>>8784056

That may be it. Pencilling it in.

>>8784078

Actually I tend to agree with most of that.

>>8784201

Specifically identify one single error that you are aware of, and anons who here and witnessed and captured Q's post will post from their personal archives. That's what we do.

>>8784217

The search scope should be Q's text only, not the website-owner-supplied titles.

>>8784435

2 ways that could happen.

1. Pope's appearance on balcony is fake/hologrma.

2. Pope was really there, somebody edited the video and blanked him out.

How are you going to determine which? Can you prove the video is untampered?

>>8784453

I did. Raw text downloaded to local file.

Sometimes anon wants to count the number of occurrences or a word or phrase.

>>8784458

>>8784453

BTW don't yell at me, I'm not the shill who started this. (Know who you're replying to and avoid emotional response.)

I'm the anon who said >>8784424 we oldfags can verify from our local post capture archives, if they can identify any error. Which they declined to answer.

>>8784503

see

>>8784056

>>8784531 Civil cases do not have indictments. Merely, plaintiffs file complaints against defendants.

Indictments pertain to criminal cases only.

>>8784587

I'm not the one bitching, anon.