Thursday 22nd of February 2018

The story of Fancy Bear


The story reads like a spy novel in which none of the characters are clean, few are identified and the origins of the work is still either secret or attributed by default, without ANY proof, to Russia. By this I mean that from early on it seems that the US secret services (?) or someone in the US cyber industry “knew” that “Russia” had infiltrated the DNC in a major breach. So the question is why was not this fully disclosed before now? The main investigation was carried out by SecureWorks. What was the relationship between SecureWorks and the DNC? 

SecureWorks Inc. is a United States-based subsidiary that provides information security services, protecting its customers’ computers, networks and information assets from malicious activity such as cybercrime. The company has approximately 4,400 customers across 61 countries, ranging from Fortune 100 companies to mid-sized businesses in a variety of industries. It became part of Dell in February 2011 and branched off to become a public organization in April 2016. It is still majority-owned by Dell.

What was the relationship between SecureWorks and the DNC? If they had a full working relationship, then SecureWorks did a lousy job at protecting the DNC. If they had no relationship, what is SecureWorks role in this affair? Is SecureWorks paid to investigate the leaks?

One can only remember, like Tony Abbott and his elephant paper-man, the story of a glazier employing thugs to break your windows to manufacture some ensuing business. One can also “pay insurance” to the glazier for not getting the windows smashed. The racket is not new. The Roman and the Greeks were already masters at it. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) are more elegant forms of this “insurance” in reverse. The war on Saddam with his “WMDs” was a crude form of the system — this one concocted from scratch by the CIA secret deception units, using some of Saddam’s fear of appearing naked to Iran. One Gus can only think of the “double-cross” system in the attack on the DNC. But far from me to suggest that SecureWorks is acting unethically here. Someone was to benefit from exposing the double-dealings of the DNC and of Hillary Clinton in particular.

Would the Russians benefit from a Trump victory? Though Putin expressed his preferences, he would have had CONSIDERABLE reservations about Trump becoming President of the United States. He would have known it would have been a difficult choice between Dumbo and Warriorwoman. I expressed this in a dubious cartoon. 

In reality, Putin HAD NOTHING TO GAIN by fiddling with the US elections because at one stage or another, he is too smart not to know that it would be child’s play for any spying agencies such as the formidable CIA to expose the deed. The link would be made. So far this link cannot be made. So was Putin very clever in hiding his personal link to the hacking of the DNC emails? No way. There was nothing for him to gain for pissing off the Americans in which ever way. Revenge? Putin is far more astute and honest than the “evil” guy painted by the Yanks press... 

So who could benefit from hacking the DNC emails? Trump? He would have no clues about anything to do with cyber stuff. He is all thumbs and even his own Twitter account was off the air for ten minutes... 

The business of cyber spying attack has grown far from the breaking of the Enigma machine coding system, but the processes are the same, though far more complicated. Double keys are still not secure. Banks change their encoding every 30 seconds and a good hacker can break their codes in 29 seconds. Your cash is secure because there are sniffer cyber dogs that chase hackers at the speed of light. That the DNC was opened to hacking, was hacked and that there is a “timeline” going back to 2015, shows that someone was not awake or that there was an insider feeding the keys by encoded messages, or their own emails could be hacked like butter.

Does SecureWorks perform analysis of links for no financial gains? Would they alert prospective clients that blah blah blah...? 

We know that in the world of Cyber warfare, the simple guy next door can use a complex cascade of URLs and webhosts that make him look like he is operating from Russia or Roumania or planet Mars. This site (YD) for example is hosted in the US, but operated from Aussieland. Cascades would be a piece of cake for any American versed into encoding, like a certain whatizname can import an arsenal of weapons into a hotel room in Las Vegas. Many people in the US are crazy. Or devious.

Some of these work in high places. If you listen to some editorials, Trump is one of them. But he is too dumb to set up a spying session on his own dicky ramblings, let alone on the DNC and Hillary Clinton. 

So who could benefit from the exposure of the shenanigans of Hillary? Former Democratic National Committee interim Chair Donna Brazile has accused Hillary Clinton of rigging the 2016 democratic primary in order to ensure the presidential nomination. Hoopla... No not her, nor Bernie. 

