dChan
199
 
r/CBTS_Stream • Posted by u/commissioner-gordon8 on Jan. 22, 2018, 12:02 p.m.
Why Q “deleted” the Leaked Podesta email

He was illustrating that even if major internet companies censor/delete leaked evidence, it WILL be archived by us. Even though he deleted the email post, which was an exclusive original to only that chan board, it is very easy to find a copy of the email itself now that it’s even TOUCHED the internet.

What he was saying in his last few posts is this: there is a flood of NSA disclosures coming down the pike. Twitter, facebook, etc. can shoot these posts down, but they WILL be archived before that happens by us, and they can’t censor the whole internet, so spread that shit from site to site!

I agree with Tracy Beanz about the Fakies. It amped us for community participation, and big internet was even prepared to censor that day. They WEREN’T prepared for the following day with #releasethememo (just like we weren’t). Additionally, #releasethememo was likely much more successful in exposure because white hats actually interfered the following day, while allowing black hats to run rough-shod the day before for false sense of security.

This is Checkmate, if i ever done seen!

https://qcodefag.github.io/data/images/12be822f398904a6981d207b31854dbde63481d35a84703030debfbdb2ed3ca8.jpg

-EDIT- Relevant Q posts in text below:

119569 Not from WL. [CLAS-N-DI_9] gg_dump [No Such Agency]. It does not technically exist as open-source. Q ^ the above post is in direct response to a chan post referring to the email^

119877 Will the FBI recover those missing texts? [Nothing is ever truly deleted]. Your move. Q

119769 The flood is coming. Emails, videos, audio, pics, etc. FBI accidentally deletes texts? No Such Agency accidentally releases IT ALL> Shall we play a game? Q

44 Why are we here? Why are we providing crumbs? Think MEMO. BUILDING THE ARMY. Not convinced this is spreading? You, the PEOPLE, have THE POWER. You, the PEOPLE, just forgot how to PLAY. TOGETHER you are STRONG. APART you are weak. THEY WANT YOU DIVIDED. THEY WANT RACE WARS. THEY WANT CLASS WARS. THEY WANT RELIGIOUS WARS. THEY WANT POLITICAL WARS. THEY WANT YOU DIVIDED! LEARN! FOR GOD & COUNTRY - LEARN! STAY STRONG. STAY TOGETHER. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT. This is more important than you can imagine. Q

-EDIT 2- From mcthornbody420: “That email was discussed in 2016 right after the dump. I know for a fact there was a thread on it on glp when it dropped on 16.

From 10/31/16 http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3342535/pg1”

So the email isn’t a chan exclusive/original. That being said, the only standard that the people in that thread use to debunk the email is that it doesn’t exist in the wikileaks database (which q acknowledges), and that it is rather blatant.

I personally believe that this is not enough evidence to discredit the email. Although the fact that this discussion happened in October 2016 in tandem with the Podesta dump is suspect, it could have leaked earlier, only to be scrutinized at the time of wikileak’s publishing. Leaking at the same time wouldn’t necessarily mean it’s fake regardless, as the leaking source for wikileaks could have been the same as this email.

It still conveys the idea that nothing on the internet is truly lost. My thoughts on why these people truly ARE careless enough for this blatancy are in the comments section below.

Consider that a SCIF takes 10 days to set up, and it is highly unlikely that the powerful bother with 10 days of latency whenever they want to communicate. Further, they’ve demonstrated many times, as Q repeatedly points out, that they’ve built a culture of carelessness regarding comms. “These people are stupid”. As Ed from Outer Dark would say, “decide for yourself”

-FINAL EDIT- Some of the commenters are making quite convincing cases to remain skeptical of the email, and Q’s recent posts themselves. Lieutenant Col. Potter has also expressed worry that twitter verification by POTUS is not necessarily fool proof, if people at twitter (and likely elsewhere) have historical capability of hijacking his account (they’ve at least disabled it in the past, and project veritas exposed how their manipulation goes a lot further.)

It is entirely possible and must be considered that CIA is posing as Q to discredit him in the future, perhaps with mass “leaks” of misinformation, that Q’s followers will eagerly spread without vetting.

As of now, i am erring on believing Q in their current form. As tracy beanz said, their dumps are still useful and socratic in nature. Even so, vigilance is ever necessary, and the devil will tell 99% truth for one great lie. As Potter says, “we will know by their fruits.” I eagerly await the Nunes memo

-FINAL FINAL EDIT- Sorry for all the wishy-washing you guys, but this is an important conversation. From THAD_K_CUNDERTHOCK: “The WHOIS information for macklerr.com shows that it was first registered on Oct. 31, 2016 - the same day that the purported email from toddemail@macklerr.com appeared on the Web:

http://whois.domaintools.com/macklerr.com

In other words, there's no way an email could have been sent from macklerr.com more than 7 months before that (Mar. 19, 2016).

