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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: lostintheabyss

Considering Seth riches parents are denying this, I doubt your the one who really knows...

Not the FBI, or CIA, or the parents who are privy to the evidence....

No! it is lostintheabyss on ats who really has the truth!!

Now that is a lol..lol..




posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But his unwillingness to confirm , discredits the thought that he would tell the world if you were murdered after leaking through him...

It's just silly..

From any angle assange's actions are just nonsensical... and without him there is no tie between the two...

That said he is the guy who would know who the leaker really is..

Blows my mind.. it really does. Seems calculated, but I don't know what math he is using??

Flat earth physics lol..

Ken hamm's theory of celestial mechanics..



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
But his unwillingness to confirm , discredits the thought that he would tell the world if you were murdered after leaking through him...

I said that earlier in the thread and you said there was no difference.

Me:

The thing is that he could have confirmed...


You:

Except he did confirm it by saying it in the first place...


Now you are saying he was unwilling to confirm. Pick a lane.


It's just silly..

From any angle assange's actions are just nonsensical... and without him there is no tie between the two...

That said he is the guy who would know who the leaker really is..

Blows my mind.. it really does. Seems calculated, but I don't know what math he is using??

CT money making maths.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I think what he did was the worst of both worlds, from both sides!! Lol

Imho hi did confirm it by saying it the way he did.. but then really retracted it by denying it when pressed.. then he confirmed it again.. then he retracted that confirmation again!!

I hope that portrays what I mean better by saying he retracted the confirmation. Rather than saying he confirmed it , then he didn't.

Which is just crazy from any angle..

If Seth is the leak , what he did looks worse than either keeping quiet or confirming it..

If Seth didn't do it and assange is being paid by the Russians to pretend he was, what he did looks worse than keeping quiet or confirming it...

From either side of the conspiracy theory his actions only muddy the waters and make Wikileaks look like it has credibility issues.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yikes... I saw the same interview everyone else did... and Assange did no such thing, as confirm it was Seth Rich.

He did, however... use a helluva lot of "inference" in his remarks, that would suggest he was affirming it was Rich.

I'm not sure Rich's parents really have much control over the story now... or even what is being suggested as their "statements from the family". Some weird stuff going on there... with a Crisis Management PR firm and guy who shills for the DNC.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I've never had anyone argue so much to me agreeing.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I wasn't arguing lol..

Just stating my amazment...

So much lost in text with no voice tone hehe



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dasman888




He did, however... use a helluva lot of "inference" in his remarks, that would suggest he was affirming it was Rich.


Some posters aren't capable of recognizing that, not sure why that is. Just operating at a lower level of awareness is my guess.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: dasman888

I don't see where..

Fox News offers to pay for a PI.. the family accepts, because any info helps..

But it became quickly appearent that the PI was not actually investigating the murder, but instead trying to push a conspiracy theory that for whatever reason . The family did not buy...

So they fired the PI, but he continued pushing said conspiracies.. so they cease and desisted him.

I think the family not buying that he was the dnc leak very telling..

They should be the easiest to sell on stuff like that.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

But when given the chance to confirm he retracted.

The question is, why not just openly admit it?



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: D8Tee

But when given the chance to confirm he retracted.

The question is, why not just openly admit it?

BECAUSE WIKILEAKS NEVER GIVES UP SOURCES

NEVER

EVER
edit on 31-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Thread TL;DR? That is what we are discussing.

Why not, what difference does it make if they are already dead?


edit on 31-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: D8Tee

TL;DR? That is what we are discussing. Why not, what difference does it make if they are already dead?

Cuz people that are alive will know wikileaks broke their policy and gave up a source.

How hard is that to figure out?



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Because people who are alive can think and realize that they only did so because revealing the source does more for the cause at that point.

That isn't hard to figure out either. And if people can't figure it out then Assange could spell it out and even modify the policy to allow a person to opt in/out of a dead man's switch type deal if they wish.

Instead we have to play spy vs spy.
edit on 31-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Because people who are alive can think and realize that they only did so because revealing the source does more for the cause at that point.

WIKILEAKS NEVER GIVES UP SOURCES

NEVER

EVER

EVER

tweet



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Saw it the first time. Posting it again doesn't change a thing of what I said.

You have not followed the thread have you?

ETA: He gave the source up to those who are "capable of recognizing that" but you want to keep shouting that he doesn't do that?
edit on 31-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: D8Tee

But when given the chance to confirm he retracted.

The question is, why not just openly admit it?

BECAUSE WIKILEAKS NEVER GIVES UP SOURCES

NEVER

EVER



Except for when he told the world Seth was his source...

Lol



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: D8Tee

Saw it the first time. Posting it again doesn't change a thing of what I said.

You have not followed the thread have you?


Yes I have been following the thread, that tweet had not been posted so what are you talking about?

Your observational skills are once again proven to be lacking.

Wikileaks has made it clear they will not substantiate who a source is. Assange inferred that Seth Rich was the leaker, nothing more than that.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

So he back tracked...that doesn't unsay what he said... if anything it just makes him look wishy washy..





No one who watches that video doesn't know exactly what he is saying..


I thought you were joking, since the first tweet you posted said..

"Wikileaks dies not reveal its sources#SethRich.."

lol which really says it all..



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
Yes I have been following the thread, that tweet had not been posted so what are you talking about?

So?


Your observational skills are once again proven to be lacking.

We have been talking about a change to that policy. Did that slip by you?


Wikileaks has made it clear they will not substantiate who a source is. Assange inferred that Seth Rich was the leaker, nothing more than that.

But you made it sound like inferring means so much to those "capable of recognizing", that it "would suggest he was affirming it was Rich."

Now you are shifting the goalposts.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join