Gotta love subtle reveals.

Q posted:

https://qanon.pub/data/images/ed6964be1cd55445ede255e23ab826a5f97af598981d00780f97ec674e2f07e3.png

Upside down lit Apple logo in what appears to be a hotel or office. The photo is sideways, and in-keeping with a prior remark I made, the optics are still out of focus.

The lamp appears to be a mains powered lamp, and the blinds are for a window, so the probably is this is a building on the ground (as opposed to say, Air Force One).

There is a distinct blue seat next to the lamp (on it's left) which looks like an executive or office chair.

Below/next to the lamp appear to be travel accessories - what appears to be a purse (Trump's wife?) and liquid soap. This appears to be a temporary stop in an office somewhere, although the information is conflicting.

The items in the room appear to be relatively expensive, so we're talking either rich or high ranking official.

My question is how was the Apple mac logo imposed? Photoshoppery?

I do believe, on analysis, that is "Greenbrier Resort".

"Heading to West Virginia to be with my friend, @WVGovernor Jim Justice, at his beautiful Greenbrier Resort. He works hard, does a great job, and raises lots of money for charities! "

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1014258987422928896?p=v

Based on the wallpaper colour and the lamp shape (note: colour shading is off), I strongly suspect the Q photo is from the Treasury Suite. There is however a presidential suite, which logically is a better match, BUT, visually I couldn't find any points.

Q photo:

https://qanon.pub/data/images/ed6964be1cd55445ede255e23ab826a5f97af598981d00780f97ec674e2f07e3.png

Treasury Suite:

http://www.greenbrier.com/getmedia/461ec2fd-ed20-42e4-abe7-f8a2759d809e/Treasury-Suite-2.aspx

Other, low probability matches:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e2/49/12/e24912b0b60b418b3ae350aec6ee5f02.jpg

http://www.greenbrier.com/getmedia/1716d269-d2c5-431b-8b91-45f94183dca0/State-Suite-4.aspx

Need eyes on the ground to ID the room as not all rooms have been photographed.

[This is the second time my post has failed to post due to some sort of communication security error. Certainly spun up the bees nest tonight.]

>>2019889

Always proving we're ahead of the curve, to paraphrase time traveller John Titor: 'during the 'civil war' a lot of 'less-than-lethal' weapons will be found to be very lethal indeed'.

What the Chinese have is still nothing compared to the tech designs I have.

(PS: we use electronic biometric security on laser weapons to ensure it can only be fired by an authorised user. Surprisingly enough, this stops people going on shooting sprees. Also, the security system is wireless - you can add or remove people from it's security settings on the fly. What China has is tiddlywinks to the shit I keep in memory. Also, the lasers are traceable with IR/Ultraviolet goggles, so all that 'stealth shit' is bollocks. PS: Mirror armour. That is all.)

Also, basic laser weaponry was found to be problematic in 'high reflectivity' scenarios.

Have they ever tried firing it during a rainstorm? Or fog?

Or into a breezing blowing a million of tiny reflective particles?

Also, lithium batteries have a tendency to overheat and catch fire. It's clear they haven't experienced a weapons malfunction yet.

Even the Mark 1 wasn't that primitive. On the Mark 53. How I wish I could brag how awesome - but then that would give the arms race more fuel.

Also, I hear EMPs were very effective against lasers in the early years, at least until they learned to faraday cage the things. Electricity can travel down a laser's ionisation trail - it's part of how the EMP gun works.

Anyway, have fun. Shooting someone in the hair which is close to their eyes is a no-no - remember kids, blindness and disability against protestors is considered a war crime.

@Trump

Noticed you didn't like my suggestion of judges on immigration, implying expenses.

You're certainly free to turn away everybody who crosses the border illegally, but my proposals refer to legal asylum and extremely edge case scenarios in illegal crossing (ask yourself if your proposal passes the 'abused child' test?; If a clearly abused child wanted to enter via that (any) route, could they?). Remember: abuse victims rarely have the convenience of doing anything by the book (as it allows their abusers to catch up to them).

To paraphrase it differently: imagine you stumbled across a sex trafficking ring, the children are clearly abused, but are undocumented. Deporting or jailing the traffickers is a given, but if you send the kids back, what happens? They get trafficked again? They entered illegally, but according to your no judges idea, you'd be forced to deport them even if compassionately you wanted to protect them from further harm.

Never make rules so rigid or inflexible you can't address a complex edge case scenario.

>>2026053

GLP? LOL, that psyop shithole? Wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that USAF mil-int censorship shithole.

You're aware Jason Lucas signed up to intel outfit Stratfor long before he departed right?

If GLP don't like Q, that's a credibility notch in his favour. Geez, was there a CT forum that Jason didn't try to buy out? In before lawsuit threats.

Q basically hinting he's Trump again:

https://qanon.pub/data/images/c3d8f4bab9f2cdddfa40abfbe1de34826d9ca685482481a03271b7cffccefd55.jpg

Wasn't the resort, ironically, it was Air Force One. Should have deduced from the logo on the side, my bad.

