Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
As 'DNC Hacked Itself' Conspiracy Theory Collapses, Key Backer Of Claim Exposed As UK T-r-o-l-l
Roughly a year ago you might recall that numerous outlets happily parroted claims that the DNC wasn’t hacked by Russian intelligence (as latter reports would make clear), but had somehow actually hacked itself. The theory was never particularly well cooked, though outlets like The Nation ran with it anyway, claiming that “forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed” had all collectively unearthed undeniable evidence that the DNC had committed cyber-seppuku.
The widely-circulated report leaned heavily on a published memo by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a collection of former intelligence experts and whistleblowers like William Binney and Ray McGovern. It also leaned heavily on the input of several, anonymous, self-professed “computer forensics investigators” who, the news outlet informed readers, had “split the DNC case open like a coconut,” providing incontrovertible evidence that Russian intelligence played no role in the now-legendary breach.
But the entire claim was little more than fluff and nonsense.
As we noted at the time, The Nation story relied heavily on the allegation the stolen files must have been copied locally to USB by a DNC insider because, as The Nation claimed, “no Internet service provider was capable of downloading data at this speed” (22.7 megabytes per second). In reality, 22.7 megabytes per second was simply a 180 Mbps connection, widely available around the world at the time the DNC hack took place. That includes Romania, the country that the Russian cutout Guccifer 2.0 pretended (at the time) to have originated from.
We weren’t alone in pointing out that the story was flimsy, relied largely on cherry-picked evidence, and frequently stumbled into the realm of the “incoherent.” And it’s only gone downhill since. The Nation was forced to review the report, adding a meandering preamble to address criticism. In the year since, reports have forged a new infosec community consensus that yes, Guccifer 2.0 was GRU, and had been amusingly caught because Russian intelligence forgot to activate its VPN before logging into the bogus persona’s WordPress site on one occasion (one of several opsec errors made by Russian intel).
But at the time, any reporter that dared report on the emerging links between Russia and the hack were quickly smeared by a website custom built to try and downplay any Russian connection. The creator of the website went by the name of Adam Carter, who was broadly cited as a respected “independent researcher” in The Nation and other unskeptical reports. Carter’s website, a collection of half-cooked straw men and conspiratorial faux-technical nonsense, also took time to go after Techdirt, claiming our pretty rudimentary analysis of the theory’s principle error was “pedantic, sleazy & condescending” (thank you).
Fast forward to this week, and a new Computer Weekly report notes that Carter wasn’t much of an intelligence expert or “researcher” at all. He was, according to infosec reporter Duncan Campbell, a British IT manager and shitposter from Darlington, working in concert with U.S. trolls on a widespread online disinformation effort to downplay and discredit any and every connection between the DNC attack and Russia:
“The campaign is being run from the UK by 39-year-old programmer Tim Leonard, who lives in Darlington, using the false name 'Adam Carter'...Starting after the 2016 presidential election, Leonard worked with a group of mainly American right-wing activists to spread claims on social media that Democratic 'insiders' and non-Russian agents were responsible for hacking the Democratic Party.”
The story is long and incredibly weedy, so it’s going to be overlooked by many who lack patience or attention span during an oft-apocalyptic news cycle. But it’s definitely worth winding your way through and fully digesting to understand the sheer scope of the effort. Especially if you’re interested in understanding how incoherent internet bullshit has been industrialized and weaponized on an international scale for relatively little money.
Campbell methodically spent months tracking down Carter’s real identity, noting his tactic of pretending to be combating disinformation while actively spreading it around the internet, from his g-2.space website (which he built on the back of an employer’s server without their apparent knowledge), to the bowels of Reddit’s r/conspiracy subreddit, where he was routinely found feeding baseless conspiracy theories to the aggressively gullible. Campbell states Leonard attempted to lend credibility to the theories by co-creating a second fake identity known as “Forensicator” (also cited by media outlets as a real, but anonymous intel expert).
Campbell states that this analysis (again: bogus insight created by fake people), was then recirculated by an “independent” outlet by the name of Disobedient Media, which utilized Carter as a “technology correspondent” (they’re understandably none too happy with Campbell’s reporting). According to Campbell, Disobedient media has played more than a passing role in spreading conspiracy theories internationally, usually with the help of forged documents:
“Disobedient Media is a so-called 'independent media' site that describes ?Adam Carter? as its technology correspondent. It claims to ?bring honesty and integrity back into journalism?. The site has recycled paedophile allegations directed at Hillary Clinton and fellow democrats, and has made repeated attempts to frame murdered DNC official Seth Rich. Newspapers in France, Germany, Spain and Britain have identified Disobedient Media as an epicentre of Russian-backed attacks on Europe, using forged documents, including smears against Angela Merkel, Sadiq Khan and Emmanuel Macron.
While it’s easy to dismiss this as just some incoherent rambling by the 4chan / Qanon conspiracy set, the report notes how some of the effort’s “evidence” comically-managed to worm its way into White House policy circles. That was courtesy of William Binney, who met with CIA director Mike Pompeo at Trump’s request to dig deeper into the “DNC hacked itself” conspiracy. Nothing appears to have come of that meeting (because again, the whole DNC hacked itself theory is garbage), but it’s still worth pointing out that much of the underlying evidence was intentionally manipulated in order to deceive:
“'One document' a tip-off file obtained in June 2017 by Leonard's site from an 'anonymous source' took new disinformation all the way to the White House and the CIA…The team that created Forensicator, including Leonard, gave away that they were not the real authors of the analysis when they inaccurately copied a Linux 'Bash" script they had been sent, breaking it. This suggested that they did not write, understand, or test the script before they published. Someone else had sent the script, together with the fake conclusion they wanted discovered and published 'that DNC stolen files had been copied in the US Eastern Time zone on 5 July 2016, five days before DNC employee Seth Rich was killed.'"
