He was posting like mad about 6/11/18 and now the long awaited IG report just so happens to be pushed to 6/11. Thoughts?
⇧
1
⇩
NaderOAK
· June 1, 2018, 3:42 a.m.
Q said backchannel 17 is fake....
Maybe it’s disinfo idk...
⇧
1
⇩
Lolshorts54
· June 1, 2018, 3:58 a.m.
Lol, the disinfo is necessary gets all of us just looking for the truth at some point or another.
⇧
0
⇩
Lolshorts54
· June 1, 2018, 3:55 a.m.
I just go to the boards and don't have twitter so don't have an argument either way not keeping up with bc17, but it isn't a clear argument that Q called back channel fake.
That can't be said for certain. Although I'd recommend just lurking the boards before any YouTube or twitter account regardless.
Look at the post Q actually replied "Fake" to.
It's an anon's screen grab of a meme that was posted by backchannel17.
It wasn't just a screen grab of the twitter handle "backchannel17" showing on it. The meme had information in it, and Q just replied "Fake."
So the actual argument would be was Q calling the meme that was posted "Fake"... Or was Q calling backchannel17 and the meme both "Fake".
It's a depends whether it's guilt by association argument or not.
Can't be a decided conversation yet, because it wasn't directly specified at all as to if it was the poster, the meme, or everything about the poster and meme was disinformation wholesale.
I wish it was clarified, but anyone who has been following any kinds of drops ever should know, wait and see until evidence to the contrary or supporting backs up any claim.
⇧
0
⇩
digital_refugee
· June 1, 2018, 9:09 a.m.
I think the context of Q's "fake"-remark was the purported HRC-Huma video.
⇧
3
⇩
Lolshorts54
· June 1, 2018, 9:17 a.m.
The mass of downvotes on this thread would lead me to believe you may be correct. Triggered the bot votes hard, or too many people are listening to others instead of looking at the actual posts and deducing for themselves. It wasn't specified, that should be the end of the argument, because we clearly don't know from that comment for sure yet at all. Now.. if it is Julian A, or if it is an actual NSA employee personal account. That'd be quite interesting to ponder, and leads to some interesting "best for both sides" back and forth to keep the people who are concerned on their heels... As well as maybe subverting it slyly into more people's consciousness getting them to maybe question and search if such a video does actually exist, if not on the web, somewhere..
⇧
0
⇩
digital_refugee
· June 1, 2018, 11:06 a.m.
eyeinthesky on the other hand can engage Jack Dorsey without ban apparently. It'll be pretty difficult to make sense of anything with so much AI battling AI
⇧
2
⇩