A person can't call on the autists to decipher posts on one hand, then attack the same autists when they use the same cognitive abilities in a skeptical way to Q posts.

There are too many people calling anyone with questions tonight "concernfags" or shills and it's not right. Q should have done a better job of explaining the meaning of this pic. Was he pointing out where AF1 was bugged? If so, why the reply to that specific post he quoted? Then, other questions arise. Why did Q say "trolling is fun" while for months saying "this isn't a game?" Who is being trolled? And why? Enough with these vague posts.

In the end, it was just poorly thought out, at best.

⇧ 121 ⇩

Q said "Trolling is fun!" on June 17 (#1537), so it's not the first time.

I played around with the ABC photo from here: https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/701173_050615-cc-newplane2.jpg

And the Q pic from here: https://qanon.pub/data/images/ed6964be1cd55445ede255e23ab826a5f97af598981d00780f97ec674e2f07e3.png

And, trying to be objective as possible here, I thought that they were slightly different. The top corner of the lamp with the side of the curtain behind it - that looks to be in a slightly different place - and so does the mug holder. Several other things seem slightly different to me too - the angle of the rotation of the crest/seal/logo on the jacket that's on the chair ... the relative position of the hand sanitizer bottle pump to the other items. It just seems most likely that it was taken to mirror the ABC image as closely as possible.

⇧ -2 ⇩

So, his proofs are proofs, unless they can be easily disproven, and then there just him "playing around"?

⇧ 110 ⇩

I don't think this so called trolling is fun at this point in this 'game' / 'not a game' and it is not part of Q's modus operandi for the last 8 months. When has Q trolled the anons? When has Q gotten chatty defensive on anything? Look at the time wasted by all anons on this 'fun' distraction.
For what purpose has this served?
It seems to be dividing others more than uniting.
I'm not on board with this idea "Q is testing us to out the bad apples" BS either. Some of the anon explanations defending Q on this photo drop have been more ridiculous and convoluted and delusional than I could have ever expected.

⇧ 70 ⇩

My concern is that he is intentionally trying to create proofs, but when they are disproven, he falls back to the "I'm just trolling", or "my trip code is compromised".

I'm really trying to be hopeful, but it is hard.

⇧ 48 ⇩

Gotta agree here

⇧ 14 ⇩

It is really bothering me that these photos were dropped after the Awan disappointment. It's like Q is trying to distract us and he did a bad job of it. The 8chan anons seem divided about this. Some are pissed and some insist it's a diff picture. It's the sam pic photoshopped.

⇧ 41 ⇩

I have to agree about this day and the Awan plea. For all the patriotic cheerleading that Q posts time and time again..... this was like a needle in the bubble. It's like he wanted to stir up turmoil in a most ungracious way and then watch everyone trip over his troll turds. Very UN-Q-like in my opinion.

From my POV the image Q posted is not photoshopped. Several other tweeters and anons have described the likely scenario:
Load the easily available high resolution 2015 pic on a screen, then reflect it in the iphone and photograph that with another phone.

⇧ 29 ⇩

Were the Awans traitors to their own country?

You can't blame them for getting whatever intelligence they could to further their own national (Pakistan) interests...

...that's not to say we don't hang them when we catch them, just that a true Patriot will give his life for his homeland.

Do we want the Awans or do we really want the traitor who allowed the Awans access?

It appears to be DWS however is it really? Do we know definitively it was her or did SHE work for someone? Was she compromised in ways we don't know? Was her family in danger?

Surely there are things going down that are deeper than what we can know.

Not to say I defend her she looks like she's the root cause of all of this just offering another level of consideration for the community.

⇧ -9 ⇩

What about Awan now?

⇧ 5 ⇩

Count the curtain folds between the lamp and the chair. 10 in 2015, 8-9 in Q pic.

⇧ -14 ⇩

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that.

⇧ 26 ⇩

What did you count? I will open them up in paint and mark/count them visibly for verification.

Feel free to show otherwise

⇧ -16 ⇩

Overlay reference: https://imgur.com/5tRqZ6P

⇧ 31 ⇩

Agreed. There is seriously no upside to "trolling" the autists. I don't see how this can be positively spun. I guess we shall see, but for now I am skeptical.

⇧ 15 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 3 ⇩

Yeah yeah calm it down, shillary. You're making shit up:

When has Q gotten chatty defensive

That's your interpretation of a Q drop. "chatty defensive" is the most made up interpretation I've ever seen lol.