One year later and The Nation’s original theory isn’t looking so hot, with even many of the original VIPS supporters running in the opposite direction, including Binney:
“A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was 'no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done?' The Guccifer 2.0 files analysed by Leonard?s g-2.space were 'manipulated', he said, and a 'fabrication'.
But the damage was done, and the Brietbart, Bloomberg, Nation and other reports remain online, still widely circulated as “evidence” that the DNC hacked itself. Amusingly, many of the same people (quite justly) railing against the over-reliance on anonymous sources in stories supporting Russian involvement in the hack saw no problem amplifying this dubious report, despite the warnings that the report was leaning largely on extremely dubious, anonymous experts.
Obviously real investigators continue to dig through the aftermath of the 2016 election to determine the width and breadth of Russia’s global disinformation and hacking efforts in retribution for the Magnitsky sanctions. That process should slowly unravel which organizations and individuals were simply useful idiots, and which organizations and individuals actively coordinated their disinformation assault with the help of foreign governments.
But with questions arising about a evolved disinformation campaign on Facebook and another major internet disiformation effort operating out of Macedonia, it raises plenty of questions about just what real forensic investigators will unearth by this time next year.
</q>
Stories Claiming DNC Hack Was 'Inside Job' Rely Heavily On A Stupid Conversion Error No 'Forensic Expert' Would Make
While we wait for the Mueller investigation to clearly illustrate if and how Russia meddled in the last election, there’s no shortage of opinions regarding how deep this particular rabbit hole goes. While it’s pretty obvious that Putin used social media and media propaganda to pour some napalm on our existing bonfires of dysfunction, just how much of an impact these efforts had on the election won’t be clear until a full postmortem is done. Similarly, while Russian hackers certainly had fun probing our voting systems and may have hacked both political parties, clearly proving state involvement is something else entirely.
Quite fairly, many folks have pushed for caution in terms of waiting for hard evidence to emerge, highlighting the danger in trusting leaks from an intelligence sector with a dismal track record of integrity and honesty. There’s also the obvious concern of ramping up tension escalation between two nuclear powers. But last week, many of those same individuals were quick to highlight several new stories that claimed to “completely debunk” Russia’s involvement in hacking the DNC ahead of last year’s election. The problem? These reports were about as flimsy — if not flimsier — than the Russian hacking theories they supposedly supplanted.
In fact, these reports took things one step further by claiming that the hack of the DNC was something committed solely by someone within the DNC itself. This particularly overlong, meandering piece by The Nation, for example, claimed to cite numerous anonymous intelligence sources who have supposedly grown increasingly skeptical over the “Russian hacking narrative.” Quite correctly, the report starts out by noting that while there’s oodles and oodles of smoke regarding Putin’s involvement in the election hacks, the fire (hard evidence) has been hard to come by so far:
“Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess 'high confidence' in their 'assessment' as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year, this standing as their authoritative judgment."
But it’s then that’s where things get a little weird. The report repeatedly proclaims that a laundry list of anonymous “forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed” have been hard at work “producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year.” But one of the key conclusions by these experts — and a key cornerstone for of all of these stories — makes absolutely no sense.
The reports lean heavily on anonymous cybersecurity experts calling themselves “Forensicator” and “Adam Carter,” who purportedly took a closer look at the metadata attached to the stolen files. Said metadata, we’re breathlessly informed, indisputably proves that the data had to have been transferred from inside of the DNC network and not over the internet, since the internet isn’t supposedly capable of such transfer speeds:
“Forensicator's first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate?the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC's server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
"These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.”
That reads like a semi-cogent paragraph, but it’s largely nonsense. 22.7 megabytes per second (MB/s) sounds impossibly fast if you don’t know any better. But if you do the simple conversion from megabytes per second to megabits per second necessary to determine the actual speed of the connection used, you get a fairly reasonable 180 megabits per second (Mbps). While the report proclaims that “no internet service provider” can provide such speeds, ISPs around the world routinely offer speeds far, far faster — from 500 Mbps to even 1 Gbps.
And despite the report oddly pooh pooh’ing Romanian broadband’s “delivery overheads,” many Romanian cities actually have faster internet connectivity than either Russia or in the States (check out Akamai’s global broadband rankings). Bernie Sanders learned this last year when he unintentionally pissed off many Romanians when trying to highlight the dismal state of U.S. connectivity. Even then, the hacker in question could have used any number of tricks to hide his or her location and real identity from a high-bandwidth vantage point, so the claim that the hacker couldn’t achieve 180 Mbps through a VPN is simply nonsense.
Obviously this raises some questions about what kind of cyber-sleuths we’re talking about when they can’t do basic conversions or look at some fairly obvious broadband speed availability charts. And it also raises some questions about why reporters thought flimsy anonymous experts were the perfect remedy to the other flimsy anonymous leaks they hoped to debunk. While The Nation couldn’t even be bothered to do the simple calculation to determine the speed of the connection used by the hacker was relatively ordinary, in a story titled “Why Some U.S. Ex-Spies Don’t Buy the Russia Story,” Bloomberg actually did the conversion to get the 180 Mbps speed, and still somehow told readers that such speeds were impossible:
“The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms “Forensicator” and “Adam Carter.” The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer’s files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second — or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic.”
Yes, all but impossible! Provided you ignore that DOCSIS 3.1 cable upgrades and fiber connections deliver speeds consistently faster than that all around the world every day — including Romania. False claims and sloppy math aside, after the Bloomberg column ran, several actual, identifiable intelligence experts also came forward doubting the legitimacy of the supposed intelligence sources for these stories altogether:
Surrounded by raised eyebrows, The Nation is now apparently reviewing its story for accuracy after numerous people highlighted that a major cornerstone of the report was little more than fluff and nonsense. Bloomberg has so far failed to follow suit.