More than the “Russian” hypothesis, three Aussies DID sink Hillary. Here we must give credit to Rupert Murdoch, Julian Assange and John Pilger. No conspiracy between them (some of them HATE each other), just the circumstances of what they see and expose. John Pilger exposed time and time again the full responsibility of Hillary-the-warmonger in the destruction of Libya and other countries. Assange published the emails gathered by whomever, but not the Russians, according to him. He knows who did the deed, but far from him to reveal his sources. I trust Assange to tell the truth on the non-Russian (Kremlin) origins of the leaks. Rupert Murdoch anointed Trump early when every other media organisation was supporting the golden girl Hillary. “Our first woman president”. Murdoch ran by presenting Trump as a flawed character who could shine from time to time while he (his journos of course) painted hillary as a bipolar, double-dealing “clever” woman. His clever ways was to encourage voters to go for the least smelly of the candidates, pointing out that Hillary was foul. 

So who could benefit from a Clinton defeat? The Russians? Sure but not to the extend as to fiddle in the election in ways that could be exposed easily. For the Russians (Putin), the US election would have been one of “don’t touch” thingy despite the USA having interfered in Ukraine in a big way. Putin is a patient man, though he is getting older, he still has a sharp youthful intellect. He may have know that some fiddles were happening with Clinton’s emails, as  “his” Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation or SVR RF, would have known. So would have the CIA. The CIA would know who the REAL characters are but talking about “the Russians” WITHOUT PROOFS, suits the narrative of blaming Putin for yet another thing. 

Were there people in the establishment, the “Deep State” that did not want another four years ± possibly eight years, of Democrat rules in the White House? Was the DNC secretly encouraged by the establishment to manipulate the DNC finances and purpose to block the surge of Bernie Sanders, then expose the deeds in order to sink Hillary? 

One has to remember, how egos can be manipulated by remote control. In Australia, when Julia Gillard was doing the best she could, the establishment with the help of Rupert Murdoch, encouraged division in the Labor Party by painting Rudd as a saint and Julia as a witch, while keeping its preferred looney, Tony Abbott, not far behind or in front. When Kevin Rudd took over from Julia, the Murdoch press kicked him in the nuts and promoted Tony Abbott as Jesus Christ the saviour who would destroy the gains made by mitigating “global warming” by declaring “global warming is crap” and destroying that tax on carbon. 

Could we look no further than the DENIALISTS of climate change for the exposure of Clinton’s emails? Business is business. Clinton was in favour of the sciences despite being a looney warmonger. There is more money to be made by denialism, burning coal, uranium and by demonising Russia than by doing more wars in a shrinking world, despite reconstruction, corruption and weapon manufacturing. These can happen anyway even with relative peace, as threats can encourage the stock market to manufacture more bullets, without having to use them... One has to also remember that Rupert Murdoch will do anything to demonise the sciences of global warming. He is a FULL-BLOWN DENIALIST and he will support religious dudes to pump out religious information to make religious people think that "global warming" is a Russian plot as well...

There is no smoke in Russia in regard to the Clinton email leaks, but plenty of purposes in the USA... 


Gus Leonisky

Your local cyber idiot

yet another clue...


Former Democratic National Committee interim Chair Donna Brazile has accused Hillary Clinton of rigging the 2016 democratic primary in order to ensure the presidential nomination. And according to US journalist and author Lowell Ponte, this development may indicate an attempt to save the party from Hillary’s ambitions.

Sputnik: Why has Clinton’s former supporter now turned her back on her of all times?

Lowell Ponte: Well I don’t know Donna Brazile personally, but as the interim head of the Democratic Party she doubtless sees Clinton as wrecking the party’s reputation and like any other leading democrat wants Hillary to go away. Frankly, Hillary is a megalomaniac who feels entitled to be president by hook and crook, as we say in America. She, after all, went after the American presidency twice and both times she lost to political newcomers:  to Barack Obama and Donald Trump. She’s cold, she’s imperious, she’s arrogant and she’s dragging down the Democratic Party which Donna Brazile is trying to save.

Read more :


One has to remember that Lowell Ponte is a FULL-BLOWN DENIALIST. He even wrote a book about the "cooling" of the planet.


Analysis of Lowell Ponte: The Cooling

For many years I have been tantalised by quotes from the semi-mythical book "the cooling" by Lowell Ponte. Now (thanks to the zShops second-hand booksellers program, a part of amazon) I got hold of a copy, shipped across the atlantic in little more than a week, for only $10.

The book is "popular science": as it says (remarkably) in the preface by Reid Bryson: "...There are very few pages that, as a scientist, I could accept without questions of accuracy, of precision, or of balance..." and any claim to utility it may have would have to come from bringing interesting ideas to the general public (of the time).