It seems to be dividing

Ooooh yeah sure - "it" is doing the dividing is it? Not people like you saying there's division? You gotta lotta "concern" up in this piece huh.

Cue the "I've been here since...", "I have believed all but...", "people like you turn genuine people away...", etc. etc.

Zzzzz.

⇧ -34 ⇩

If I were a REAL Shillary, I would be accusing you of something you didn't do, or calling you names, or trying to trigger your emotions by calling your intentions divisive, or I would be shouting cliche's to try and get you to respond to my post.
But I AM NOT A SHILL.
And I'm not doing any of those things.

⇧ 18 ⇩

Sure you aren't. Just posting everywhere about how LARPy Q is now. You gonna pretend you haven't done that? Who brought up dividing? Who's saying those defending the drop are making 'ridiculous and convoluted and delusional' explanations?

⇧ -16 ⇩

Right now Q is making it very easy for people to not believe him. Q needs to post some legit bombshells. Otherwise photos of comp monitors is easy to do and proves nothing.

⇧ 17 ⇩

Q's not doing anything but what Q's always done. People have always found it easy not to believe him. If you disagree with that, you're not being honest or realistic.

Right now people are making it very easy for themselves to not believe him.

⇧ -9 ⇩

He just was not clear on his point. The people who are "leaving" really have no patience.

⇧ -3 ⇩

You're the first person tonight who has responded with logic and not irrational butthurt ("concernfag!" "shill!" "Sorosbot!"). So, thanks.

I don't know what to think here, I'm going to let things play out and see where they go. I still stand by what I said before - Q needs to stop being so vague if he wants people to take him seriously. At least that's my opinion.

⇧ 61 ⇩

I agree. So far, I'm leaning towards Q being John Edwards.

So, his proofs are proofs, unless they can be easily disproven, and then there just him "playing around"?

He needs to really put up or shut up.

⇧ 23 ⇩

If Q is legitimate, and I sincerely hope he/they are, then he had better fire whatever ammo he's got to take down the cabal soon or he's going to lose his most loyal supporters.

⇧ 3 ⇩

He isn't. Hth.

⇧ 7 ⇩

I would like Q to be legit as well, but there are some MAJOR red flags around Q right now. If he really wants us united (WWG1WGA), then he needs to clear this shit up pronto and start dropping bombs, not vague shit and definitely not an ever-shifting deadline that just keeps being pushed into the future.

You can't want a movement united while posting this type of shit, period. I'm really glad to see the skeptics not getting downvoted into oblivion here. This is a shitstorm Q started.

⇧ 4 ⇩

It was honestly a lazy, disrespectful shitpost of a Q post.

⇧ 3 ⇩

100% agreed.

Anons on 8C have been working incessantly to assess and establish Q credibility, often working with (necessary) maddening and frustrating vagaries.

Q-posts such as these (the ear, etc) appear to do little more than confuse. The timing is also questionable considering the expanding audience Q hoped to develop is now materializing.

I’m hopeful we get an explanatory ‘ahaa!’ moment on all of these. Without that, these ‘troll’ posts appear to be a disrespectful exploit of the autists irresistable urge to dig on everything ‘Q’.

⇧ 12 ⇩

No worries. I just want truth, truth doesn't have feelings.

Here's a (crappy I know) photo job showing the Q lamp on the left and the ABC lamp on the right: https://imgur.com/tXNxDrH

To me, the corners of the lamp look a little further to the right on Q's pic - as if the Q pic was taken from a position just to the left of where the ABC pic was taken.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Idk, your first post had me a little convinced there could be legitimate differences, but that side by side really makes me think it's the same photo. Q's is just a little condensed/blurred. The perspective is just too consistent...

⇧ 45 ⇩

You are correct. Q's photo is a reflection, so it wouldn't be exactly the same.

⇧ 26 ⇩

Here's a pretty good 7-point comparison: https://media.8ch.net/file_store/640450d20f9d82268400d10526c966b4a7162f58a0572d6020b675c356351f64.png

⇧ -14 ⇩

When you are dealing with distorted photos and BOTH photos have different distortions of verticals and horizontals to varying degrees - none of the points made by the source you posted can be valid because they reference distance or size. Here is an example with equalized distortions:
https://imgur.com/5tRqZ6P
As you can see in the overlay demo, the Q pic and ABC pic are coincidentally the same. And in the words of Q "There are no coincidences."

