Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Re: "Proof" that the computer hacks were internal rather than external
If the site in question had a higher degree of journalistic integrity or skills, they would have done their own analysis, done some secondary investigation, or at least stuck to sources that had a better-known track record than "Some guy who has a word press site". However, your assumption that "This anonymous guy with a word press site must be correct because you have access to the original data" is foolish reasoning.
Ummm... go back and look at my post. Should be pretty obvious I did go through and look at the original analysis. (Points 3 and 4 show why the analysis is jumping to a premature and probably incorrect conclusion.)In case you failed to find the analysis, here's the direct link.Let me get this straight....
1) Some web site that most people have probably never heard of,
2) quotes an individual who's name is not released (just noted as "The Forensicator"... I thought Trump was supposed to be against "anonymous sources")
3) who is basing the analysis on file timestamps (something that can easily be messed up, if files are copied/repacked/regenerated on computers with incorrect clock settings)
4) and who's analysis contains many statements about possibilities and how things COULD have been done (i.e. they produce no strong proof but only some vague guesses)
And you consider that to be some sort of proof that there was no Russian hacking.
Not everyone is gong to have a technical background and/or rational thinking skills to understand and/or debunk the article. (I did, that's where I addressed the issue in points 3 and 4 above).If you know the website or the real name of the analyst is obviously completely irrelevant.
If the site in question had a higher degree of journalistic integrity or skills, they would have done their own analysis, done some secondary investigation, or at least stuck to sources that had a better-known track record than "Some guy who has a word press site". However, your assumption that "This anonymous guy with a word press site must be correct because you have access to the original data" is foolish reasoning.

