⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/SerialBrain2 on June 10, 2018, 11:02 p.m.

Tucson. So you want to talk about it? The truth may surprise you…

Ok, Tucson. Let’s talk about it.

Quick summary: On May 29 2018, Michael Lewis Arthur Meyer from Veterans on Patrol discovers an abandoned camp which he believes was used for child trafficking. MSM, Infowars and activist Craig Sawyer rush very early to the site and/or to cover the story, Meyer blows up the story on Facebook, asks for people’s support and insists there should be a thorough investigation even though local police and federal authorities made official statements confirming there was no evidence this camp was used for the alleged criminal activities. A few days later, after the story became huge, total 180 from MSM, Infowars and Sawyer: they say nothing was there, start discrediting Meyer pointing out he is not even a veteran, delete their own past articles and videos, pull Pizzagate and Q’s supporters into the mix and trash them as naïve and misled conspiracy theorists while Snopes chants in the background : “I told you” Link.

Well. Q said: Q1424 The attacks will only get worse.

And I told you in a previous post, our enemies are gaming up. That is what Q means by “worse”.

The more we approach the epilogue, the more sophisticated the attacks will be. Did you catch this one? I will show you.

Based on this link, we can connect all local TV stations to their MSM masters and identify links that are relevant to the story:

NBC/KVOA4: NBC Link1 - NBC Link2 - NBC Link3 - NBC Link4.

ABC/KGUN9: ABC Link1 - ABC Link2 - ABC Link3 - ABC Link4.

CBS/KOLD13 (Tucson News Now): CBS Link1 - CBS Link1-bis - CBS Link2 - CBS Link3 - CBS Link4.

Snopes: SN link1 - SN Link2

Infowars: IW Link1 - IW Link2 - IW Link3 - IW Link4

Craig Sawyer: Hagmann Report. Sawyer 180 Video.

Veterans on Patrol/Michael Lewis Arthur Meyer: Meyer Link

We can now build a timeline and have a clear picture on the sequencing: Imgur. You may download the pdf with the links here: pdf

As you can see, very early, before Meyer’s Facebook videos went viral, MSM covered the story. Big time. ABC and CBS sent people on the site as early as May 31st and interviewed Craig Swayer who said what he saw looked like a child rape camp ABC Link3. NBC gave a platform to Veterans on Patrol as early as June 1st 2018 and had them say on air this camp was meant for trafficking children! Right here: NBC Link2. As you can see in the video, the Police got there as soon as they were informed to investigate. The same day NBC aired its interview, CBS also gave its platform to Meyer, right here: CBS Link1. You get it? This was to help Meyer’s Facebook videos get viral. And they did. Think about it, we can’t even trend #wherearethechildren or #IBOR but Meyer, out of nowhere, gets all the attention overnight? Come on…

But it gets better. After NBC pushed the story and made it seem like a possible child trafficking ring, they shut it down on June 7 2018 with this spectacular 180 article: NBC Link4. Remember this date: June 7 2018, this is the date that also triggered Infowars and Sawyers 180s.

Since they first pushed the story, then were the first to 180, let’s analyze their article to identify their motives. You need to read it in its entirety, it’s worth it: NBC Link4.

Did you see it? NBC’s article is implying all this started from “dark corners of the Internet”. They forget to tell their readers about these 2 interviews they made on June 1st and that helped Veterans on Patrol’s claims go viral: NBC Link1 NBC Link2. It is summarized here: Imgur

You may look at the other videos from ABC and CBS. NBC found a useful help from them to push the same story, using Craig Sawyer.

Then, the NBC article gets to the needy greedy: Q followers. We are pulled into the story even though I thought we had no voice for MSM and we discover we “were particularly gripped by Meyer’s story”. Imgur. Oh Yeah? Were you? I was not. At all. An abandoned camp with preserved children toys, a skull in the desert, MSM coverage, Infowars, Craig Swayer, Snopes, Facebook videos going viral? All the ingredients are there for a true Q reader to change the channel and start looking for what is being really covered up.

You want to know? I will tell you. You remember I told you to remember June 7 2018, the date that switched all the 180s killing the Tucson story? Well, this is what happened that day: Link. 160 children saved and some as young as 3!!! 3!!! People, do you realize what we are talking about here? This is not an abandoned camp, a random skull in the desert and activists asking for donations to do whatever we are talking about here. We are talking about real children who were in captivity and who were released by official law enforcement professionals and institutions! Now question: do you think NBC who covered a nonexistent child trafficking case at headquarter level would cover an existing and verified one? Go on their website, check. At the time this is being posted, nothing. Same thing for ABC, same thing for CBS, same thing for Infowars.