So again, there’s certainly every reason to not escalate hostility between the United States and Russia with many details still obfuscated and investigations incomplete. And there’s also every reason to view reports leaning heavily on anonymous intelligence insiders skeptically after generations of distortions and falsehoods from those same agencies. That said, if you want to debunk the anonymous claims of a growing number of intelligence insiders who claim Russia played pinball with our electoral process, perhaps running into the arms of even more unreliable, anonymous intelligence sources — without checking your math — isn’t your best path toward the truth.
</q>
-
RO quoted my cite:
The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers.
“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News.
RO edited out my comment to KH:
Somebody was performing CYA -- you automatically assume it wasn't the FBI.
RO: The DNC was lying, Cliff.
How do you know? It's he said/she said.
In fact, the FBI said it had more than once asked to examine the servers and were rebuffed by the DNC. Ask yourself why did the FBI take no for an answer.
It amazes me that JFKA researchers conveniently hold the FBI as a model of honesty.
Instead, Clinton hired Crowdstrike to tell her what she wanted to hear.
That's not what CrowdStrike said. In their blog, quoted in my last post, they detailed the methodology they used to determine Fancy Bear hacked the DNC computers and "staged" the e-mails for exfiltration.
When pressed at the House hearing in 2017, Crowdstrike's Henry had to admit he had no evidence of a hack from the outside, by the Russians or anyone else. His claim that he still believed that is what happened is worthless.
Amazing how reading comprehension eludes RussiaGate Deniers when they read this part of Henry's testimony:
MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.
MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.
The information was instead downloaded by someone at the DNC who leaked it to Assange.
You have no proof of that.
As Ray McGovern has repeatedly asserted (and he would know) had the information been hacked by anyone from the outside, NASA would have known about it because they monitor everything domestic. That would have been definitive proof of an outside hack. NASA, you'll notice, has been silent. Apparently there was no way they could lie about that.
I think you mean NSA. Their silence proves nothing.
Henry's testimony was buried by Adam Schiff--it was classified--for almost 3 three years until he was forced to release it after being told others would make it public if he didn't. The media, of course, ignored the release and it's only through the tireless efforts of McGovern, Bill Binney, and Mate that word has gotten out at all about it.
None of these worthies comprehend the plain language here:
MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.
MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.
Let's try an experiment. Watch Assange's Dutch interview again. At one point he is asked directly if Rich was his source. Watch Assange's reaction closely. Before he says we don't reveal our sources his head bobs up and down. Yes. He was not going to directly confirm it verbally. He has said many times protecting is sources is crucial to their whole operation. It was the most he could do, and I'm surprised he took the chance.
It makes more sense he brought up Seth Rich to protect the actual source -- probably Roger Stone, since he was convicted of perjury when he denied under oath he had contact with Wikileaks.
What do you see, Cliff? I've now given you license to ignore the other points and rant the obtuseness of that claim. It is subtle to be sure, and I don't want to make too much of it, given all of the other evidence.
I haven't ignored anything. I've made point by point rebuttals to everything you and KH have posted.
You guys, on the other hand, stubbornly ignore this:
MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.
MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.
But it leads me to what I'm curious about in this case. There is now a civil case in the courts seeking Rich's laptops, which the FBI first denied having before admitting that was a lie (thanks, Keven, for posting up to date info on that). Alleged in that case is the claim that Rich's laptops contain the email Rich sent to Wikileaks offering the DNC emails.
When the laptop is turned over and it proves Rich provided the e-mails I will publicly declare -- "I stand corrected."
It's going to be difficult for the plaintiffs to get that material and even if they get that far, there is probably no assurance that email is still there. But Wikileaks could shortcut all of that. It presumably has the email and the info about the DNC emails in its files.
Assange is not going to violate source confidentiality, no matter how you spin it.
Rich is dead. If he did it he was a hero. That has been obscured so far. Does the injunction about revealing sources--absolutely necessary in most circumstances--really extend to the source of the leaking this case?
Yes! Absolutely! That's why Assange said -- "We don't comment on who our sources are."
You guys are implying he's a liar with no integrity.
Would revealing Rich as the source of the leak, sticking another pin in the already flaccid Russiagate balloon, really make future sources more reluctant to come forward? My guess is it would raise Wikileaks' stature again, with Assange silenced and being slowly murdered in jail. It would have the opposite effect.
Spin.
Keven, do you know if the plaintiffs have considered this obvious path to get the info they are seeking? Have they contacted Wikileaks to ask for their help? If so, I'd be very interested in Wikileaks' answer.
Assange will never reveal his sources. <cue Joe Pesci> Don't you get it??
-
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:
It's not rocket science. This really is very simple. Anyone capable of a minimum level of objectivity upon watching the following two-minute excerpt of the August 9, 2016 interview of Julian Assange by the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur can see that there was no reason for Assange to even bring Seth Rich up in the first place other than to register his concern that a Wikileaks source had been murdered; and MOST NOTABLY Assange does not even once deny that Seth Rich was the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails.
Assange had an excellent reason to bring up Seth Rich -- to divert attention away from his actual source.
Assange does not even once verify that Seth Rich was the source.
You are unaware of the grave violation of journalistic ethics by revealing a source. Here's an article about almost 50 journalists or news organizations jailed and/or fined for refusing to reveal sources, up to 2019.
https://www.rcfp.org/jailed-fined-journalists-confidential-sources/
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Julian Assange did not explicitly violate the Wikileaks policy not to identify sources, but he did make a value judgment that it was more important to call attention to the murder than it was not to mention Seth Rich at all. This is the behavior of an individual who can hold two competing principles in his mind at once, and who recognizes that truth comes in various shades of gray rather than being black and white, which evidently is beyond your own abilities.
It's a violation of accepted journalistic ethics to reveal a source, and Assange properly said he would not comment on his sources -- like any good journalist. Because you cannot grasp the idea he would protect his sources by bringing up Rich, you assume he was holding "two competing principles in his mind at once," which is nothing more than the product of your own imagination.
