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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

But he did reveal his source hypothetically!!

Every one knew exactly what he meant..

But then when asked he crawfished..

But then again eluded to Rich being the leak...


I'm not saying Rich was the leak.. im just saying it was obvious that's what he wanted people to think.. but not enough to actually confirm what he is obviously saying anyway...



Super super weird..
edit on 30-5-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think many missed the point of the thread.

Why play coy with the truth when there is no longer threat to the source?


edit on 30-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
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?

The only narrative I have in this case is where the evidence leads me. If it's the Clinton's and DNC, it needs to be exposed. If it's someone else, it needs to be exposed.

I find it kind of weird that just because I want to look in places other than the Clinton's and DNC I'm attacked for it, as the personal attacks from posters in this thread show..



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

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.


I think its just because I'm not intelligent enough. I don't believe the same as you, so I'm sure that's it.


I give all anonymous sources a chance, and have never dismissed any without research. I've never said I had any certainty about any of this, just that it's strange I get attacked when I look anywhere that doesn't involve the Clinton's or the DNC..

It's not me that's following a narrative here.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

I think its just because I'm not intelligent enough. I don't believe the same as you, so I'm sure that's it.




good, glad we agree on something.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Since you keep dodging my simple question, let me put it in a simple perspective for you to understand my thought process.

When you have somebody like Assange, who has a proven track record to be trustworthy and credible, he not only DESERVES the benefit of the doubt, he has EARNED it. That's the whole point of credibility, you don't earn it just to be discredited when it's convenient.

So why wouldn't I take his word? So, let me ask you this again.

Why WON'T you take his word? Because it would be inconvenient for you?



edit on 30-5-2017 by knowledgehunter0986 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If you worked from a position where your sources required anonymity for protection, even if they were dead, you might not be willing to divulge their identity. Hypothetically, if Rich was murdered for leaking information, it is very plausible that his immediate family might be in danger too.

If this is the case, I imagine that the sources identity will be made known through alternative channels, that Assange might keep his promise of confidentiality in tact



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Why play coy with the truth when there is no longer threat to the source?


Presuming Seth to be the source, one would ask what other threats could be held over those to whom the source was close.

For example, did Seth leave behind any friends/family/acquaintances who might be threatened if clear and unambiguous confirmation were to be handed out by Wikileaks?

What would the outcome be if it were finally found out and accepted that Seth was indeed the source of the DNC portion of the Wikileaks?

Is there any fallout that some might wish to avoid by keeping alive doubt about Seth being the source of the Wikileaks?

The answers to these questions might lead one to understand why Assange would not be willing to come right out and say categorically who the leaker was.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

Since you keep dodging my simple question, let me put it in a simple perspective for you to understand my thought process.

When you have somebody like Assange, who has a proven track record to be trustworthy and credible, he not only DESERVES the benefit of the doubt, he has EARNED it. That's the whole point of credibility, you don't earn it just to be discredited when it's convenient.

So why wouldn't I take his word? So, let me ask you this again.

Why WON'T you take his word? Because it would be inconvenient for you?



I completely understand your question, and I'll answer it one more time for you.

I wouldn't take his word because he's in the intelligence business. I wouldn't expect the truth from him anymore than I'd expect someone from the CIA to give me the true story on something.

Did you forget about Assange lying on TV about the credit card numbers in the DNC leaks?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I find that excuse to be clutching at straws. Why would friends and family be threatened? What would anyone gain from that?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Why would friends and family be threatened? What would anyone gain from that?


Same answer for both these questions, continued acquiescence to the 'official story.'



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

But you are so trusting of "anonymous sources" when it fits your narrative.

How can I even trust you?

As for the credit card, never heard.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What does that mean? Continued acquiescence to the 'official story' from who?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Lie as in the leaks were shown to be bad? No?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
For example, did Seth leave behind any friends/family/acquaintances who might be threatened if clear and unambiguous confirmation were to be handed out by Wikileaks?


I can't help but think everyone in his life is a lot safer with the truth out -- IF Seth was the leaker. It would make it that much harder for the scorned to retaliate *again.*

Keeping secrets means that those privy to the secrets are in danger.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

But you are so trusting of "anonymous sources" when it fits your narrative.

How can I even trust you?

As for the credit card, never heard.

When?

I've said repeatedly no one knows either way right now about the Trump-Russia claim, and I don't believe Assange's anonymous sources either.

They may be right, they may not.

As for the credit card numbers, Google is your friend.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

You mean when he leaked actual truthful information, and then said he only leaked part of the numbers, but he appeared to be wrong.

So the leak was proven true?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

You mean when he leaked actual truthful information, and then said he only leaked part of the numbers, but he appeared to be wrong.

So the leak was proven true?

Yep, that's it. I guess you could call it a misrepresentation of the facts if you want, instead of a lie.

I'm not disputing the validity of any of the emails, just the assumption that Assange has been 100% correct every time he speaks.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I made the thread lol...

But that was absolutely part of my point..

I don't think it makes a lot of sense from either direction...

If Russia is paying him, why not confirm it???

If Rich is really the source, why not confirm it??

If you are gonna basically say it was him, then why not confirm it???

None of it makes much sense really..

Maybe the Russians paid him, but there are legal ramifications to confirming it, then it being found out your lying....

But legal ramifications while already hiding in an embassy????



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Whomever it is that is responsible for Seth's death (presuming it to be something other than random street crime, I have always maintained that this is indeed a possibility regardless of the circumstances of Seth's work and historic connections to the Clinton machine) of course.

Say he did leak the info to wikileaks and he was killed for it to be made an example of.

What sorts of actions would you expect from the responsible party/parties?

I would imagine that they would want to ensure nothing other than random street crime ever be considered as the reason for his death. I would also imagine that maintaining this narrative be paramount in keeping the investigation directed into and away from certain avenues.

Part of keeping that story going would be the discouraging of anyone from thinking otherwise. In what ways would you discourage the parents of the deceased from even considering the possibility that the death was related to his work?

Another part of keeping the story going would be to make sure whoever was out front of it knew what they were doing and had experience in making sure things were framed in a certain way. Enter Brad Bauman. If you don't know what his career field is, I suggest you take a little closer look at him.

In general, family spokespersons are well known and trusted by the family; if not an actual member of the family most times. I wonder if the Rich family had ever even met Bauman before this unfortunate period of their lives?

In following this story in the various places in which it is being discussed, I saw that someone managed to get through to Mary Rich briefly. The conversation was extremely short and what I found interesting was the phrasing she used, when she said "all statements must go through Bauman," in what seemed to feel automatic and without thought as if it were some sort of mantra she had been taught to say be rote rather than a genuine response.

MotherMayEye - Regards being safer if truth came out.

First off, parents would have to be willing to accept this as the truth, but may not be able to for a variety of reasons. I know you know that they have asked for their son's death to stop being politicized and have wondered if that meant by the left as well as by the right. I wonder that too, they might not be too thrilled with having been saddled with Bauman.

If that's the case, then they are being handled rather than merely adding a layer of remove from themselves and the public; which I can completely understand them wanting, but if it is not under circumstances they would prefer then they might not be too pleased.

Who knows what threats would be made against his family if our worst fears are true? Easier to play along than face whatever they might have hanging over their heads.

Or they might really be convinced it's what we're being told the story is (random street crime) and welcome Mr. Bauman's handling of the whole thing.

Of course, I also wonder if the whole wikileaks thing is the smokescreen and there is another reason entirely that Seth was murdered.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join