attention to himself, obviously for he assertively did just that. And provided even is own assertions. Looks like Twilight Zone stuff to me, and full of nonsense. A cyber hacking joker? A non state actor who is a hacker, with illusions of grandeur? Something is not kosher about it. And don't know why anyone could not see that.

But of course russian intel could all be 80 IQ people in charge, with lower IQ people doing their hacking, and using old hacking tools. No money for cyber war? An out of date hacking division within russian intel? Too much vodka? What?

 

The problem here is that, as I said earlier, the third party analyst didn't actually state whether his theory was valid at the time, or only has become valid more recently - or even at the time he wrote his analysis. His imprecision here is of concern. And that's one of the reasons that I want to see Binney's response. I'll trust that guy over the analyst any day. He's paid his dues and his experience - and that of his VIPS associates -- outweighs the analyst by a long way.

I also think that the publisher's decision to commission a third party analyst without giving either of the VIPS parties a chance to respond to his analysis, really was rather shoddy. I think I understand her reasoning - trying to find someone able to make sense of the two positions - but I think her reasoning was flawed in choosing someone who was far less qualified than those he was commissioned to examine. For me this is just plain wrong.

Also, I want to repeat that you keep ignoring the supporting evidence: the testimony of Murray, and the ignored offers of Assange and Dot Com. When you combine all these aspects it all really becomes very clear. The US investigators have a political agenda that has little to do with the norms of evidence and innocence until proven guilty -- but everything to do with adhering to a scripted narrative.

It was evident from day one that this whole Russian-did-it was a charade concocted by Hilary's team (Podesta being a principal one). I remember very clearly following that breaking story at the time and there was no doubt who was selling this puppy to the American public. The deep state soon picked it up and ran with it, as they saw mileage in it and their essential aim is to damage Trump to impeach him, or at worst, damage him so badly that a second term is impossible.

In summation, I think it apparent that this is a political witch hunt to depose Trump. My conclusion is that Trump's on-the-stump statements terrified the deep state and the US military industrial complex (that has grown very fat on starting perennial wars) that they had to take action against him.

If you want to live in a country controlled by an unelected bureaucracy plus arms manufacturers and their supporting elite that's your choice. I prefer democracy myself.

 

Possibly, although the term used by Craig Murray to describe those he received the storage device from was "official sources in Washington". That, I suppose, could have been Seth Rich. Friends of mine believe this is very likely. But for me, knowing a little how Murray takes care when choosing his language, it suggests someone in the US intelligence community. We may never know...

 

You cannot discredit the leak claim, unless you get Murray and Assange to prove what they said, and oddly enough, that has not been done. The two people who say it was not russians, with Murray telling the UK press that he knew the leaker, who was not russian, have not been consulted by anyone involved in the investigation. A fact that should have relevance.

Until assange can supply the evidence, and given the lack of evidence on the russian hack side, and them giving it to assange, there is no evidence for any claim. And that has been the problem. It is all talk, and no hard evidence. And the evidence they want to use looks suspect.

I have no reason to think Murray and assange are both lying about sources. I have every reason to think our system would lie about it. And until we see credible evidence one way or the other, I cannot discern any truth here at all. And thing is, neither can you!

I see a war of information and disinformation, but again, no way to tell who is giving us good info and who is giving us disinfo.

And that is how an objective, informed, educated, rational brain operates. It needs credible evidence on one side or the other. I have not seen that, and no one has.

 

Um, that's not actually a problem. There was nothing in his analysis to suggest that it didn't apply on the day of the hack, nor any good reason to think it wouldn't. You just basically made that up.

Really? So when do you think the point/counterpoint cycle should end? The original VIPS guys already have gotten in two posts -- the original, and their response to the VIPS dissidents. Now they should get the last word on the third-party guy, too? You have to end it somewhere. I think it's reasonable to give the independent guy the last word, since he doesn't have a dog in the fight -- he's just assessing the two VIPS analyses.

What is the basis for the claim that he is "far less qualified"? He seems plenty qualified. And as I've mentioned previously in this thread, both Binney and McGovern are in their mid-to-late 70s, and have been retired for decades -- since 2001 for Binney, since 1990 for McGovern. I'm not sure why you think they would be totally up on the latest technical points.

I ignore them because they provide no corroboration of their claims, and they are not reliable sources, particularly Assange (who has a strong self-interest in obscuring the source of his information) and Dot.Com, who is an attention whore who has made plenty of groundless claims before.

The fact that you think the uncorroborated claims of people like Assange and Dot.Com should be taken seriously makes me doubt your ability to be objective or separate credible sources from nonsense.

That is, again, nonsense. The people with the most obvious motives here are Assange and Dot.Com.

