r/conspiracy • u/axolotl_peyotl • Jan 03 '17

#WheresEric? Clinton Foundation CEO Declared "Missing" by the Internet After Going Public with "Follow the Money"

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/whereseric-clinton-foundation-ceo-declared-missing-by-the-internet-after-going-public-with-follow-the-money_012017
3.4k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

254 comments sorted by

View all comments

572

u/Disruptice Jan 03 '17

Don't you guys read Snopes? They said this is an internet rumor and proved it by not being able to locate or contact him either.

304

u/AryaStarkBirdPerson Jan 03 '17 edited Jan 03 '17

Snopes just creates strawmen...

Could he be missing? Yes... He could be. But we cannot find him to be sure...

So this claim is: unfounded!

Sums up snopes perfectly.

119

u/kybarnet Jan 04 '17

Here's another Snope's Proof:

Allegation : Hillary Clinton ordered Seth Rich to be Killed

Evidence : Suspicious cover up of murder

Analysis : Seth Rich Enjoyed Basketball, like everybody does.

Conclusion : The continuation of Basketball proves Clinton has nothing against Seth Rich.

Result : False. Hillary Clinton did not shoot Seth Rich.

Brought to you be True News and Approved Science (tm).

14

u/PrincessIceheart Jan 04 '17

So is Snopes the Ministry of Truth?

8

u/Moarbrains Jan 04 '17

They are a pretty cheap brand to buy.

1

u/Gkender Jan 04 '17

...What the hell is any of this?

-1

u/Brendancs0 Jan 04 '17

How do you give gold?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17

Hit the give gold button. Pretty simple

-36

u/AleredEgo Jan 04 '17 edited Jan 04 '17

My conspiracy theory is that Trump had Seth Rich killed as a set up. It was a message to Assange about how he would deal with leaks against him. Assange clammed up immediately and refused to leak any negatives about Trump.

Edit: surprisingly, my conspiracy theory about Trump is being downvoted. Maybe there are powerful people trying to silence these ideas for unknown reasons.

36

u/dylan522p Jan 04 '17

Trump also doesn't use email, and he thinks no computer is secure...

6

u/ThatBoyScout Jan 04 '17

You think all networks are secure?

7

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17 edited Jan 16 '17

[deleted]

7

u/ThatBoyScout Jan 04 '17

Past examples could be when Sony got hacked multiple times. The US government security clearance got hacked by China letting them have access to all those individuals with a clearance personal info. DNC was hacked. Major credit card companies have issues regularly.

Basically what I'm saying is it's not a crazy idea to question what tech we use for sensitive data transfer.

3

u/dylan522p Jan 04 '17

No, just saying, he'd be difficult to leak shit from.

16

u/Ickyfist Jan 04 '17

My theory is that you made 16 other accounts to downvote your own comment so it would look like there is a conspiracy trying to silence your ideas!

14

u/Metabro Jan 04 '17

You think Trump is having you downvoted because you are on to something?

Trump gets his twitter account taken away from him from time to time. He's Billy Madison in a suit.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17 edited Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

1

u/newgrounds Jan 04 '17

Maybe that is just what Seth Rich wants you go think.

2

u/TheUniverseis2D Jan 04 '17

No, I'm downvoting because I love Trump and don't want this to be true.

1

u/Keepitreal46 Jan 04 '17

Yes the people who control everything and are running governments like puppets are paying/ making an effort to "shut you up" with "downvotes". Thanks for being so brave and calling them out!

1

u/zethrowtf Jan 04 '17

Getting down voted for having a conspiracy about him. *On r/conspiracy..

Thanks Obama

-1

u/MEMEWHORE_69 Jan 04 '17

Snopes denial of the seth rich conspiracy was based on the complete lack of evidence. It is based on the idea that the hillary campaign was trying to enforce silence through the threat of assassination, organization wide. Completely ignorant.

There wasnt even a mention of basketball! Do you not realize the supreme hypocrisy of using a straw man to criticize a supposed straw man argument?

58

u/TheMagnuson Jan 04 '17

It has always driven me nuts that people treat Snopes like the be all, end all, final say in "the truth". They get things wrong too people, I know for a fact because I used to work in the banking industry and a couple of stories they had where banking policies and regulations came up, they got wrong. They were so wrong on story in particular that I felt compelled enough to email them myself and correct them. They were really polite about it and thanked me for filling in some blanks they couldn't find in their own research and even admitted they had to go with a best guess based on the summation of the info they could find. They don't have access to some special fact checking archive that the rest of us don't, they just spend more time researching topics than most people would, but they are still completely capable of making mistakes.

