It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks Is Once More Using Murdered Seth Rich To Play Games

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Me asking you to explain Seth Rich's death would be like how you just asked me to explain what's going on with Wikileak's like you just did.

Neither of us actually know.

So quit pretending like you do.

My "derailing", well you words did strike me as being riddled with player haterology. But I felt compelled to add a little bit of 'the lighter side' to your affair. How I could not also speak towards the interesting cinematic twist on all this tale. While every good story needs a love interest, after all.


PS: Your obsession with taking down Wikileaks (the best outfit there is really at giving us hope of forcing governments to be honest) is rather disturbing. Like anti-patriotic in terms of humanity over corruption.
edit on 8-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I have no answer to your questions. I think the author was seeing the discrepancies and investigating. I have heard multiple times that G 2.O didn't know what he was doing or bogus with name calling but left it alone because I had no clue.

I posted this thread from someone in the underground investigating various groups including Guccifer 2.0 and he concluded the original Guccifer was a group and only the leader was arrested...since original Guccifer didn't protest, 2.0 was probably the group

At the bottom of Adam Carter's article he requests the author of calling himself Commander X to contact him

So either way nothing is definitive except that 2.0 has been in question a long time.

As for the girl...maybe a honeypot? She did send the screen capture to Carter.

Shortly after Wikileaks posted the DM's they put this tweet on their page

The more info you have the easier to make a determination. You are smarter than I as are many here.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
3. Perhaps most importantly, why is Wikileaks coyly tweeting this? If Seth Rich was the source, why not come out and say it? What's with the passive-aggressive insuations?


Because a professional information broker never reveals their sources. If they did it would mean not being able to acquire new sources.

"But he's dead" isn't an excuse either. Revealing a source could impact the source's friends and family.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454




It leads me back to wondering why the DNC would hire a 3rd party to look into the hacking instead of allowing the FBI to look.


You mean CrowdStrike...run by anti-Russian, Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch, whom recently had to retract and revise his report about Russian hacking.

Comey just accepted CS's biased report of Russian hacking of the DNC...but that is to be expected, since the DNC forbade the FBI's examining of it's servers.

Why?
IMO, the DNC didn't want to have it's anti-Bernie crusade fully exposed...and wanted to hide what it already knew---that the DNC hack was an 'inside' job...and not the Russians at all.



"Something Stinks Here" - CrowdStrike Revises, Retracts Parts Of Explosive Russian Hacking Report

www.zerohedge.com...
edit on 8-4-2017 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2017 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Playboy™ bunny; author of erotica and a trademarked 'sex name' ? Let Me think why some guy would tell stories... hmmm, let me think.. Oh, and will play phone-games while You knock one off.. Jeez, I don't know..



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Wardaddy454


I wonder who Warren Flood is, and how Gucci 2.0 was able to modify the metadata only 30 minutes after he created it.


There's no way of knowing if that's even the case. If you assume that the metadata was deliberately altered, how can you trust that it was done 30 minutes after the creation?


Based on everything I've seen from the wiki-links, it seems they are asserting that Gucci 2.0 may be a creation of the DNC or Clinton campaign in order to discredit the DNC leaks, and later build upon the Russian narrative. It leads me back to wondering why the DNC would hire a 3rd party to look into the hacking instead of allowing the FBI to look.


And why would this DNC creation csex an playmate from the 80s, in character claim that it wasn't a hacker but rather the receiver of leaks and then claim that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking?

How does that make any sense?


I do like how you create a post but decide to not dig deeper. Bias much? Or are you afraid of what you might find?


I like how you hypocritically talk smack.



I'm just putting it out there.

Wikileaks was "good", when they worked against Bush.
Now Wikileaks is "bad" because they worked against the DNC/Clinton.

It's quite possible Seth Rich was murdered for being a leaker, yet here we are discussing whether Wikileaks is trying to "play games" or "muddy waters" when they seem to be about the only ones trying to figure out why he was murdered.


Also, pot meet kettle.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
originally posted by: theantediluvian


wow, u r making me breath harder" "ur soul's so pure and unspoiled it beckons me



so, send me another private picture of yours if u please, it'll help me relax



his name is seth, he was my whistleblower


Kinda puts a whole new perspective on "whistleblower", don't it?



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Me asking you to explain Seth Rich's death would be like how you just asked me to explain what's going on with Wikileak's like you just did.


I didn't ask you to explain Seth Rich's death, I asked you if the DM exchanges make sense if one assumes that Guccifer 2.0 was actually working for the Clinton campaign (or DNC).