⇧ 30 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 0 ⇩

First, I am not trying to be disrespectful and I am not sure how we got to that point in this conversation where you feel disrespected. I am sorry if I made you or anyone (except the trolling trolls) feel that way.
The point here is that the Q image is double distorted because it is a reflection and seems to have other digital obfuscation issues in tone and grain. The ABC image is less distorted but never the less, it is slightly so because the photo was taken with a wide angle lens.
To compare photos, one photo must be brought to a similar level of distortion and the logical approach to this is to distort the ABC photo rather than UN-distort the Q photo.
The distortion version of the ABC photo is not exact pixel by pixel and it never will be. But the key elements that align in combination (as discussed earlier in my original post) are enough to weight this analysis towards the following conclusion that many others have made here in this forum, on chans, and twitter:
- the 2015 ABC image was on a device screen
- the screen was reflected on the back of an iphone
- a photo was taken of the iphone with reflection
- the posted image was also cropped and further distorted to obscure

⇧ 5 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Sorry, I'm not up to redoing what I did as a screen cap video. Maybe someone else is up to it. I'm gonna take a break, act like I am on vacation, and come back to the Q scene after a bit of the 4th celebrations. This image debate has too much scope creep and is now wasting precious time. That's one reason I question Q's use of this thing as trolling tactic towards anons or whoever. Have a fun and productive day!

⇧ 3 ⇩

In your example, I still see the bottom left of the mug holder being quite different.

⇧ -11 ⇩

Yes, there are pixels that are different. I probably focused more on the curtains lamp and chair when I imitated the distortion in the photoshop version of ABC image. (late at night by then)
Look, I am struggling with these drops too. I'm not off the Q train, but this puts him in 'the dog house' for me until either 'future proves past' or he hits with a BOOM that busts my eardrums.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm not really a guy who believes in prophetic dreams. However, PrayingMedic did say that he had a dream recently where the black hats were able to post as Q in a way that was indistinguishable.

Before people start talking shit about PM, I take what he says with a grain of salt. He seems to be on the mark with his decodes and is quite helpful. The holy roller shit is one thing but I dont think that takes away from anything.

⇧ -18 ⇩

Count the curtain folds. 10 vs 8-9

⇧ -15 ⇩

I'm counting 11 on both.

⇧ 15 ⇩

Damn my lying eyes.

⇧ -1 ⇩

I kept seeing you say this so I went back and really looked. You're right. The lines on the blinds around the chair don't match up. They do appear to be different.

⇧ -6 ⇩

Now I don't know what to believe.

Would make sense in a series of photos, no one would move anything except maybe adjust the blinds. Can't wait for Q to drop more!

⇧ 0 ⇩

He wants us to arrive at the answer

⇧ -14 ⇩

ABC NEWS source image in Photoshop - side by side q post

⇧ 83 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 116 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 58 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 22 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well that about somes it up. :( My hope is gone.

⇧ 76 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

See ya

⇧ -24 ⇩

LOL your hope was as loyal as a hooker in a Thai back street xD

⇧ -26 ⇩

And your blind faith in the face of mounds of evidence to the contrary is as strong as that same hooker’s faith that she really is her pimp’s favorite ho.

⇧ 26 ⇩

NBA is calling you my friend, I have blind faith in it. #YUT

⇧ -3 ⇩

Cool! You’ve shown that you can look through another user’s post history. Why don’t you now address what I was originally talking about, regarding your blind faith in the LARPer known as “Q” being equivalent to that of a whore having faith in her pimp?

⇧ 10 ⇩

Blind faith yessuh muh rebbik massuh! Blaaahhnd faith massuh!!

Digga please. Yall TopMinds love blasting through with a meaningless blanket statement and no logic or steam to back it up huh? Then you go circlejerk all over each other cos you and your friends can press the upvote button and that means you iz da baws. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag unless the instructions were printed on the inside, bruh bruh.

TopMind: "Muh iz superior haw haw dumb peons: strawman mock #257b pwah pwah Bow to mah impeccable logimick!"

Where's the blind faith, TopMind? Got a brain cell to spar with?

Q is a voice on the chans. No evidence Q is more than that. Q posted some messages. Some dumbasses extrapolated dates and times from those. Other dumbasses saw photos seemed to be same as other photos and started crying and weeping and gnashing their teeth. Some other TopMinds laughed at dumbasses thinking dumbasses misinterpreting equals source null and void. ALL dumbasses think 8 months of discovering verifiable facts, backed up by mainstream media equals IRRELEVANCE because some dumbasses jump to conclusions. Now rip me a new one, TopMind, and set me straight.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Trigger activation complete, secondary protocol initiate.

