>>1656639

Sherlock Holmes I think once said, if you make an exception to a rule, it becomes the rule. Saying 'don't want to do X but…' means you do want to do it, and don't want to honestly own up to the social backlash from being honest.

I've been critical of Q but as solidified concerns about actual behaviours (EG undemocratic Syria strike). Asking why Q isn't talking about a specific subject is redundant.

That'd be like asking why a geography teacher doesn't talk about chemistry, or why I don't talk about novels.

It's irrelevant what people don't talk about. No-one is a master at everything (attribution of omnipotence or omniscience to an individual is a sign of a cult, FYI), and your critique he isn't talking about specific subjects is redundant.

There's a lot of stuff not covered. So? How many other people talk about targeted individuals other than TIs themselves? Not many. I don't see you berating the public.

Q's knowledge set is clearly restricted to that of US politics and possibly intel operations. I've not seen any evidence to suggest any other knowledge base so far, nor am I here because of a mastery of all things, but only a specific few.

>>1663679

Interesting retort, but you're thinking in a very limited box. I already considered this before I strted.

My or your ignorance of who Q is isn't anyone else's ignorance. 'Security by obscurity' as many security researchers will tell you is 'no security at all', and if Q could be unmasked by a guy like me piecing together what Q themselves post, then they're already ID'd by people with substantially more resources, here's a short list:

China

Russia

Bad intelligence agents

Political parties

Any nation that Q happens to piss off (possibly the whole of the EU, UK),

Pedo rings,

Corporations

Ad nauseam

Except the difference is I'm piecing together what Q is giving to the public - which implies Q wants to be identified (why even mention it's Air Force One unless Q wants the selection candidancy narrowed to a few hundred people?).

If it's not intentional, then they are being careless, and by my identification efforts, they're becoming aware of how careless.

Me 'exposing' or 'naming' Q isn't going to impede anyone with unlimited financial resources (manpower, tools, algorithms, inside data, snooping etc) from doing the same, if not a lot sooner and with more facts (for example, I don't even know what AF1 looks like internally, or have a plane manifest).

The difference is, if I unmask Q (bearing in mind I'm 'late to the party' and do not have unlimited backing), then Q knows their identity is compromised and take appropriate actions to obsfucate it or what have you.

It might be that Q is more cautious in what they're posting in future as a result.

Regardless, telling me to lamely stop isn't going to stop thousands, millions of others who already ponder the same question. This is primitive YouTube style 'Game Theory' theorising - this isn't even me putting in any actual effort.

>>1700332

Hurling 'shill' at everything for simply making a comment observation is hardly a retort.

I'd actually love to see if that was the case - Trump pre-emptively hinting to future changes on the stock market, allowing for buys/sells to make a profit.

Infinitely more plausible than the Russian meddling bullshit we keep hearing about.

And yes, corporations like Amazon, AT&T mess with the stock market, FCC comment section, we know corporations are evil, it's old hat. I hope you at least do your best to boycott Amazon where-in possible like I do. AT&T has a monopoly, but that's what anti-monopoly laws are there for.

>>1705132

As I remarked in earlier post, I don't hold a knowledge of everything and everyone specialises, regardless, I'll have a stab at your acronyms (largely used to obsfucate by people pretending to know it all0.

FMM - Financial Market Manipulation

FTT - Financial Transaction Tax

FT - This one has so many possible meanings I'm just going to shrug and say it's a red herring. I'm sure you'll lecture me regardless (Financial Times, Financial Trader, Forward Trade, ad nauseam).

If your argument is you can't get any benefit out of trades because of taxation or time limitations, look how far in advance Q has been giving information - that is months in advance.

Trump can easily hint a thing on twitter and wait until many months later to execute.

You seem to be taking my hypothetical way too seriously. This isn't a power exclusive to Trump or the US.

This is 'could this be possibly abused?' type scenario. I wonder if anyone has done so?

Hmm, financial bailouts, anyone?

>>1705336

Confirmation received.

If you think you can get faster dismantlement, go for it, but North Korea are sketchy about US military presence - to them, nukes are their only US deterrence. They need a placeholder, or time to adapt to a new status quo.

Likewise, don't get lulled into a total withdrawal, I can still see them overrunning the South on a technicality, and the South don't seem very keen on defending themselves.

You'll also want to avoid landing anyone in North Korea to 'help' (EG builders, investors, etc). If NK goes Saddam you'll have a bad hostage situation. Unless they're people you want the NK to hold hostage (IE bad guys you can't prosecute due to mysterious lack of evidence).

They've seen nuclear radiation is bad, move them away from it. The key objective is denuclearisation - but in stages so they don't freak. If there's a better alternative you can see, go for it, I'm obviously behind on information.

Q said:

"What event occurs in Dec (London)?

Think Hyde Park."

Based on the image Q provided:

https://qanon.pub/data/images/e21a467394bcafdd201afeeff0b20a7121c954a79a21e143304cdbe7d2b001c8.png

I would deduce that is the Hyde Park 'Winter Wonderland' (which to eagle-eyed readers sounds like 'Alice in Wonderland' references).

Image comparison:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZNURelhpIo/hqdefault.jpg

We can naturally eliminate 2018 because that hasn't happened yet.

I would argue it wouldn't be earlier than 2014, given Trump's nomination started about then.

Q also remarks:

"Tweet meant to provide time guide."

The tweet he has imaged:

https://qanon.pub/data/images/4c393499c76907180240b6a03ca457c5b8eed561c2aad7cb47b25594ced3dfe6.png

Says 'December 2015', which is the same month he gives for the Hyde park image.

As it so happens, we have a video of December 2015's Hyde Park Winter Wonderland, albiet with what can only be described as tortourous music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSBZTuY0EFM

In it, at the 00:51 mark, we can see a sign for the roller coaster at roughly the same time of night the above photo supplied by Q would have been taken at. The sign reads 'WILDE MAUS XXL' (whatever the hell that means).

Notice what is absent from the video at the 00:51?

The blue-lit ferris wheel.

There's a few possibilities, either:

1) The angle is wrong to capture it,

2) The ferris wheel doesn't get set up until later (and this establishes a 'must be after' date), or

3) The ferris wheel was already taken down (and this establishes the 'can't be after' date)

Take your pick sleuths. I must return to my abode to work.