In this analysis, I'm interested in whether the book accurately reports the state of science as then known and what issues it chooses to focus on. Its also interesting to see what uses other people put it to, now. Its often cited in the "but 20 years ago people were predicting cooling" type pages.

Lets just prove that, shall I?

The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976 (from

What global warming proponents don't want people to remember is that just 20 years ago, they were predicting that global COOLING would destroy the world. Lowell Ponte wrote The Cooling on the subject in 1976 (which incidentally, can be found in Hodges Library). The theory then said that particulates reflected sunlight into space, thus preventing heat from reaching the earth. Predictions of a new ice age abounded. Then the earth started warming up. Whoops. (from

Book Structure

Foreward (by US Senator Claiborne Pell)

Preface (by Professor Reid A Bryson)

Part I: Forces that change climate (3-76)

Reports of decrease is sunshine / aerosol & dust / ice-albedo feedback

Cooling interrupts predicted warming / "GH" effect & CO2 / CFCs and ozone / Heat pollution / Warming vs Cooling

Some dodgy climatology / Why cooling might be accompanied by warming

Milankovitch-y stuff / Sunspots / Gravity weakening!?! / "Summary"

Part II: The human side of climate (77-176)

part III: Options in a changing climate (177-246)

Appendices: (247-296)

Back-cover quotes from Pell, and Stephen Schneider. Inside quote from Emilliani.

The "science" of the book in contained within part I, which I've read moderately carefully; I've skimmed parts II and III.

Ponte gets some points for noting (p13) that the "greenhouse effect" is misnamed. But that is the high point of his science.

Evidence for Pontes inability to tell sense from nonsense (or at least to check speculative results) is his assertion (p70) that gravity is weakening in the universe, and that this is proved by the moon moving away from the earth at 4 cm/year.

The first chapter starts off with stuff about decreases in sunshine (from few measurements from industrialised areas; I'd guess that was consistent with aerosols) then notes the Rasool and Schneider 1971 science paper (but only in passing. See main page for more on R+S). Ponte asserts that R+W estimate that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next fifty years. I think this is wrong: R+S actually say it is still difficult to predict the rate at which global background opacity of the atmosphere will increase with increasing particulate injection by human activities. However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years.... I think they are reporting other peoples estimates to use as feed for their model, not making their own.


Read more:



All three leak-branded sites have distanced themselves from Moscow. DCLeaks claimed to be run by American hacktivists. WikiLeaks said Russia was not its source. Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be Romanian.

read more:


be alarmed...

The biggest political issue facing humanity isn’t football — nor Hollywood male stars having raped female actresses.

Global warming is the biggest political issue facing humanity, but it has become a nasty difficult political football. 

So far not enough of us have understood the implications of global warming on this little planet. Since its inception, this site (YD) has exposed the oncoming dangers of warming and the inertia of politics in front of this massive phenomenon, which even scientists have problem to explain properly. It’s not because scientists don’t understand the problem. It’s because the only viable solutions demand mega shift in our human operations, with immediacy like an instant volte-face. Solutions are drastic and few politicians are prepared to even talk about a small portion of them, beyond the windmills and solar panels. We talk of de-carbonising our economies, but considering our economies rely 95 per cent on burning fossil fuels, the problems are gigantic. Furthermore, there are doubters and denialists — most of whom profit from burning carbon — who do everything they can to prevent any knowledge nor any solution to this, so far benign, developing nightmare. I call it a nightmare because the prospects are not good.

The record and the observations are simple enough: despite its small proportion in the gaseous mix, CO2 is the main warming gas that regulates the major variability of the temperature of the atmosphere. Less of it and the planet goes into a glacial event. More of it and the planet warms up. The most recent natural setting which so far has been studied for the last 3 million years is shown to be 180 parts per million for cooler periods and 300 parts per million for warmer periods. For this difference of 120 parts per million of CO2, the resultant difference of temperature has been between 8 and 10 degrees Celsius. Some people with bullshit arts degrees will dispute these figures but the science is very solid on these interpretation of the record and observations.

The problem, which should be obvious to all of us is that our very comfortable industrialisation has released more than 100 parts per million of EXTRA CO2 in the atmosphere. Natural conditions cannot absorb this EXTRA CO2. The scientific consensus is that this EXTRA CO2 is going to warm up the atmosphere beyond “natural conditions” — beyond comfort. But the process is “slow” in human history scale and “super-fast” in geological timelimes. We have already scientifically witnessed some variations, though for us, mere mortals, we cannot feel any “global warming” changes. Should we be able to feel these changes, as I always say, we would cook within five years. Should similar changes happen in a termite mound, the whole nest would perish. 

