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.

 

The most confusing part of the Seth Rich Conspiracy???

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

Why are wikileaks and their "anonymous" sources credible to you?

Serious question.


To date, everything released has proven to be factual and nothing has pointed to Wikileaks being full of #.
As with anything anonymous, it needs to be vetted before it becomes fact, but as I said, to date, all have become facts.




posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Put it this way;

Why officially confirm it and have to deal with the ramifications, legal or otherwise, when you can just use your credibility and drop his name in obscurity and indirectly tell the world?

Would we be talking about it now had he not mentioned Seth's name?

Maybe this is what he wanted.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: underwerks

They are credible up to the point that the leaks were confirmed to be real..

What their motivations are are anyone's guess.

If you had access to Assange's bitcoin wallet, you'd probably have your answer.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Since you posted something other than confusion, I have a question for you. Why would Wikileaks jeopardize their credibility with this one case, knowing that everything they do is based on their credibility?

All we can do at this point is speak about "what if's" since there is no proof as of yet. But should there ever be any real proof, I fully believe it would be enough to shake up the entire system of government. The entire congress has been preoccupied with "Russia hacks" since Trump took office and nothing has gotten done because of it. If we were to find out there was no "Russian hack" and this was all just a way to make Trump look bad (and it still baffles me why folks don't just let that happen naturally), then it's proof positive that our government is either collectively dumb as a sack of hammers, or compromised to the point we need to ask Russia to run our country while we sort out bringing in a new government.

And it can't be both ways, either Russia hacked us or the leaks came from inside the DNC. That part needs to be fully understood and crystal #ing clear to all.

Why are wikileaks and their "anonymous" sources credible to you?

Serious question.

Because of their history being right. CNN fired someone over the leaks. So CNN (while claiming it was fake news) thought it was real.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

In it's entire history, how many retractions has wikileaks posted?

How many of it's publications been shown to be false?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

Why are wikileaks and their "anonymous" sources credible to you?

Serious question.


To date, everything released has proven to be factual and nothing has pointed to Wikileaks being full of #.
As with anything anonymous, it needs to be vetted before it becomes fact, but as I said, to date, all have become facts.

Why do you give Julian Assange's words the same credibility as you give the documents wikileaks releases? That isn't the same thing at all.

Wikileaks is only still around because they're useful. Now, who they're useful to is the big question, and who everyone should be looking for. Who stands to benefit?

If people actually believe wikileaks and Assange care about helping America by exposing the Clinton's and the DNC they need their head examined.

I believe wikileaks was infiltrated a while ago. By who is the biggest (and probably most dangerous) question to ask.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: underwerks

In it's entire history, how many retractions has wikileaks posted?

How many of it's publications been shown to be false?



Why do you give Assange's words the same credibility that you give the documents from wikileaks?
edit on 30-5-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Thats like saying I trust the government but I don't trust Trump.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

Thats like saying I trust the government but I don't trust Trump.

Not at all. I'm not saying wikileaks hasn't released verifiably factual documents, but that's the thing. They're documents. Given enough time, they can be verified.

What I see is people transferring the credibility from documents you can verify yourself to the words of Assange, and those are two completely different things. And you're begging to be misled when you participate in that kind of group think.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

Why are wikileaks and their "anonymous" sources credible to you?

Serious question.


To date, everything released has proven to be factual and nothing has pointed to Wikileaks being full of #.
As with anything anonymous, it needs to be vetted before it becomes fact, but as I said, to date, all have become facts.

Why do you give Julian Assange's words the same credibility as you give the documents wikileaks releases? That isn't the same thing at all.

Wikileaks is only still around because they're useful. Now, who they're useful to is the big question, and who everyone should be looking for. Who stands to benefit?

If people actually believe wikileaks and Assange care about helping America by exposing the Clinton's and the DNC they need their head examined.

I believe wikileaks was infiltrated a while ago. By who is the biggest (and probably most dangerous) question to ask.


You asked a serious question and gave a bull# response. I trust that to date, Assange through Wikileaks, has not posted something that wasn't true. Tomorrow, he might post some pictures of Trump giving Putin a handy, and if it's verified true, then as much as those of us who support the President of the US wouldn't like it, it would be uncomfortable and something we have to live with, as it would be a fact. Much like the e-mail release that came from the DNC are uncomfortable, but they are something you will have to live with, especially since the DNC decided to double down and make the entire "Russia hacked us" thing revolve around them.

Now, a serious question for you. Why would you not at least offer the release of information about this a chance? Remember, you still get to check it out and verify if things are truthful or not.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Here's a better question, why do you discredit Assange?

If he came out and said Trump and Russia are in fact colluding, would you still discredit him?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

Why are wikileaks and their "anonymous" sources credible to you?

Serious question.


To date, everything released has proven to be factual and nothing has pointed to Wikileaks being full of #.
As with anything anonymous, it needs to be vetted before it becomes fact, but as I said, to date, all have become facts.

Why do you give Julian Assange's words the same credibility as you give the documents wikileaks releases? That isn't the same thing at all.