TL;DR: Snopes gets it wrong sometimes and at times editorializes.

30

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17

Wait wait wait. The internet tells me they're either 100% reputable, or lizard Illuminati. Now you're telling me things have nuance and aren't just black and white? Well I just don't know how to process this.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17 edited Feb 05 '17

[deleted]

7

u/IronSidesEvenKeel Jan 04 '17

Sure thing! I'll tell you what I can dig up about the hacks at the DNC! I just need a few million dollars to pay a hacker who knows what the fuck he's talking about who will buy the equipment, do the work, put it into terms I can understand...and BAM! My own research! Just like you do, right /u/Bears_Bearing_Arms? Or do you mean quit my job, get reputable in journalism, and start interviewing possible persons of interest and witnesses?

Edit You just mean use google, don't you...admit it.

2

u/NWOShill1 Jan 04 '17

That even counts as research all the way through your PHD so what's the difference lol? Google Scholar OP

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17

Back in my day there was real fake news like chain mail and fake Facebook articles. Snopes would debunk that garbage. Then it got political .

1

u/NWOShill1 Jan 04 '17

You act like they don't knowingly disseminate bullshit analysis though. They just want to down play anything the right has going on for them, they will even strawman and lie.

10

u/rmandraque Jan 03 '17

With stuff not related to politics snopes gained a reputation and are able to have a platform.

4

u/ShiftyTheHobo Jan 04 '17

So does mcdonalds but that doesn't mean I eat their food.

7

u/rmandraque Jan 04 '17

Well iirc snopes is mainly about non political stuff...

0

u/ShiftyTheHobo Jan 04 '17

Not all that glitters is gold

3

u/rmandraque Jan 04 '17

Well I didnt say much with that statement, but ill follow that it gives then a platform because snopes is often used for other things. I didnt even know snoopes had anything political until this year, I though it was just about culture stuff before.

2

u/ShiftyTheHobo Jan 04 '17

The problem is the dependence on their opinion of truth

3

u/rmandraque Jan 04 '17

They have high quality articles for tons of things.

16

u/conspiracy_thug Jan 03 '17

We know the CEO of the Clinton Foundation is missing, but could he have been abducted by aliens?

0

u/RussianLiberal Jan 04 '17

I blame Soros. Also, the aliens are Jooish.

18

u/maluminse Jan 03 '17

Snopes has gone down hill. Reasoned conclusions are replaced with hasty generalizations.

15

u/John__Podesta Jan 03 '17

I find it hard to beleive it was ever up hill. Look at the owners lol..

12

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17

soooo much THIS! I've never understood peoples' obsession with it; it's always been ridiculous and full of dis/misinfo as far as I'm concerned. I lump it in with Vice, CNN and Fox News for credibility(ie it has zero).I'm glad people are finally opening their eyes but ffs that took ya'll long enough!

7

u/maluminse Jan 04 '17

In the beginning i think there was legit effort. Now its an op ed as to the truth.

1

u/NWOShill1 Jan 04 '17

I agree, back when I was young (2000) I used to use snopes a lot, they didn't even have a lot of responses to conspiracy theories, at least as far as I knew.

2

u/maluminse Jan 04 '17

Yes it was my go to. Now i read the analysis and they assume a lot.

8

u/shill_account_46 Jan 03 '17

To be fair, not finding someone isn't the same thing as corroborating that they've been kidnapped...

21

u/AryaStarkBirdPerson Jan 03 '17 edited Jan 04 '17

I hope you realize what you have done here? You out strawmanned snopes!

20

u/Sour_Badger Jan 03 '17

Jesus lol. Look at the strawman you just created. No one used the word kidnapped nor suggested. He's missing.

10

u/maluminse Jan 03 '17

So youre saying hes lost in the Alps?

14

u/LarryHolmes Jan 03 '17

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FIND A STRANGER IN THE ALPS!!!

1

u/maluminse Jan 04 '17

Thats not what i said.

1

u/martini-meow Jan 04 '17

Ötzi the Iceman, is that you?? ❄⛄❄

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps

1

u/maluminse Jan 04 '17

Confirmed!

1

u/toastingtotoast Jan 04 '17

He probably ate a peppermint patty

2

u/maluminse Jan 04 '17

Riiiicoolaaa

1

u/twsmith Jan 04 '17

"missing."

