Posted on 03/12/2024 6:24:22 AM PDT by joesbucks
That’s just wrong, but we will have to agree to disagree, if Lindell offers a challenge to prove him wrong, gives some data to engineers that is bogus, he’s committed a fraud by any legal means you want.
To this day, Lindell has never produced any provable data, he was dealing with a con artist, even one of his own engineers said the data was bogus, two courts said he had to pay.
The only people still saying the opposite is you and Lindell.
Usually you cannot bring evidence to the Supreme Court. You bring it at the lower court, and if necessary, the SCOTUS rules on whether the lower court got it right.
https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/blxtract
blxtract Read Me
Mike Lindell is a rich American businessman who claims he has "absolute proof" the Nov 2020 election was hacked -- proof in the form of "pcaps" on the days around the election from all over the U.S. On August 10 2021 he held a "cyber-symposium" where he invited "cyber-experts" to review the pcaps.
He didn't provide pcaps. Instead, he provided almost 300 gigabytes of .bin files in a format known as "BLX" created by a guy named Dennis Montgomery.
The data included the source for a program called CExtractor that would extract data from that file format. But, this code is written in a deliberately obfuscatory manner that is very hard to read.
This project rewrites that code in a simpler manner that programmers can read. I'm in the process of removing or changing things so that it continues to produce the identical output, but in a more readable way.
The original 300 gigabytes of data is available at this BitTorrent magnet link:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:39a9590de21e77687fdf7eacee4dd743f2683d72&dn=cyber-symposium&tr=udp://9.rarbg.me:2780/announceThe code is in Microsoft's C++/CLR language.
Specification
The extract program works like the following.
The data has been encoded with ROT3, meaning they've been rotated 3 positions to the left, meaning the number 3 has been subtracted from each character.
The data we are able to extract accounts for less than 1% of size of the files we have, like rnx-000001.bin. The remainder of the files consist of either random junk data or encrypted records that we cannot extract without the key.
The code does 4 passes over the file looking for records embedded in the file. Each pass starts at the beginning of the file proceeding to the end.
A pass looks for a start-of-record pattern, a different pass for each pattern. The list of start-of-record delimiters are:
- "xT1y22"
- "tx16!!"
- "eTreppid1!"
- "shaitan123"
Note that these are the plain-text patterns. When scanning the file for the pattern, you must either rotate-left each incoming byte, or rotate-right the bytes of the patterns. In other words, the actual start-of-record patterns in the raw file look like:
- "{W4|55"
- "w{49$$"
- "hWuhsslg4$"
- "vkdlwdq456"
When a delimiter is found, it then reads the next 1024 bytes of the file that follow the start-of-record.
ROT3 (subtract 3 from each byte) is then applied to all 1024 bytes, meaning, the value 3 is subtracted from all the bytes.
It then looks for an end-of-record delimiter of ".dev@7964" and truncates the record at that point (removing the end delimiter and everything after). This is the plain-text delimiter that matches after ROT3 conversion of the data.
The remaining record is then written to the output. Each record is written with an additional CRLF ("\r\n") at the end of the line.
It would be 4 times faster to do a single pass searching for all 4 delimiters at once, instead of 4 separate passes. However, this would produce data in a different order.
YCombinator comment by Robert Graham:
The ~20 cyberexperts in attendance were invited due to their support of Republican causes. The two independnets were myself, invited through Lead Stories (a fact-checking firm) and Harri Hursti, invited through CNN. Lindell was so certain of himself that he invited his fact-checking adversaries CNN and LeadStories to come see for themselves.
Lindell didn't give us pcaps. I think he honestly believed he had them. It's just that he's non-technical, and has no ability to judge whether somebody is technical enough to judge whether he has pcaps.
Actual Pcap files are readable by any number of software tools out there, I’ve only used Wireshark, I know of others but have never personally used them.
On the legality of the situation, if you offer 5 million dollars in a challenge to computer experts to prove you wrong and state here is the file to use and the file given is not a Pcap file and is garbage, then Lindell has likely committed fraud and eventually will be forced to pay the money.
Lindell was duped by a con artist and did not do his due diligence, he should have hired real computer experts to look at the data and given him an honest answer, instead he wanted to believe so badly he went forward with bad information and now is so far into a bad situation he can’t back down.
If you stripped all the header information off of it, (which by the way is how it comes into a Windows application in my experience) what would it look like other than a collection of bytes?
And how does he know it was "created" by Dennis Montgomery? Did someone confess?
