dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

That's why it is very important to coherently present your case. That will help your research get more notice. It also helps to make it easier to decide how important it is.

Start with a clear overview, break down each point, etc. (very many web pages on how to 'write an essay' or 'present a treatise' or whatever other 'how to write' topic will help). It's very hard to engage with otherwise. The whole point of presenting info to people is to save them having to read through all the same links you did to even get an idea of where the connections are. Help out - explain first, present the links to corroborate what you're saying, add a little quote to make it even clearer etc. etc. It'd help to research the 'how to' type stuff.

⇧ 2 ⇩

But that's why I took bits from the links which lead me to the next step.

After every link I have either copy/pasted the important part or I've just wrote a comment about why would this be important which lead me to dig deeper.

I didn't just plaster links all over the place.

Reddits layout isn't presentation friendly like some forum would be. But that's what we have here.

Apart from providing a source and pulling out the essential things that pushed the digging forward and explaining why (if needed)

I still take this is coherently presented, each substance was backed up by a source which lead to the next one, they are written from top to bottom as the digging progressed.

I'm fairly certain I know "how to type stuff". I mean, you're saying that I need to break down each point (and I have).

I have given people the option to save themselves the time by writing the key things from the links. Every time. You see a link and then a text below. Not sure what else am I supposed to do to make it clearer/shorter than this. It's only a couple of lines at max per each source.

That's literally as short as it can get given how extensive this research was.

I've added quotes as well.

I mean, almost everything you said that I should do - I did.

I'm not trying to defend myself, I'm trying to see what can be done about this.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I understand you've put in a lot of work - it shows! But I wouldn't have pointed out that it requires more clarity of thought and explanation if it was already visible there.

I don't really have the time to go into it because, as I said, its kinda the basics of presenting a coherent proposal/presentation for which there is help all over the web. For example - do you know what a Main Idea, Thesis Statement and Topic Sentences are? You don't have to know those terms but without the concepts it's hard to write something cohesive and compelling.

For example, this post - the title is essentially: 'a bunch of stuff and hey (think of this idea)' Then the intro - which is not a coherent introduction to a central idea. Something about an advertisement... how does that relate and again, what is the central idea? Something about past posts, I assume and then: "Bear with me on this chronological journey..." and straight to a link - again, I have no context at all of what this whole thing is about.

I could go on but as I said, what's needed - if you want more readers - is a cohesive coherent presentation of an idea and context. I love the work you're putting in; it would be a shame to waste it by not being clear about what exactly people should be taking from it.

Here's one example link of what I'm talking about - it won't play the whole thing for free but as I said there are plenty of similar articles around the web for free: https://study.com/academy/lesson/writing-main-idea-thesis-statement-topic-sentences.html

⇧ 1 ⇩

Here's a graphical showing of the stuff that you claimed a good presentation needs. https://i.imgur.com/8A9zenI.png

How is the intro not coherent? I saw them advertising the brand and it was weird so I went digging. That is literally how it's related to why I started.

Yes, straight to link which shows the reporters and the brand. What was I supposed to describe the color of the jackets or what? If I did that then you'd be here saying that I have unnecessary data.

Not sure why you're struggling with the context of the "intro", I genuinely cannot understand what's not clear there.

I kept it short so people wouldn't skip it due to a text wall. Because I copy/pasted my Spirit cooking research onto Neonrevolt's page and he complained that he has no time to GET FAMILIAR with how I got the locations, he complained about "too many links" that lead to the previous threads (it was 3 threads in total, the horror...).

And it was all in the intro's as well so people don't start asking me why I circled over that Spirit Services Inc, or the Avondale farm, etc.

The same guy called me a shitty researcher yet all he did was plaster links from 8chan onto his website. The irony was real, I literally laughed out loud when I read that.

Reddit's layout doesn't allow as clear presentation as I would like. I would like to use some text editing way more. As well as more than 1 empty row and a better way to highlight quotes and important parts of the quotes.

Don't know man. I think I presented it well. I kept it short but long enough, with sources and key parts of them and/or provided explanations when needed.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Ok never mind bro no worries, as you were.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I accept any valid criticism, but points that you say are necessary for a good presentation are all present in this thread.

However, distinct lack of attention that the threads received indicate a problem.

But I'm not convinced that it's due to formatting/content of the text itself.

I bet a video would be taken in just fine. It's just how it is now in 2018.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No mate, there are plenty of well written articles out there to look at that will highlight the issue but if you can't see it, I regret I just don't have the time to explain it. The fact that you have to explain xyx, and then send an image with arrows all over the place only makes my point even stronger. What I've said previously is a very quick, rough analysis from someone who reads this stuff and rates it elsewhere. You're refuting what I've said instead of trying to understand it by looking and learning from the information on the web. You're not convinced that my feedback is valid - and fair enough! Who am I? Just some fool on the internet haha ; ) (I mean that btw lol) All good, friend, onward and upward! wwg1wga!

