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.

 

Fake Bombing Hoaxer a Florida Seminole Indian (Hoax Update)

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Where's the 2016 "database" ? 💥🤦‍♀️




posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

(1) Bombs are all fake with no explosives or detonators.


Detonators maybe, but there were explosives in the form of black powder.


(2) Hoaxer or patsy is a Florida Seminole Indian (not white). Possibly a registered Democrat.


His father was born in the Phllipines and his was born an Italian, so it'd be pretty hard for him to be a Seminole Indian. And, while he may have switched tickets, he was registered to vote Republican in 2016.



(3) Photo has been lightened up to make his skin color lighter.


Maybe, but all the pictures I've seen make him look pretty ethnic in background, lightened or not.



(4) Stickers cover almost all the windows of the brand new van. You wouldn't be able to drive it legally. Pictures appear to be professionally done in Hollywood.


Van is far from new. Looks to be minimally 15 years old to me. Might have been repainted, but it's certainly not new. Stickers - Van was photographed from multiple angles by multiple different people. There were definitely stickers on it. This has been validated by numerous sources (even here on ATS).



(5) All the enemies of world freedom and America are the so called targets.


No argument here.



Trump is obviously protecting himself by saying they would prosecute the so called white bomber to the fullest extent possible by law.


I don't see anywhere where he has stated this. Quite the contrary actually.


Still the media is attacking him coming into the crucial election.


Trump could help an elderly transexual, handicapped, ANTIFA, black, illegal immigrant, drug smuggler across the street and the media would assail him! Hell, he could carry Hillary Klinton herself across the street and the media would assail him. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out the media's response here.

I have my suspicions about this guy not being who he may appear, but none of these reasons carry water at the moment.


edit on 10/28/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's the old convenient "Cousin" that hasn't seen him or talked for years routine 😆



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   


(4) Stickers cover almost all the windows of the brand new van. You wouldn't be able to drive it legally. Pictures appear to be professionally done in Hollywood.


I'm curious as to why the OLD van would be illegal to drive? this is #1 bullsh@t..unless stickers covered the windshield, and driver door, passenger door windows, there is nothing illegal. I guess that mkes vans without windows in the back illegal??



Edit..passenger window is covered..my bad!!
edit on 28-10-2018 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Who said the bombs were fake?
And who said they did not contain explosives?



None of the bombs had triggering mechanisms. Also, instead of explosives, they had various incendiary reactives. Basically they catch fire rather than explode. In any event, they were never going to harm anyone. Having been built without a means of actually going off indicates that it was a hoax to some extent. However, they are still being called "viable" by the government so that they can still bring those charges against the guy.

edit on 28-10-2018 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod



(4) Stickers cover almost all the windows of the brand new van. You wouldn't be able to drive it legally. Pictures appear to be professionally done in Hollywood.


I'm curious as to why the OLD van would be illegal to drive? this is #1 bullsh@t..unless stickers covered the windshield, and driver door, passenger door windows, there is nothing illegal. I guess that mkes vans without windows in the back illegal??


Impaired visibility while driving because of those too many stickers is a traffic infraction, hence illegal to drive.

Ole state trooper see's that and your going to likely get pulled over, ticketed, and see the court clerk real soon, and if you give him any sass he/she could impound the vehicle.

edit on 28-10-2018 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I guess you have never seen a van without rear windows..like a common work van, or cube van..hard to see through sheet metal too..not illegal.

edit on 28-10-2018 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



Edit..I was mistaken, the passenger window does appear to be covered.
edit on 28-10-2018 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Depending on state law windows must have a certain level of clarity. In Illinois there are laws for window tinting, windows cannot be too dark.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: conspiracy nut

I have gotten a ticket for having my driver door window tinted, nothing here gets ticketed behind the driver/passenger door.
My point is many work vans or a u haul van as an example have no windows period, other than windshield and driver/passenger door.
Those vans are not illegal, it would seem to me, a valid argument for beating a ticket.


Edit..my bad..I see that at least the passenger door window is covered..I never noticed, just thought it was all the rear windows.
I agree, I would expect to be ticketed for that.
Maybe he drove it minimally.
edit on 28-10-2018 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I guess you have never seen a van without rear windows..like a common work van, or cube van..hard to see through sheet metal too..not illegal.



Edit..I was mistaken, the passenger window does appear to be covered.


If there are windows in the back and they are blocked then yes it is an infraction. It doesn't matter if there are other vans that have no back windows. You will get a ticket for blocking the back window. You should know by now how a lot of different traffic laws sometimes contradict other circumstances.

edit on 28-10-2018 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

Other registrants say other years.

"Cesar Sayoc's" doesn't.

Add one more mistake to the psy-ops fail.

Ehhhh eh eh eh eh 😆


There are very few who are not September 2018.

