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.

 

New Ed Butowsky Interview drops several Seth Rich Bombshells

page: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: SlapMonkey




I don’t believe any conspiracies that require people with access to super spies and Ivy League think tanks to have perpetrated a plan dumber than one my random @$$ could think up..



Wrong. You believe the russian hack conspiracy.




posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You missed the part where I'm not advocating for the Rich-murder conspiracy, I was just pointing out the amount of illogical statements that you were making.

Why double down on the lack of logic? You accuse me of believing something that I have not claimed to believe, you attempt to invalidate my comment by saying that I haven't established something that I never claimed. You keep pretending to know how the Rich family definitely feels about the whole situation. And no, Assange didn't reveal anything, he alluded to something--that's completely different.

But, you know...don't stop, believing...just hold on to that feeling...

Because it's all about the beliefs and feels, right Josh? THAT'S how to formulate a logical argument--something that you always pretend to champion.

I FEEL like I'm tired of discussing this, so I BELIEVE that this will be my last comment to you.

Best regards, as always, even if we disagree 95% of the time.

ETA: Have you watched the video yet? You never answered that...and yes, it matters to the point of this thread.
edit on 19-3-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: proximo

This guy was hired by propaganda whores, the family accepts his help thinking maybe he can help.

Then the family realizes the guy PAID FOR BY PROPAGANDA WHORES, is being a propaganda white about their sons death and filed a C n C against him.

So he is discredited and now comes up with some garbage about “ I’m not lying, even though I am paid for by propaganda whores. It is all a vast conspiracy against me.. yea, that’s it..”

Lol..


None of this garbage makes ANY sense...


1) so the Clintons who have unlimited money and access to EXTREMELY skilled security and military personnel. Pay to have Rich killed and his murder covered up.

Then those EXTREMEMY skilled professionals do this shoddy of a job of covering it up??!?!?


What?!?!

If this was a black op , they don’t shoot him in the head then FORGET TO TAKE THE WALLET TO SUCCESSFULLY STAGE A ROBBERY!!!


2) The family should be and traditionally are the easiest people to con.

They want some meaning to apply to their sons death and this would make him a hero at the center of a vast conspiracy.

SO WHY DONT THE PARENTS BUY IT????

How bad must the PI’s story and propaganda have been IF EVEN THE GRIEVING FAMILY WOULDNT BITE????




Oh my. 😲



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

And you believe him? If he wants to clear his name, he needs to come forth with more than hot air expelled from his diaphragm. But of course Youtube is all the evidence internet sleuths need.
edit on 19-3-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

Motive is something the police look for. There is motive, there is means and there is opportunity so yeah that's enough to investigate and investigating confirmed that The Russians Hacked the DNC and Wikileaks released them. You do the math. Doesn't logic ever enter the equation?



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

Ps I don't need to prove that Russia gave the emails to Assange. Where did he get them? Because it's 100% the Russians Hacked them. So just how did Assange get them if Russia didn't give them to him? Huh? Did he steal them from the Russians? That's a laugh.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I can’t think of a better and les risky way for the Russians to help trump win....

No one dies.. .. no big false flag required..


Just a hacker to crack the system..

(Which happened)

A couple spies making contact . Then a few trusted campaign officials to meet to lay out the plan.


(Which happened)

Then for someone to leak those documents on your time table..

(Which happened..)


Done.. no super villains, murder plots, or logistically impossible illuminati type conspiracies required.


No American/Russian blood spilt.. all it requires is an amoral buisnessman willing to take the deal.. one desperate because it looks like your losing..


It’s brilliantly simple really..



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So russia hacking the dems and basically leaving their signature is high level super spy stuff?

Wow, you are easily impressed.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Edit:

Removed in good taste.


I'm wrapped that you got to read my response before it was removed - never forget those words and I shall remind you at each encounter moving forward.

Be prepared for it in every thread where you post, as I may turn up and have at you - again.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

That’s what you do is explain your logic lol..

I have no idea what exactly you are tanking about..

I lettered my response to separate out my post.

What letter are you referring to?

You can’t just say “that’s illogical “ without explaining where thelogic is off.

I dont need to watch a propagandist video.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


I dont need to watch a propagandist video.


so everything you wrote in this thread is off topic garbage. Nice.

It's a thread about the video. In the video, the man makes some concrete claims. The kind that you can either prove right, or wrong. But to do neither, and still bitch like a ....well, bitch, just isn't going to cut it.

What parts of the video were lies? He even offers the web site with his proof, and the interviewer had checked his sources as well. He may still be a liar, but your word alone, or that of some silly idiot just won't be enough.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I shouldn't have to explain where logic is missing to someone who constantly harps on 'logic' and 'counterpoints,' that's the point. If you can't see it, lay down the hypocrisy and stop calling out others on it when you, yourself, fail to see when you lack it in your own comments.

And if you want to participate in a thread about a particular video, either watch the video before writing comment after comment trying to negate and discredit the claims in the video, or simply leave the conversation because you are being willfully ignorant.


I have no idea what exactly you are tanking about..

Obviously.


What letter are you referring to?

