MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
AE on Telly News (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30 ... 145, 146, 147  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Why would the DNC (or whoever) murder Rich after the damage was done?

I did promise myself I was going to lay off the conspiracy theories for a while, but this opportunity is just too tempting :)

This was most definitely a "staged" murder in my opinion i.e. a faked event. The purpose probably being to put the frighteners on anyone else thinking of leaking information.

It sounds far-fetched at first, but it's much more realistic than a conspiracy theory stating someone has actually been killed. Government agencies create new identities for people all the time, it's just like putting people into a witness protection program. Plus it's much easier to get people to take part in a white lie where no one actually gets hurt, than it is to get people to take part in an actual murder. Even most hardened criminals tend to draw the line at the murder of innocent people. Much easier to just fake it. (It's the same with these "gun-grab" shootings on American TV).

I watched the BBC 2 show. There was a lot of talking, but not much actual physical evidence for anything at all. No forensics, etc.

I think I shared this link on here the last time the Seth Rich topic came up, but it's really worth watching as it's from the time of the event.

Seth Rich died on July 10th, this interview was published July 13th. His brother is smirking throughout and looks like he doesn't want to be there. His parents spend the last 30 seconds of the interview visibly laughing. This is not the behaviour of a family that have just lost their son. They've even given the mother a stuffed panda in an attempt to make it look more heartfelt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOn09bhDXMo
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
But surely 'the Russians did it' completely ruins the right-wing conspiracy case 'the DNC did it' anyway? Unless there's something you're not telling us. Now why would that be?


The Russians didn't do it. It was an internal leak (proven by forensics). Donna Brazil knows full well what went on. She knows shit is going to hit the fan and she wants no part of what's coming.

The DNC covered up the leak by inventing Guccifer 2.0. This too has been proven by forensic analysis. The forgery was breathtakingly sloppy. Guccifer 2.0 was incorporated into the Russian Conspiracy "insurance policy" created by FBI and CIA officials as a means of impeaching Trump post-election, should he win.

Seth Rich was murdered before the publication of the emails by Wikileaks. How much was known by the DNC prior to the publication we don't know. Given that Seth was the leaker, he would have been the only person who could have exposed the false Russia narrative concocted by the FBI/CIA.

Seth Rich leaked those emails.

Frankly. It makes me want to vomit to see the lengths to which the entire educated class will go to protect their precious Democrat Party---even covering up a murder. Even producing multi-million dollar "news" programs to cover up that murder! Don't let these people fool you.

I'm no conspiracy theorist. Seth Rich leaked those emails.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
It sounds far-fetched at first


Which should have been your first clue.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So why wasn't it your first clue? After all, your theory is way further fetched than Scottie's.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My last post prompted me to think about ‘farfetchedness’ and whether it is measurable (and therefore useful for AE purposes). It was something we slightly explored in Forgeries when, for instance, for St Cuthbert’s Gospel to be genuine a sequence of farfetched (but on their own, just about feasible) events had to occur to make it so. A first step would be take the sequence and assign 'farfetched' or 'feasible' to each step. Thus for Ishmael’s theory to be true the following events have to take place (or not as the case may be)

1. Seth Rich hacks DNC computer
feasible he worked there as a computer nerd.
farfetched because as a low-level computer nerd he wouldn’t have access to high-level emails and he would therefore have had to hack the DNC computer

2. Seth Rich leaks DNC emails
farfetched because he was a Hillary groupie

3. DNC invent Guccifer to hide their own sloppy security
farfetched nobody ever does this because everybody gets hacked

4. FBI/CIA incorporate Guccifer in their plot to impeach Trump
farfetched even if we grant them the wish, they wouldn’t do it in such a ridiculous way

5. DNC murder Rich
farfetched because the damage was already done
farfetched because of not wanting to spend 25-to-life in a federal prison although admittedly

6. It would discourage others
farfetched because ‘the others’ wouldn't know it was the DNC that killed Rich, especially as

7. It was the FBI/CIA because Rich knew the Impeachment Conspiracy couldn’t work -- it wasn’t the Russians it was Rich himself
farfetched because the DNC also knew the truth so they would have to be murdered too. And they haven't been.
farfetched because Donna Brazil and Seymour Hersch knew the truth so they would have to be murdered too. And they haven't been.
farfetched because Christopher F Ash knew the truth so he would have to be murdered too. And he hasn't been.

But if he is, the AEL will be on the case.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why is it that your media hasn't told you about the forensics proving the leak was no hack? Why hasn't your media told you that foresics prove Guccifer 2.0 is a fabrication? These facts are being concealed from you.

Why?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You're thinking too hard about this. People don't do things for tertiary effects. They barely consider secondary effects.

Sadam Hussain tried to assassinate George Bush. It was hardly in his best interest to do so. Nevertheless, he made the attempt.