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:.And your expressions of concern for Julian Assange's reputation rings hollow, given your adherence to the political cult which first wanted to assassinate him, and now keeps him imprisoned on trumped up charges that no other journalist would be subjected to.
You smear people readily. You don't know me or my politics. You might think about taking medication for your over-active imagination.
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:You just don't get it, do you? If there had been any actual espionage involved in the purloining of the DNC emails, it would have been the FBI conducting the investigation and performing a forensic analysis of the DNC servers.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html
<q>
The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers.
“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News.
The FBI instead relied on the assessment from a third-party security company called CrowdStrIke.
</q>
Somebody was performing CYA -- you automatically assume it wasn't the FBI.
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Instead, the private IT firm, Crowdstrike, which was retained by counsel for the Hillary Clinton Campaign shipped the server to Ukraine and then for mere public consumption claimed its private analysis had confirmed Russian hacking. That's just not how real espionage investigations are conducted.
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/danger-close-fancy-bear-tracking-ukrainian-field-artillery-units/
<q>
In June CrowdStrike identified and attributed a series of targeted intrusions at the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and other political organizations that utilized a well known implant commonly called X-Agent. X-Agent is a cross platform remote access toolkit, variants have been identified for various Windows operating systems, Apple’s iOS, and likely the MacOS. Also known as Sofacy, X-Agent has been tracked by the security community for almost a decade, CrowdStrike associates the use of X-Agent with an actor we call FANCY BEAR. This actor to date is the exclusive operator of the malware, and has continuously developed the platform for ongoing operations which CrowdStrike assesses is likely tied to Russian Military Intelligence (GRU). The source code to this malware has not been observed in the public domain and appears to have been developed uniquely by FANCY BEAR.
Late in the summer of 2016, CrowdStrike Intelligence analysts began investigating a curious Android Package (APK) named ‘Попр-Д30.apk’ (MD5: 6f7523d3019fa190499f327211e01fcb) which contained a number of Russian language artifacts that were military in nature. Initial research identified that the filename suggested a relationship to the D-30 122mm towed howitzer, an artillery weapon first manufactured in the Soviet Union in the 1960s but still in use today. In-depth reverse engineering revealed the APK contained an Android variant of X-Agent, the command and control protocol was closely linked to observed Windows variants of X-Agent, and utilized a cryptographic algorithm called RC4 with a very similar 50 byte base key.
</q>
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Given your blindness to the implications of the Julian Assange interview, I also do not expect your armchair lay-legal analysis to be capable of detecting such blatant nuances as presented by the repeated explicit denials of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry in his December 2017 deposition by the House Intelligence Committee (that was declassified in 2020):
"...Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
I already cited this. The Russians did not exfiltrate the e-mails. They hacked the DNC computer to set up the exfiltration by a non-State actor. Probably Roger Stone's IT guy, who would no doubt live in fear of getting whacked.
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:
-
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
-
"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
-
"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
-
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
-
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots."
You left this part out:
MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.
MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:"HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC"
By Aaron Mate, RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.htmlInstead of understanding Henry's explicit denials however, you are instead bedazzled by notions of "fancy bear" extrications, which constitute further indications that you have again just been suckered by the imaginings one would find in a cheap spy novel; in this case specifically, the corrupt Ukrainian military intelligence organization:
If you grasped what Henry actually said -- which you disingenuously left out -- you would know that there were no "Fancy Bear extrications."
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:
What does the have to do with Crowdstrike's analysis of the Ukrainian military computer cited above?
Guilt by amorphous association?
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:"...The website also included audio of famed journalist Seymour “Sy” Hersh stating that he had confirmed that Seth Rich was responsible for leaking the DNC emails. According to Mr. Hersh, who was by no means a Republican or a Trump supporter, he could not find a media outlet willing to publish the Seth Rich story. In a separate phone call with Mr. Butowsky, Mr. Hersh said he obtained his information about Seth Rich from Mr. McCabe, the deputy FBI director...." https://caucus99percent.com/comment/430613
Andrew McCabe! There's a real beauty. A couple days after James Comey re-opened the bogus Hillary e-mail investigation McCabe leaked to the Wall Street Journal the on-going FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. His excuse was absurd...
<q>
The report says McCabe authorized the discussion of the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation with a reporter from The Wall Street Journal in an effort to “rebut a narrative” about McCabe’s impartiality in the investigation. The reporter had previously written about McCabe’s wife, who took campaign donations from Hillary Clinton’s close political ally Terry McAuliffe for her run in a state election in Virginia.
The IG found that while McCabe was authorized to release such information to news reporters, he did so to “advance his personal interest” and “violated” the FBI’s and the DOJ’s media policy, and therefore his actions “constituted misconduct.”
The report found that McCabe also contradicted his previous statements. During an interview under oath on Nov. 29, 2017, McCabe finally acknowledged that he had authorized the disclosure to the Journal. He then denied having said that he had not authorized the disclosure. The government watchdog found this contradiction to be in violation of the FBI’s offense code.
</q>
Your star witness is a proven liar not above acting in his own interest.
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:"And we are supposed to believe the FBI what's on that laptop?"
The FBI is desperately seeking to classify that laptop "top secret" for SIXTY-SIX YEARS!
I have a sneaking feeling that you have never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, have you Mr. Varnell?
You appear to project a lot.
The FBI had no problem sticking a couple of shivs into Hillary in 2016, so why would they protect the Democratic Party now?
