>>1658367

I've read all of the interpretations. I have taken Wonderland to mean the vast network of data collection and the data that is stored (not just the fact that half of what goes on in our world is a movie). And, I read somewhere that NSA insiders refer to one of their facilities as, "Wonderland." So, if Q was referring to themselves as Alice, wouldn't it Alice IN Wonderland? Instead of, "&?" Also, here is just one of many possibilities for, "Alice," in Q posts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Linguistic_Internet_Computer_Entity

Off topic: putting the bottles of water on the ground was 100% a signal. It was too blatant and planned. I guess we have to, "Watch the Water," moar

>>1659115

Good open-mindedness, Anon! I've brought this very question up many times! /Their/ narrative is that there are more people on the planet than can be sustained. /Their/ true intent is simply to keep the population (their herd) at a manageable number. So, what if /they/ are lying about the numbers to simply garner wide spread support from the public when they begin to cull the herd? It's all bullshit anyway. There is plenty of land and water to sustain every single one of us, and more. But, we have become to awakened and unmanageable. But back to the point. How do we really know the true number (or even close) of people on the planet? Do we trust the census information that /they/ control?

>>1659248

His Twat account would not have posted that if they didn't already have evidence and the investigation underway…or possibly even complete already.

Problem with a criminal prior President?

"There's an indictment for that."