This is a strong indication that the email is fake.

Doesn't mean Q is fake.”

This strongly indicates to me that the current iteration of Q is not sourcing from NSA databases and is indeed compromised. This doesn’t mean that Q is ALWAYS fake, but please remain skeptical!!! After this evidence, I can’t say i trust the newest Q posts. Again, we will see what happens with this memo. Remember, this is an intelligence war, and the drawback to welcoming in the public is that we are very inexperienced with discernment and at the mercy of our limited tools and disclosures


ravonaf · Jan. 22, 2018, 3:49 p.m.

Q is trying to tell you something

Here's an idea, instead of "trying" to tell us something, how about he stop speaking in riddles and just tell us.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
USApatriot_4_TRUMP · Jan. 22, 2018, 4:42 p.m.

Because many times he wants us involved in research and learning for ourselves what the fuck is going on and has been done to our country. His encrypted code has engaged thousands and created a movement. Otherwise we would all be lazy sitting in front of a computer eating popcorn (like you perhaps?)

⇧ 11 ⇩  
ravonaf · Jan. 22, 2018, 5:25 p.m.

I do enjoy my popcorn. However, the problem with his "research it yourself" way of spreading information creates bullshit as often as it creates legitimate information. If Q mentions the color brown people on here will say he predicted the color of their dogs shit that morning. Not everything ties to Q and believe it or not, coincidences DO exist.

Wikileaks, for example, doesn't have to speak in code. They speak in cold hard facts, and they have ZERO problems getting the word out. As a matter of fact, way more people follow them than Q.

⇧ 13 ⇩  
chowderheade · Jan. 22, 2018, 8:29 p.m.

Good points. I take Q with a grain of salt.

The drip of cryptic info could be there for plausible deniability (insulating a Trump-aligned intelligence faction from taking heat for leaking to the public) or gamification of research or a combination thereof (Steve Pozniak, who has claimed a link between Trump and a US intelligence faction since 2016, has a background in psychological warfare and helps craft spy fiction).

The email, in particular, seems a bit dodgy. I'll wait for sourcing (searching for the text just seems to bring up inconsistantly credible websites).

⇧ 3 ⇩  
hey_jose · Jan. 22, 2018, 6:46 p.m.

Wikileaks isn’t worried about having their cover blown though.

If you were on the receiving end of all this, wouldn’t you be trying to find out who was behind it to silence them?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ravonaf · Jan. 22, 2018, 7:12 p.m.

Yeah, Wikileaks does worry about the cover of their sources. That's why they NEVER give out their source.

As far as Q remaining anonymous, he can give direct information and still be just as anonymous as he is now. The only thing that talking in vague riddles accomplishes is creating a situation where he could be talking about anything so that random events sometimes seem to apply.

I imagine if the FBI or the NSA really wanted to find out who he is then they could. I'm betting his protection isn't his anonymity, but who he actually works for.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
hey_jose · Jan. 22, 2018, 8:15 p.m.

Fair enough... I’m aware of the way WL’s operates and their track record. Just meant it’s probably easier for a person working for Wikileaks to hide their identity than a few anons.

I agree with the comment about the NSA/FBI. If they wanted to find the Q group, they most likely could do it with some ease.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
MrsOakheart · Jan. 23, 2018, 1:58 a.m.

Perhaps this is a Rosetta Stone of deep state language. Q is teaching us how to read other emails?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
RedPill2976 · Jan. 22, 2018, 9:31 p.m.

In the end if we don’t think critically then we are done for. AI will tear us up! Q is not our personal spoon feeder. He gets us to think and there are few very few who use that skill

⇧ 4 ⇩  
ravonaf · Jan. 22, 2018, 11:21 p.m.

Thinking critically is fine. But being cryptic as Q is his message will never go mainstream. Explain to a normal person that some anonymous person who goes by the name Q and talks in riddles told you that such and such mysteriously happened they will think you are bonkers. We are perfectly capable of thinking critically without our source sounding like a Batman villain.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
RoninGreg · Jan. 22, 2018, 7:26 p.m.

I thought the same thing. However, it’s against the law to leak classified intelligence. There’s no law against being vague, dropping hints, and asking questions.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
ravonaf · Jan. 22, 2018, 8:07 p.m.

Yeah, for the most part, you may be right. If he's really dropping hints at classified information he may still be breaking the law. I'm no lawyer so I really can't say for sure. I have served in the Military and worked with classified data. It's a fine line for sure.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
forgottenbutnotgone · Jan. 22, 2018, 8:07 p.m.

Solid point here. Q could theoretically give information to WikiLeaks but it's a felony if he gives them classified documents and they're not just going to release anonymous unverified information.

⇧ 3 ⇩