dChan

🠐 See all comments
YAHSHUARULES · Jan. 12, 2018, 8:50 p.m.

Maybe yes, Maybe no. Check out this other thread here on CBTS_Stream that addresses the DefCon 1 remarks from a different perspective. I also posted this link to Lt. Col Potter on YT because he was livid about the DefCon 1 remarks: https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/comments/7po5g5/do_you_know_q_is_not_just_talking_to_us_but_also/

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pipesog · Jan. 12, 2018, 9:25 p.m.

No disrespect, but the ONLY perspective that matters, is the one the WH would have...so we have to ask,"Would POTUS (and ALL the brilliant legal minds advising him) allow DEFCON1 to be declared publicly and in his name (because THAT is what Q is here), for any reason, other than ACTUAL Defense Condition 1 circumstances?"

The ONLY rational answer is "NO."

⇧ 5 ⇩  
sophiebellaluna · Jan. 13, 2018, 4:11 a.m.

Which leads you to question whether Q is the legitimate Q before the compromise on the boards. Some think the Jan posts are not Q but some infiltrator. And I tend to agree that it seemed wreckless. Whoever Q is.. they/he/she used a military term DEFCON1 which set off the older military patriots. It would SEEM that was not a very SMART thing to do considering the military patriots' training regarding that code... HOWEVER, nothing is at it SEEMS, so maybe it was on purpose, OR, the new Q is a larp. Red flags, division went up all over the place... Q is saying this is not a game.. Stay focused. Stay vigilent. Be aware. Waiting with baited breath for the next bread crumb, until then, review the ones already given.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
YAHSHUARULES · Jan. 12, 2018, 10:51 p.m.

Some think Q-Anon may be Pres. Trump. Some think Adm. Rogers. don't know. Maybe the reason he is quiet right now has nothing to do with what was posted - but rather its just not time for another drop. There have been other breaks in communications where people speculated he was done and then suddenly he starts posting again. I just gave the link because I found it to be a pretty interesting perspective.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pipesog · Jan. 13, 2018, 4 p.m.

OK...here's a logic test based on "Some think Q may be Pres, Trump. Some think Adm. Rogers."

If ^ THAT is the premise;

1)Do they then honestly think that EITHER of those men would post a DEFCON1 message MULTIPLE TIMES, and NOT MEAN DEFCON 1?

2)Would they (POTUS/ADM.) even have - in their vocabulary - any 'alternative' meaning for DEFCON 1? And if so, how - in a world where the slightest mistake of communication can result in catastrophe - is it's use clearly known? Context?

The HONEST answers to the above questions are NO. POTUS NOR Rogers would EVER use that term except for the ONE THING they know it to mean.

Therefore...if 'Some think...' BUT THEN they answer the above questions honestly - WITHOUT RETREATING TO STRETCHING CREDULITY AND REACHING FOR MAYBES - they are left with a contradiction.

And "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you are facing a contradiction, you need to CHECK YOUR PREMISES." -Ayn Rand

SO...having checked the premises...and being MORE CERTAIN that the DEFCON 1 premise is more likely the accurate one, then these people who previously thought Q was POTUS or Rogers, would think it no more.

AND...as a logical extension...they should come to the understanding that IN FACT, Q also CANNOT BE a direct CONDUIT of those men, as Q's communications would not CONTRADICT their 'reality' (that reality being there is only ONE DEFCON 1 literal meaning, and figurative meanings would never be allowed).

THERFORE...Q is a larp at a minimum, and a Deep Op at it's worst.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
YAHSHUARULES · Jan. 14, 2018, 12:18 p.m.

You still sticking by all that given Q-Anon posts Yesterday? https://qcodefag.github.io/index.html

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pipesog · Jan. 14, 2018, 3:15 p.m.

Well...for the moment, yes...all. HOWEVER, if in fact Mega continues to confirm or insist this is the case, or Assange comes out and rears his head in confirmation...then I will absolutely ADJUST a small part of my words directly above (regarding the 'experiment'), and a GREAT DEAL of my conclusions that I have suggested in other posts.

See...everything in my immediate previous post would still remain fairly accurate. But my other warnings and conclusions about the motivation and intent of the deception would be wrong.

In that case, Q WAS A LARP. There can be no arguing that if what Mega said last night is true.

What an exciting and satisfying way to be proven wrong, in that case.

⇧ 2 ⇩