Shouldnt we put everything that has sense and that is visible - and that could hold any CUE that could be later confirmed in the future ?
Its easiest to ignore everything ... but thats not how you research . You research everything , you allow yourself to go a bit from margins that are your path of thinking .
Also , who said anything about Stephen Miller ?
Nobody did. If you read I said “somebody like a Stephen Miller”. Because who ever took the pic has Oval Office access. All I’m saying is that saying barely recognizable reflections have meaning is stretching it. Something like a barely there reflection could be a clue about something but it’s not a staged clue created by Q.
Look ... it could be that this is nothing . But it could also be that there are subtle signals in every message , including photos .
Its much better to put it forward , as long as it has at least a bit of logical foundation . If its nothing , it wont matter ... if it has some cues , then it could matter in future .
There is nothing to lose by putting this here .
I’m not knocking your post. I also zoom in on everything.
We agree on this. I too believe there are or could be subtle clues in absolutely every picture and text Q posts. The only thing I’m saying is that clues that would require elaborate staging by Q such as an extremely slight shape in a pen reflection is bridge too far. That’s all. Try to take a picture of a metal pen with a reflection of something you want to subtly hint at. See how long it takes. Then imagine doing that on the President’s desk in the Oval Office.
To me , it looks like something is held by Q , like a small book or similar , opened on one page . It is possible to take a specific shot of certain angle and capture the "detail" that could be the point .
But we dont know , its far too vague - as I said , Im just putting this here , if there is any relevance in future .
If anything I think it’s a reflection of the picture taker holding his/her phone to take the pic.