I guess you are a liar.
Since in this post you cite as authoritative there's no answer by "Q"
Even the title by the anon who puts these things out has a question mark.
Either stop lying or learn to read.
Check that out
The "B. F. Goodrich" is an obvious shoop with a modern typeface.
Anyway that won't prove it's false.
But can you prove it's authentic?
Where did you get it?
And even if it's an authentic list of assets, there's no dates,
Come on!
Also even if true, that doesn't prove "P"
"P" is an occult figure who leads their clique, probably one person who sits "in the chair" and then the position taken over later by a set of rules.
That's an ancient practice and survives as a tribal ritual / means of government of a clan among the "Roma" or "Gypsies"
position taken over later by A PERSON WHO IS DETERMINED BY A FIXED a set of rules.
As the Pope is chosen.
Also, the "P" is an occult religion figure with religious power because their cult is a "religious" cult - even if the topmost members are in fact Satanist.
The occult stuff is their mumbo-jumbo they use to fool "other people" and / or what they twisted/ ripped-off from real ancient religion
Could be at least half real Or "real-ish" Even a charlitan usually has to have something to copy
But the real issue is he himself, within the body of this text itself, was honest enough to say that he had only one informant and he couldn't verify all that the informant told him.
He undercut his own argument with that admission. It's a caveat.
For whatever reason.
Baker adding it doesn't make it true.
You're truly a fool with an agenda.
Isn't it enough just to present the evidence, Why do you have to draw a conclusion?
No good evidence, so why draw a conclusion, why not leave the question open?
It's shilled on because the anon refuses to admit he has no real evidence
All his evidence is conjecture.
If he just admitted it was conjecture it would be no problem. No one is stopping him from presenting the evidence he has, but just won't agree with his forced conclusion.
Why is the anon tryin to force a conclusion? That's the real question.
I'm open to "P" being Payseur.
But when I looked into "Payseur" evidence they appear to be scam artists.
Still waiting for moar evidence.
Maybe it is Payseur then?
Personally I feel if there's no answer, there's no answer. It's just a "calling attention to"
But I could be wrong.
I'm keeping an open mind and not concluding it's "Payseur" unless and until moar info comes in.
There was at least one other thing I feel "Q" answered that was wrong.
the Pentagon answer. Which was ambivalent. / tricky.
Sorry just moar copy-pasta doesn't prove it.
We need the primary sources. Not copy-pasta from a web page. Can you name the sources of those doc.s?
There's no foundation to any of these claims.
The best evidence so far, to me, is that "Q" silently highlighted it.
If anons want to prove it they should probably attempt to find moar evidence.
http://ininet.org/l-c-payseur-owned-nine-tenths-of-all-of-the-preferred-share-is.html