-
-
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:
It would appear, Mr. Varnell, that you are unaware of the true significance of the evidence you have proffered in your post in your misplaced effort to prove the alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers:
Cliff Varnell wrote:
You have posted the August 9, 2016 interview of Julian Assange by the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur and claimed that it stands for the proposition that Assange was denying that Seth Rich was Wikileaks's source for the DNC emails. I don't know if you were simply not paying attention to these events as they were happening, but in 2016 it was universally recognized that Assange was deeply distressed by the murder of his source for the DNC emails,
I'm sure he was, but his statement -- "we don't comment on who our sources are" -- discounts the possibility it was Seth Rich. Your insistence otherwise is nothing but a smear.
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:and was stretching the boundaries of the Wikileaks policy of not commenting on its sources by going public in this manner.
"Stretching the boundaries"?
No, that would be a gross violation of journalistic ethics. That you insist on impugning the integrity of Julian Assange is disgraceful.
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Whatmore, Nieuwsuur was fully aware of the significance of this and provided in the caption of the very video you posted for the opposite proposition that "Julian Assange seems to suggest on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered. "
Click bait isn't evidence. When Nieuwsuur pressed him on it Assange said it was a matter of concern but he in no way verified it.
Assange wasn't revealing his source, he was protecting his source. Classic misdirection. A brilliant play by Assange.
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Thus, as Mr. Varnell appears to be completely unaware of the significance of the sources he is providing, I suggest to the readers of this post that you watch the video itself starting at the beginning in order to gain an appreciation of what the now imprisoned journalist, Julian Assange, was trying to communicate in 2016 about his source, Seth Rich, without explicitly designating him as the source:
But the interviewer (mis)understood him to explicitly designate his source -- even though Assange explicitly said he would not comment on who his sources were. You're flat out accusing Assange of lying.
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Cliff Varnell wrote:
And again, you don't appear to understand that the December 2017 interview of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry before the House Intelligence Committee that was declassified in 2020 demonstrates not that there was evidence of Russian hacking but that all along there had been NO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN HACKING. "
Factually incorrect. In order to "set up" the e-mails for exfiltration the Russian actor Fancy Bear had to hack into the DNC computer. He left the same cyber fingerprints found on an earlier hack of Ukrainian defense computers.
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was..."
Yes, that's because the Russians did not exfiltrate the e-mails. It was a "non-State actor".
I guess you missed this part, spoken by Schiff and agreed to by Henry: data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:See in particular the following for a deep dive on the 2020 declassification of the testimony, and the historical context within which it took place:
"HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC"
By Aaron Mate, RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.htmlI guess Mate couldn't grasp this either: "data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor" "Yes, sir."
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Do you really not understand that if there had actually been any reason to believe that the Russians had hacked the DNC servers that the FBI -- and not the Hillary Clinton campaign retained Crowdstrike -- would have conducted an investigation and forensic analysis of the DNC servers?
Do you really not understand that it was the FBI who opened a phony investigation into Clinton's e-mails 11 days before the election which turned the tide decisively in Trump's favor?
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:"THE FBI NEVER ASKED FOR ACCESS TO HACKED COMPUTER SERVERS" By Ali Watkins | BuzzFeed News Reporter | Posted on January 4, 2017 at 4:13 pm | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alimwatkins/the-fbi-never-asked-for-access-to-hacked-computer-servers#.rp19Dg3Z2r
"JAMES COMEY: DNC DENIED FBI DIRECT ACCESS TO SERVERS DURING RUSSIA HACKING PROBE" By Andrea Noble - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 | https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-dnc-denied-fbi-direct-access-servers-d/
"CYBERSECURITY FIRM THAT ATTRIBUTED DNC HACKS TO RUSSIA MAY HAVE FABRICATED RUSSIA HACKING IN UKRAINE" | BY MICHAEL J. SAINATO | MARCH 23, 2017 | https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/23/cybersecurity-firm-that-attributed-dnc-hacks-to-russia-may-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/
I don't see any rebuttal to Henry's claim that Fancy Bear hacked the DNC computers to "stage" exfiltration.
Why is that?
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:And do you really not understand what it means that when the FBI seized Seth Rich's laptop on the night of his murder, the DNC email files were found on it as well as evidence that Rich was in contact with Wikileaks?
So Seymour Hersh is quoting an FBI official?
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Moreover, are you oblivious to the fact that the FBI has now been busted for being in possession of Seth Rich's laptop -- after previously denying having it -- and is in contempt of a Court order to turn over the files to a plaintiff in civil litigation, which the FBI is trying to avoid BY HAVING THE FILES CLASSIFIED FOR SIXTY-SIX YEARS!
And we are supposed to believe the FBI what's on that laptop?
That's your basis for smearing Assange's ethics?
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:I would think that as a JFK assassination researcher you would have an understanding of government corruption, falsification of evidence and CIA Operation Mockingbird propaganda. Or are you for some reason under the impression that all of that is isolated to the JFK assassination exclusively?
I have an understanding that what's called "the Deep State" is deeply factional. It was a faction of the FBI who pushed to re-open the Clinton e-mail investigation on the basis of e-mails they knew were duplicates. Edward Snowden said at the time that it would have taken a half hour to determine the e-mails were duplicates, but the FBI took 8 days.
As a JFKA researcher I would think you'd have more skepticism toward the claims of the FBI.
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Or is it that you are so hypnotized by the false two-party system dichotomy that you are blinded by the notion of red MAGA hats, and lose your wits and mind whenever that red flag is waived before you?
Projection. Your smear of Assange is egregious; your reliance on the FBI reflects gullibility, as does your inability to process "data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor."
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:Well I've got news for you partner: None of the information above that I have cited has anything to do with Donald Trump or the right-wing media echo chamber. We don't play your silly two-party dichotomy game, recognizing that the BOTH wings belong to the SAME corrupt bird.
I know all about the left-Russiagate Deniers. You don't support Trump you just repeat some of his talking points and ignore his lust for autocracy.
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:The sad sordid truth is that you've been suckered by all of that divide and conquer nonsense.
Your smear of Assange shows who got suckered.