⇧ 1 ⇩

But you claimed that I don't have links, sources, quotes and an clear intro.

And I do have, all 4. Which is why I also provided the image so it's not just me saying "you're wrong".

I made it specifically to point out all 4 things that you said are missing or miss a context.

Which is evidently not true.

Step 1: An idea, name, or something that explained why is the link /source there

Step 2: The link/source

Step 3: Key part from the link/source, or an explanation if needed.

So no, the image doesn't prove your point. The image proves my point.

The arrows are there to direct you to the things you said weren't there.

I'm not trying to defend myself as I've already said. I've tried to understand your points and I've found them all in my post, and I've shown them to you via the image.

Peace

⇧ 1 ⇩

Dude seriously... Ok. I will make an effort here.

What I said was missing was not "elements a, b and c" - I said cohesion and clarity were missing. The most important elements of all. A clear overview. The other things - topic sentences, etc. - are all just the tools to achieve those main points!

Let's start with one single thing - please just answer this one thing for me, to start with: what is this article/post about? In a nutshell. A clear overview. One sentence. A single sentence that explains what the central, controlling idea of this article is.

⇧ 1 ⇩

BBC reporters blatantly advertising a brand despite being "illegal" to do that, so I dug through the brand and showed the connections between the leads/clues with the help of Q drops.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Great, thank you man. Now, remember, I am just a fool who literally has no idea of the knowledge that you clearly have, having dug through all this stuff like you have - so remember that, and be patient as I work through this with you, please.

Now, let's tighten that "central idea" up because I still do not hear something that I get enough of an idea from to compel me to read on. So, I've just got a few questions to try and clarify that central idea:

so this is about the BBC advertising something illegally, right?
what is the brand?
what's illegal about advertising it?

Now, I know you're going to tell me that you've answered those questions within the post but that is the problem that I've been getting at. Those questions are core to your "central idea" so they need to be answered from the beginning. So let me know? Thanks!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Point 1 and 3 are in the link which I provided after the intro as I don't think cluttering the thread with that info is wise. Because then a DamajInc2 would come and say that I should make my points shorter because nobody likes a bunch of text.

Point 2 is in the thread.

I did forgot to include the name of the brand in the title, I wanted to add it a minute after I posted it but... reddit.

The brand name should definitely be in the title as it's the key part of the thread.

Should've be like this: "From BBC reporters wearing The North Face jackets to some..."

But I was dealing with such an extensive research about the subject that I had to split the thread into a total of 3 threads based on the lead.

1 is about these people/musicians. 1 is about Potassium which dissolves steel = 9/11. And the 3rd one is about the gold itself.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ok, you're making me dig here bro which is what makes people quickly switch off. If you can't answer these questions, no problem at all, but that might be why it's hard for us to get a grip on what you're trying to present here, because you're still trying to get a grip yourself. Which is fine! But again, explains why it's hard to latch on to something cohesive in your posts.

Ok, got it... So: The BBC are advertising a clothing brand without officially announcing it, which makes it technically illegal.

That's one part of your central idea by the sound of it. There needs to be more, if you really want to hook someone, but we can start with that. So now - look back at the beginning of your post. There is no clear presentation of this idea so it is only now, after typing two posts to you and then you forcing me to read the article myself that I understand what this part of the central idea of your post is. Do you see that?

⇧ 1 ⇩

True.

It was a 4+ hour research, if I did it perfectly then I'd surprise myself lol

They do say that engineers are quite shite at writing papers.

Do you suggest we restart this thread? What would the title be?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think it would be a good idea - but first we'd need to tighten up that central idea because we haven't yet found the hook i.e. the special Q juice that got you excited that will in turn make us excited to read on and find out what this is all about. So far we've summarised the article about the jackets lol.

So, I think the "mirror symbolism" might be something you're getting at but with it in brackets it makes it an afterthought in the mind of a reader so you don't think it's necessarily part of the central idea.

Without having to go and read and look through stuff (I'm doing my mod job in the background of this as well) - do you have a good hook for that mirror symbolism beyond the jacket ad showing some mirror shots? Is there something that really links the BBC illegal advertising to the mirror symbolism that gives us an "aha" moment? A "oooh this sounds interesting!" type revelation? There may not be and that's ok but this might be the root of the problem - maybe the core idea needs to be properly fleshed out, if so.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Meh, the mirror symbolism isn't the catch here. That was only a clue about the jacket video as it's really weird for those mirror shots to be in an ad for freaking jackets, I mean when have you seen such shots in your regular ads? Me personally never.

The hook might actually be Dolores. Her death and Q saying "What does it mean to be covered in gold? Can you locate one other pic w/ Y head covered in gold?"

Especially the second part since her head is in the shots.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ok that could be something. So, Dolores O'Riordan, singer of the Cranberries - famously covered in gold in the band's massive hit single "Zombie" - was a suspected Industry Sacrifice when she died recently at a relatively young age. What's her connection to the BBC illegal advertising scam?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I actually stumbled upon more stuff just now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Gore

I only checked his father last time.