The extend of the oncoming problem of global warming is practically unknown, but bracketable by scientific deduction and study of previous events under similar conditions, going back 120 million years when sea level went higher than 75 metres above present — as well as doing many experiments of plants and soil behaviour in warming conditions. Major changes in crops, heatwaves, storms, sea level rise are on the cards. Extinction, coral bleaching and many other problem will rise. Coupled with our other activities, such as the use of insecticides and pesticides, we have further modified the reactivity of nature towards a degradation of our artificially created comfort zone, which we will try to maintain with more destructive drastic ways. 

Difference of potential. 

Most of the atmospheric traumas (storms, etc), stem from the difference of potential in energy contained in local, regional and climate banding areas. For example, November in Sydney is rather cold at the moment. The weather is crap. Nothing new. As the Antarctica loses ice, as the atmosphere carry the cold eddies and upper atmospheric rolls, from down south, certain parts such as Sydney will be dumped upon in this uncertain season between winter and summer. In Europe this would be called Spring, but here, in subtropical Sydney, it’s a mix of a hot day (up to 38 degree Celsius) and a cool day (below 18 degrees Celsius) the next. People suffer from various “shocks” from flu to hay-fever as many native plants are in bloom, while others have already gone into seeding and one does not know “what to wear”, including carrying the ubiquitous 40 per cent of an umbrella. But should the heat be evenly distributed, there would not be much disturbance in the atmosphere. Either a blanket of clouds or a clear sky depending on the humidity and the atmospheric pressure, influenced by the waves of high and low pressure. As mentioned before, should there be a cool air layer entering a warmer high cloud, this could suddenly lead to destructing downbursts. Thus a warmed atmosphere does not mean more storms but a more complex interaction between the layers and the various regions of the atmosphere. Some extreme scientists have calculated that under the new CO2 regimen, these layers and regions will get totally upshitcreek by 2045. My own calculation was 2032, based on estimates I made in 1994.

Evaporation (lake, sea) can induce a cooling spot in a hot region. In tropical latitude above 10 degrees this often lead to the formation of hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones which are the same thing. They are big eddies spurred by the Coriolis effect due to the rotation of the planet on its axis. The USA got their fair share of such storms this year and the cost of fixing things is getting beyond what is needed in cash to mitigate some of the “global warming”. But as usual we prefer fixing things rather than preventing disasters....

Elasticity of processes (feedback mechanisms) hide the REAL strength of the problem of global warming. A rubber band can be stretched without breaking until... The atmosphere is a stretchable substance with cool and warm regions rolling specifically into each other at flexible junctures (often marked by jet steams). The unpredictability of this stretchability we call the weather is unrelated to the predictability of global warming. But global warming will interfere with the unpredictability and power of the weather.

We value our freedom to do whatever. Most of this is an illusion as we are mostly dependant of religious and political decrees that dictate our behaviour. But on an industrial scale, we are free to exploit the resources of the planet till we die because this freedom is enshrined in the old godly stupid books written in times when plagues of frogs and of locusts were signs of misbehaviour. 

Fully accepting our responsibility for global warming would show that we have been careless people. So we hum and err about it because because... Our political systems are seriously inadequate to deal with this problem...

So, the last American presidential election was a choice between a puppet of the denialists and a puppet of the warmongers... Please let me cry. Urgency and timing was the key. In full respect of the situation, it had nothing to do between a sneaky female and a lame male. It is my simpletonian view that the establishment (the “Deep State”) would have known trump could become a puppet of warmongering easier than Clinton could become a puppet of denialism. Thus IT WAS A NO-BRAINER. Trump HAD TO WIN. 

Global warming is an unmitigated scientific issue. Warmongering is a philosophical issue. Both can be played out politically. This is where our politicians can bullshit with expertise on bullshit with bullshit, and we see nothing of the legerdemain...

The Hillary dump was one of these hand tricks, skilfully executed with the help of non-willing participant as well as a bunch of ‘deplorables” in just enough number to tip the scales... Add a bit of salt in the wound and voila...

Someone in a back room was doing stats so Trump could not lose... NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUSSIANS.

Gus Leonisky

Your local global warming alarmist...