But reflections pose an issue for authenticity, I'm going to ask the question that no-one is going to like - how do we not know it's a reflection of a photograph?

Although, that said, Q's photos have consistently been either from Air Force One or Marine One. And I do believe that is the presidential office, which is telling because Air Force One has a policy that the further front of the plane you are, the greater the rank or privilege you must have to access that area. Schmucks like you and me would be confined to the back.

If Q's photo is legitimate, he's literally giving away he's either Trump, immediate family, closest political ally or a secret service agent.

As Q has referred to the secret service in the third person ('Thank god for the USSS'), we can eliminate it being an agent. I still maintain Q is Trump, but… there are some discrepencies to this theory.

For example, Trump on twitter called the NSA's deletion of phone records a cover up, and a witch hunt - referencing the Russia collusion aspect - Q, on the other hand, said they were merely deleting unnecessary records.

Now it could be a number of things (Q is a fraud pretending to be Trump incognito, or that Trump is Q but throwing shade to throw off a positive ID, or that it's not Trump).

I will comment this - the usage of reflective surfaces for photography is something one of the twitter accounts did (BTS, I believe?). However, they were largely found to be dishonest and wrong on occasion, leading to accusations they were a LARP or an impersonator.

>AF One is called AF One only when President is on board

Mils scolded that interpretation. Air Force One, strictly speaking, refers to the 747. The other craft being Marine One. There's never been any official account of the AF1 callsign being used to identify the president.

And no, they don't borrow the AF1 747 - there's the vice president's 747 if they really needed it. Most politicians just use a normal aircraft.

The only way AF1 could be in flight without the president is if it was being flown by the crew to a specific destination (EG repairs, or to pick up the president).

Regardless - executive room logic stands. You can't access the presidental's executive office without appropriate ranking (either the president, immediate family, SS agent or high ranking official, EG vice president, chief of staff etc).

Being on AF1 narrows it to 200 people. Being in the forward section (earlier deduction) narrows it to 30. Shots from Marine One narrows it down to 5. Originally I narrowed it to four - Mel Trump, Don Trump, SS agent or high ranking official. Mel Trump wasn't at NK, and Q referred to SS in third person (meaning he's not a part of it).

It's literally between Trump or a unknown high ranking official. Q even acknowledged the layout doesn't differ from Obama's term, so we know what AF1 looks like (roughly) inside.

Q has referred to a twitter phone, which narrows the possibility it's Trump incognito to a 98% chance (and 2% chance someone is pretending to be Trump).

Also, someone argued someone with 'Q clearance' is a president.

My money is still on Q being Trump.

Problem is, discrepancies between Trump and Q attitudes (Q seemed casual about the NSA phone record deletions, Trump was livid, for example), so I'm not closing it to 100% yet.

>>2031665

If California's are honking and they're making Q references, then contrary to my earlier expectations of a lukewarm midterm, the midterms looks like it's going to be very successful.

The democrats are disintegrating in the heat. Never before have I seen a party become so rabid. I predicted a division, but they might as well be holding fights to the death.

I anticipate the death of the democratic party, and a new, more centrist party to emerge. You might soon see three major parties in US policies - far left (the anti-ICE, open borders crowd), a left centrist party (more moderate, less extreme left-leaning) and the Republican party.

Crazy times ahead.

>>2042387

The British intel are complete idiots for trying to attack Trump.

Trump was the only one sponsoring Britain during Brexit, and Obama made clear he'd make the UK 'the back of the line' for trade deals. Hillary Clinton would have done more of the same.

If anything, British intel should have come out swinging in favour of Trump, given UK security interests hinge on having a good exit plan in the event the EU deal falls apart (which it will, the EU is heavily antagonistic).

The UK is trying to act like it's part of the liberal brotherhood of cunts like those in the EU, but the truth is, the EU is a total failure. The ironic fact is they're forced to backpedal on their migrant policy. Why the hell would the UK want to copy an economic, political and human rights failure like the EU? It doesn't even listen to it's own court!

UK needs to play nice, disown the dodgy 'dossier' that was SOURCED FROM THE GODDAMN RUSSIANS (MI6 was always shit at detecting triple agents), and say to Trump 'no hard feelings ol' chap?'.

The fact the UK government aren't disowning such a damn discredited disinfo dossier of deceit, division and distraction, I think speaks volumes. Will the UK parliament tell us what other advice it'll be sourcing from the Russians? Perhaps security advice? Economic?

This will become my new pseudo-post signature:

"Trump campaign's digital team outperformed Democrats at every level"

• David Brock, Media Matters:

https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump#from_embed

Isn't it beautiful? Basically admits Trump didn't win due to Russians, but due to superior knowledge of the internet.

Also the Democrats have a safe-space version of Twitter, but call Trump supporters 'weak individuals'. The amount of hypocrisy in that document is just eyewatering: PS, if you're a Democrat, they plan to datamine you and then sell (sorry, 'market') your data.

Your data is as safe as this document of theirs marked 'private & confidential'. Because marking something private makes it private!