The data has been encoded with ROT3, meaning they've been rotated 3 positions to the left, meaning the number 3 has been subtracted from each character.
This is incorrect. Rotating a number 3 places to the left does not subtract 3, it multiplies the number by 8.
rotate-left-three times. 00000001 <<< becomes 00001000. A 1 becomes an 8.
That statement above mine makes no sense. I couldn't even find a reference to "Rot3" in a search. It came back "Rot13". I thought it must have been a typo, and instead he meant "Rot13", but then you read what it actually says, and he says he's rotating 3 positions to the left, not 13.
The remainder of the files consist of either random junk data or encrypted records that we cannot extract without the key.
Encrypted or not, if you didn't understand how an application was using the data, you wouldn't be able to make any sense of it.
Anyone else out there that has written applications using data transfers through networks?
And from my point of view you are denying the obvious from not just me but most everyone else in this thread
I am not denying the obvious, I am pointing out that Mr Zeidman did *NOT* prove his case. Whether that file comes from Dennis Montgomery or voting machines streaming packets, Mr. Zeidman has only proven he can't decipher it.
He has not met the legal requirement of the contest in my opinion.
Now if he *CAN* prove that the file was random data created by Dennis Montgomery, then that is proving what it *IS*.
He alleges such, but does he have proof that this is true?
Allegations aren't proof. Hearsay claims are not proof. A confession from Dennis Montgomery would be proof, but I don't think he has that, does he?
I'm taking a lawyer's position on this. The man did not prove what he claims to have proven, therefore he is not entitled to the money. The difference between me and the idiot arbitrator and idiot judges is that *I* know something about computer science and how packets are sent and received and processed by software, and I know this because I have *WRITTEN* software that does this sort of thing.
So I am not denying the obvious. Your "obvious" thing is irrelevant to the only significant point, which is "did this guy prove his claim?"
And the answer is "no."
Denying the obvious is a Federal Court appointed Mediator and Federal Judge both ruled his favor, our opinions mean nothing in terms of Federal Court decisions, you may not like or agree with the decisions but they hold the rule of law denying that is denying the obvious
About which I do not give the slightest respect. I have spent a lifetime watching idiot judges making stupid rulings, and I do not have to have an idiot judge think for me, I can think for myself.
You are denying reality if you think a Judge declaring something, makes it true.
The Judge doesn't understand the topic and is simply parroting what "experts" are telling him.
In this case it does not matter what either of us think, it only matters what the Federal Courts decide and so far Lindell is on the losing side, if he were smart, he would cut his loses and offer a settlement without admitting any guilt, otherwise he’s going to end up spending more than the 5 million he’s eventually going to pay the guy.
Roe v Wade, Wickard v Filburn, Plessey v Ferguson.
Courts have power, not a monopoly on TRUTH.
Your argument is that we should simply accept courts abusing their power, and I reject that argument.
Even supposedly wrong decisions have to be followed until the court reverses itself and I think we both agree Lindell’s case is remotely on the same level as the two listed, Lindell is going to end up paying more than the 5 million when legal fees are considered.
He won’t settle because it would blow a giant hole in his crazy notion the voting machines were hacked by Chinese hackers and that he was taken advantage of by a con man
Dennis Mitchell may have been a rascal, but he wouldn’t do something like this.
And I don't know if some voting machines were hacked by China or not, but i've seen plenty of other evidence to indicate China was heavily involved in trying to steal the election from Trump.
Therefore, it would not surprise me if China hacked voting machines, (or more likely, just used the software the manufacturer built into them) to manipulate the results.
So, Lindell and you will end up spending 10 million on paying the contest fee and legal fees for a fraud. You have completely discounted the guy who sold Lindell the data has history of fraud, yet it’s possible this time it’s true.
PT Barnum was right.
I forget. When did that get proven?
So far as I know, it's a claim.
Even if it's true, it doesn't prove that the data isn't real data, unless you have some sort of confession, documentary evidence, or witness to the fraud.
I think you would rather have me sitting on your jury instead of yourself. I'm skeptical, and you don't seem to be. You just seem to accept stuff people tell you.
A Leonard doesn’t change his spots as the saying goes this guy was selling fantasy back after 9/11 and multiple people turned him down this time which says a lot but I guess to certain people that means nothing
What that man has done in the past does not prove that he created a file full of fake data.
If you have proof the data is fake, put it out there. Saying "this guy does stuff like this." is not proof.
This message is #99. You can have the next page all to yourself.
He sold fake technology in the past multiple times but some how this time he’s telling the truth
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.