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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I know. I was agreeing with you and saying "what's up with everyone?".




posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: onthedownlow

You still put them in exactly the same amount of danger by what he did..

No one who would attack the family if they knew Rich was the leaker, would not only because assange didn't 100% confirm it..

It was the worst innuendo in history..

Your making the argument for if assange hadn't told everyone in the planet Rich was the leaker.. and that is exactly what he did.. he just wouldn't confirm it.. which is meaningless after you say what assange said.

If assange feared for rich's family, he says nothing...

Not that" Rich was the leaker, but I'm not gonna confirm that.."



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

My bad.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
What sorts of actions would you expect from the responsible party/parties?

Towards Seth's friends and families? None.

That is a long excuse for an unlikely scenario.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

See I get the exact opposite from those facts..

1) I think the family would be the easiest to con into a crazy conspiracy...

They are the ones the most emotionally invested in applying some meaning in the death of a child.. so hypothetically they should WANT there kid to be at the middle of world changing events..

So I think how bad must the evidence the PI fox new provided them be, if even the grieving family did not buy it..

2) Also I have heard he did not have access to the emails...that was not in his job description..

Sure he could have hacked in.. but just saying it was not some one who inherently had access.

3) I think if this was a professional job it was done badly...

As you said, if you want it open and shut, you complete the robbery...and you don't leave defensive wounds..

I bet any professional assassin would be disgusted with his workmanship lol..

Take his wallet and it's an open and shut robbery...


It is very reasonable that some one could be robbed at gunpoint. The altercation becomes violent and the victim ends up shot. The murderer had no intention of catching a murder charge.. he just wanted the money. So he flips out and bolts...

That seems like a pretty convoluted plan for a pro to set up..

It has the reek of real life brought to you by some moron...






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



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

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



Me, too. I wonder if Seth is actually behind the wikileaks. If he was, why wouldn't Assange say so? That would be marketing GOLD for wikileaks.

Unless Seth's parents know Seth was behind those leaks and have asked that Assange not give that info up...

And any potential leakers thinking about turning to wikileaks would surely want their identities revealed if they were murdered and it was unsolved/unsolvable.

I have never trusted Assange though. I feel like he would be dead if he were the real deal. Instead, I feel like whatever comes from wikileaks is very highly controlled and completely ineffective at bringing the 'masterminds' down.



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




It is very reasonable that some one could be robbed at gunpoint. The altercation becomes violent and the victim ends up shot. The murderer had no intention of catching a murder charge.. he just wanted the money. So he flips out and bolts... 

All sounds reasonable until you factor in that Seth was shot in the back.
He wasn't fighting them when they shot him in the back.
More likely, it was Seth that got scared and bolted... and was shot in the back. If the goal was robbery, and avoiding murder, the perp would not have shot him in the back.
If the goal was robbery at any cost, the perp would have taken something.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Have two MS 13 bangers do the murder then kill them a day later to make sure they can't speak.

Sounds like a reasonable plan.
edit on 5/30/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Even if it was a murder, that doesn't mean he was the leaker of the DNC emails.

He could have been killed for some other reason (if not a robbery) and people banking on intrigue are milking it.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   


That would be marketing GOLD for wikileaks.


One WL starts outing sources, it make it a less attractive platform. Anonymous material would disappear.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Not if they are dead.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: roadgravel

Not if they are dead.


Yep. This.

The whole point of leaking to Wikileaks, is to expose 'someone' or bring them down. Wikileaks protecting that 'someone' by not revealing the source -- if it was, indeed, Seth Rich -- accomplishes the opposite.

If the source was Seth Rich, then Wikileaks is protecting Hillary (the DNC) by not explicitly saying so. That makes me wonder AND should give any potential leaker more reason to pause than if Assange revealed the leaker was Seth Rich.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
If the released DNC info isn't enough on it's own to affect the DNC then a name isn't going to change it.

You can bet more in known about the murder but is being covered up. That info is what could be the big change if it is really a hit by the party. Law enforcement may not be as "legal" as so many want to believe.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
If the released DNC info isn't enough on it's own to affect the DNC then a name isn't going to change it.

Is that an argument for or against naming the source?



You can bet more in known about the murder but is being covered up. That info is what could be the big change if it is really a hit by the party. Law enforcement may not be as "legal" as so many want to believe.

Is that an argument for or against naming the source?

Sorry, I just can't tell.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Didn't he have defensive wounds??

Shot in the back can absolutely happen in a rumble...

Tries to rob Rich, Rich fights back and runs .. gets shot in a burst of adrenaline or running away after the initial encounter..

That isn't even close to screwy enough for a vast conspiracy to be the most logical conclusion..

Possible? Sure..

But the way the cops say it went down literally happens on a daily basis.. vast presidential conspiracies do not happen every day.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Honestly, everything would add up (with assange at least) if seth was going to be a leak, but wasn't the dnc leak specifically...

I guess that makes assange a statement make since..

He wasn't the one who did the dnc leak, so assange couldn't honestly confirm that, but he was in the process of leaking stuff, so assange wanted his story told..

I feel like that is reaching, but at least it logically works..



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If he wasn't the DNC leak then he could have said so.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If he wasn't the DNC leak then he could have said so.



That goes both ways..

If he was the leak he could have confirmed it..


Like I said and the reason for the thread, is it is super weird...

The only thing I can come up with that makes the variables make sense, is that Rich was a leaker, but not the one who leaked the dnc stuff..

So he couldn't confirm it was Rich who did the dnc leak, because he didn't...

But he did think he was murdered because he was about to leak stuff???

and I don't love that explanation...but at least it adds up..



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Asange all but verbally admitted it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC emails. KimDotCom confirmed it was Rich.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mkultra11

Kimdot.com can't confirm anything...

He has claimed more than once to have wold stopping info, but never has released anything..

Even Fox News retracted the story.


Your dead on about assange though...

So since he was willing to say he did it, why did he refuse to confirm it??



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join