2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:
-
At the 1:04 mark in this interview Assange states: "We do not comment on who our sources are."
Assange has the highest journalistic ethics -- Seth Rich was NOT his source. Assange said in another interview that his source was "a non-State actor" -- disputing the claim that he received the DNC e-mails from Russian operatives.
A non-State actor might fear getting murdered in the streets by other non-State actors for whom they worked.
The House testimony of Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, the company that investigated the hack of DNC e-mails in 2016, in regard to the Russian hacker Fancy Bear:
<q>
MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.
MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. So that, again, staged for sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was. </q>
Russians did indeed hack the DNC in order to “set up” the e-mail exfiltration by non-State actors.
-
38 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Hash oil? I haven't heard that term in thirty something years. From personal experience, if Cory should choose to smoke a cigar, that would be a good choice.
Nah, we're just funnin' ya. I've never smoked a cigar in my life.
-
22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
SL--
If you move the discussion, then you do.
But I posted specifically and only about Ventura's stance on opening up the JFK Records, which would (I think anyway) totally back-up RFK2's stance.
I think RFK2 is wise to select such a veep, if he does.
If other EF-JFKA participants weigh in with their well-known partisan views and accusations...should not their comments be removed, but not the whole post?
Paul B. makes a germane comment. We can be confident the two major parties will not open up the JFK Records. We can have a reasonable level of confidence that RFK2 will.
incredibly, conversations about prospects and possibilities of opening up the JFK Records Act get bumped off of the EF-JFKA, as some partisan sensibilities are affronted? Is that really a good outcome?
This issue of the opening up the JFK Records should be very prominent in the EF-JFKA.
Believe me, we will not tilt the national election come November, no matter what is debated herein.
Ventura didn't get the VP nod. RFKjr picked Nicole Shanahan, the vivacious ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brinn.
-
I'm not claiming as a fact that BDM was a shooter, I'm pointing to the evidence consistent with that conclusion.
Unlike Pat Speer I don't marry Pet Theories.
-
41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
You're being weird here, Cliff.
That's rich coming from you.
41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:The belief among many that shots came from the front has almost nothing to do with the BDM.
So what? You appear incapable of dealing with the evidence. You going to ever get beyond Pat Speer says Robert Groden says (maybe) that Faye Chism says (maybe) that she was Black Dog Man (maybe)?
41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:Everyone I've ever known who thought shots came from the front, with the possible exception of...you...believed the shooter was either behind the fence or on the South Knoll.
What part of the HSCA photo-analysis or Don Roberdeau's discovery do you not grasp?
41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:In the eyes of these people, pretty much everyone, BDM is a distraction. Heck, the HSCA, which you seem to believe suspected BDM was a shooter, said nothing of the sort.
They said the photo wasn't clear enough -- but they didn't discount the possibility, did they? They describe a very distinct straight line feature which is in no way consistent with a bottle of pop.
41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:As far as Groden and Roberdeau...they thought the shots came from the front, from behind the picket fence. I don't recall either of them saying they believed BDM was a shooter.
So you couldn't be bothered to read his paper on the 2nd Rosemary Willis head snap at Z214. Typical.
-
15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
It's not "opinions, Cliff. You have cited two of the three researchers who told me about Chism's brother and his girlfriend as support for your fantastical idea the BDM was a shooter, when I feel certain these men don't believe this. They told me this after talking to Faye Chism. I think the three men who told me this were Groden. Brownlow and Roberdeau. But I could be mistaken.
Until you can cite Roberdeau and Groden you're just talking smack.
15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:Maybe it was only two of the three.
Maybe you should just stick to the facts.
15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:But if Groden did not tell me this, then I feel fairly certain he does not believe BDM was a shooter, because I have stood by him in his booth and talked to tourists with him, and he has always pointed out the picket fence as the likely location for a shooter. If you can get him to claim otherwise, and that BDM was a shooter, well, I'd be surprised. But not shocked.
Burden of proof is on you. Did Groden write the HSCA photo-analysis? Did Don Roberdeau disavow his 2001 discovery? When you get the answers to those questions get back to us -- otherwise spare us your butt-hurt Pet Theories.
-
Discovery:
Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS;
ZAPRUDER Film Documented .2nd. Head Snap:
West, Ultrafast, 1and Directly Towards
the Grassy Knollhttps://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/01/discovery-close-jfk-assassination.html
by Donald Roberdeau, 2001
On November 21, 2001, I publicly provided the following discovery with respect to Rosemary Willis's Zapruder film documented, clearly seen, ultrafast, second head snap.
Whatever it was that caused the ten-years-old girl's first slowing then stopping and measurably slower head turn reaction from Zapruder film frame # 190 to 213, her first reaction is not the most important Zapruder film documented reaction with respect to Dealey Plaza assassination very close witness, Rosemary Willis.
The most important documented reaction, by far, with respect to Rosemary is what caused and attracted her second Zapruder film documented reaction, that was a much, much faster, most likely impulsive reaction, that Rosemary displayed in an extremely rapid westward head snap that we can see with her head snap concluded with her very suddenly facing a line of sight aligned directly towards Mr. Abraham Zapruder and the grassy knoll picket fence corner location.
In 2001 while researching individual Zapruder film frames between Z-190 and 223, a second extremely fast, Rosemary Willis head snap became evident to me that had gone completely un-noticed and government investigations un-reported by dedicated researchers and "official" investigators since the assassination 38 years prior.
Please examine the ellipse circled Rosemary Willis in the key individual Zapruder frame numbers 214 through 223 between-the-sprocket-holes area, provided for you in the following frames, or, viewable even larger in another followup window, linked here....
This is the exact same grassy knoll picket fence corner location where Rosemary stated to U.S. government assassination investigators that she watched a person who had been located behind a "wall," suddenly and quickly disappear from her view right after she heard a gunshot audible muzzle blast, or, mechanically suppressed-fired "silenced" bullet bow shock wave [1]....