My "derailing", well you words did strike me as being riddled with player haterology. But I felt compelled to add a little bit of 'the lighter side' to your affair. How I could not also speak towards the interesting cinematic twist on all this tale. While every good story needs a love interest, after all.


It seems to me like you're just avoiding addressing holes in the WikiLeaks plot because if you really considered what I was saying, you'd have to admit that Assange isn't the savior you want him to be!



PS: Your obsession with taking down Wikileaks (the best outfit there is really at giving us hope of forcing governments to be honest) is rather disturbing. Like anti-patriotic in terms of humanity over corruption.


Lmao. Really? Of all people, you who will post multiple 10+ post OPs about Clinton/DNC/Podestas in a single day, are referring to my "obsession" because I've posted a handful of WL-related threads since last summer? That's just silly.

As far as Assange and WL goes, in theory I like the idea of WL just fine but not the way it's setup and not with Assange at the helm. He's got unilateral control, singular editorial discretion, no transparency and he's appointed himself to meddle in geopolitics.

Everyone who faces persecution isn't a messiah. Being falsely accused of sexual assault doesn't make him a "good guy." In a lot of scenarios there are no good actors, just folks with their own competing agendas. And really? Humanity over corruption? He's been waging a years long anti-US campaign.

Imagine a scenario where law enforcement exclusively policed say... oh I dunno... white people. A police force motivated by a desire to see white people in prison that focused all of its efforts on white criminals and ignored crimes committed by criminals of every other race. Would you applaud them for simply removing the competition for other criminals?

I don't think you would. In fact, if you have never noticed, even when I nail Trump or somebody else dead to rights, I get complaints about how I don't dedicate equal time posting about Clinton, didn't put the same effort into criticizing Obama, etc. Yet when it comes to understanding the fundamental problem with WL as an organization that clearly picks sides, everyone pretends that it's a difficult concept to grasp and goes with "how can any exposure of corruption be bad?"



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Wikileaks has been taken over and 'turned."



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT


You mean CrowdStrike...run by anti-Russian, Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch, whom recently had to retract and revise his report about Russian hacking.


You're just a fountain of misinformation. Dmitri Alperovitch isn't Ukrainian. He was born in Moscow, to his Russian parents. His family moved to the US when he was 14-15. Look it up. His father's name is Michael Alperovitch.

What is missing from the VOA article and of course the ZH post based on it, is that CrowdStrike wasn't the only company to uncover the X-Agent implant in poprd30.apk, at the behest of Jeffrey Carr (who seems to have a thing for Alperovitch), Crysys examined the .apk and confirmed the existence of the malware.

The apps author denies it but what else would you expect?

Where CrowdStrike went wrong is sourcing the statistics to (ironically enough) interpretations of IISS data from a pro-Russian website rather than obtaining the data directly from IISS. This led to them citing faulty statistics on howizter losses which is bad but hardly the scandal it's been made out to be by some.


Comey just accepted CS's biased report of Russian hacking of the DNC...but that is to be expected, since the DNC forbade the FBI's examining of it's servers.


Again, this is wrong. The FBI suspected that the DNC was being hacked way before the DNC did. There was corroborating forensic evidence of the hack that wasn't from the DNC systems, wasn't collected by CrowdStrike and was made public by 3rd parties such as Dell SecureWorks and ThreatConnect.

According to the DNC, they were never asked to provide access to the servers. According to the FBI, they asked and the DNC declined. Who knows who is telling the truth and whatever the case may be, what the motivation was. It could be that the DNC did deny access to the FBI because they put more faith in CrowdStrike. It could be that they were afraid the FBI would find something they didn't want found.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


Kinda puts a whole new perspective on "whistleblower", don't it?


Lmao.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Truth is stranger than fiction. That is why there is so little truth and so much fiction.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Great thread, Ante...

And now I'm more confused and befuddled than ever



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: theantediluvian
So let's get this straight: "Guccifer 2.0" (who has always maintained that the the DNC was hacked, by "him") posted to a WP blog, tweeted to the world and corresponded with multiple journalists — without ever bringing up the murdered Seth Rich — and then allegedly confessed this bombshell to a woman who calls herself a "Bond Girl" because she was "Girl in Flower Shop" in For Your Eyes Only?

Give me a break.


Quit being a player hater and take a break. It's on me.


The screen name of the thread creator is right next to the thread title on the contents page.
You know what kind of threads Antediluvian creates. Instead of telling him to not make a thread you don't like you might consider a better solution. One where he gets to create the threads he wants and you to not be offended by them. Simply don't click on his threads.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You didnt get how I was making an comparison with that? You've got it all figured out from your ivory computer tower, okay, then set the record straight on who killed Seth Rich and why! See how that works? Maybe it was just the "knockout game" but with a gun? That he of all people happened to be gunned down without reason, police without a single lead or motive, makes more sense than whatever this "game" wikileaks is playing?