I never mentioned a letter--Jesus Mary and Joseph, man, get your sh*t together.


I dont need to watch a propagandist video.

And you know that it's propaganda how, if you didn't watch the video?

I'll be nice before leaving this conversation for good--that is a specific example of you lacking logic. You can't claim that something is propaganda if you have no understanding of what is contained in the video. You're either relying on hearsay (which is never a good plan) or you're just making sh*t up to appease your own preconceived notion.

That, sir, is the definition of "illogical."

Goodbye.


edit on 19-3-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: proximo

Ps I don't need to prove that Russia gave the emails to Assange. Where did he get them? Because it's 100% the Russians Hacked them. So just how did Assange get them if Russia didn't give them to him? Huh? Did he steal them from the Russians? That's a laugh.


Have you even read any of the thread - Assange got the emails from Seth Rich, who got them with a thumb drive.

It certainly is not 100% Russia hacked them. The only ones saying that is CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike worked for the DNC.
CrowdStrike is funded by Google. Eric Shmidt CEO of Google at the time is all over the podesta emails offering any and all help he can to the Hillary Campaign.

The FBI was denied access to the server.

Please explain to me why we should trust a biased company over the FBI when it comes to whether the server was hacked.

Next - We do not REALLY know it was Russians on their server - all we know is that Russian IP addresses were on their server. That could be ANY Russian - Does not have to be someone connected to Putin at all. Also - Vault 7 has revealed the CIA possesses tools to make it look like a hack can come from any country they want. It is a safe assumption that the Russians also have similar technology. So a hack from Russian IP's does not necessarily mean it is a hack from Russia.

The idea that the DNC hack was done by Russians is not proven - let alone Russians connected to Putin - and really cannot be proven by the very nature of the internet.
edit on 19-3-2018 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme



Because we just do

And therein lies the problem.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

A) No it’s easy and low risk and thus easy to pull off.. for a nation-state..

B) theCIA and FBI said it was the Russians SPECIFICALLY to help Donald trump win. .. not the DNC..

It is logistically possible..

As compared to almost every rightwing conspiracy that require something logically impossible..



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

BWAHAHAHA..


“Your illogical and a hypocrite, but I shouldn’t have to point out where and how, because I am the decider of all things. So if I say something is illogical. It just is..”



Conservative toddler logic..



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No everything I have written is based on the actual facts of the case..

Why in the hell would I need to watch a known liar and propagandist’s story?!?’



“Well you won’t even watch the flat earth video..”


I don’t need to watch the flat earth video. Lol.. that guy is exactly as credible as a flat earther.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler

A) No it’s easy and low risk and thus easy to pull off.. for a nation-state..

B) theCIA and FBI said it was the Russians SPECIFICALLY to help Donald trump win. .. not the DNC..

It is logistically possible..

As compared to almost every rightwing conspiracy that require something logically impossible..


I'm not Grambler, but here's a few counter-answers:

(A) You just stated that Grambler is correct. The Russians aren't stupid, if they did hack, why wouldn't they frame North Korea instead of leaving their own data address behind. On the other hand if you are a domestic group (like Crowdstrike) that had access to this type of data (we already know that Fusion GPS had access to this data, it wouldn't surprise me if Crowdstrike was given access to) then it would be very easy for a false Russian code to be left behind in the "hack".

(B) The Russians didn't care if Trump, Cruz, or Sanders won. What they didn't want was Clinton winning, or did we all forget that she was threatening war with Russia if she won. Not to mention that she insulted many people in Russian leadership positions. What Clinton liked in Russia was how seemingly easy it was to manipulate the population, though to be fair, she really never did understand the global perspective (yes, yes I know that she was the Secretary of State and we all saw how that worked out)

I think people need to look at facts more from a data standpoint, rather than bias pundits spouting off their opinions while never stating facts. A good way of doing this is disqualifying any source that fails to provide evidence that can be checked.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

Good post.

yes my point to Joshua isnt that I am saying that Rich was murdered by the dnc or hillary; in fact I have seen no proof of that.

I am merely stating for him to state that it couldnt have been hillary or the dnc because it was so sloppy and they would be pros about it, then the same logic would, as you have shown, apply to why Russia would never leave such easy signatures on a hack they commit.

For that matter, they wouldnt assassinate an easily accessible target using an exotic gas that could easily be traced to them.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler

A) No it’s easy and low risk and thus easy to pull off.. for a nation-state..


But that same argument could be used with the OP. It would be easy for a huge organization like the Clintons or DNC to order a murder and low risk.

The question you raised was the sloppy nature of the murder which would show that a large org like the DNC would have been much cleaner.

Using that same logic, the russians, would not have had so sloppy a hack as to leave their signature easy to find.


B) theCIA and FBI said it was the Russians SPECIFICALLY to help Donald trump win. .. not the DNC..

It is logistically possible..

As compared to almost every rightwing conspiracy that require something logically impossible..


You sound like a child.

What is logically impossible about hillary ordering the murder of rich? I see no proof of it, but your grandiose claims that this, like every right wing conspiracy is not logically possible is laughable.




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join