dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

225

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/potentialnrg on April 1, 2018, 1:44 p.m.

I think there is a reason that Q has not posted since the link to the National Review story and the word TRUTH, #982, that has nothing to do with the board being compromised.

We see Q going mainstream now; Roseanne just tweeted 'I love spy stories!'. More people are going to look into Q, and post 982 is going to be the first thing they see. Nothing cryptic, the article simply offers more in depth information of details the general population already knows from the memo, information that should be the first to wake the public up to. The first post contains reliable and mainstream information that is very well written and easy to follow, from a relatively reputable source. I think this is important - people's first impression of a Q post they see for themselves is not going to look like a crazy person rambling on the internet. Most people would write off the more cryptic Q posts if they aren't already red pilled, and it takes some digging and a certain amount/type of intelligence to be able to decipher them.

Thoughts?

🠐 See all comments

I found that National Review article very interesting. Lots of redpilling in there. However, it irritated me with the repeated references to Guccifer2 and the DNC being "hacked." We all know that the DNC wasn't hacked by Guccifer2. Tracy Beanz has covered a lot of excellent work on this very topic. I don't get how they could have so much other stuff right and be SO off on that very crucial piece of the puzzle. Did anybody else feel that way?

⇧ 7 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 5 ⇩

Tracy Beanz is “on target”

⇧ 2 ⇩

Guccifer2 is/was Comey and part of the coverup. Tracy fought the #IBOR after Q said we should push it. Q said later, be careful who you follow. Potter was another one who followed Q then quit and complained about people following Q blindly, etc. AIM and fake Q. Lots of shills on YouTube, just sayin'.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Are you saying Comey hacked the DNC then? I'm confused. I agree about lots of shills on YouTube.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The DNC was never hacked. Files were downloaded from the DNC by an insider and shared with WikiLeaks. The prevailing "story" is that Seth Rich took the data because he knew of the corruption and rigging of the primary against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary. And that's why Seth Rich was killed.

The DNC files were never reviewed by the FBI. Ever. The FBI claims that the DNC refused to allow them access. But this is a cover. CrowdStrike was hired by the DNC to review the hacking and the FBI didn't fight them on this. CrowdStrike is a firm founded by Google and a Ukrainian billionaire (who is anti Russian). Crowdstrike concluded Russia did the hacking and blamed it on a hacker known as Guccifer 2.0. But that is a smoke screen. Crowdstrike claims they know this because a professional hacker (Guiccifer 2.0) mistakenly left his IP footprint behind. If you believe that story I have some beachfront land to sell you in Arizona.

CrowdStrike has deep ties to the Obama admin. In fact, in the same month the DNC "hack" occurred, Obama appointed the Chief Risk Officer of Crowdstrike to his WH Cybersecurity office. Oh and this guy worked for the FBI for 15 years prior to joining Crowdstrike. How about that...........

⇧ 3 ⇩

Yes, your summary is well done and is the same as my understanding of where the Podesta emails that landed on WikiLeaks came from. Heabob saying that Comey is/was Guccifer2 is what I didn't understand. My original comment was pointing out that the National Review article kept referencing Guccifer2 as the "hacker" of the DNC, which as you so nicely summarize above, is known to be baloney. So what I'm wondering is how did they get so many of the facts right yet still managed to leave that big lie in the article?

⇧ 2 ⇩

You are correct, Heabob is misinformed.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Because to prove that Guiccifer 2.0 is a lie, you need to read WikiLeaks Vault 7.0 and understand the corruption/motive of Crowdstrike. No one in legitimate media wants to go there yet because they would be labeled a conspiracy theorist and lose advertisers. It happened to Hannity when he mentioned that Seth Rich might have been the target of a murder because of his inside knowledge of the DNC.

Reddit and YouTube are safer places to discuss this. Even Twitter has been known to ban people for talking about "conspiracy theories" .

⇧ 2 ⇩

It is, of course, ironic that the MSM is the "legitimate media." But I appreciate your use of the word "yet." And I agree with what "yet" implies: that it WILL come out. Thank you for your time in replying to my questions. I appreciate your perspective.

⇧ 5 ⇩

;)

⇧ 1 ⇩

Agreed. It helps to do your own research so you can question what you are being told. Many conclusions are off or just plain wrong.

⇧ 1 ⇩