Maybe they're dead or moved and there is no further update on information.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I agree, can be confusing..luck of the draw as to getting a ticket. I drove my blacked out car for close to 5 years before getting a ticket, for the passenger and driver door window. Here, all the other windows were ok for tint.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I agree, can be confusing..luck of the draw as to getting a ticket. I drove my blacked out car for close to 5 years before getting a ticket, for the passenger and driver door window. Here, all the other windows were ok for tint.


I should have actually checked Florida, and not just my state law for that. It appears in Florida you can have stickers on any but the front windshield, (unless gov. issued), but they also have to comply with some sort of ambiguous window tinting law for visibility as well. Looks like it varies from state to state.

But it would be perfect bait for getting pulled over in Florida I bet, so they can try and see what else they can stick you with.

edit on 28-10-2018 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Here, the officer claimed my window tint was illegal, not because of visibility, but due to safety
he said he would not be able to break my window if I were incapacitated after an accident..as an example.
I looked at him like he was crazy..window tint is not window security film

I just took the ticket as an argument wasn't going to get me anywhere.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

Where's the 2016 "database" ? 💥🤦‍♀️

You never, ever admit when you are wrong.

Ask Florida.

That's a private website, and unfortunately the Wayback Machine didn't capture the pages around his name.
edit on 14Sun, 28 Oct 2018 14:10:05 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Dang, yeah they can come up with even more crazy reasons to ticket a person, than a person can think up to get out of a ticket, but then they play that game every day.




posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

No proof.

Go Poof.

💨



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Yup, and they are good at it


I was prepared to go to court over it, was going to bring a tinted window from a scrap car to demonstrate the breakability.
In the end it was easier and cheaper to just pay..lol.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

No proof.

Go Poof.

💨

Cesar A Sayoc's Florida Voter Registration

Cesar Sayoc Jr's Voter Registration
Party Affiliation: Republican Party
Registered to Vote In: Dade County, Florida
Registration Date: 03/04/2016
Voter Status: Active

Same goes for you, foxy.
You made the claim that he only showed up as registered in 2018.
The site you used to backup that claim said:

This is the most recent information, from the Florida voter list as of 30 September 2018.

It listed the same date for most of the people on that same page.

Prove your claim. You won't ever admit that you were wrong, at best you will dismiss this and run away.
edit on 14Sun, 28 Oct 2018 14:26:35 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but this guy is a total "middle-man". He is the kind of guy that you call up when you need something to happen.
Let's look at what's been reported about the guy;

He traveled around a lot:
Moving around alot, or just going where work takes you. Either way not being in one location for very long periods of time is typical of "middle-men" type's of people.

He was a male dancer/stripper:
A typical stripper can bring in 1-2 thousand in hard cash a night, and that doesn't include private party events. many "middle-men" will take legitimist jobs that pay out in cash so that when questions come up about receiving large cash payment for "work", they can just claim that it's how they normally get paid.

He was hard up for money:
A typical scam that "middle-men" use is that were hard up for money, and somebody took advantage of that. It's a generic statement that gets used more and more these days since many cities would rather just ignore a "hard up" homeless person, then try and go after them for legal reasons.

He had a business partner:
Often times a "middle-man" will have a legitimist business person vouch for them in order to get a cash job, get out of jail quietly, or in this case give credence to the persons mental state. Sometimes this voucher is part of their contract for future use, sometimes the person hiring the "middle-man" might just be helpful so that they are listed as a "preferred customer" for protection or warnings.

His on-line presence goes back to 2016:
A "middle-man" will sometimes take years to set a stage for a paid action. In this case we have a guy that became a stanch Trump supporter during the election cycle 2016. There was another case where a "middle-man" moved in nextdoor to his contract and made friends with him over a few decades, then when he was called up by his contractor, he walked over to his friends house shot him five times while he was sleeping, and moved out. Must people couldn't even believe what had happened since the two were seen as the best of friends.

He used to USPS to mail out his props:
Using publically accessible resources like the USPS isn't anything out of the ordinary for a "middle-man". Using services that are just mundane like the USPS, take out Chinese food, having a Taxi service drive them around, or even calling 911 after they do a job is all par for the course in looking like any other person out there.

He's more then willing to co-operate with the authorities:
This action isn't as common, but very well played by "middle-men" that use it. By help out in an investigation a "middle-man" can sometime control the investigation by leading authorities where he wants them to go rather then allowing them to really dig deep into the "middle-mans" background. After all an investigator would rather just conclued that a "nut-job" murdered someone than have to worry about dealing with a crime syndicate's hitman.

I'm just going to leave this there for you to draw your own conclusions about his being a "nutter".
I'm also not stating that this guy is in any way, shape, or form the master mind behind any of this. I believe that he is nothing more than a "middle-man" and was only doing as he was paid to do. As I said though, try not to believe the conclusions about this guy until you have a chance to go over the data your self.




top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join