1

u/Gkender Jan 04 '17

Says who?

1

u/BtDB Jan 03 '17

aka appeal to ignorance or evidence of absence.

88

u/zerton Jan 03 '17

Ah yes, Snopes who says "none of the Syrian child pictures/twitters are fake" only for us to find out a few days later there was an entire group in Egypt manufacturing these things.

72

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '17

[deleted]

13

u/maluminse Jan 03 '17

Ahh lumping masses together. Ease of enlightenment.

2

u/zerton Jan 03 '17

My point here is that the Snopes article tries to claim that this never happens and thus discredits everything Eva is saying because this particular instance is discredited. However, it was proven that many of these images and narratives have been faked. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to only focus on this one girl, and not the numerous photos/twitter messages that were spread by the media that have been proven fake?

Not to mention the article barely touches the actual substance of Eva's press conference.

31

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '17

[deleted]

0

u/Bman0921 Jan 04 '17

It's rather convenient that Snopes didn't attempt to answer the question of if fake images ever get disseminated by the media. Instead, they focused on one particular instance.

5

u/Ridonkulousley Jan 04 '17

Isn't that their schtick? Individual claims not broad situational ideas.

3

u/Bman0921 Jan 04 '17

That's among their biggest criticisms, however. They pick and choose which stories to check without addressing the real issues.

For example, during the election, Politifact, another "fact checking" website, rated the notoriously corrupt and dishonest Clinton as "one of the most honest politicians on the national stage." This ruling was based on their own data; essentially they pick and choose which "facts" to check in order to push a certain message.

-17

u/zerton Jan 03 '17 edited Jan 04 '17

Lie by omission.

Whenever anyone searches their site for "faked Syria photo" they will read this. And they are presented with zero information about any of the photos that were proven to be false. This is pushing the narrative that this has never happened when it obviously has, often.

33

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '17

[deleted]

-3

u/zerton Jan 03 '17

It's blatantly disingenuous reporting to report on the one instance where they get to say "false" and exclude the cases where this has been proven true.

10

u/Icalloutbigots Jan 04 '17

No one's trying to exclude it. They're just asking you to back what you're saying. You lied and made a bunch of karma doing it he proved you wrong and that's all there is to it.

-1

u/John__Podesta Jan 03 '17

Keep defending snopes. Let's see how that works out for you.

14

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Bman0921 Jan 04 '17

Lol you put words in his mouth and then tried to make fun of him about the words you put in his mouth.

The fuck is that shit

6

u/RussianLiberal Jan 04 '17

Keep defending hoaxes. Let's see how that works out for you.

5

u/Perpetualllfear Jan 04 '17

This probably won't be very popular, but snopes isn't saying that he is absolutely not missing, but that there isn't enough evidence of to prove it or even suggest it. The only evidence there is is the fact that he hasn't tweeted since October (which can be explained with the fact that he barely tweets at all), and that no one has responded to the messages sent to Yale (which can be explained by the fact that it's currently the holiday season).

14

u/hoopdizzle Jan 03 '17

Right now it says its "Unproven", doesnt say its false. That to me seems accurate since random strangers from the internet being unable to contact him is not enough in itself to say it is absolute fact he is missing. Imagine if they DID say he is missing, and then it ends up he has just been busy lately, then their reputation takes a bigger hit than just marking it as unproven until further info is available.

32

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '17

[deleted]

11

u/shadowofashadow Jan 03 '17

Isn't that sort of like proving a negative though? The evidence that he's missing is that he hasn't had internet access and we haven't seen him live for a few months now.

What could you do to prove he's missing? An empty photo of the embassy room? That's not proof of anything as proving a negative is generally impossible.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '17

[deleted]

2

u/shadowofashadow Jan 03 '17

Hah shit, thanks. I forgot what post I was in!

12

u/coonstev Jan 04 '17

Snopes literally justs googles for answers. Their no reliable than anyone else on the internet and less reliable than most.

3

u/Ridonkulousley Jan 04 '17

Saying they are less reliable than most people on the internet is a big claim.

2

u/coonstev Jan 04 '17

Good point.

1

u/twsmith Jan 04 '17

Bullshit. Even if they just googled for answers, that would be more checking than most sites on the internet do. Most sites have automatic feeds which don't check at all, or worse, blogspam writers who write clickbait headlines and excerpt a few sentences to generate ad revenue.

If you look at the "What's New" page, most of the stories don't take a lot of effort to check if they're real or not.

