>>4411478

>>4411302

BAKER

Also reposting from lb

Significance is that it's easy to imagine the Washington Post having scrubbed or changed headlines, but these these images from search engines show that the text of the claimed April headline doesn't even show up in two search engines. (Full headline text broken into two phrases at the dash, so as to avoid any complications from how the dash might be copied by someone referencing the article, or indexed into search engines)

This is a wider proof of the cap being inaccurate because it would seem, if the headline were accurately quoted in the screencap posted by Q, someone on the internet would have referenced that article and used the headline text. No hits.

The first headline doesn't matter here at all, this search is only for the words used in the claimed April headline.

Don't know what to make of this, but it seems important as base facts to make sense of.

>>4411682

I think people are getting confused here because they don't know what's being compared.

We're comparing three things:

A - Trump's surprise Syria pullout is a giant Christmas gift to our enemies

B - Trump can't do anything right - We don't need troops in Syria

C - Trump thinks we can replace U.S. forces in Syria with Arab troops. He’s wrong.

Q was comparing the INTENT of headlines A and B, the implication being that the author wrote diametrically opposite opinions in two different months

The author claimed that headline B was inaccurate, and the real headline from April was C (that B never existed)

So some autists here have been finding evidence that B never existed, or that C was the real headline from April. (Autists have come at this from different angles; not-B is technically different from yes-C)

But the response from other anons has been deaf to this. Some seem to think the autists were thinking Q said the Washington Post had changed the headline of a SINGLE article from B to A (no), not realizing the comparison the autists were making was between B and C.

The point being, evidence suggests B never happened. That is not an anti-Q statement. It may be important to wonder why Q is doing this (intentionally drawing attention to the movement? getting headlines in preparation for big stuff happening?) Q loves to draw the MSM into talking about what Trump wants discussed, even if MSM presents negatively. I'm certain Q is real, so I'm looking at this through a prism of "what is Q doing?"

But anyway - anyone who thinks the autists incorrectly think Q said the Post changed the headline of a single article between A/B is entirely missing the point of what's going on.

Autists care about accuracy and facts, no matter the quarter it comes from.

>>4411682

>>4412089

Yes — this is what I'm looking for, analysis of why Q might have posted a screencap with a fake headline (taking Q as true, headline as false, and figuring out what that combination might mean)

>>4412123

>>4411682

Evidence is that the claimed April headline NEVER WAS PUBLISHED THAT WAY. Not that it was changed later (yes papers do that), but that it never happened in the first place.