dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Lesson #1 of information logic

A story that fails the test of chain of custody in the information, from source to 'report', CANNOT BE CRYSTALISED AS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE IN YOUR MIND.

With a broken chain between source and report, that information set is a fuzzy wave function that includes both true and false states in a superpositioning.

It is PREMATURE to think it either conclusively true or conclusively false BEFORE the FULL chain can be reconstructed.

As far as your mind's capability can function, both states are 'co-existent' as POTENTIAL STATES ONLY.

At this point the logical structure of the information is NOISE.

IT IS NOISE BETWEEN 'SOURCE' (CLEAR) AND 'REPORT' (UNBOUNDED/UNTETHERED) WHEN THERE IS A BROKEN LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF INFORMATION.

Unless and until you as an individual can detect the node to node chain of custody in the information transmission from 'source' to 'report', ANY THOUGHT YOU ACQUIRE, ANY STATEMENT YOU MAKEM that presumes, assumes, suggests, or concludes that the 'report' is distinctly true, or distinctly false, YOU ARE ALLOWING YOUR MIND TO BE PASSIVELY DETERMINED BY NOISE, AND NOT SOURCE. NOISE CAN INCLUDE DECEPTION.

TO BE CONSISTENT WITH REALITY AS IT IS, YOUR MIND MUST ALWAYS BE ULTIMATELY DRIVEN BY SOURCE AS IT IS, NOT AS THE NOISE MAKES IT APPEAR.

A STORY, A 'REPORT', DOES NOT BECOME DISTINCTLY TRUE OR FALSE BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL DESIRE FOR THE INFORMATION TO BE TRUE OR TO BE FALSE.

IT IS ONLY TRUE OR ONLY FALSE BY A FULLY LINKED CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN INFORMATION BETWEEN SOURCE AND REPORT.

FIGHT LIKE FLYNN

>>12444548

What's his source for that to be true?

He's retired.

>>12444557

WHAT IS THE RETIRED GENERAL'S SOURCE?

Anonymous ID: 7548d8 Jan. 10, 2021, 7:53 a.m. No.12444618 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>4699

>>12444597

Eyes are means to detect a source, they are not inherently a source.

Try again.

>>12444615

How could this retired general know classified information about a supposed military operation, AND WHY WOULD HE EVEN SPEAK OF IT INSTEAD OF ALLOWING PROPER CHANNELS TO DISCLOSE?

Anonymous ID: 7548d8 Jan. 10, 2021, 7:56 a.m. No.12444665 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>4726

>>12444632

Based on the replies to my question I can see that there are shills lining up ready with excuses.

Which indicates likely DISINFO to MISLED 'PATRIOTS' AND 'ANONS' WHO BLINDLY REPOST WITHOUT RECONSTRUCTING CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN THE INFORMATION.

Sigint is not for retired generals.

Don't ever question?

Yep, you're a shill.

>>12444639

ARE THE SHILLS STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THEY CAN TRICK ALL 'ANONS' INTO BELIEVING ILLEGAL ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE?

THIS RETIRED GENERAL IS TELLING A STORY PREDICATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE MILITARY CONDUCTED AN ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITTING HOUSE SPEAKER

I DON'T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE 'REPORT' THIS AS TRUE, EITHER BY DIRECT REPEATING OR ATTACKING ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS IT. I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS STORY IS TRUE WITHOUT A FULL NODE TO NODE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN THE INFORMATION TRANSMISSION. THERE IS NO REASON TO BLINDLY TRUST INFORMATION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT COMES FROM A RETIRED GENERAL. YES THIS MEANS I DO NOT BLINDLY TRUST FLYNN, BUT I TRUSTTHE INFORMATION HE RELAYS WHEN HE SHOWS FULL CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN THE INFORMATION TRANSMISSION

>>12444791

>hard work to restore

that's what was happening during the Trump admin along with Q and anon help.

Anonymous ID: 7548d8 Jan. 10, 2021, 8:06 a.m. No.12444830 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>4866

>>12444801

POST THE GENERAL'S SOURCE INFORMATION OR ELSE THERE IS A BROKEN LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF INFORMATION

>>12444828

You're just speculating by mimicking Q drops.

Kek, that won't convince me.

Anonymous ID: 7548d8 Jan. 10, 2021, 8:09 a.m. No.12444880 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>4952

>>12444866

YOU ARE DEFINITELY PROJECTING.

POST THE GENERAL'S SOURCE INFORMATION OR ELSE THERE IS A BROKEN LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF INFORMATION

>>12444877

I can't conclude Trump has no alternative account, yet.

Hannity reported POTUS has a Gab account.

Still need verification from POTUS himself.

https://gab.com/realdonaldtrump

>>12444890

You didn't point out any 'logical fallacies', you only posted your personal speculation.

Authenticity has not been verified. YES, THIS IS TRUE.
The warrant would be issued by a military judge and would not need to be made public.

SO YOU ARE ADMITTING THE RETIRED GENERAL IS, BY VIRTUE OF SPEAKING ABOUT IT, HIMSELF VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS AND HIS SOURCE WOULD NECESSARILY BE VIOLATING A GAG ORDER.

In other words, your argument is that in order for this story to be true, we all have to assume the retired general committed a crime, and his source committed a crime.

In other words still, the story PRESUMES THE MILITARY COMMITTED A CRIME.

Your 'pointing out logical fallacies' was actually you digging an even deeper hole for yourself. Good luck getting out now.

>>12445015

>he could be

How so?

Pentagon has many 'retired generals' attacking POTUS.

The story presumes the military committed a crime.

How did the information get out to the retired general legally?

It couldn't have,