Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 6:02 a.m. No.255787   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>255779

>>255781

I'm not saying it's wasted time, and I'm not telling anyone what to do.

>>255780

So another insider, who happens to be on our side, decided it was in his best interest to hack Q's tripcode and then starts posting legit information posing as Q?

 

I'll keep digging.

Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 6:14 a.m. No.255812   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>255430

>The mods have consulted with Dr Jerome Corsi, a recognized expert at military intelligence communications, and he confirms that the most recent drops from Q using the !UW.yye1fxo tripcode are a 'kid who thinks he knows what Q posts look like.'

For the sake of transparency, may we please see/hear this conversation?

Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 6:25 a.m. No.255833   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5837 >>5838

>>255822

It would be in your best interest, for the sake of proper argument, and in the best interests of the skeptical anons, to produce a stickied thread detailing your argument for the most recent Q posts being a LARP.

Such a thread should include IP logs, your consultation w/Dr. Corsi in full, and any other substantiative evidence that suggests 2018/01/05-Q is fake.

This would put the concerns of anons to rest and validate your stance on the matter, ultimately putting this shit to rest and letting us get on with the digs and memes.

Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 6:34 a.m. No.255862   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5873 >>5880

>>255838

It's not a matter of "believing BO", it's a matter of having the facts presented to us for such a serious claim.

I'm willing to take his word at face value, sure, but that comes with a trust that the facts will be elucidated to us in short order.

After all, we're operating on logic and reason here, and the facts of the matter should clearly illustrate that 2018/01/05-Q is false.

I would like to see those facts neatly summarized, as would every other anon who would rather have a logically satisfying conclusion to this mess.

Plus it shows good leadership on BO's part, that there's no smokescreening going on here.

Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 6:43 a.m. No.255888   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5902

>>255873

Chill out.

>Believe or not

Brilliant. Very academic, logical.

Not shilling, just want to know what the hell is going on since last night was a clusterfuck of screaming madness.

Calm and reasonable explanation would be much needed here.

 

>>255880

If they're none of my business, then they're no anons business, and we're all back to being mushrooms, fed shit and kept in the dark.

I'm not satisfied with that, but I have no choice in the matter, so I'll just dig.

Thanks for being rational, BO, you're a treasure.

Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 7:17 a.m. No.255963   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>255953

Thank you for the input, Codemonkey, and for being a voice of reason.

So we truly are in the dark as far as whether those deleted posts were legit Q or not, yes?

Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 7:25 a.m. No.255995   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>255973

Thoughts on how to proceed? BO has explicitly stated we're on "need to know" re: whether those Q posts are legit, and without any way to corroborate what he presumably knows, we're blind here. If you can't verify Q's posts, is there really any way for BO to verify them?

Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 8:10 a.m. No.256164   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6167 >>6170

>>256151

Brighter than over 9000 suns.

BO, thoughts?…

Oh wait, that's right, it's "need to know", so no answers from BO, then.

We'll just have to wait for his book deal to go through, the famefagging retard.

Anonymous ID: ebe812 Jan. 6, 2018, 8:13 a.m. No.256187   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>256170

They all got banned, it seems.

Fucking amazing.

BO wasn't compromised, he's just an idiot, an unstable, irredeemable idiot who's managed to splinter this effort a second time with his own hubris and faggotry.