Those who killed Seth Rich did so first and foremost because they hated Seth Rich. Cost-benefit analysis is a parlour game.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Collusion


Richard Nixon. Elected president in 1969.
To this day, the left believes he colluded with the North Vietnamese and betrayed the United States in order to get elected.

Ronald Reagan. Elected president in 1981.
To this day, the left believes he colluded with the Iranians and betrayed the United States in order to get elected.

George Bush. Elected president in 2001.
To this day, the left believes he colluded with the governor of Florida and betrayed the US Constitution in order to get elected.

Donald Trump. Elected president in 2017.
To this day, the left believes he colluded with the Russians and betrayed the United States in order to get elected.

I wonder why the media never takes us on this trip down memory lane?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You keep mistaking me for a left-wing person. Let me remind you of your position

1. Ishmael is a right wing person
2. Therefore he disagrees with left wing people
3. Ishmael disagrees with M J Harper
4. Therefore M J Harper is a left wing person

whereas the true position is

1. M J Harper disagrees with everybody all the time
2. M J Harper disagrees with Ishmael.

I notice, as usual when I am giving you a drubbing, that you

1. Expound theory
2. Quote 'facts' that I have not disputed
3. Cite 'events' that I have not cited.

If you wish to learn some wisdom about politics, as you have learned wisdom about so many other things under my gentle guidance, you can begin by going back to my seven steps and indicate which are not valid. Do not bother with possible explanations as to whether they may be wrong, just invalid.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
You keep mistaking me for a left-wing person.


Sorry Mick. Those posts were not really intended to be related. Wasn't suggesting you were left wing or that you espoused any of those conspiracy theories.

However....I do still see you as in general class alignment with the educated elite---despite your iconoclasm. I have a phrase for persons "like" you: "wise liberals" (though I stress there truly is no one like you). Though wise liberals see themselves as superior to those pitiful narrow-minded liberal types they nevertheless view those types as brethren in a way in which they would never regard those on the right.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
...you can begin by going back to my seven steps and indicate which are not valid.


I started doing that but then I felt I was just being small, and it is time-consuming in the context of my being at work right now facing deadlines. Yes yes. It all suggests some careful ignoral on my part too. I know. Perhaps it is. I'd have to devote the time to answering the points to confront that possibility.

I thought it better just to concentrate on the straight-up obvious problem with the information to which you have access being quite limited---and purposefully so by those who provide you with that information. For the purposefulness of that filtering I think is a puzzle worth pondering.

If the facts really are on the side of those defending the Democrat party then why is the media failing to provide us with all of the relevant facts?

I think the facts are not so favorable to the left-elite position as the left-elites pretend.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If the facts really are on the side of those defending the Democrat party then why is the media failing to provide us with all of the relevant facts?

There's your first mistake. Never mind about the shortcomings of the media, you have all the relevant facts. So use them.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

However....I do still see you as in general class alignment with the educated elite---despite your iconoclasm.

It is true we are saddled with certain inalienable traits, and one would be foolish wasting one’s time trying to eradicate them entirely, but this is not one of them --. leastways not on the Rich murder. I have met most of the people on this site (including you), I have met most of my friends, I have met most of my family, I have watched most of the people on Newsnight/Fox News and class alignment and being members of the educated elite is the one thing they have in common. They are all morons (including you) though some are more moronic than others (including you).

I have a phrase for persons "like" you: "wise liberals" (though I stress there truly is no one like you). Though wise liberals see themselves as superior to those pitiful narrow-minded liberal types they nevertheless view those types as brethren in a way in which they would never regard those on the right.

This is absolutely true and is the whole basis of AE. How you can’t see it applies to all orthodoxies including ‘wise conservatives’ is quite beyond me.

It all suggests some careful ignoral on my part too.

Wholesale careful ignoral is necessary to sustain your position.

I know. Perhaps it is. I'd have to devote the time to answering the points to confront that possibility.

Unless you carefully ignore doing so.

I thought it better just to concentrate on the straight-up obvious problem with the information to which you have access being quite limited

As far as I know it is the same as yours, though of course you spend more time than I would exploring obscure sources on this subject. This is the position academics always adopt: ‘If only you would familiarise yourself with the evidence, i.e. spend more time exploring obscure sources, you wouldn’t be saying such dreadful things.’ You yourself have been eloquent on the perils of expertise. In fact you're quite an expert on the subject.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Watching the swathe of programmes marking the 100th anniversary of the RAF (one of the worst decisions ever, by the way) I was constantly irritated by every programme spending 90% of the time with everybody concerned going into raptures about this or that, 9% of the time going into to tear-filled sorrow about this or that and 1% of the time telling us anything important. Or at any rate technical.


It annoyed me that one of the programmes went on and on about the Vulcan bomber, surely the most ineffective plane the RAF ever had. Apart from dropping a bomb on an airstrip which was quickly repaired it was never used for anything.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That is not entirely true. It did save the peace of the world for twenty years. Or would you have preferred that it had been used?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30 ... 145, 146, 147  Next

Jump to:  
Page 29 of 147

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group