BOMBSHELL: New Report Shows Guccifer 2.0-DNC Files Were Copied Locally—Not Hacked

23mb/s is nothing when you have a good connection. Ive done 62mb/s at home.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Xcathdra

My internet connection is at 54 MB/s right now.

So...

Mine is around 50 however when you try to download something you wont hit 50mbs. It will drop way down to around 1mbs to about 4mbs, depending on type of connection. You wont be getting anything near 23mbs.

Gotcha.

Thats your down load speed your upload speed is much less usually 10% of download speed.

Funny that no one has connected the fact that this would have been done shortly after Comey's speech on July 5th.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Don't blow your load too quickly. Unlike unnamed sources he has a name whether an alter-ego or not. Secondly, he provides his analysis which IMATAT provided.

But the way you so readily dismissed it out of hand without even being curious says more than enough.

RIP Seth.

What part of the analysis convinced you?

a reply to: alphabetaone

The "write" speeds to a USB 2.0 are going to be much slower than the max device speed in real-world use, mostly due to internal handling of the interface.

originally posted by: RickinVa
Funny that no one has connected the fact that this would have been done shortly after Comey's speech on July 5th.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Good point. THAT is very significant. The timing is evidence that this information was likely downloaded because someone was furious that Clinton was going to get away with her crimes.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Xcathdra

OMG I just read the article...


"A mysterious IT guy has told us...."


Really?!?


Not even an unnamed official ... lmao..


"Mysterious IT guy..."

Credible ... real credible.. lmao man that is funny..

while your reply is typical and very much expected, intelligent people will evaluate the data first, then cry like little bitches about the source if needed. It's something you may want to try.

--might be late to this conversation, but, guys, just Google quickest Ookla/Speedof.

ETA: No, this is not available to your average individual, but, yes, it is out there already.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: alphabetaone

The "write" speeds to a USB 2.0 are going to be much slower than the max device speed in real-world use, mostly due to internal handling of the interface.

Exactly.

Though specked at 480 Mb/s, in practice USB 2.0 maxes out at a bit above 30 MB/s, or around 250 Mb/s.

(23 MB/s is totally consistent with many common drives though - often it is the cheap cells in the NAND flash of the devices and not the USB 2.0 interface itself that limits the transfer speed)

originally posted by: Mikehawk

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Don't blow your load too quickly. Unlike unnamed sources he has a name whether an alter-ego or not. Secondly, he provides his analysis which IMATAT provided.

But the way you so readily dismissed it out of hand without even being curious says more than enough.

RIP Seth.

What part of the analysis convinced you?

This part:

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Given the circumstances Assange really needs to publicly confirm that Seth Rich was in fact his source.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No we have the FBI, CIA and nsa all saying it was Russia...

We have the gateway pundit saying "a mysterious it guy says"

BWAHAHAHA

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Given the circumstances Assange really needs to publicly confirm that Seth Rich was in fact his source.

He's quite literally the only one who can put this to bed. With so much evidence and analysis that point to Rich plus Assange's indirect acknowledgement, I think he doesn't need to be concerned about revealing his source in this instance.

At this point sitting on this information sends more of a negative message to would be leakers than releasing it.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Xcathdra

No we have the FBI, CIA and nsa all saying it was Russia...

We have the gateway pundit saying "a mysterious it guy says"

BWAHAHAHA

I would trust Russia over those agencies.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Given the circumstances Assange really needs to publicly confirm that Seth Rich was in fact his source.

He can't wiki leaks only exists becausee of annonimity. Even if just once they gave away their source it would destroy them. No one would send them information ever again.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Inconceivable? Why? Assuming they actually mean megaBYTES per second and not BITS, that's about 184 Mbps (bits). I have a 100 Mbps line, and 1 Gbps lines are not unheard of these days. If the whole report relies on that piece of information, it seems rather flimsy. Can they prove 184 Mbps is impossible between US and Romania?

It doesn't matter how fast your connection is. The limiting factor is the upload speed from the source. If the source can't upload faster than 2Mbs, then that's as fast as you can go even with your higher-end connection.

The UK average upload speed is < 3 Mbs. The US average upload speed is 18.8Mbs. It's fair to say that, if this was a professional setup, they may have had a higher upload speed than most consumers, but 184Mbps upload still sounds pretty insane for most commercial users.

On top of that, speeds are usually given as peak, with the actual speed for sustained transfers being 25%-50% lower.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Unless he wasn't...

None of the Assange/Rich thing makes any sense.. all assange did was discredit himself by doing that, because he wouldn't confirm it..


Assange basically says.. and he did more than elude to it.. he wasn't making it a secret what he wanted anyone to think..

"Seth Rich was the leak and was murdered for it.."

Then a reporter asks..

"So your saying Rich was the leak? "

Assange

"I will never reveal my sources.."


But he just did reveal his source!!!


Anyone who would hurt Rich's family if rich was the leak, now knows Rich was the leak...

If Rich wasn't the leak then Assange was obviously lying by trying to make people think he was...


The whole thing is super shady.





"

a reply to: dragonridr

Assange wasn't even remotely low key about the fact he wanted everyone to think Seth was the leak.

It wasn't good innuendo.. it was blantant and obvious..


From the point you have already told the whole world Rich was the leak.. you have already revealed your source..

If Rich being the leak would put Rich's family in danger.. well Assange told the whole world Rich was the leak..

Weather he confirmed it or not, everyone knows exactly what he was portraying.


That video is literally been seen by millions of people and any two year old could tell what Assange wanted people to think.


Doing that and not confirming it is super shady.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

I'm not suprised...

a reply to: network dude

Or we will never hear about this story again because it is obviously propaganda meant for stupid people..

"A mysterious IT guy says.."


I'm gonna start using that As a headline lmao!!