Actually, the day you're referring to I had spent the entire weekend preparing that series to be released that day. I had planned it for a month. And Monday before election day I released each part about every 50 minutes.

Why? I was hell bent on doing my part to stop the most ruthlessly evil creature that ever tried to STEAL the POTUS. A bonafide war criminal, whom deployed Al Freakign Qaeda into Syria to blow upt eh government, got her wish, and caused the deaths of over 400,000 people. Amongst many other wicked sins (that we know about). That Syria topic one which I've covered across numerous in depth posts, all of which you've conveniently avoided.

All the while you're so busy doing what?

Oh! Defending the DNC tabloid yellow journalism Tom Clancy wannabe narrative.

FACT: American Imperialism is the most diabolical force on planet earth.

With the added irony that "we're" supposed to be built as the most open society, what in the world is WIkileaks doing covering so much dirty about American Imperialist affairs?

Those "Anti-American" bastards!

You know who you sound like? David Horowitz!

You might consider for your avatar there draping on your fish tank character an imperial fashioned cloak, from Star Wars, because you're playing your part.



How about you send the IC emails telling them to post the dirty documents they have gathered from all the other corrupt governments in the world (which is pretty much all of them), so that Assange will post them up too. They refuse to play hiw game, because they demand owning the monopoly over that as well as every other facet of human affairs (such as your perceptions), well that's on them. Not me. Not Wikileaks. Not etc.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

@theantediluvian

Heya, I'm Adam Carter... if you wanted answers you could just ask directly, it's not like it's difficult for people to contact me.

1. Regarding DCLeaks/APT28/Guccifer 2.0 conflation - I've written an article covering that topic at g-2.space... which also exposes a story the G2 operation probably would rather you didn't see (from DataBreaches.net - where they tried and failed to create a DCLeaks-Guccifer2 attribution through an interesting but botched theatrical performance)

2. I do not put as much weight into the metadata as you have implied to others here - I don't even need the name/timestamp metadata to show that Guccifer 2.0 was a fraud and was trying to frame Russia. You can learn about this from the RSID data that I've covered in an article at: g-2.space... and that tvor_22 covered in his Gilded Guccifer article.

3. The final paragraph on my article about Robbin's DMs - g-2.space... explains the real controversy within those DMs - which (if of course, the DMs are legitimate) would show Guccifer 2.0 actually naming Seth with malicious intent (as an effort to "poison-the-well").

FWIW, something published by BullTruth magazine raises doubts on the veracity of the DMs Robbing produced: medium.com... - enough to at least suggest they were altered before being released.

If you have any any questions or concerns over my research - please feel free to get in contact any time via Twitter or via op[at]d3f[dot]uk
edit on 24-4-2017 by AdamCarter because: To add a line welcoming contact being made



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I note in my first reply I didn't answer the 3 questions you raised - so figured I should do that too:

1. If Seth Rich was indeed the source of the DNC emails (couldn't have been the source of the Podesta emails mind you), why in the world would he blow the whistle to a random Eastern European with no ties to the media?

Exactly, he wouldn't. Guccifer 2.0 was lying (something he did frequently for the sake of false attribution) because the G2 operation thought that Assange might disclose the leaker (in an interview with Fox News that same day) and were trying to discredit Rich (through attribution to the G2 persona) preemptively.... so if he was exposed as the leaker... there would be some 'evidence' somewhere showing Seth Rich was working with the Russian hacker persona which could then be used to unduly discredit Rich and any materials he may have provided (assuming he's the leaker) at a later date. (aka 'poisoning-the-well')

2. If Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails, why wouldn't "Guccifer 2.0" have shared this with the journalists he corresponded with, tweeted about it or posted it to the blog? He DM'd members of the media. He emailed links to "DC Leaks" to Buzzfeed and The Intercept. He corresponded with The Observer — hell, "he" gave an interview to Vice — and nothing?

Yeah, he probably would have mentioned it sooner - but Guccifer 2.0 was a deception machine.

3. Perhaps most importantly, why is Wikileaks coyly tweeting this? If Seth Rich was the source, why not come out and say it? What's with the passive-aggressive insuations?

Because Steve Cunningham spotted the Seth Rich mention and reported on it, I then picked up on that and noted the timing, etc. of it - and Wikileaks, now knowledgeable that the G2 operation was, in part, a smear campaign against WL, probably felt it was worth bringing to people's attention without taking the risk of endorsing Cunninham's or my own conclusions.




top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join