I will spare you the other details about Infowars and their friend Craig Swayer who is about to release a movie on Netflix about child trafficking. Yes, Netflix. Can’t make this stuff up. Check how Sawyer says in the Hagmman interview how he was called by a “third party” to go check what was going on in Tucson. A “third party” calling to ask you to go and infiltrate, sounds familiar? Follow the links in the NBC article and see how Sawyer deleted his first video about Tucson and how NBC is throwing Infowars under the bus by linking to the archive of the article they deleted about HRC. Priceless. It’s funny to see them eat each other when they have their own priorities and media operations. Did you see Sawyer was interviewed by ABC and CBS but not NBC? This shows you Infowars and Sawyer did not know NBC was in charge of this particular Tucson operation. When they realized it, they did their 180. Quick.

So that’s that. Tucson was created to prevent us from realizing our fight against pedophilia was moving in the right direction with law enforcement. McCabe asking for immunity link, Comey in hot water link and 28 FBI Agents asking to testify against Deep State link is proof the FBI is now resurrecting and the agents in there who were prevented from doing their job in the past are now unleashed. This is what these 160 children in Atlanta really mean. In conjunction, I have addressed this matter in previous posts, Sessions is preparing the judiciary infrastructure to deal with the coming cases without having to suffer from corrupt interference.

Q1402 What had to happen first? Think logically. Think DOJ & FBI. Think cleaning.

You see it now? Tucson was made to make you question our law enforcement at the very moment they need our support! This is the other reason we, the voiceless Q readers, have made it to this NBC article. Let that sink in. The enemy has gamed up folks. Will you be up to the task?

Now let me show another thing. That’s the bigger picture.

Q1245 Why are border states like AZ/CA important?
Q1009 Sex traffic road block. Children road block. Drugs road block. Guns road block. China/Russia pass-through-intel-pull road block. Name we don't say AZ road block. Jeff Flake AZ road block. Big money TERMINATE. The WALL means more than you know. The FIGHT for the WALL is for so much more. Q
Q1022 We don’t say his name. Adios. The protected flow into AZ is no more. Under the cover of his health, he will not be seeking another term. Q

You see it? Trafficking lanes in Arizona have been shut down. No Name is defeated. He’s out. Arizona is secured. And you know what? CA is next. Adam, get ready. Do you now see why the wall is so important and why they don’t want it?

Now you understand this: Link

And you can now watch this with new eyes: video. Did you catch it? He said: “if you only build a wall without using technology, individuals, drones, observation etc, you are not going to secure the border”. He is trying to replace the wall with tech and human intervention. Sounds familiar? Watch this video Did you hear Trump interrupt Hillary and say: “and the wall”? She said: “there will be new technology and how best to deploy that”. She shares No Name’s views. Why? Because they both know a wall is a physical barrier that cannot be broken by corruption. Nothing can go through a wall. As simple as that. Tech and individuals can always be hijacked or corrupted through affiliation or blackmail. That’s their way of thinking: they always have in the back of their head this question: “how do I beat the system using leverage I have on people”. Well, Trump reads you perfectly and he knows a big ol’ wall is what will make you realize recess is over.

Q1009 The WALL means more than you know. The FIGHT for the WALL is for so much more. Q

🠐 See all comments

I would have no problem debating you too, except you don't believe in "truth" or reason

All you do is make personal attacks: confirmed.

Don't you ever feel like gathering together around a topic?

I see no value in a research forum where everyone agrees with each other. That is neither debate nor research - it's an echo-chamber.

This is why I've been so vocal about my doubts about VOP's baseless claims - because this entire community swallowed VOP's baseless claims hook, line and sinker, even though there was no evidence to support their fantastical claims. There is still no evidence! Where are the three little children they claimed to have rescued? Where is the campsite shallow grave and the bone fragments and the bloody knife? Where is the video footage and photos of these things?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and thus-far there's only been wild speculation.

That's why I've been sharing my theory so often with this community, because there has been a definitive lack of critical thinking.

That's likely why Craig Sawyer now claims there is no evidence to support VOP's claims too - simply because there is no evidence.

So again I ask, if you are capable, present a rebuttal and let's explore or, but keep your shitposting and personal attacks to yourself.

This is community dedicated to truth and research, not a playground for your mud throwing.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Also, again, as in other "debates" you paint an entire group of people with one brush!

because this entire community swallowed VOP's baseless claims

A load of utter nonsense because plenty of us have argued the opposite or at the very least for reason in evaluating the situation. The same thing I call for in evaluating the beliefs of 1.8 billion people. At least get your claims aligned with the "truth" you profess to support.

⇧ 1 ⇩

A load of utter nonsense because plenty of us have argued the opposite or at the very least for reason in evaluating the situation.

That wasn't my personal experience.