Wikileaks is only still around because they're useful. Now, who they're useful to is the big question, and who everyone should be looking for. Who stands to benefit?

If people actually believe wikileaks and Assange care about helping America by exposing the Clinton's and the DNC they need their head examined.

I believe wikileaks was infiltrated a while ago. By who is the biggest (and probably most dangerous) question to ask.


You asked a serious question and gave a bull# response. I trust that to date, Assange through Wikileaks, has not posted something that wasn't true. Tomorrow, he might post some pictures of Trump giving Putin a handy, and if it's verified true, then as much as those of us who support the President of the US wouldn't like it, it would be uncomfortable and something we have to live with, as it would be a fact. Much like the e-mail release that came from the DNC are uncomfortable, but they are something you will have to live with, especially since the DNC decided to double down and make the entire "Russia hacked us" thing revolve around them.

Now, a serious question for you. Why would you not at least offer the release of information about this a chance? Remember, you still get to check it out and verify if things are truthful or not.

So you trust Assange because wikileaks, (which may or may not even be controlled by Assange) has released factual documents in the past.

Got it.


I welcome the release of all information related to this case, I've been looking into it for months. If you or anyone else have something verifiable, I'm all ears.

Though I'm going to have to use the recent Trump supporter standby, and say anonymous sources don't count.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

Here's a better question, why do you discredit Assange?

If he came out and said Trump and Russia are in fact colluding, would you still discredit him?

I'd take anything Assange says with a bag of salt, no matter who it's about.

As I would anyone else who's involved in the business of intelligence.
edit on 30-5-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I highly doubt that becuase you guys have jumped on much less credible "sources" as gospel.

See me, as much as it would hurt, I would definitely believe him because they have a proven track record and I have no reason to believe they are lying.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I highly doubt that becuase you guys have jumped on much less credible "sources" as gospel.

See me, as much as it would hurt, I would definitely believe him because they have a proven track record and I have no reason to believe they are lying.

Does wikileaks have a proven track record, or does Assange?

Don't confuse the two.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Put it this way;

Why officially confirm it and have to deal with the ramifications, legal or otherwise, when you can just use your credibility and drop his name in obscurity and indirectly tell the world?

Would we be talking about it now had he not mentioned Seth's name?

Maybe this is what he wanted.

Is there legal ramifications for a guy hidden in an embassy anyway???

I'm not seeing that as a logical conclusion..

I think his credibility is obviously bruised by doing it the way he did it anyway?!?!?

Seeming wish washing doesn't add to your credibility it hurts it.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Isn't Wikileaks just assange and his couple internet connections , and maybe a secretary??



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

There is hardly a difference, I think you want there to be a difference so you can label us confused.

Why wouldn't I take his word? He has proven to be trustworthy and is a man of great integrity.

A better question would be, why wouldn't you take his word? Because it goes against your narrative?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
If I were a hacker/leaker handing info off to Wikileaks, I would insist they reveal my identity if I wound up murdered.

Exactly. At that point there is nothing to gain from anonymity and it would actually work against those trying to keep things secret.

Isn't that the logic behind a dead man's switch?
edit on 30-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

Why are wikileaks and their "anonymous" sources credible to you?

Serious question.


To date, everything released has proven to be factual and nothing has pointed to Wikileaks being full of #.
As with anything anonymous, it needs to be vetted before it becomes fact, but as I said, to date, all have become facts.

Why do you give Julian Assange's words the same credibility as you give the documents wikileaks releases? That isn't the same thing at all.

Wikileaks is only still around because they're useful. Now, who they're useful to is the big question, and who everyone should be looking for. Who stands to benefit?

If people actually believe wikileaks and Assange care about helping America by exposing the Clinton's and the DNC they need their head examined.

I believe wikileaks was infiltrated a while ago. By who is the biggest (and probably most dangerous) question to ask.


You asked a serious question and gave a bull# response. I trust that to date, Assange through Wikileaks, has not posted something that wasn't true. Tomorrow, he might post some pictures of Trump giving Putin a handy, and if it's verified true, then as much as those of us who support the President of the US wouldn't like it, it would be uncomfortable and something we have to live with, as it would be a fact. Much like the e-mail release that came from the DNC are uncomfortable, but they are something you will have to live with, especially since the DNC decided to double down and make the entire "Russia hacked us" thing revolve around them.

Now, a serious question for you. Why would you not at least offer the release of information about this a chance? Remember, you still get to check it out and verify if things are truthful or not.

So you trust Assange because wikileaks, (which may or may not even be controlled by Assange) has released factual documents in the past.

Got it.


I welcome the release of all information related to this case, I've been looking into it for months. If you or anyone else have something verifiable, I'm all ears.

Though I'm going to have to use the recent Trump supporter standby, and say anonymous sources don't count.


you have a habit of putting words into other people mouths. Not sure if you just aren't intelligent enough to understand regular communication, or you are generally dishonest by nature.

I don't blindly trust any anonymous source, but I will offer them a chance to be prove right or wrong, and not just dismiss them out of hand.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join