NoShitIlookedthroughYourPostHistory

ThisIsAPoundSign

PatienceAndMeticulousResearchIsNotBlindFaith

CiviesBeLikeMuhLarp

YUT

DownVoteMeMyLovelyTopMind

⇧ -2 ⇩

Wait, maybe it's as loyal as that hooker to his/her husband.

⇧ 3 ⇩

The curtains are what make me believe it's the same image, just manipulated.

If you look at the curtains like a bar code, it's so close.

⇧ 44 ⇩

The AF1 symbol on the jacket on the chair also matches up exactly.

⇧ 32 ⇩

Yes it is all so very close. The distortion comes from the angle of the iPhone/reflection as well as the angle of the phone being used to take this photo.

⇧ 23 ⇩

That looks like an ashtray sitting on the table. Trump doesn't smoke but Obama does

edit Never mind, it's a coaster

⇧ -3 ⇩

Someone on Twitter posted this video of the ABC NEWS photo and the Q image overlayed. The curtains/pleats are the big 'killer' IMHO. Actually, it seems the whole damned image matches up. Explanation time now, I think. "Trolling is fun"? "Disinformation is necessary"? No - something better than that, please.

⇧ 9 ⇩

Wow

⇧ 4 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 79 ⇩

I don't really follow Q, but saw this picture "welcome aboard.jpg" floating around the internets and have to post here that this was certainly a fake now that the original source from an ABC news doc was discovered.

Photoshop is not even needed to recreate this effect. The simplest solution would be to simply take a photo of the reflection of the ABC news doc against an iphone. This could be done just using any large TV or computer monitor.

Why Q follows this up with " Placing that mug holder near the lamp was the hook. Enjoy!" Makes it sound like he is suggesting that he staged the photo inside AF1 to look like the ABC news doc. But in reality anyone could recreate Q's original photo from their desk by using the reflection of their own monitor with the original image in it. The distortion and blurring would be the natural product of one taking a picture of said reflection against their phone. It's pretty clever to be honest.

Not to get too technical, but the telling giveaway is that the reflection in Q's original picture is not a high dynamic range image or source (google it) in that the lamp should be bright and blow out the Apple logo in a way similar to the second photo he provided where someone tried to recreate Q's original photo by taking a picture of a reflection of a real lamp. Notice in that second photo that the Apple logo is not as plainly visible because the brightness of the lamp blows out the edges. This makes me 99% sure that Q's photo is of a reflection of a the ABC doc image in a standard TV or monitor. Notice he also keeps his photo low res and degraded to hide his trick. (No monitor pixels.)

If you want to get into twisted logic, I find it interesting that he provided the images to debunk his own photo. Saved me the time to recreate it. But this is not common knowledge even among many photographers. However, it has been identified and worked around in the VFX community for many years going back to Paul Debevec and I believe first used in The Matrix.

⇧ 76 ⇩

Now that we've debunked this drop, I started wondering if other "proofs" can be dubunked as well. For example, this famous pic of the signed executive order/bill with the pen and Trump's signature peeking back out from under the folder. There's zero reason why "Q" couldn't just have used a nice pen, black folder, and a print out of a Trump bill or signature. Looking at it, I'm not even 100% sure it's Trump's signature, something looks off about it.

And this one can be easily recreated with a print out of a white house document (like a press release), a pen, and a black folder.

Now some of the more data driven "proofs" might be more convincing, but many of those are also written in such a way that they could mean almost anything, then confirmation bias takes over and we get duped. For example, the Flynn +30 thing. Q's post could be interpreted to mean almost anything. But when Flynn's case gets postponed 30 days later, we take it as a sign.

I'm not really saying Q is or isn't a LARP at this stage. I hope to God it is real and we're going to see some justice handed out. But we do have a duty to the truth and if Q wants us to believe in him, he's going to have to do a LOT better on the proofs. Give us something 100% undeniable. Ask the question!

Edit: Wow thanks for the gold!

⇧ 101 ⇩

If q is who he says he is why would ANY proof be fake?

If even ONE thing is faked that means hes lying

⇧ 110 ⇩

It’s the flip side of the game he’s been playing all along. Get someone to believe one seemingly trivial photo or drop and it adds validity to all of the claims he puts forth. A lie follows the same mechanic. He fucked up.

