Classic mil-int shill. This particular technique is used by HUMINT types. The classic CIA technique of 'discredit the source' (even if said source has reams of photographs, evidence, etc).
They try to excuse the lack of proof as 'not caring':
>if I cared enough I could prove it
They care enough to post three walls of text but not enough to supply one piece of damning evidence?
Shills rely on people not questioning the comments further (often trying to layer an insult, like 'mentally ill' with contradictory compliments, like 'gentle').
They don't section 'gentle' patients in a mental health setting (especially in overstretched healthcare departments with limited funded), so even the basic premise is horribly wrong.
This guy is correct.
InsigniaAnons, you might have a problem with Q aiding your cause because Q is clearly pro-military and seems to even be pro-intelligence at times. Notice Trump's stance on whistleblowers: no pardons.
You'll likely want to create a secondary leak source (EG VOAT or similarly) in-case this one doesn't pan out.
@Watson Sorry old boy, I'm going to have to hand off the various cases to you. Me and the Qboard admin do not see eye to eye, and I'm fighting enough battles as-is without having to split hairs over thread creation with the admin.
Also, you can connect the two (the documents are technically speaking connected), but it'll require a deep dig: the certificate in the Australia case was for PLATINUM, which can be mined in both Australia and, I do believe, Africa.
The question to ask is how did Hamod find the money to purchase that much platinum? He was also held for a long period of time without trial and without counsel - indicating abuse of government powers.
If you read the judges remarks, he tries to pretend he's impartial, but he's forced to note Hamod's complaints about his lack of impartiality (which the judge desperately tries to use jargon to obsfucate). The judge denied the inclusion of several notable pieces of evidence by Hamod, including COURT TESTIMONY as HEARSAY, on the Australian prosecutor's urging.
It's very likely if there was a fake, someone supplied the fake to the forensics, and kept the real one for themselves.
A lot of shady shit and large piles of money involved. Even in such a short space of time (4 days) you've already drawn a CIA HUMINT shill in, and they're usually only reserved for the biggest troublemakers.
Anyway, I'm handing off my caseload to you @Watson. I apologise, but I refuse to post within the realms of an admin who won't explain contradictory policy decisions, and I'm not interested in starting a fight as I know most Qanons are well intentioned.
It's very unlikely you'll see me around after this, as I've got financial institutions indirectly throwing their weight to keep my own site offline and everywhere else quite eagerly censors me (and my last forum host was quite obviously threatened after deepstate types found they couldn't get to me).
Stay safe. As the clowns are watching, I strongly advise you keep important details sparse or to a minimum (especially any data about yourself).