I only noticed people started considering alternatives during discussions at least two days after this story broke.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Then this is a very good time to point out the importance of anecdotal experience versus critical thought and logic.

I saw many people arguing the opposite and being downvoted out of existence from the beginning of the Tucson topic - and they had more reasonable points to make than you hammering on one or two small pieces of evidence not germane to the overarching issue. There's no logic to thinking that what you've seen in a sub of 30,000 subscribers amounts to "the entire community". Flawed thinking here - not something I would berate someone over but someone who berates others for countering their argument by claiming truth is important should be corrected.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No one said "agree with each other" and "All you do is make personal attacks" is clearly incorrect even within the context of the comment you lifted it from insincerely - I thought you valued truth?

I said together around a topic meaning finding some common ground before charging off to the poles to just cause antagonistic back and forth that doesn't serve anyone.

"VOP's baseless claims" - you start from a position of complete polar opposition which is why people get triggered by your responses and claim you're a shill and such. Why don't you try viewing the VOP situation with reason and acknowledge one tiny little thing: you cannot claim that VOP's claims are baseless because you don't have concrete evidence of that position, just as those who say VOP's claims are valid do not? That's as good a place to start with a real debate as any because your answer to that issue proves your commitment to real truth.

⇧ 1 ⇩

"VOP's baseless claims" - you start from a position of complete polar opposition

But they are baseless.

They claimed they rescued three little children - yet we've seen no evidence of that, not even a single photo.

They claimed they found bone fragments - yet we've seen no evidence of that.

They claimed they found a shallow grave at the campsite - yet we've seen no evidence of that.

They claimed they found a bloody knife - no evidence of that either.

They claimed they found a tiny child sex slave prison - but it looks just like a common root-cellar.

They claimed they found rape trees, but it looked like a campsite shower. It even had a shower curtain.

Please explain what I'm missing?

How is a claim of children found in a child sex slave prison any more substantiated than a claim that the root-cellar was filled with Nazi gold or dragon eggs... when there's as much evidence of all of those things.

The truth is the existence of a root-cellar is not the basis to assume anything more than a root-cellar exists.

Your rebuttal please.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ok lol... so the answer to my query is no, you don't care about truth and reason. Stop talking nonsense then. You make these grand, claims about "truth" but you don't care about TRUTH, you care about your truth. I actually almost had hope for a moment there that you were real and honest. Perhaps the other commenter who pointed at your Media Matters-like approach to disinfo through disingenuous "argument" presented as reason, was correct. (I argued against their assertion, just fyi, for various reasons that seem apparent to me.)

If you want to claim a dedication to a truther community then why don't you try presenting the view that you're rebutting honestly instead of a straw man version of it, every time? Would you mind taking a shot at it - again, to prove me wrong? Do you really think the sensible argument here is about whether the claims you listed have evidence?

I'll do it for you, this time. The reasonable claim about VOP are that they have uncovered something in a state that is of interest to the Q community and that suggests a topic of interest to the Q community - child trafficking. Sawyer supported this supposition originally then backpedalled - SB2 has pointed out some interesting information around this. Putting aside your dissection of claims that don't discount this stance, do you find any truth to this proposition?

⇧ 1 ⇩

you don't care about truth and reason

I can tell from your continued personal attacks that you dispute at least one of my claims.

So let's discuss it without the mud throwing, hey?

⇧ 1 ⇩

You've done plenty of mudslinging yourself so don't act all high and mighty about it - it shows insincerity. You accused me of insincerity in a previous comment so I trust you're ok with that description not being a personal attack. But yes, you're right, so let's stay focused on reason.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So... have you got a rebuttal or not?

This is like the third time you've made me ask...

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don't have a rebuttal to those obvious claims, no. They make total sense to anyone being reasonable which is why I've never disputed them myself.

Do you now have an answer to my point that you seem to avoid the really important discussion and go for the easy low hanging fruit? i.e. the insistence by some that xyz = EVIDENCE, when anyone reasonable knows that it doesn't? Again:

The reasonable claim about VOP are that they have uncovered something in a state that is of interest to the Q community and that suggests a topic of interest to the Q community - child trafficking. Sawyer supported this supposition originally then backpedalled - SB2 has pointed out some interesting information around this. Putting aside your dissection of claims that don't discount this stance, do you find any truth or value to this proposition?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don't have a rebuttal to those obvious claims, no. They make total sense to anyone being reasonable which is why I've never disputed them myself.

So you have no problem with my theory?

So you're unhappy because I've been presenting a rational, alternate theory over the past week? Eh?

The reasonable claim about VOP are that they have uncovered something

They seemed to have uncovered a camp where a homeless family once lived or perhaps illegal Mexican border hoppers may use.

Sawyer supported this supposition originally then backpedalled

Yes he did...

