Further analysis on key points by Q:

"Reverse image search."

The RIS returns no results, which is Q's way of confirming the image, at time of writing, was original.

The submarine appears to be an older Ohio-class submarine (soon to be replaced with the Columbia-class submarine), which is capable of firing ICBMs with nuclear warheads: basically, what Q is saying is someone tried to trigger WW3 with the 'remote hack spoof' (IE you hijack someone else's military systems to attack someone else in order to trigger war).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine

https://qanon.pub/data/images/dbc20d6d7aa5e4cbde931c380de1cdcb10baa92ed2127b5cbd9d2926313a52f2.jpg

(You can tell which by observing the conning tower's anteanna and the forward bow's shape, plus the general age architecture of the sub in the original photo)

Q said: "Think hack."

This (hacking) is actually a hypothetical scenario I proposed (albeit my version was false attribution cyber-attacks by a rogue AI to trigger WW3). Nothing to say a human couldn't do it though, hence why I warned about it.

Assuming the Ohio uses 'Windows XP' like the British Vanguard-class vessels do, then I had warned that 'being out of at sea' or 'underwater' was no immunity to being hacked (hint: consider inside mole: wifi + laptop + boarding pass = party time). Remember, some code can be 'delayed' to run until a later time (they only need to obtain prior access to pre-set coords and launch time). So again, being out to sea no immunity.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19061/britains-doomsday-subs-run-windows-xp/

My recommendation was a switch to a more secure Linux OS, but the comment I got back was 'but some commercial apps run on Windows'. Tough: switch the fuck over, these are nukes we're talking about, not a smartphone, loss of functionality to improve security on a nuclear design is to be expected (in future: use more secure OSes). OpenBSD is the most secure but also the damned hardest to use; but even 'systemd using Linux' is an improvement to 'won't fix moderate and below bugs' Microsoft Windows.

By "extinguished", Q means the missiles were aborted. There's no guarantees this will happen again in future.

Protip: strongly advise you consider the possibility of using your own missile defence tech against your own nuclear missiles as another fail-safe plan. In the interim, either unload the missiles or keep subs at depths below launch capacity.

If someone is trying to false-attribution trigger WW3, the counter is honesty: you need to work out who the target was (most likely: Russia, China, North Korea - no guarantees though, could be anyone, don't assume), and then phone said target, let them know someone tried to hack your systems to attack them.

Yes, embarrassment, but you could also be averting a diplomatic crisis down the line if a missile got close and they intercepted it (because at least it won't be an 'excuse' as they would have been told in advance). Keep whoever it is up to date with your discovery of who do it.

I'm pretty sure Russia & Co will be smart enough to know if you did plan to pre-emptively strike, it would NOT be with some straggler single missiles.

Be aware: US isn't the only one with nuke subs, so whoever tried to start this war (likely those who profit) might target another country's. Advise all missile defence platforms to shoot down any ICBMs that do not have prior clearance - even allies/your own.

Goddamn this is high stakes.

Also, I have a feeling whoever tried to trigger the nuke-sub hack false attribution was the same bastard behind the so-called 'Olympic Destroyer' malware (the one falsely attributed to North Korea but was later discovered not to be by them).

"A close analysis of the code that took down part of the 2018 Winter Olympics computer network reveals a cunning plan to seemingly falsely pin the blame on North Korea."

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/08/analysis_suggests_north_korea_not_behind_olympic_destroyer_malware_attack/

Whoever did that is trying to start war/increase tensions (many candidates: including Boeing, BAE, Bombardier, Lockheed Martin, or any other company that specialises in expensive, overblown, off-target war machines).

Your goal here is to keep the shit secure why you try to track down the culprits as quickly as possible. You will want to be very careful - if they're very smart, they will leave false clues (who wouldn't? They'd be implicated in trying to murder humanity itself if they left a 'clean' paper trail).

If it's within your own jurisdiction, prosecute. If it's outside, depending on which country it is, either file an extradition request with the evidence provided, or expose the person publicly (if prosecution is very unlikely - public exposure will harm prosecution case) and the reasons why.

Once people know 'X' is some person who tried to do 'Y' (Y being whatever horrible thing: tried to fire an ICBM, tried to start a nuclear war) they are going to get absolutely trashed. But ACCURACY in statements is absolutely vital here. Don't expose until evidence is conclusive (and that evidence must also be public - saying 'he did it' isn't going to sway people's opinions, but going 'here's a list of access IPs, here's the ISP logs, here's where they logged in, here's the code on their machine that has the capabilities, here's the blackhat forum they visited' so on and so forth, that will.

One thing that endlessly annoys me about any accusation (Russia or otherwise) is I must always 'trust someone's word' and not see the proof for myself. It was this same logic that allowed the Iraq war to happen on a total lie, and cannot be allowed to happen again. The public are the jury: convince them, and the sentences that follow will be swift.

