Because the evidence is nonsense! It's not proof of what the authors, Patrick Lawrence or William Binney, or anyone else, claim! Their central thesis is, and i

Because the evidence is nonsense! It's not proof of what the authors, Patrick Lawrence or William Binney, or anyone else, claim! Their central thesis is, and it pains me to repeat this: (This is a false claim.) "The DNC files could not have been transferred over the internet because a speed of 23MB/s is impossible." That is demonstrably, laughably false. The fact that on Hacker News we're disputing whether or not it's possible to transfer files over 23MB/s is absurd! OF COURSE IT IS! As for why the timestamps might reflect that speed, there are many possible reasons: * That was the actual speed of the initial transfer/dump from the DNC - whether over the internet or to a USB2 flash drive * The timestamps were planted to provide plausible deniability or disinformation * The timestamps were the result of a program producing files at a rate of 23MB/s, such as: a secondary transfer to a flash drive after the hack occurred, an archival or unarchival process, a compression or encryption process, copying to a network storage server, or an analysis process step that touched each file and averaged 23MB/s. Since there are many possible ways to get to 23MB/s, it's not proof, or even evidence, of what the authors claim.