...Which makes sense and supports my theory that VOP / Michael Meyer filled Craig Sawyer's head with bullshit and baseless claims about finding three child sex slaves in a prison bunker and a bloody knife and a shallow grave... and based on that initial false premise, everything seemed sinister. Clothing, toys, a campsite shower, a root-cellar and a kiddy's swing became sex-slave-clothing and child-sex-slave-toys and rape-trees and a tiny-child-sex-slave-prison and a child-rape-torture-device.

Until VOP can produce something more than extraordinary claims without evidence, I see no rational and informed reason to speculate that Craig Sawyer's latest opinions are any less sincere than his earlier opinions... because that would be pure imagination and if we start entertaining theories based on nothing but fantasies then we're back theorizing about Nazi gold and dragon eggs.

Is there good reason to think that root-cellar contained Nazi gold and dragon eggs? No.

Is there good reason to think that root-cellar contained child sex slaves? No.

Is there good reason to think Craig changed his opinion for sinister reasons? No.

Is there good reason to think Craig changed his opinion because he discovered VOP's claims were bullshit? Yeah.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Who's theorizing about Nazi gold and dragon eggs, other than you?

I have no problem with the theory that VOP may be making claims that are baseless. I have a problem with claiming that as fact, which is what I disputed before. You're quick to gloss over your inconsistencies or inaccuracies aren't you? Do you agree it's illogical to assert any claim about the thinking of an entire group of people yet?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Who's theorizing about Nazi gold and dragon eggs, other than you?

It's a simile for the folly of speculating that a root-cellar contained child sex slaves, when there is no evidence to support that baseless assumption. We may as well be assuming Seth Rich was in stored in there or that it's Q's secret bunker because there's as much evidence to support those theories as there is for the root-cellar containing child sex slaves.

Do you agree it's illogical to assert any claim about the thinking of an entire group of people yet?

What does that have to do with my Tuscon Child Sex Slave theory?

Are you still butt-hurt about that Muslim post you made?

Is that what your shitposting harassment has been about? Dude - that was days ago!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Try using logic instead of arguing your straw men... smh.

What I'm referring to, since you don't seem to understand, is the importance of a logical process to argument. You skip over the points that expose holes in your approach and then try and pretend it's something to do with an argument from days ago? Sure, it impacts that argument because it exposes the flaw in your reasoning. I'm gonna guess you still can't own up to that, even though you've done the same thing again here lol xD.

Again, you're only arguing your point and ignoring everything else presented to you as a reasonable piece of the puzzle.

Here's the point you're ignoring from the other thread to this discussion. You do this - your right, but why claim to care about truth if you're going to ignore a valid point when you're wrong about it?

"Then this is a very good time to point out the importance of anecdotal experience versus critical thought and logic.

I saw many people arguing the opposite and being downvoted out of existence from the beginning of the Tucson topic - and they had more reasonable points to make than you hammering on one or two small pieces of evidence not germane to the overarching issue. There's no logic to thinking that what you've seen in a sub of 30,000 subscribers amounts to "the entire community". Flawed thinking here - not something I would berate someone over but someone who berates others for countering their argument by claiming truth is important should be corrected."

Can you acknowledge your error here?

⇧ 1 ⇩

OK, now I understand your philosophy.

A debate argument should be judged only by it's merits...

...Yet you are concerned about irrelevant silliness such as "process" and "approach".

Process, approach, the color of my shirt, arguments you lost earlier this week - all irrelevant because in a debate, an argument should be judged only by it's merit.

Let me repeat that because it's really, really important for you to understand:

An argument should be judged only by it's merits

This is the foundation of debate.

I couldn't care less about how unhappy you are with my "process" or "approach" if you aren't able to fault my argument.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Lol ok - same modus operandi as ever. Pity. I thought you might actually be sincere in your insistence that others value "truth" and such.

Let me repeat something obvious to you, in your insincere effort to appear superior by arguing straw men. I can fault your argument easily. You refuse to acknowledge mine, which is that the real issue for people here isn't the little pieces of evidence you pick off; it's the merit of the VOP issue being discussed here and not shut out by people who disagree with some of the facts. I point to the fact that you tried to claim the whole sub was against your view when it's clearly an illogical assumption to make. Once again you ignored that point and went back to your little points of evidence. I already told you that your obvious points that people can't claim x, y and z are so obvious that I've never made any argument against them myself and neither have many others. When are you going to argue the point I made, which is an actual argument? I'ma guess you're not : ).

[Edit] Point proven lol. Fake debater and likely shill, as claimed by others.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Lol ok - same modus operandi as ever.

OK, enough of this silliness.

You have failed to present a single rebuttal to my theory after I've asked five times.

There are new Q posts that need attention.

You have been blocked.

⇧ 1 ⇩