I will also point out that there is a lot of actual physical evidence that supports the idea that it was a hack, while there is basically none that supports the idea that it was a leak. By contrast, the ONLY data piece that supports the leak hypothesis is the download speed metadata, and as I've already noted, there are hack-related explanations for that. Since literally ALL the other evidence points to a hack, it seems reasonable to conclude that it was a hack.

And now you descend into standard conspiracy-theory nonsense.

 

Er, that's not how it works. The leak claim isn't "credible until disproven." The person making the claim has an obligation to back it up if they want to be taken seriously. Oddly, neither Assange, nor Murray, nor Kim Dotcom have done so.

Meanwhile, the hack claim has been backed up by copious evidence.

 

It works also just as well, and is as valid, if murray and assange give the evidence, verifiable, credible evidence to back up their claims. For if the gov't is right, if MSM is right, then murray and assange have no such evidence. But they should be given the chance to present it, and that has not happened. I find that weird, as well suspect. Any rational mind would. If truth matters and if we actually want to know it.

That congress critter who went to visit with assange brought back to offer from assange that he would prove his claim, if given immunity from being arrested while here. Our "hard on" for assange is bigger than the desire for revealing to the People the truth, which can be backed up with fact based upon evidence. Instead of going after the leakers, assad has used, we go after the person who published leaks, and may as well lock up the entire new york times enterprise too.

No incoherence here, no sir. ha ha I like coherence, consistency, logical outcomes. Sue me.

 

America hating suits you

And I have no time to entertain Americas enenies

 

Correct. Which they have so far completely failed to do. So as of now, their claims are not credible.

Er... what is preventing them from releasing their evidence?

Agreed. But the weirdness is coming from Assange and Murray, who made claims but have refused to back them up.

You seem to think that Assange and Murray need an invitation in order to share their information. They don't. FFS, Assange's entire career is built around releasing information without permission.

There is no actual need for Assange to enter the United States in order to present his information, so that's a baseless concern.

If Assange has evidence, there is nothing stopping him from revealing it. His failure to do so discredits HIM, no one else.

 

The US trolls as you call us are minding our own business in our iwn country

And it is our weapons laws not yours

If you dont like it pound sand

 

Murray was not given the opportunity to say anymore after he broke the news in the UK. It was blacked out after that. If not, and I watched it happen in real time as I searched the net for other media picking up this story, and talking with murray, we would have heard more from Murray. I have not seen him in MSM since the story broke in the UK, followed by a media black out. No journalist even tried to investigate it, and no investigation into his assertions happened, by MSM nor by anyone in gov't to my knowledge.

In regards to assange, he wanted to use the evidence as a means to get the US gov't off of his case, seeking to imprison him for a long time for operating as a free press operates. Using leakers. Like every other news agency does.

He probably could not care less what the US gov't says, and would not IMO, ever directly reveal his source. But he could provide evidence it was a leaker and not a hacker. Without giving specifically the name of the leaker.

Unlike Murray and Assange, the US gov't has no integrity. They lost that long ago and have continued to give us reasons to not change our opinions.

I have seen no credible evidence that russian intel hacked the DNC. I have seen assessments, with a caveat that such assessments are not backed by facts, or certainty. Sorry, not enough for a decent intellect.

 

Says a war mongering neocon/banking/defense contractor apologist

 

LOL! "Blacked out"? In the Internet Age? Wow. That's funny.

If it was possible to "black out" things on a global scale, we wouldn't have WikiLeaks.

Craig Murray has his own website, FFS:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

He has an active Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

He has not been silenced. He has not been arrested or otherwise restricted. Your claim is laughable.

Is it so hard to understand that both Murray and Assange have a strong incentive to obscure the source of their information? And that means their uncorroborated claims around such sourcing aren't credible?

All of which he can do anytime he wants. Yet he hasn't. Until he does, his claim isn't credible.

So by "credible evidence", you mean "100% certainty." Because there is plenty of "credible evidence" connecting the hack to Russia. A lot of it was detailed in the recent Mueller indictments. You can claim "well, it's not 100% proof", but expecting 100% public proof is unreasonable in cases involving hacking and national security, where much information is indirect and the relevant agencies keep some things secret in order to protect their methodologies.

Meanwhile, you believe the leak hypothesis despite the almost complete lack of ANY evidence to support it.

How does that make sense?

 

I'm sure you can point out where I've mongered for war, or acted like a neocon, or made excuses for the banking or defense industries.

 

Yes blacked out, from MSM. It was covered initially by a news outlet in the UK, where they talked to Murray, and then shortly thereafter picked up by RT America, and then Murray vanished, with no mention of the story in MSM, as MSM did not apparently try to find the man, and talk to him, and no journalistic investigation was made of this tremendous claim by a guy who won the Sam Adams award for integrity. The same guy who busted out the UK and the US using a proxy to torture prisoners, in the nation where he was serving as Ambassador for the UK. And recently it was affirmed that Murray was telling the truth in regards to these incidents, and there has never been anything from the guy that has not been factual. His record is very good, in honesty, and you cannot make such claims about our own gov't and its intel.

