AZ AZ - Daniel Robinson, 24, remote job site, Buckeye, 23 Jun 2021 #2

I'm very intrigued. Some would call this a complete conspiracy, but they'd be surprised how much corruption goes on right under their noses. I absolutely believe that someone made Daniel disappear to cover up this "SW Groundwater, town of Buckeye" operation. Who would his father contact about this, a lawyer? How can we find out more information? Has anything new happened since working with the Petito family? TIA
 
Daniel, as an entry-level hydrogeologist, would just be taking water levels (depth to water measurements) to caIibrate the model. He would not have any knowledge of the model results.

But your theory has merit. I know a geologist who was coring in a new mine area that was shot at (not injured) by local landowner. Not in AZ.

Even on 2025 there is still a "wild, wild, west" mentality in rural SW America.

I'm very intrigued. Some would call this a complete conspiracy, but they'd be surprised how much corruption goes on right under their noses. I absolutely believe that someone made Daniel disappear to cover up this "SW Groundwater, town of Buckeye" operation. Who would his father contact about this, a lawyer? How can we find out more information? Has anything new happened since working with the Petito family? TIA
I agree with all of these sentiments.

However, if something was done to Daniel by a person or group who is opposed to the potential development that Daniel's data collection might have been facilitating, I think there would be public controversy over the company's projects, even if no group took specific responsibility for his disappearance.

I haven't read about any such public controversy over what Daniel's company was working on -- has anyone else?
 
Collusion occurs when multiple parties lie. It appears Ken’s statements are inconsistent. Another coworker, RP, may have may untrue statements to police about his fathers death. While untruths may not implicate someone as a guilty party they may suggest a cover-up. When a cover-up exists, it is no longer a missing persons case. To get a criminal case instigated there must be evidence of criminal activity. If all parties are examined the totality of the evidence might warrant a status change if collusion appears to exist. Whatever witnesses said to police should have some corroboration. I am bothered that the witness in the desert, BH, the site co-worker, KE, and the office co-worker, RP, all said things to police that are in the report but that also have discrepancies. I would encourage others to look for independent corroboration and share what is discovered. It might become a tipping point that could impact investigation direction.
 
something was done to Daniel by a person or group who is opposed to the potential development that Daniel's data collection might have been facilitating,

Unlike most of the time, in Daniel’s case I don’t immediately roll my eyes at a conspiracy theory. (I’ve seen Chinatown!)

That said, in re: a theory specifically involving water rights/development, I have to wonder why Daniel would be a target. As others have mentioned, he was essentially an entry-level hydrologist, taking measurements, but with no power to make decisions or influence anything. What would killing him, in the conspiracy scenario, accomplish?

I’m not sure where I’m going with this. The interactions with the girl he door-dashed make me think there was some sort of mental health thing going on; the desert is vast, the simplest explanation.

However, the discrepancies in witness statements, the weird Jeep evidence: the distance travelled, the ignition cycling, (allegedly) showing up in a place people or cows would have found it had it been there the whole time, the clothes strewn about…

There’s a strange undercurrent to this case I can’t quite put my finger on.
 
Unlike most of the time, in Daniel’s case I don’t immediately roll my eyes at a conspiracy theory. (I’ve seen Chinatown!)

That said, in re: a theory specifically involving water rights/development, I have to wonder why Daniel would be a target. As others have mentioned, he was essentially an entry-level hydrologist, taking measurements, but with no power to make decisions or influence anything. What would killing him, in the conspiracy scenario, accomplish?

I’m not sure where I’m going with this. The interactions with the girl he door-dashed make me think there was some sort of mental health thing going on; the desert is vast, the simplest explanation.

However, the discrepancies in witness statements, the weird Jeep evidence: the distance travelled, the ignition cycling, (allegedly) showing up in a place people or cows would have found it had it been there the whole time, the clothes strewn about…

There’s a strange undercurrent to this case I can’t quite put my finger on.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I have directly experienced the public's anger directed toward low-level employees (hydrologist even! 😁) -- either because the angry public didn't understand that the decisions are only made by the bigwigs, or just treating everyone associated as a symbolic representation of the problem. Or maybe as a good way to scare the bigwigs or put other low-level folks in fear of doing their job.

That said, I don't really think that's what's in play here -- like I said, if that were the case I would have expected a lot of public antagonism against whatever that project was, and I've heard no hint of that. MOO though.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
520
Total visitors
666

Forum statistics

Threads
625,446
Messages
18,504,073
Members
240,804
Latest member
PajamaGirl
Back
Top