WCC location is unfair to Caruana

There was also the usual media manipulation and dirt, of course, nihil novum sub sole. I think it's doubtful it had a remarkable influence, no matter what the pink-haired dude from CA says.

if Caruana is in the frame of mind he Needs to be in to beat Carlsen then it shouldn't matter to him if they play the championship in Carlsen's living room , he should have tunnel vision on victory and everything else be damned.

 Just so we’re clear, we can take this one at a time.  And don’t deflect with a bunch of red herrings, specifically this. 

 Are you telling me THIS is a false claim? 

a. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor, who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAPADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of"thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that
information prior to joining the Campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the
professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month.

fantasy. your claim amounts to what and how does it negate the forensic evidence? My gawd next you will be churning out some dossier with golden showers.  Give it up, have no no personal dignity? 

tell me what it is about this text that you fail to grasp?

After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/07/new-research-shows-guccifer-2-0-files-were-copied-locally-not-hacked/

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/the-need-for-speed/

America may not win the World Chess Championships but who cares? America won the world series countless times. They won last year and the year before that. They're going to win next year and the year after that. They have never, as a nation, lost a world series.

Ah. So PAPADOPOULOS *admitted* to these charges alongside his attorney, because it’s all a....  Fantasy? 

 And your criteria for believing what you read is that conforms to your worldview. 

Meanwhile, I have an actual admission of guilt signed by the individual and his attorney. 

Conclusion 7. A transfer rate of 23 MB/s is estimated for this initial file collection operation.  This transfer rate can be achieved when files are copied over a LAN or when copying directly from the host computer’s hard drive. This rate is too fast to support the hypothesis that the DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania).

This transfer rate (23 MB/s) is typically seen when copying local data to a fairly slow (USB-2) thumb drive.

To get a sense of where this 23MB/s (23 Mega Bytes per Second) rate falls in the range of supported speeds for various network and media storage technologies, consult the blog entry titled The Need for Speed.  That blog entry describes test results which support the conclusions and observations noted above.  Below, is one table from from that report.

Please explain the transfer speed. Get your witness and his lawyer if you need them, heck get the entire NSA if you need them too.  Who knows you might do better.

You are not getting away with it this time, it has nothing to do with my so called world view.  I am only interested in what can be established empirically.  You will now explain the transfer speed of the data, third time asking.

Well?  Are you saying he pled guilty to charges that are  just a fantasy? 

admitted to what exactly, blackmailing Shillary? hacking the DNC? having emails? how convenient for you. Proves and says nothing.  Its not the first time a rather convenient witness has suddenly appeared with his brief to save a failed narrative.  Still does not explain the forensic computer evidence though does it and neither can you it seems.

see the above post, your witnesses is meaningless, a rather silly what about argument.  I suspect it pointless to ask you to explain the forensic computer evidence either you are incapable or simply wilfully ignorant. Enough time wasted already.

 Getting away with what? Accurately pointing out you have claims written in a story, and I have a signed confession? 

So lets get this PAPADOPOULOS was indicted for lying to the FBI and you want us to believe him now. Hilarious, another EPIC fail!  Sure the sun shines from his posterior, whatever you say.

it was a reference to your FAILURE to address the forensic computer evidence, why wont you do that? To afraid your entire belief system comes crashing down? Man what a mamas boy.

THIS:

__________

a. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor, who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAPADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of"thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that
information prior to joining the Campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the
professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month.

___________

You said it’s a fantasy. I asked you why he would admit and plead guilty to a fantasy. You’re now throwing up more smokescreen.

 The Russians told him they had the stolen emails in April of last year, before the public knew. How do you explain that? 

He was indicted for lying to the FBI.  Tell us why we should believe a single word he says?  What Russians, do you have any names? What oversees professor? Did you make it up? Did he make it up? It sure sounds like it.  Why should we believe your witness who was charged with lying to the FBI?

  I have no way to verify the claims written on those websites. 

You don't know the speed of an internet connection or a USB drive?