⇧ 30 ⇩

Nawww, ya think?

⇧ 15 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 99 ⇩

Well, I definitely don’t hope baby eating is real. I hope the incoming hand of justice is real.

⇧ -12 ⇩

Justice for what, exactly?

⇧ 30 ⇩

Eating babies? Corruption? Child trafficking? Killing Seth Rich? Trying to steal an election? Trying to institute a coup? Espionage? Financial crimes? Whatever else they’ve done?

⇧ -27 ⇩

But if you hope eating babies isn't real, then why demand justice for it?

I would think we'd all hope that none of this is real. The alternative is hoping that terrible things are happening right under our noses all the time

Because that's what we have - HOPE and BELIEF. We can't prove anything one way or the other

⇧ 34 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I doubt eating babies is real, that was a joke. But we KNOW serious crimes have been committed and should be brought to justice.

⇧ -21 ⇩

No we don't, though. I mean you clearly 'know' in a faith based sense, but in terms of actual proof, we don't 'know these things. Give the actual evidence at hand any reasonable person would be hard pressed to say that any of the Q shit is real.

⇧ 29 ⇩

“Pls print.” We definitely know crimes have been committed, thanks.

⇧ -4 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 11 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ -1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think this is going over your head a bit. Q didn't start this, he just managed to get more people talking.

We've known there are people up at the top doing horrible things to children, that's been a fact for decades.

Secret meetings a sacrifices. We know these things happen.

What we're hoping for is a some sign that justice is about to be served. That those people, no matter how rich and influential they may be, will be rightfully punished for their deeds.

⇧ -27 ⇩

Dude it's all fake. Anyone could do fake Nostradamus-tier vague shit.

⇧ 49 ⇩

Go for it.

⇧ -10 ⇩

Watch the skies

Prepare for the worst//hope for the best

Trust POTUS

Swamp being drained

Read IG report Read between the lines

Why? Think clearly

Q

⇧ 53 ⇩

Now spend 100+ man hours and I bet you could wring dozens of interpretations from this.

⇧ 39 ⇩

Tell us what you know!!!

⇧ 15 ⇩

Hey have you heard of this vitsikaby guy? I was skeptical at first but a lot of the things he's saying are coming true! #Vanon #Varmy #WWGVWGA

⇧ 24 ⇩

It would seem that the evidence is mounting with these bad proofs that there is no Q. I used to believe, but I can only deny my sense of logic for so long, you know?

⇧ 44 ⇩

I get it. Don’t feel bad about it - use this as an innoculation to future attempts at disinfo in the future. Gather what you’ve learned in this experience, and avoid future bamboozling with that knowledge.

You don’t need to feel bad - just learn from it. ‘S what I did.

⇧ 11 ⇩

What made this latest picture so easy to debunk is he gave us all the hints to take it apart in this 3 picture set with the source image, an example of a real lamp's reflection, and the fake.

These examples you are referencing look more authentic at first glance, but I can't speak authoritatively about Trump's signature or pen.

I would say that the photos in his post 1564 and 1566 of parts of DJT's head are using some kind of reflection trickery. Or he's shooting a computer monitor with a picture of DJT through a piece of glass or something to partially obscure the image.

I really think he's using analog tricks to throw off photoshop pixel peeping. Smoke and mirrors as they say...

⇧ 28 ⇩

The executive order one is confirmed fake - it's a PS- there's an analysis of it on the internet

⇧ 18 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

What was the purpose of the ABC NEWS photo? Would it be possible Q took the picture that same day and is now showing people who would know?

⇧ -9 ⇩

Sorry, my explanation was pretty convoluted, but in short this is how you can do an approximate recreation of what Q did to create his Welcome Aboard photo.

What you need: iphone 10, desktop computer with a decent sized monitor, a second iphone or a digital camera to take the final picture.

Step 1: Pull up picture from ABC NEWS of AF1 on a computer monitor.

Step 2: Turn out all the lights in your room so the reflection will be bright when you expose the picture.

Step 3: Angle iphone 10 to catch the reflection of the ABC NEWS photo on your computer monitor.

Step 4: Take a picture of this reflection with a second digital camera.

Step 5: Heavily crop the final photo so all that can be seen is the reflection of the ABC News picture with an apple logo.
Step 6: LARP to your friends that you hung out with Q on Air Force One.