This is the exact same grassy knoll picket fence corner location = where several photographic evidences captured a person positioned in that same specific location in one instant, but, who quickly moved away (or escaped) and disappeared from that very same specific grassy knoll location within seconds (rapidly hiding into a closeby car trunk, or, a closeby station wagon's rear pre-hollowed-out and large hatch-covered compartment?) after the last of the assassins volley’s of shots when President Kennedy's head exploded....
This is the exact same grassy knoll picket fence corner location = where many attack witnesses stated that they heard, at least, one shot fired from....
This is the exact same grassy knoll picket fence corner location = from where attack witnesses maintained that they also observed gun smoke lingering close to....
This is the exact same grassy knoll picket fence corner location = from where attack witnesses smelled gun smoke close to....
This is the exact same grassy knoll picket fence corner location = where, even though witnesses were standing much, much closer to the Depository and even though witnesses were at least 61’ below the Warren Commission-apologists, supposed, “lone-nut” “snipers lair” window....many witnesses, many gunfire experienced witnesses, and many law enforcement professionals experienced in gunfire, also first chose to run towards the grassy knoll....
This is the exact same grassy knoll picket fence corner location = where a U. S. Secret Service Agent documented in writing on 11-22-63 that, instead of from the Depository located several hundred feet to his left and front while filming, Mr. Zapruder stated that a shot did originate from behind Mr. Zapruder [2]........
This is the exact same grassy knoll and parking lot locations = where prior to the assassination and immediately afterward, multiple still-unknown “agents” were encountered by several witnesses, even though all documented assignment location records for all U.S. government and Dallas local law enforcement persons thoroughly document that not even one real “agent” nor police officer was ever pre-JFK-elimination stationed inside Dealey Plaza, nor stationed in nor atop any of its surrounding buildings....
This is the exact same grassy knoll picket fence corner location = where the second, and most recent, Kennedy assassination government investigation scientifically determined to more than a 95% probability that a shot was fired from [3]........
Rosemary’s second head snap reaction directly towards the grassy knoll picket fence location at and after Zapruder film frame Z-214 is an important, very primary and very key consideration that carries infinitely more potent and stronger weight than her, measurably, much slower and leisurely first reaction seen earlier from frames Z-190 to 213. -
36 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
See I don’t really smoke.
You don't?? Good to know. Now I feel free to infuse the rest of them with the finest Hoopa Valley hash oil.
36 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:I just stock the cabana to impress Cliff. He smokes. He called me out! When he realizes those eggs are not cage free oh snap.
A prediction: on April 20, 2024, the DEA will reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to 3 and the Prez race will be in the bag for Biden.
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
BDM would have been in clear view of Zaptuder and Sitzman, and for the three men on the steps should they have looked in that direction after hearing a sound. Are you really pushing that they had a sniper out in public, who would have to run across 30 feet or more to get out of sight?
He could have ducked down a few feet and been out of sight. Rosemary Willis looked in that direction after hearing a sound and stated this "conspicuous"" person "disappeared in an instant".
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:And, if so, why would they have done that? The best angles for a sniper were from behind. Being that close while the limo was passing would make the tracking of their target much much harder, not easier.
And you base this claim on your many years as a sniper? Since the wound in his throat was not consistent with a conventional firearm, an unconventional weapon may have required the shooter to fire close in with the target moving toward them.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:P.S. the HSCA panel looked into BDM at the urging of one of its members, Robert Groden, right?
Who cares? They detected a "very distinct straight-line feature" in "the region of the hands." Rosemary Wilis noted his rapid disappearance. These points of information are inconsistent with your thinking on the matter.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:As I recall, Groden is among those who told me this issue had been resolved, as it was Faye Chism's brother's girlfriend, or wife, I don't remember. In any event, feel free to track down Groden and see if he still believes "BDM" was part of the assassination team. I suspect he does not. But it's Groden. So who knows?
I care less and less about the opinions of "JFK researchers" as time goes by...
-
From HSCA report:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm
II. PRESENCE OF POSSIBLE GUNMAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL
(24) The committee also examined information about the presence of a man near the concrete structure on the grassy knoll near the area where some witnesses said they believed gunfire had originated.
(25) The photographic evidence panel examined photographs make by Phillip Willis of the area of the grassy knoll and concluded that a photograph taken by Willis did show a person standing behind the concrete wall on the knoll.(72) The panel determined that photograph was taken at approximately frame 202 of the Zapruder film, which was after President Kennedy received the neck wound but before the fatal head shot.(73) According to the results of the panel's photographic enhancement and analysis, the figure in the Willis photograph was consistent with that of an adult approximately 5 feet 6 inches to 6 feet in height (74) and wearing dark clothing.(75) The panel also noted that in another photograph by Willis, which was taken after the Presidential limousine had left Dealey Plaza, the figure standing behind the concrete wall had disappeared.(76) The panel concluded that movement by the object was consistent with the
presence of a human being.(77)
(26) The photographic evidence panel also noted that in the first Willis Photograph, which shows the person standing behind the concrete wall, there is visible, near the region of the hands of the person at the wall, "a very distinct straight-line feature," which extends from lower right to upper right.(78) Nevertheless, because of the blur of the object in the photograph, the panel was not able to determine the actual length of the object and could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon.(79)
(27) The committee interviewed Willis' daughter, Rose Mary Willis, on November 8, 1978, at her home in Dallas. Ms. Willis stated that she was present with her father and a sister in the area of the grass section of the plaza at the time of the Presidential motorcade on November 22,1963.(80) Ms. Willis explained that as the President's car approached, she ran alongside almost to the triple underpass. (81)(28) Ms. Willis stated that during that time, she noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous."(82) One was a man near the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening or closing the umbrella than dropping to the ground liked everyone else at the time of the shots.(83) The other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall near the triple underpass.(84) That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."(85) Ms. Willis further described the location of this person as the corner section of the white concrete wall between the area of photographer Abraham Zapruder's right side and the top of the concrete stairway leading up to the center of the grassy knoll.(86)
-
50 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Black Dog Man was not behind the fence.
