For the sake of argument, lets "assume" that Scavino is on the Q-team. (Not saying he is - this anon would never do that.) But IF he was and IF Q's trip has been removed to silence Q - Q team would have foreseen a way to communicate leaving plenty of holes for plausible deniability.

We all know that Q team is always here watching. They may have been waiting for a chance to act. So they see somebody remove an entire bread. They see the hullabaloo that follows - including a BV calling out loudly that the board is comped right up to the top - and posting tons of hashes that prove his point. (The silence of BO is deafening). This is the environment that Q-team has been watching for to make their move. So using their permission to access Project[D]Comms, "B" posted this huge clue + plausible deniability which is needed.: "Fact Vs. Fiction

We will not tell you which is which; the choice is yours."

Buried within the multiple Memorial Days posts from Scavino is a time stamp that points to a Q post:

We are under HEAVY attack.

AB[C] took control.

Tripcode compromised.

No. 131 Last.

TRIP UPDATE COMING.

Q

Note it is the [C] in the kill brackets – not the B.

Also note the "No. 131 Last". That points us to Qpost 131 and to the last remark Q made: "Please stand by".

So our full message is that we are under heavy attack, C has taken control, the trip code is compromised, please stand by as new tripcode is coming (maybe a new Trump platform?)

They knew in 2018 that [C] was embedded and going to pull this at some point. They had the Q drop ready to go for this scenario. (Maybe BV is even on the team - more built-in plausible deniability)

CM added to likelihood of the above scenario with his "best guess". Does he know something? Maybe, but again - plenty of plausible deniability.

The long absence of Q plus some "seeming" Scavino clues through the months of silence further bolsters this "assumption".

I'm feeling pretty good about what we've witnessed. Just sayin'.

>>13792834

5:35 is central (my) time. 6:35 ET. 1835 military time.

>>13792804

If this scenario is correct, BO has every reason to lie and say that a GV was responsible. Or maybe GV was on the team. The message still came through loud and clear and was verified by Scavino.

>>13792878

…and if Jim is comped? At least one BV (you?) said he was. I don't see how we know any more than we knew before. Problem is that we don't really know anything. Of all the players, I trust Scavino.

>>13792909

We have to look at the full picture, anon. Do you see the Scavino connection as mere coincidence? Q said there are no coincidences. Please address the Scavino timestamp.

>>13792943

Things we know for a fact:

>1. Q set up an iden method specifically for situations like this.

Agree - but trip can be disabled.

>2. It was not used, therefore, no ID.

Agree but trip can be disabled.

>3. /mnr/ and other retards jumped on to discredit BV, BO, Jim and everyone under the fucking sun.

I am not really familiar with the retards that jumped on to discredit. I don't get into board politics – I'm just a researcher anon. I agree that the Paytriots jumping on board add credence to your position.

>4. BV/BO did their research, Jim confirmed it with actual site-wide logs. You know, like a site admin would.

OK - were the logs posted? If so, I missed them and will happily shut up, bow down and apologize. If not, we have to at least consider the possibility that BO could be comped.

>What you're implying is that the entire site is comped and Q was allowed to stay here because… because why, exactly?

I can't imagine the threats that BO must come under daily for giving Q a platform. Maybe it became too much and he caved. It's happened to many.

>Your shit doesn't make sense, so kindly eat it yourself.

I hear and understand your frustration. This whole thing is exhausting and I'm ready to get back to research as I'm sure everyone is. I'm just trying to figure this thing out. Can you address the Scavino timestamp please? Just coincidence in your opinion?

Blessings anon.