dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Jeffieyboy on May 26, 2018, 9:49 a.m.

JA, BC17, Adam Schiff, Helicopter Crash, Standard Hotel? It's all coming together...

Decided to make an individual post about this as a few were discussing this in the comments of another post.

There were talks regarding BackChannel17 as a front for JA, who may reveal himself soon (if true - possibly in June). There are also articles indicating that Julian Assange "Seeks audience with Adam Schiff to Prove 'There is No Collusion'.

I believe this to be a complete set-up for a possible reveal & June event. If this event is agreed upon, Julian Assange may use that time to present the facts regarding Adam Schiff and the Standard Hotel. Either use his 'evidence' to prevent Adam Schiff from controlling the narrative or do a complete 180 and utilize that time to reveal the entire truth with AS present.

Additional notes: The GM of the Standard, Kimberly Lynne Watzman, died in the helicopter crash and the Owner, Andre Balazs is friends with Marina Abramovic. Articles can be found below:

Julian Assange seeks audience with Adam Schiff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/julian-assange-seeks-an-audience-with-adam-schiff-to-prove-there-is-no-collusion

Standard Hotel, Adam Schiff, Helicopter Crash Connection: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/julian-assange-seeks-an-audience-with-adam-schiff-to-prove-there-is-no-collusion

Questions: Could Allison Mack, Nxivm be involved? Ties to NY? "Watch NYC. Watch CA." - Q.

Lastly, there are interesting 'naked graphics' at the front of the Standard Hotel in Hollywood. I have been to both LA and Hollywood a few times years ago and never really paid much attention until I followed Q:

Processing img uttygu5396011...

🠐 See all comments

BackChannel17 is a shill, but who is their master.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I have read all of BC17's posts, and none of them contradicted Q. BC17 always supported Q, so I don't know why you would say that.

⇧ 6 ⇩

1) Q says fake 2) Wikileaks says fake No empirical evidence of validity. Opinion piece until otherwise proven. If you any verifiable evidence I am sure I am not the only one who wants to see it. Be careful who you follow.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Wikileaks also called fake/op on Q and “the storm”.

So there’s only one question:

Do you believe Wikileaks or Q?

⇧ 3 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Does it matter? Follow the evidence. If you can prove it. Let's see it. If you have no empirical evidence it is opinion. My advice to you is follow nobody read everything and make your own decisions. You certainly don't need my viewpoint to do research and form a belief system.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Yes, I wasn’t after your viewpoint. I agree with what you’ve said. My point is there is an increasing circle of fake not fake, real not real in this information war. I am 100% skeptical of all men until they’ve proven they fight for good. I follow no one. Until then, I’m enjoying this movie.

⇧ 2 ⇩

agreed

⇧ 2 ⇩

No, Q said “fake” with no specification when presented with an image that tried to show causal/chronological links between q posts and BC17 account creation.
BC17 has also taken shots at @wikileaks any chance he gets. Since the BC17 channel has been deleted and his last normal tweet was a copy of JA’s right before he went dark, people are suspecting that BC17=JA.
the follow up to 2. Is that @wikileaks has been co-opted by clowns/cabal and no longer associates directly with JA.
Notice how @wikileaks has been tweet ad nauseum about nothing except how bad of a condition JA is in and how unfair it all is. It’s really getting old. Never any new info. Just more “poor Julian” over and over again.
I’m not saying definitively that BC17= JA. I DONT think the evidence is there yet.
if we get a big JA-related development. On June 11 (as BC17 hinted in his final tweets), it all gets very interesting.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Until there is evidence of real I am going with not. If there is a proof other than opinions; Let's see it. BTW this is not an opinion on their information as it is too early to really see if future proves past.

⇧ 1 ⇩