"Thank you USSS."

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/6364b1ae13f6911b7cfb7d269338b54b4ad22a72374241ea1b64a3d038d567bd.png

If this isn't proof Q is Trump I honestly don't know what is.

All that should mean for us is we phrase and design our suggestions in a way a president can work with it.

I think now's the time to offer members of the deep state (limited availability, first come first served) who are willing to name names, provide evidence, expose offerings to relocate (lump sum cash, one way trip to Argentina or some other country along with family), given that they're now seeing the deep state are perfectly willing to kill both them and their family if it means protecting their own secrets.

@DeepState members:

The other members don't care about you. So many, ahem, 'suicides'. Heck, they even just tried to trigger nuclear war (where's the rest of your family going to go then?).

Being in a bunker is no safety: that's a dead end. You're trapped (and there's no material so strong or dense that a few decades with a good piece of equipment can't fix). I know some fancy-pancy guys have nuclear reactors (estimated lifetime: 50 years) with the plan to grow plants using artificial light in their bases, but you've got several problems with that dumb idea:

1) You resurface to find a shit ton of other people who had the idea to hide in a nuclear bunker and are just waiting for you to leave, or better yet, are actively trying to break in for what could only be described as mob justice. No society = no protections.

2) You resurface to find nuclear waste is still too powerful. You get cancer from radiation sickness poisoning and die a slow, agonising death. There's no painkillers; you destroyed the pharmaceutical industry in the fallout, remember?

3) You emerge, find that, there's no-one up there, there's no ash in the sky, and somehow no fallout (Chernobyl is still radioactive: work that shit out for yourself). There's also no society, no technology and you'll have to live like savages rebuilding primitive tech from roughly the Greecen period (tell me: do any of you specialise in micro-fabrication technology? No? What about circuitry? Electronics? A few of you? Wow, good luck rebuilding everything from scratch without the skillsets).

So,the way I see it as:

1) You lose and die horribly.

2) You lose and die horribly.

3) You 'win' and live a miserable life (might as well be dying horribly).

Trump could also whoop your ass, which means you lose (whether or not you die horribly depends on whether or not your peers see you as a loose end: hint, you're ALL loose ends).

Beating Trump using foul play isn't going to stick. I've always been pretty damn accurate at polling public reaction (I always test the ground, ask people, ignore hyperbole, etc). I'm VERY confident the people WILL riot (Q's adding more fuel to that fire but to be honest it would have started anyway).

Right now there is such a level of discontent in the population, the likes of which I have never seen. I'm pretty sure if there was a sufficient trigger, I would see lynchings of corrupt MPs in the street right now even in the UK, given people either see them as pedophiles (we all know what happen to pedophiles in jail, right?) or corrupt money grubbing bastards.

Look at it from all angles, either:

1) You have the islamics who hate the politicians guts (for not being islamic, bombing their country)

2) You have the people opposed to the selling of their country to political correctness groups (the 'other side') who again, also hate their politicians' guts

3) You have minority groups of all sorts who hate politicians

4) Basically, I cannot find one single 'pro-politician' group

The only politicians I've seen generate any slightly positive sentiment were Obama (because he was seen as the 'first black president' and also because he promised a lot of shit he ultimately did not deliver on) and Trump (because he's seen as anti-corruption, anti-establish and the people's president).

Two. Fucking. People.

The only thing standing between you guys and the public, is the public shun violence. But take a walk down a New York ghetto - that can easily and quickly change.

Better start squealing, because you're caught between a deepstate and a public.

Q said: "C_A RUSSIA MASK HACK (SAME HAS CHINA SUB WASH - SET UP)."

So basically Vault7 false attribution by the CIA?

Confirms what I suspected, CIA has gone rogue.

That's a tricky one, because that nullifies both the prosecution and expose approaches. Even if the person is identified, they're going to end up 'dead', and the CIA will just issue brazen denials and stonewall.

The fact they hacked a US military sub makes them a designated enemy combatant, and to my knowledge they do not have a standing army (some assassins, sure, maybe a few hired rogues, sleeper assets - but assuming I cracked the latter's comms, the sleeper assets should be going offline and starting to become unavailable to them - Recursive Mind Virus is likely to need a bigger boost in broadcast reach though for it to be sufficient).

If you can concretely prove it's C_A (IE it was ordered within ranks, executed, not a 'lone rogue agent' operation or something with 'plausible deniability'), then by definition they are enemy combatants, and this would fall under treason (they basically tried to start a war, with the US, and did so contrary to any orders).

US military should be ordered to apprehend those who made the orders. You'll want to multi-tier the charges: state level (so not pardonable by a president so someone can't just 'undo' the charges) and military trial (assuming military courts are acutely aware of what they just fucking tried to do).

