So far your second article is most compelling to me. The first article on "the family" takes a series of leaps which really just ammount to a grasping for a narrative. Without more facts, even though your intentions are good, this only creates more misinformation.
Sticking to the facts is hard in a world where so many lies are told, and speculation allows for a softening of the edges so that one can possibly get more of the right puzzle pieces in place. The more levels of speculation however, the more leaps built on leaps you take, the higher the chance of pure fantasy.
That being said, as a long time supporter of wikileaks, ive become increasingly suspect of their motives especially some of their PR regarding the past US election. I appreciate your investigations, just consider tightening your approach.
Fair enough. I know where you are coming from and I appreciate your intentions and how you delivered your message. Please allow me to explain my actions in a little more detail.
In Part 1 - there is very little concrete evidence and that is largely due to the fact that Julian Assange has repeatedly refused to shed much light into the first 16 years of his life, or the first 35 years of his life for that matter. To this very day he refuses to even state how old he is.
I shared what I discovered during the course of my research. It is up to the individual reader to arrive at their own conclusions. I tried to make it clear when I was sharing my opinion, and I do have an opinion, and I made that clear from the beginning of the series.
Other researchers reading this series at a later date may have other evidence that they can connect to my research which is why I felt that it was important for me to put it on the blockchain. Others can decide it's veracity.
I am also to privy to the information that I have not yet shared, which is really the crux of why I believe that Assange is controlled. It is important to note that I have not yet written about 2006 onwards and the launch and actions of WL's and Assange since then.
You will see a lot more facts begin to come out in my future posts. You will also see evidence from others about WL's and Assange. It could be then be argued that it is one man's word and I get that. Irrespective, if the person making the claim seems credible enough I will quote them and again let the reader decide how much value to give it.
Thank you for the feedback. It is noted and appreciated!