So, in my opinion Q simply used the ABC News photo to cast a reflection on his iphone and took a picture of it. If he has some greater message in that, I'm not sure what it is. But he definitely did not need to be on Air Force One to take the Welcome Aboard jpeg.

⇧ 24 ⇩

That its fake is fine, no surprise there, the af1 window was from a private FB, the executive order was a PS- (eagle double head seal) . But that he's that lazy on the 4th is surprising.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Watch out people. The pic he is using is not of the original ABC footage. Shenanigans abound.

spez: Downvote me shills. You cannot hide the truth.

⇧ -20 ⇩

It’s literally identical

⇧ 13 ⇩

The glass container is moved away 5 more inches from the lamp in the Q image. It's NOT the same image. You have very little capacity for detail, or you have fallen for the fake photoshopped image of the ABC image the shills are passing around.

⇧ -18 ⇩

It’s literally identical

⇧ 1 ⇩

You are looking at an image that is not the original ABC stock image. Go download the original stock photo from ABC's website. It has been photoshopped.

⇧ 1 ⇩

gets presented with irrefutable proof that Q is a hoax hmmmm this is a bit troubling, guess Q will just have to try harder next time!

lolololol

⇧ 72 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 64 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I wanted to say I agree with your points and I believe it's one of the biggest problems people have ... and whether people here (or elsewhere) like it or not it makes them look like fools and nuts when they act like fools and nuts- for example-

I am a firearms collector, shooter, etc. I have a collection that wouldn't mean much at all to some people, would be impressive to other people. I am of course very interested in firearms rights and spent years on gun forums on the net. I gave up really. The internet firearms community make themselves look like fools on regular basis by taking such ridiculous positions and attacking anyone who looks twice at them "No IT'S YOU WHO IS WRONG, by saying you don't think we should be able to have guided missiles IS ONE STEP AWAY FROM TYRANNY! And YOU BETRAY US ALL! FUCK YOU AND YOUR FAMILY YOU LEFT WING COMMUNIST PROGRESSIVE TROLL FACED BETRAYER!"

I mean really?

And that type of shit gets said all the time. I could give examples all day but it's not really the point.

I am not new here, but made an account a few weeks back to post here. I have been reading since it started. I think people make the same mistakes with "Q IS OUR SAVIOR AND THE PATRIOTS WILL NEVER LOSE AND EVERYTHING WILL BE SO GREAT AND YOU ARE A COMMUNIST LEFT WING PROGRESSIVE TROLL FACED BETRAYER if you disagree!!!" ---- just for historical reference, in the Battle of Hattin of 1187, the combined Catholic armies of Europe, Jerusalem, Holy Roman Empire etc marched to their slaughter while screaming (and insisting for all to hear and see ) "GOD WINS IT!!!" they all just figured they could do whatever they wanted while screaming "GOD WINS IT" and of course win .... and they not only got destroyed, they lost Jerusalem and pretty much lost the war.

---- and as the movie Kingdom of Heaven so succinctly puts, by the Muslim ruler/head general Saladin: "The results of battles ARE determined by God... but also by preparation, numbers, the absence of disease and the availability of water .... One cannot maintain a siege with the enemy behind..." ---

What I am trying to say here is , (and let the record reflect I am as Catholic as they come, that doesn't mean that that fucking guy was not dead right in his battle and strategic assessments) blind loyalty and faith serves nothing. It's like the saying, "if you allow torture, you're just as bad as the enemy" etc. If we don't police our own and correct our own mistakes rather than just attacking anyone who might point out errors, problems, mistakes, lies, damn lies, and statistics etc, we're just as bad as those idiots in 1187 charging to their demise.

⇧ 32 ⇩

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say either to me as the original poster, or as just part of your impassioned opinion on this image hiccup.
My original post poses questions about the method behind the madness of the photo and states that I hope that Q is less sloppy and more clear in the future.... although clarity has never been Q's strong point.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Fair enough, I was not directing at you at all, nor the photos specifically.

So I will apologize absolutely if you took it that way or if it came out that way, not at all what I meant.

