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.

 

Report: Witness Prepared to Identify Two Killers of Seth Rich

page: 17
68
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
"His nickname was Panda." - Kim Dotcom


www.vanityfair.com...


Seth Rich’s social media handle was “panda” and it was known among his friends in the DNC. Did Hillary publicly threaten to “shoot the panda” in a Vanity Fair article of January 24, 2016? Julian Assange has already strongly suggested it was Seth Rich. Kim Dotcom, is willing to testify it was Rich. Hillary’s campaign manager John Podesta, who threatened to make an “example” of leakers whether or not they were guilty, works for The Washington Post. Worse, in clear mockery of the shooting of Seth Rich, a memorial bike rack at the DNC headquarters in Miami refers to the Panda. The DNC also hired a “spokesman” to gaslight the grieving family and to attack investigators of an unsolved murder case, which they treat as closed.

impiousdigest.com...



edit on 10-7-2018 by eisegesis because: panda's revenge




posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

If you know enough of the circumstances of Seth Rich's death you know the facts point to a conspiracy to kill and cover up evidence. So why do you deride this person's death and the anomalous circumstances!!???
edit on 10-7-2018 by thepixelpusher because: typo



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Provide some proof ! Even the source disowned this fiasco of a circus press conference. The exact words they used was "bat s*** crazy". Your are correct that something bad happened. A man was murdered by someone. There is absolutely no evidence to back up any claims made by the private detective before this press conference and even less now after that ridiculous display, a total fraud and joke.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

My opinions of the press conference differ from the person you are quoting. I am usually good at telling if people are being deceptive. This witness seems credible to me.

You might want to watch it and judge for yourself.

There are other threads detailing the evidence that this murder is not what law enforcement portrays it to be.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

What is strange or coincidental about that? Are they even associated events?



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Russia published them on DCLeaks before wikileaks did. DCLeaks is a Russian GRU website created expressly to publish them on the web. Before wiki.
So when did Russia give them to this kid (from the very organization they stole the emails from), so he could give them to wiki?



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Ever try to edit anything on there?
You can't just edit. Nothing goes up until it's checked.
You need to provide references to back up your edits. If anyone could edit it would be a mess of slang, curses, foul ideas and garbage like comments on web articles and blogs.

fortune.com...

Here's another source about these bad actors.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Wait I thought he was a witness! Hearsay is inadmissible.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Guccifer 2.0 said that wikileaks already had the emails before he started posting anything on DCleaks.

How guccifer 2.0 actually got the emails is a matter of debate.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, I have edited articles on Wikipedia. And no, nothing is checked before it is live. Sometimes someone else will come along and edit what you just changed, but in my experience it has mostly been changed again by competitors or those who just having opposing views about the information.

I always try to source content that I add, but that does not stop jerks from messing it up.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

There are many legal exceptions that make hearsay acceptable as evidence. And it can certainly be used by law enforcement to further their investigation into the statements.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

You didn't even see the person and he was supposed to be using a voice changer. You will pardon me if my opinion differs from yours, and as I said your opinion also differs from the original source. Your ability nor your opinion would ever count in a court and my opinion is my own and it remains that this is just bat s*** Cray Cray Cray crazy



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: keenmachine

Not amongst the intelligence agencies bubba.
Not amongst the Senate intelligence committee. Not amongst the DOJ.
I don't speak for everybody. Just that there's a lot who do not doubt this.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

The facts point to the Russians having the emails and printing them on their GRU created website DCLeaks. Before wikileaks. So when did they give them to Rich to give to wiki? Or did Rich give them to the Russians? Cuz that makes even less sense.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

They were timestamped. At least a week before.
Guccifer2.0 is not a person. It is a persona created by Russian hackers to cover their hacking into the DNC servers.
Modeled after the Romanian hacker Guccifer who is real and is in jail in Romania. He was extradited to the U.S. in Oct of last year I think it was because he was claiming he knew who hacked the DNC and he needed to answer for hacking many high profile U.S. citizens including GW Bush. Prior to his extradition he claimed to have Hillary's emails but admitted he lied about that when questioned by the FBI about it.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Yeah a deathbed confession.
Did we get that?



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

I did too but it was gone ten minutes later.
You can't just edit and have crap on there. Edits don't even show up immediately. And yes there is a community who does indeed check it.
But enough🙌. You don't like wiki fine... I gave you subject. Look up the subject and choose your own source.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah




This witness seems credible to me.

Really?
You never saw him and they used a voice scrambler type thing. What could you tell about him?
That you believed him. That's your choice because he said what you want to hear.
It had nothing to do with any ability to read people.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, I have edited articles on Wikipedia. And no, nothing is checked before it is live. Sometimes someone else will come along and edit what you just changed, but in my experience it has mostly been changed again by competitors or those who just having opposing views about the information.

I always try to source content that I add, but that does not stop jerks from messing it up.





Anyone can put something up on someone's Wikipedia page..Unchecked...Without the subject's permission or any validation.
I speak from experience.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeah so do I. It does not stay if it's garbage.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join