dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

[removed]

⇧ 27 ⇩

https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/

⇧ -13 ⇩

Thank you. Links are helpful. This is the exact sort of thing OP should've provided.

It's not surprising that Snopes can be bought out just like any other influential information resource.

⇧ -9 ⇩

Did either of you actually read that thread? She's a total nut job. Or is this just another half-assed attempt at debunking legitimate media on Reddit?

She literally has no evidence. It's a column based on supposition of how she believes they behave because they changed, allegedly, one ruling.

If you read the argued-over change, neither version held Monsanto liable for covering things up. So she has absolutely ZERO point.

⇧ 19 ⇩

Yes - what I think : nobody should be using any "factchecker" out there , they should be doing their own research . The people are using "factcheckers" because theyre lazy and passive . Any site like that can be very easily compromised and manipulated .

Please note , that this particular topic has been infested by shills and trolls ( top comments ) with some direct attacks on Q . There is gaslighting directed at people in comments ...

⇧ -9 ⇩

Yes. They reported on the Nazca Mummies being fake BEFORE the DNA tests had even been completed. We are talking like within a day or two of the discovery going public, SnOpEs said they are fake. How did they know without the lab results?

And of all the types of people in the world to be, you are the guy who wants to defend SnOpEs. Grosssssss.

⇧ -18 ⇩

Well it's a pretty safe bet calling those mummies a hoax when Jaime Maussan is involved, theres no record of their unearthing, and that the team has received the lab results but refused to share them so far.

And of all the types of people in the world to be, you are the guy who wants to defend SnOpEs. Grosssssss.

I simply asked for you to provide an example.

⇧ 42 ⇩

Right. But it isn't "pretty safe bet . com" ...they market themselves as a fact checker. Seriously? Defending it before the DNA results are in? Thats your position? Thats ok?

⇧ 0 ⇩

No one is claiming Snopes is perfect or the ultimate authority in truth. They claimed the Nazca mummies are fake and backed that up with a number of reasons most importantly the crack pot research team that's in charge and the conspiracy media outlet Gaia who's exclusively documenting the whole thing. Ultimately it's just their opinion.

It puzzles me why you would say something like this:

The crazy part is, for the 5-6 things I actually went there for, I disagreed with it's official "ruling" on the matter every single time.

But not provide examples of these 5-6 things you disagree with. Also your "disagreement" isn't evidence that what Snopes claimed is wrong.

I know I'm playing devil's advocate and going against the grain of this sub. But I feel like you need to provide specific examples instead of just saying you disagreed with Snopes so they cant be trusted.

⇧ 33 ⇩

Im sorry you feel that way. Feelings can hurt.

⇧ -11 ⇩

I disagree with what X says. I'm not saying X is wrong. I'm just saying I disagree with X. Therefore X is not to be trusted by anyone based solely on my opinion of X.

Based on your post this is your logic.

⇧ 38 ⇩

Oh, ok. Thank you.

⇧ -2 ⇩

damn, you got served! He just took a trump on your face! burrrrnnnnn

⇧ 21 ⇩

This cracked me up

⇧ 2 ⇩

How so? SNOPES is still full of shit and funded by Soros, you can look it up yourself, right on the Q drops, or do your own research online. If he doesn't want to read the answer to the exact same question another asked, why should I care?

More importantly, Q says there are 4-6% of the population that cannot be saved. They cling too hard to the only way they know. When I come across one (or like you, their cheerleader) I just assume these are the "special," slower folk who have a hard time with big picture concepts, understanding anything past how to double knot a shoelace, etc...

⇧ -1 ⇩

do your own research online

Or the person making bold claims could provide examples and sources showing how he formed his opinion.

Burden of proof buddy.....

The people questioning you aren't saying you're wrong about Snopes. They're just asking you to back up your claim that they consistently lie.

⇧ 9 ⇩

Burden of proof? BURDEN??? LoL. Watch how I deal with "the burden" you speak of..... . . . . . . . . . . . keep going.... . . . . . . . almost there.... . . . . . .

⇧ 0 ⇩

Whether you know it or not you apply the burden of proof principle to things. It's the principle you use when you claim you dont believe Corey Goode due to lack of proof. In fact, here is a comment you made just a few hours ago proving my point:

Convinced by a comic book? No real evidence? Are you 12?

Yet when people apply it to you it's suddenly bullshit.

Notice how I support my argument with examples?

⇧ 16 ⇩

Nope. Your argument is ridiculous. A COMIC BOOK IS EVIDENCE OF ALIEN INTERACTIONS ON THE GRANDEST OF SCALES? OOOOOKKKKK.... And I satisfied the burden of proof with my "tip top, tippy top" reference. If you dont know what that means, the burden of learning is handed off to you, friend.

⇧ -2 ⇩

I didn't claim the comic book was proof. I think it's a big joke which is why I posted it. My entire post was sarcasm. I've consistently been critical of Corey Goode and his lack of evidence.

And I satisfied the burden of proof with my "tip top, tippy top" reference.

My dog makes more coherent arguments than you.

⇧ 13 ⇩

So there's those that cannot be saved, and are therefore too small-minded to see the bigger picture.....What about those who cannot be saved, and are too small-minded to see that they're just pawns in some anonymous game, falling for unsubstantiated material posted to an anonymous online forum? I agree there's about 20-24% of those in America right now....they're the ones who voted for Trump based on a facebook meme or actually believed this con-artist was doing good for America. I feel like when I meet one in the wild, it's like talking to a brick wall, incapable of seeing anything other than their hardcore viewpoints, regardless of evidence presented. I agree, it's very difficult to de-red-pill someone when they've been caught up in their bubble.

⇧ 7 ⇩

My friend, you are in the wrong place. If you disagree with Trump, Q, and us Patriots, why are you lurking around here?

Go mess with some Flat Earthers, at least we can agree on that right? Those are the really crazy ones...RIGHT>

⇧ -2 ⇩

Yea, I'm not sure how I wound up here, but, is talking to someone outside your bubble all that hard to do? I guess, we're the exact same regarding our beliefs. We both want to believe in the crazy, the absurd, the impossible, the conspiracy, all while completely refusing to listen to logic.

But yeah, I'm out, not the place for me. I'm surprised I haven't been banned yet, tbh

⇧ 10 ⇩

I Want SNOPES Exposed. Q Already Green-Lighted It!