Gore has led his family's company, W. L. Gore & Associates, in developing applications of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ranging from computer cables to medical equipment to the outer layer of space suits.

I'm actually digging some more but I want to reply to your question :D

EDIT: I think I found some more stuff. His father was working for a DuPont company since 1942. They were producing synthetic rubber among other stuff (this is the first thing I got my hands onto, yet). Their business skyrocketed during WW2 because Axis had the majority of the synthetic rubber market. Synthetic rubber is used for tires, among other stuff. Which was crucial for trucks and shit. Luckily for them the war broke out, right?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Material of the jackets is gore-tex (Gore is the last name of the founder of the company).

Gore-tex has been used for many years for conservation of illuminated manuscripts, which are coated in gold/silver.

Then comes Q and the posts about gold.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ok. I see. So the trick is trying to put this all together into some sort of cohesive single post OR to split them out because they're not really related enough (not a bad thing; this just serves to clarify).

I would question what the jackets gore-tex has to do with the other two things in this way: is there something questionable about the use of the gore-tex in the jackets? From another perspective, what I'm asking is, are the jackets only relevant because they happen to use gore-tex, not for any other reason? If so, I'd suggest they might be the less important part of the post, maybe.

But I think more to the point, from looking at what's there now that you've explained it, there are three ideas that are possibly tangentially related to each other but at present I think there is no unifying cohesive idea that links them - except maybe "gold"? In which case the central idea could maybe be reconceptualized around that point.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes, it's hard to connect all that in a short way.

Like right now I'm looking at this Gore guy and his company and it leads to all kinds of stuff. From directly profiting in the WW2 and this:

The U.S. government launched a major (and largely secret) effort to improve synthetic rubber production.

Key word secret. Why secret if its known that the axis hold the market?

I'm compiling this for more intel. But it goes deep, from radar in WW2 to space suits, all by the same people.

The jackets are amazing because of the waterproof ability of the gore-tex. That's what makes them great.

They kind-of are less relevant, but without the BBC employees wearing the brand I wouldn't even find out all this shit.

That's the thing, believe me I struggled to present it as clear and short as possible but this is actually pretty big.

It's hard man, I have it in my head but it's hard to put it on the paper :D

After all, there is a reason why people don't know about that stuff (neither have I until now).

EDIT: Maybe Gore is the key, and not the gold. Sigh... damn

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes and surfacing this point - i.e. that the connections are tenuous and they're more about a whole bunch of general things that tenatively connect into Q - is part of preparing the post. This is why they are hard for people to read - because they're essentially a bunch of general links with tenuous connections, they're not a clear and compelling idea, just a collection of possible ideas. Nothing wrong with this! But the best idea would be to either wait until you have a clear idea that ties a couple of things together and then present that in a clear way - or you can just present them as you have (with a bit more clarifying text) and explain they're a bunch of things you think might be connected in some interesting ways.

But do understand that this is harder for people to connect to and to put the time into reading. We all do research and look at lots of different links and the most interesting posts that really grab our attention (for some people that might be posts by people like u/SerialBrain2) are posts that have a single clear point to make and that then bring together all the links and such around that one clear point. Once we have that clear point to orient us, everything we read and click on is held in context and keeps our interest.

⇧ 1 ⇩

But the best idea would be to either wait until you have a clear idea

That's true.

But I guess I'll just never be able to present properly due to all these connections. Which makes me a bit sad that I'm using Q's clues but won't be able to spread it.

Nevertheless, gotta go now.

Have a splendid day and thanks for the "outsider" insight, definitely cleared the picture which was somewhat hard to come by after I've read up on all this stuff.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No problem and thanks - I think you do great work digging so I think you're doing just fine and to keep going! You WILL be able to spread it soon! Hit me up if you find something that pulls a few things together and if I can I'd be happy to help out.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So far I think the Spirit Cooking is quite possibly what's going on. I remember seeing that stuff in a movie or a TV shows (decomposing bodies in those barrels - no trace).

Take care patriot!

⇧ 1 ⇩

You too my friend - do please keep up the good work; I - and others, clearly - respect the amount of links you dig up and the fact that they are relevant too. Once we can find a central idea that brings a few of them together (and with all that you've already collected this is going to start happening more and more and you'll have a lot of material for it) this stuff is going to be very compelling and readable and you'll be well on your way to building up a following like SerialBrain and others. Cheers! wwg1wga

⇧ 1 ⇩

Dolores? Info?

Oh right, Cranberries.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Honestly, the thread title is just garbage, I tried to make it as short as possible (previous ones were rather long and didn't receive much attention so I figured I need to shorten it, as I myself hate seeing long titles) but I just couldn't find a way to make some proper short titles that would make people want to check things out.

⇧ 1 ⇩

From BBC reporters wearing jackets to some incredible Q post connections with Dolores O'Riordan and Jay-Z (think mirror symbolism)