I didn't say he was. I correctly placed him behind the concrete wall in front of the picket fence.
50 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:That's Badge Man. Black Dog Man can be seen in one of the Willis photos, and also in the Moorman photo,
BDM is seen only in Betzner 3 and Willis 5.
50 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:and is simply a black figure by the short white concrete wall where a soda pop bottle was found
Behind the wall. The soda was found in front of the wall, yes?
50 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:.in clear view of Zapruder's and Sitzman's location. The presumption I believe is that the bottle on the wall was the boyfriend's soda pop bottle, and that the girlfriend dropped her bottle. I think Sitzman thought it was done deliberately, moreover.
She dropped the bottle while she was sitting and then disappeared in an instant?
50 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:While I haven't collected quotes about black dog man, a quick google search shows you that the black dog man figure was right out in the open halfway between Zapruder and Sitzman and the men on the steps.
Factually incorrect. BDM was behind the concrete wall.
50 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:There was simply no way for that person to fire a rifle at Kennedy and not be noticed.
Not all weapons are rifles. All eyes were on the motorcade.
-
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
I believe I heard the story about Chism's brother and his girlfriend from two if not three different researchers. I don't know if I believe it, but they seemed to believe it.
I'll take genuine photographic evidence and witness testimony over Pet Theories any day.
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:As far as "black dog man", the figure is so indistinct I don't think we can tell if it's a man or a woman.
Fair enough.
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:As I sit here right now, I think the image is consistent with a dark-skinned African-American woman dressed all in black's eating her lunch.
She was eating her lunch on top of the concrete wall?
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:If I'm not mistaken Marilyn Sitzman supported this possibility by claiming a black woman broke a bottle on the sidewalk just after the shots.
On the sidewalk?
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:And, come to think of it, I think there's footage of this spilled soft drink somewhere--is it in Darnell's footage? I don't recall. But as I recall there's footage of a soda spill right by where this woman was supposedly sitting.
Again with the sitting?
This doesn't square with the three points of information: a distinct straight-line feature in the region of the hands, a conspicuous person, disappeared in an instant.
Far more consistent with a shooter.
-
31 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
Why not ask the question? What if all presidents since knew something everyone else did not and really had the best interest of the people in not telling? Has anyone on here always told the truth? Always disclosed everything? No? I know Cliff adds water to my booze before he leaves the cabana to make it look like he didn’t drink that much during his writing. It’s a game. I don’t really care as he is doing great with his creation. I just go to Costco and buy more. But the point is you don’t know. Maybe you are better off not knowing.
You might want to stay away from the cigars on the left side of the humidor. They're fake Cubans in more ways than one.
-
6 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Cliff, booze and the cabana? Are you serious about the JFKA?
I don't take Trump seriously about anything but his lust for autocracy
-
6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
One of my earliest "discoveries" if you will was that Tink Thompson had misrepresented the statements of F. Lee Mudd in Six Seconds in Dallas, and that Mudd is most probably the man on the steps by Hudson. As far as the man behind them who immediately takes off and runs back into the train yards, I have heard from several researchers that he was Faye Chism's brother, and that he and his girlfriend at the time--who was sitting behind the short wall, and who people called "black dog man"--had no interest in coming forward, and wanted to be left alone.
Perhaps someone else on this forum has more information... If so, please share...
Black Dog Man was a woman sitting behind the concrete wall?
The HSCA identified “a very distinct straight line feature...in the region of his hands”. Rosemary Willis identified BDM as a “conspicuous person” who happened to “disappear the next instant.” Doesn't sound like a woman sitting behind the wall...
-
Sheep in wolves' clothing don't run in packs -- they move in flocks.
Neutron Activation Analysis of CE399?
Get flocked.
-
38 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:Thank you, Pat, for your detailed clarification of this subject. Paul and Cliff think my posting is irrelevant because it is old history, and the world has moved on. They apparently fail to recognize that the topic may be a new one to members of the Forum who have joined in recent times and to non-members who frequently come to the Forum for information. Your two discourses above are truly an education on the subject. Ever since I joined the Forum 18 years ago, I have been in awe of the extent of your credible knowledge of the assassination of JFK. You are a treasured asset to all.
No Douglas, I never thought the subject was relevant and I'm appalled that new members of the Forum will be lead down yet another meaningless rabbit hole.
Any discussion of anything in regard to the SBT is an abject waste of time, a distraction from the fact that 6.5mm FMJ don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.
-
The mystery to me is why this subject is of any interest whatsoever.
More false mystery rabbit-holery.
-
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
The fact that Harriman and Bundy were against the idea of the assassination being a communist plot proves that they were NOT the instigators of the CIA's plot.
Or it proves that the arrest of Oswald made their plan to blame Castro untenable.
-
Robert, you continue to reinforce the observation that Harriman/Bundy had more power than LBJ over the official US Government position on Lone Nut Oswald.
The same dynamic prevailed years later in regard to Vietnam.
Trump on releasing the JFK records
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
KH: Mr. Varnell, can you please explain why you are wasting our time
That's rich coming from you.
KH: Furthermore, the 8/3/2018 publish date of your article means that it was written prior to the 2020 declassification of Crowdstrike December 2017 deposition by the House Intelligence Committee of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry which revealed that contrary to Crowdstrike's earlier fraudulent representations about having proven that the DNC server had been hacked by "Fancy Bear," CROWDSTRIKE ACTUALLY HAD NEVER HAD ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL OF ANY KIND OF HACK OF THE DNC SERVER
You can lead a pedant to water but you can't make them think.
MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.
MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.