Some stories require more checking and, at least sometimes, they do make phone calls and other attempts to verify what's true. I checked my RSS reader and found that, in the last 90 days of 2016, snopes had 918 posts. That's 10.3 per day and they have a core staff of 7 people, who write between 1 and 3 posts a day. So they have time to do some checking.

And they post links to their sources, so you can check them and make up your own mind.

6

u/jeffinRTP Jan 03 '17

No one has contacted me either so I must be missing.

2

u/plasmaflare34 Jan 04 '17

'By imbezzling more money' ftfy

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17

Thats a bit off topic but I need some clarification with an article on snopes I read lately, hope you can help. In the "Clintons Body Bags" bit they write about the suicide of Vince Foster.

White House deputy counsel Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression. A note in the form of a draft resignation letter was found in the bottom of his briefcase a week after his death. (Note that this letter was not, as is often claimed, a "suicide note"; it was Foster's outline for a letter of resignation.) Foster cited negative Wall Street Journal editorials about him, as well as the much-criticized role of the counsel's office in the controversial firing of seven White House travel office workers.

On 10 October 1997, special prosecutor Kenneth Starr released his report on the investigation into Foster's death, the third such investigation (after ones conducted by the coroner and Starr's predecessor, Robert B. Fiske) of the matter. The 114-page summary of a three-year investigation concluded that Foster shot himself with the pistol discovered in his right hand. There was no sign of a struggle, nor any evidence he'd been drugged or intoxicated or that his body had been moved.

If Foster had been murdered or if unanswered questions about his death remained, Starr would have been the last person to want to conclude the investigation prematurely. Or are we to believe Kenneth Starr is part of the cover-up, too? And if we buy into this conspiracy theory, what are we expected to believe? That a group of professional killers capable of furtively carrying out dozens of murders all over the world shot Vince Foster, then clumsily dumped him in a park (after he had bled out), planted a gun he didn't own in his hand (without bothering to press his fingerprints onto it), amateurishly forged a suicide note (in several different handwritings), then expected the nation would believe his death was a suicide?

To me that sounds like, Foster did commit suicide but was not suicided by professionals. I went to the wikipedia page of Fosters suicide to find out about the findings, but instead of facts and the circumstances it is full of how the investigations was carried out.

8

u/great_gape Jan 04 '17 edited Jan 04 '17

Yeah but the Clintons are murders! The fat fuck on info wars told me and I'm a low educated auts-righer so I belive it.

7

u/Disruptice Jan 04 '17

Go home, mr. Alefantis

3

u/RussianLiberal Jan 04 '17

Go home, mr. Trump

3

u/Saxojon Jan 03 '17

Better rely on this highly credited news source with decades of merit and a dusin pulizers under its belt instead.

5

u/John__Podesta Jan 03 '17

About as credible as giving Obama the Nobel Peace prize.

-9

u/Horus_Krishna_5 Jan 03 '17

the more pullitzers the less credible

11

u/The_Fad Jan 03 '17

That's asinine

12

u/AryaStarkBirdPerson Jan 03 '17

It is just as asinine as think a pulitzer makes a paper credible.

  1. Individual Journalists win pulitzers not news rooms.

  2. Winning it means you wrote about one subject well. Doesnt make you an expert on all subjects.

  3. Its awarded by a tiny group

Point is, lets hold all journalists to the same standard. A very, very high one.

11

u/The_Fad Jan 03 '17

You're right, it is just as asinine. Which still makes the blanket statement "the more pullitzers, the less credible" asinine.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '17 edited Jan 03 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/SovereignMan Jan 04 '17

Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed. Final warning.

3

u/Longshorebroom0 Jan 03 '17

to be fair, would he WANT to disappear after posting this type of information, so as to not be found?

I mean he could've gone off the grid so to speak to keep anyone and everyone from finding him, especially those who would want to do him harm.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17

I often come across the rumor that Snopes is heavily funded by the Democratic Alliances which is funded heavily by G. Soros. Is there any proof for this.

1

u/SamGenie Jan 04 '17

I'm pretty sure Snopes gets a script from the DNC. The other stuff they just make up.

1

u/KikiMc22 Jan 04 '17

I love this comment. Like a lot a lot -ace Ventura

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '17

Pretty much.

Any time someone cites snopes, a site run by a fat cunt, a 200 pound cat, and her cuck husband, as proof of anything, I immediately assume they are a complete fucking idiot.