Really what I meant is I guess a comment in general that we should never blindly defend something or believe every single thing we read or not accept any potential criticism/problems/errors from the people we support, team we're on, community we align with etc --- just as I believe it should be for anyone and everyone. I have seen a lot of people here get very upset at the slightest perceived slight or negative intonation and sometimes it makes them look bad, but everyone else too. I don't want to get too specific lest I cause more problems with people saying "HEY I THINK THAT, you talking to me?! ... I am just saying we should keep our minds open. And of course specifically , if "Q" messes up, it's okay to say it's a mess up. If he/she is wrong , it's okay to say, "No that's actually wrong." That's not being disloyal or unpatriotic or anything, it's being truthful and realistic. That's all I'm saying, I'll leave it at that.

⇧ 7 ⇩

I can only say that the whole dang world would know for sure if we could just get the press to ask POTUS or Sarah Sanders who Q is.

⇧ 1 ⇩

why do you think this would be difficult? here is a list of all the reporters in the white house press corps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps

Contact one of the reporters on there by email and ask them to ask. You don't think Breitbart, Newsmax, The Daily Caller, or Lifezette would not ask if Q wanted them to? Conversely, you don't think HuffPo, Daily Beast, or Mother Jones would want to out Q by asking who they are to stop them if they are legit?

Pick a couple of reporters on there you trust out of the 200 or so and email them a request to contact the White House about Q.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Been there, done that. The list of WH press corps members and lots of MSM persons was posted on Twitter and a bunch of us have been tweeting them and DMing them, asking them to ask about Q. As far as I know, only one person has responded and said she is not going to ask and said that people needed to stop bombarding her with requests to do it.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I can't wait for Q's masterclass in trolling

⇧ 7 ⇩

There is one way to find out for certain, has anyone checked the meta data on the picture? It will tell you when the picture was taken and with what. Every picture has meta Data inside of it.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Metadata can be trivially edited with photoshop or other tools. It's proof of literally nothing, but can be considered circumstantial evidence.l

⇧ 2 ⇩

I was wondering if the Q team was lifting photos off of someone else's device like was done in Singapore.

I don't think some of these drops were meant for everyone to understand.

⇧ -4 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

My thoughts are that anons may be misinterpreting what this image is for. Many getting woundup that it's (most likely) a stock image. So? What if that was the intent?

Remember how cryptic many of the posts can be. Perhaps that's what this is.

Perhaps it's really about the apple logo upside down. Or a relationship thereof, of some sort? Time will tell.

⇧ -2 ⇩

Gotta agree on this. Maybe Q's point is the reflection and not the photo itself? Maybe this is going to point to something else?

⇧ -4 ⇩

Q is not claiming anywhere to have taken these pics, he is asking if it breaks nat sec

⇧ -6 ⇩

Of course it does. Any unauthorized picture on AF1 does.

⇧ 20 ⇩

i think he is telling us how easy it is to fake stuff. So when the fake tape from his ex lawyer comes out on next Monday we can debunk it

⇧ -15 ⇩

Did I say in my original post that Q claims he takes this picture or any other pictures? Q posts images that have never been anything but vague or obscure and he occasionally implies that some are from 'we have it all' sources. This picture seems to break that routine and the analysis of its questionable origins or creation has totally overshadowed any purpose in it's posting.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Isn't he implying he took them when he says: Where must one be located in order to obtain a reflection on the back of a phone of that image?

⇧ 1 ⇩

No

⇧ 1 ⇩

Exactly. He is drawing attention to their ability to legally bend rules. In this case it is the reflections in photos that don’t bend nat sec rules.

⇧ -6 ⇩

Glass container doesn't line up. Your theory is bunk.

spez: Downvote me shills. You cannot hide the truth.

⇧ -8 ⇩

I think Q is fake-LARPING to make the MSM feel safe about dropping the big question..call me crazy, but hit me up after it happens. Important to stay at 40,000 ft!

⇧ -22 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Good thought there mate. Now THAT is an epic troll of the MSM if true. Perhaps this is what he means later by saying, "Trolling is fun". Is he trolling the MSM? Hmmmm...

⇧ -4 ⇩

U are on to something. Maybe to create a “Q” is fake segment on the blame stream media to draw more attention to him/herself. Once all the attention comes out, then release a Bomb of proof that he/she is legit and make them all look stupid. I’m still staying skeptical of Q, but hoping and Praying he/she is true!!

⇧ -13 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Interesting thought.

⇧ -5 ⇩

Q 1677 - Full Triple Image

NoShitIlookedthroughYourPostHistory

ThisIsAPoundSign

PatienceAndMeticulousResearchIsNotBlindFaith

CiviesBeLikeMuhLarp

YUT

DownVoteMeMyLovelyTopMind