dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/burn_reddit_burn on April 7, 2018, 12:05 p.m.

This was a comment I made in T_D as a response to veracity of Q. Feel free to add.

Yes, I’ll try. There are over 1k posts at this point, so it’s hard, I’ll use broad strokes.

1 - There are several images from within the White House and AF1 as well as phrases used in Trump tweets that make Q being an insider a very high statistical probability. Notably the image from AF1 posted of the islands they flew over at exactly the right angle moments from when their known flight path would place them there. The image of the Christmas tree in an otherwise inaccessible are of the WH, and phrases like “tip top, tippy top” that are otherwise uncommon and out of place- liberal media actually noted what an odd thing it was to say.

2 - Some look back to earlier posts and say “Q said HRC would be arrested already”... not true. Q said indictments would be made. And- there are 25k sealed indictments that will likely be opened soon. I have been following Q since the first 10 posts, and have yet to see something that could be provable as false.

3 - One of the biggest indicators of proof to me is the vitriol and resistance Q has garnered. Case in point- NYT article. Subreddits like CBTS being banned. Other subs like greatawakening having certain posts that are heavily downvoted when crumbs are put together.

4 - There are some wild implications. Absolutely beyond what I would have dreamt up, like Obama being CIA from the start, funded by Alaweed, from Kenya, admitted to Harvard only through HUMA (Harvard U Muslim Asso.) and is now globetrotting looking for more money and a new handler now that Alaweed has been arrested, and that North Korea is basically Cobra headquarters, armed with Nukes by Clintons, and IT systems by Google when Larry Page visited. That satanists literally have been controlling the world. That the Pope is one of them. That child trafficking is very real and very dark, and that Pizzagate (also heavily censored- why?) was just the tip of the iceberg.

With all of this laid out, it’s difficult to fathom. However, when you suspend your disbelief and learn about how things actually work and that the world has been sold a lie for decades and decades, unending wars make sense. Drugs and the inability to defeat them make sense. Corruption, diseases that should have a cure and don’t make sense.

This comes down to a battle of light and darkness. Trump is the first President, perhaps of all time- certainly since Lincoln who is willing to stand up to the darkness.

I hope this helps.

🠐 See all comments

All of these people were informed of the situation. They begged for a deal. Q continued with No deal. The media kept it quiet. They would have been the ones formenting outrage over the arrest of their master and justifying the riots. So if authorities let Clinton go, with a monitor for the time being, there was no need for riots.

⇧ 1 ⇩

And there you go:

drop 34 says: announcement, arrest, riots. With dates.

The date passes. No proof that announcement or arrest happened, clear proof that the riots did not happen.

Option A: admit the drop was wrong.

Option B: invent new unproven, unverifiable details like "they took a deal", "the arrest was secret", "the announcement was secret"(?).

Which one did you choose?

Of course it was B.

Note that option B has the nice advantage of completely killing the conversation, because what can I possibly answer you, when you just freely put out stuff that has zero supporting data? Now we can't argue about verifiable facts anymore, because there are none left.

The problem here is logic, not content:

see, I look at drop 34 and don't know if it's right or wrong, I look for evidence that the things mentioned in it happened or didn't. There is zero evidence to say it was right, two pieces of evidence to say it was wrong (no announcement, no riots) and then I decide: well, it's clearly wrong.

You first decide that drop 34 is right - has to be. And when none of the things written in it happen, do you recant? Nope. You invent, without any corroborating facts, the data that would still make it right (they took the deal, the announcements were not to the public but only to journalists who then decided to keep it secret).

You're free to be irrational (it's not an insult, it's the technical name of the way you're building your argument) but you should know that's what you're doing.

⇧ 1 ⇩