I would say 'dismantle the CIA' but I don't have full scope on their available assets and I'm worried about a JFK style attempt if a full move is made (I'm pretty sure they have other assets besides sleeper assassins - who can be literally anyone and are not aware they are sleepers, hence the term). So I'd rather swap out leadership as an interim solution, dismantle later when they provide more justification for it.

You might want to throw a couple of spanners in the CIA works whilst you're doing the prosecution (IE give the CIA multiple problems to deal with simultaneously so they can't focus all in one place).

Good luck.

Was digging through old Q posts to construct a mock-up UI design for proposal in the Q-board design suggestions thread when I stumbled across a post about some congresswoman reading some text on a screen:

https://8ch.net//qresearch/res/279266.html#279968

I looked at the image, found no-one seemingly had cracked the case. As finding things online in due speed is a particular skill I have, I dug into it.

The reason no-one can find that exact speech copy from the image:

https://qanon.pub/data/images/f82c202af2652653946c4d96b27ba95d21d41ed2ec241cd7cf1f28503e64a019.jpg

Is because it was MODIFIED. The congresswoman in question was Joyce Beatty:

https://beatty.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/beatty-statement-on-trumps-first-state-of-the-union-address

Here's the parts I could decipher from the mobile screen (single quotes to signal start-end of a segment):

'their actions in the months ahead will provide more insight than tonight's speech ever will'

'that have strong bipartisan support. However, making progress in these areas requires more than words, it takes strong leadership, commitment to civility, and a willingness to work with'

'who you may not agree with politically. Tonight, the'

'had an excellent '

Now I broke down the segments until I got a match. Here's the parts from Beatty's site that match the above dialogue from the phone:

"However, making progress in these areas requires more than words, it takes action and strong leadership."

This part seems a 'restructured' paraphrase of the 'willingness to work with… those who you don't agree with politically':

" I hope that the White House and Republicans will work with Democrats to 'put politics aside'"

It's interesting how much her official blurb deviates from what we saw on the mobile.

Anyway, identified. Nice to know that the politicians type up their political rhetoric on a mobile phone keyboard ad hoc during the middle of a speech session and, not say, give careful consideration, time, thought and maybe some proper research.

>>1740788

Like I said, first come, first served, limited availability.

One thing those guys specialise in is selling other people out, so they're not exactly trustworthy. Even if there was 'butt' only one opening (heh, opening), they know each other are not trustworthy - that's what they specialise in, betrayals.

Of course, if they're worried they might get betrayed, some people might end up 'committing suicide' pre-emptively. Or maybe they'll squeal before they get offed and moved to safety (remember: once exposed, they're nullified in what crimes they can commit anyway).

Propose renaming the CIA to 'Cancer In Anybody'. Injecting cancer cells is de facto their preferred method, especially disguised as a 'vaccine' or some sort of 'necessary injection', usually offered during a hospital visit, often by someone who is a, ahem, 'short-stay doctor'. Or nurse, even.

Heart attacks are a bit old school and the CIA tries to avoid 'obvious' killings (not just to avoid tipping off the public, but also to stop those who have secrets and 'loose ends' from panicking).

If anyone's studied prisoner game theory, the smartest move is to ALWAYS sell out the other guy - and they know it. If they stay silent and someone else sells them out, well…

'Game over man, game over!'

CIA methods for stopping leaks, from what I've seen:

1) Cancer injection

2) Aviation 'accident' (read: tampered onboard electronics, crash)

3) Road/car 'accident' (old school: sabotaged, run off road, knocked off bike. New school: tamper with onboard electronics, remote vehicle hacks - see Vault7 for further details)

4) 'Accidentally' fell out of a building (EG Frank Olson). Always a 'suicide'. Impact injuries always hide prior physical injuries, difficult to discern.

5) Poison in food (rare).

6) Heart attack (rarer).

7) Cancer via secondary means (continuous microwave exposure, for example, from something akin to LRAD)

8) Hired thug/third party, AKA 'mugging gone wrong'

Very rarely will you EVER see a death like 'Jason Bourne sniping someone in the forehead', and especially nothing with direct attribution.

Read between the lines (no-one researches 'weaponised cancer' so their assumptions are 'naturally occurring' cancer):

"In man, only scattered case reports exist about such communicable cancers, most often in the setting of organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplants and cancers arising during pregnancy that are transmitted to the fetus. In about one third of cases, transplant recipients develop cancers from donor organs from individuals who were found to harbor malignancies after the transplantation."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228048/

Question: has anyone ever tried experimentation involving direct site-to-site injection? Everyone insists 'contagious cancers' aren't possible, but no-one every tries to 'transmit' the cancer. Who would transmit cancer from one person to another?

What despicable, evil, organisation could possibly do that?

(Also, this shows how outmoded former KGB are for using poisons/nerve agents that are highly traceable are. Who is going to do a DNA autopsy on a cancer cell to see if it has host DNA or not anyway?)