>>1521020 (lb)
@BackChannel17 seems legit to me from my own observation, followed since shortly before Q replied to said post (Apr 18), kept an eye on it after that date up to now. I haven't seen them portray as paytriots, attempting a narrative change away from Q drops, or intentionally misrepresent Q or the intel in any way. If I had to chose between BC17 & Q, there's no Q-uestion. I haven't been able to disprove them though, haven't seen reason to.
100%.
What I go from what Q said in one word: The anon or clown who created the graphic, isn't correct. No outside comms. Anons know this. The rest is left up to your own discretion. The light will reveal…
It's crystal clear to me that what is in the graphic, IS in fact fake.
>>1521324 Simple as that. Anon was wrong. That didn't negate the topic which he was wrong about. It negated the effort of connecting BC17 directly to Q.
Hmmm, did you recall how long ago this happened? I'm not blocked so I can check it out