Given assange has agreed with Murray on sources, and neither man is known to be a liar, as american intel is paid to do, and are experts in getting disinfo out, without even any evidence, one should give more credibility to those known NOT to be known liars and purveyors of lies and disinfo, logically and reasonably. This is not to claim murray and assange are telling the truth, for we need evidence to verify that. Just as we should see the evidence, which is credible, in order to maintain the MSM, and gov't is the truth. I have not seen such evidence. I have seen something closer to what we saw with the poisoning in the UK, and blaming it on Putin. As well to the accusations of gas attacks by assad, at times when doing such a thing would have not been in his best interest, but quite the contrary. I am seeing more of the same old sh*t, that is what I am seeing. Not objective, logical, reasonable, rational intellect would just buy into the official story, given its total lack of a foundation using fact, based upon credible evidence.

And I cannot and will not move past this position, until I actually see such evidence as demanded. And I don't think you should have the position that you have, given it is full of holes, but long on claims of certainty and truth.

I have seen nothing from you that would logically change my opinion, in fact, your opinion is not even close to being able to do that. Thing is, unless evidence on either side is given, we will never know the truth of the matter, who is being truthful and who is for whatever reason, simply wrong.

 

Let's say you're right. Who cares? "Ignored by the MSM" does not mean "silenced." As I pointed out, he has his own website and a Twitter account. He could release the information anytime he wants, and it would be picked up by dozens if not hundreds of like-minded sources.

The whole idea that he can't release his information until the MSM asks him for it is profoundly silly.

Again, what part of "both men have a vested interest in obscuring the sources who supply info to WikiLeaks" do you not get?

Actually, when it comes to his sources, Assange has a history of obfuscation. An understandable history, perhaps, but he does make up stuff to try to obscure his sources.

He has also lied about other things:
https://gizmodo.com/julian-assange-lied-about-a-wikileaks-data-dump-on-nati-1785091653

He also REALLY dislikes Hillary Clinton, so there's that.

So credulousness about Assange, despite his strong incentive to obscure his sources; coupled with dismissal of anything said by intelligence agencies, even when they present evidence.

You have predetermined your conclusion, and the actual facts don't matter, because you will ignore the facts you dislike unless they come from Assange himself.

Your "logic" isn't actually logical.

You are saying that if there are two claims, both must be considered valid until both sides have presented their evidence.

So if I have a bullshit claim, the only thing I need to do in order to be "credible", in your mind, is make the claim, then promise to someday provide evidence to back it up. As long as I never do, you will consider the issue still in doubt.

 

Who cares if the sources for the other side of the story is investigated, revealed? Well, anyone that holds truth to be of high value and importance. Especially given the consequences involved.

I say that unless you at least look at the evidence that is said to exist for the other side, instead of ignoring it, as if it was not said to exist, logic, rationality, and reason is not being incorporated in trying to discover the truth.

It is a fact that Murray never appeared in MSM once he broke the story in the UK. In fact, there was a complete absence of presenting the other side, nor was any of his claims ever investigated by journalists, nor or so it seems, by our gov't. If this isn't odd and suspect to a person, then there should be a justifiable and valid reason for it. I have not even seen that, for that would involve actually talking about, and presenting, what Murray said in 2016. I find this unacceptable and anyone interested in truth over disinfo would find it.

Given the amount of time given to promoting the other side of this story, the official story, and the black out of the other side, from two of its primary sources is relevant, and is important. When our legal system seeks out the truth based upon facts, upon evidence, for us to avoid that kind of seeking is incoherent, and should raise lots of red flags. Unless of course, you want the official story to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And will just ignore the other side of the story. MSM does this as a matter of course these days, deserting journalistic standards, and it seems our gov't also does the same. I am alarmed by it, and concerned. As any rational being, an american citizen should be.

I don't know why you would see it fit to defend not investigating the other side of the story, given the two men involved in it are not known as liars, and men lacking honesty and integrity when it comes to truthful and accurate information. That does have relevance whether you can ever admit it or not.

 

war mongering describes the neocon/banking/defense contractors you support.

 

I give up. As I have shown, there is literally NOTHING stopping Murray and Assange from telling their side of the story, whether or not the MSM is trying to impose a blackout on them.

Their refusal to do so impugns the credibility of their claims.

Unless you can show that Murray and Assange have been effectively silenced -- which would be difficult, since I've shown you Murray is still very active on Twitter and his website, and Assange has never had trouble getting his message out -- then there is no "benefit of the doubt" for them. They made a claim, and have refused to back it up, despite having every opportunity to do so. Logically, that means their claim must be ignored unless and until they back it up. Otherwise you empower charlatans.

 

I support the neocon/banking/defense contractors? How do you conclude that from anything I've posted?