1/2

Im going to get hit by 'friendly fire', but…

There's no logical thinking being used on this 'dig'.

Anons know what Im saying. Migrant half/polacks esp-cant flimflam the zimzam.

-we were -told- what it was (child trafficking) instead of anyone being allowed to come to that conclusion through digging

-The conclusion was presented at the start of the scenario. When we were given the conclusion at the beginning, it is a directed narrative

-there's no evidence that anyone was moved through this rubbish heap against their will

-yes, there's evidence people were present because they left rubbish behind, but it does not logically follow that some of them were there against their will

-there are toys and small clothes present but that only indicates children may have been present. it does not logically follow that the children were kidnapped

-trafficking is the illegal movement of people. That people left the items behind does not mean they were in this location against their will

-homeless people make makeshift places to sleep or stay. There's nothing to indicate this is more than a temporary homeless camp that housed 1-2 unfortunate homeless children and their parent(s) who left unneeded items behind when they moved on

-10k-14k people are homeless in Arizona

-that police do not want to do anything about a homeless bolthole does not logically follow they are hiding something

-the southwest is littered with a spotty 'underground railroad' that have enabled 11 million illegal immigrants to move over the border and into the country, consisting of tunnels, bolt holes, camps and coyotes. There's nothing to indicate this is more than a coyote stop

-police and border patrol run across coyote stops and illegal immigrant camps constantly

-that border patrol does not want to do anything about one of a hundred coyote stops does not logically follow they are hiding something.

-there's no evidence of wrongdoing

-there's no evidence of a crime other than littering or trespassing by the people who left this pile of stuff

-the 'dig' didn't originate with anons

-It is being shoved at us. force fed. no 'choice'

>pic related is the emotional 'anons'

>>1629567

-its too neat a package. tied up in a bow to the Rotschilds within a few hours. How convenient. We've been digging on some things for 7 months

-evidence destroyed by 'well meaning vets'. sorry, you can't look at it now or go see it yourself, we removed it all

-that some homeless people stayed on the land owned by a cement company does not logically follow that the cement company knew about it

-paytriots, suspect controlled opposition, and internet famefags are pushing it. Loomer, Cern etc–are no friends of anons, chans or Q

-the infographics being used for it are the only side by side infographics that specifically and erroneously state a connection to Q, when Q did not direct or point this dig

-media is picking it up as connected to Q

-This is the first time media is mentioning Q and it is for this specific scenario

-The CIA uses vets among their assets: mcstain, mcmuffin. It takes trained people to do ops

-vets happened to happen to stumple upon to discover this camp looking for homeless vets. They did not call it the logical conclusion that it was a homeless camp, they shouted it was child trafficking, an illogical overreach

-how did these vets track a homeless vet to this camp?

-Why did these 'vets' track a homeless vet to this camp and not call it a homeless vet camp?

-1-2 children could fit in the makeshift bunker, it has the logical appearance of a homeless camp, but they call it 'child trafficking' immediately

-as this board's reach increases, we'd be foolish not to expect false flags to discredit it

-we have been immune to the most expert of shills; (attacks are only going to get worse) and we should expect they will up their game, to include expert psyops

-anons don't fall for emotion. The supporters of this scenario are emotionally invested. overly emotionally invested.

-news today say Q GROUP is insisting on an investigation. No we aren't. we haven't YET insisted on any outside investigation, since we trust the PLAN

-"Q do something! Donald do something!" is a shill tactic we've seen constantly on the boards. Suddenly this very common shill tactic is attached to this scenario, when anons dont demand in an ever-increasing emotional frenzy.

-the 'vets' have barricaded themselves in. oh boy, ok, here we go. Walk that through logically. When this all goes wrong, they will have drawn a faked connection to Q, and it will discredit

-the scenario is 100% out of anon hands. the scenario is playing out 100% without Q. The scenario is 100% outside and independent of the chans. This isn't originating with us, it is being dropped into qresearch by outsiders

-"anon" says 'I drove down and took them supplies'. no sauce, no images, no timestamp

-"anon" says 'I totally know this guy'. no sauce, no group photo, no timestamp

-"anon" says 'I totally was there'. no sauce, no photo, no timestamp

-"but its on facebook!"

-"Think of the children!" and just how many false flags have we heard THAT played out on?

-"but muh child trafficking!" That 1 kid was at this spot, playing with this doll, and staying in this plastic makeshift bunk while mom dyed her hair and went to go look for a job, is not 'trafficking'.