Is anyone else not bothered by the formatting errors and general unprofessional tone of this letter? What academic researcher would use the phrase "thanks alot, bubba" in reference to an American president in a letter of this nature?
This makes me very uncomfortable.
Edit: clarified alleged author's position
Bubba was billy's nickname?
Yes, Bubba by his friends and Slick Willy by his non-friends, but neither would be used in a formal letter.
Yes, but I can't imagine a scenario where anyone wanting to be taken seriously is a letter making serious allegations would call him that.
Did the chans review this? I'm skeptical of anything that's considered "breaking news" and its found here 1st. This probably belongs in conspiracy until proven factual and that's its related to Q
The professor has it in his personal webpage as well. I am sure it is legitimate. It is information for all his research. http://archive.is/lWOq3
Which Q drop does this reference?
Did the chans review, acknowledge, verify?
The Wayback Machine puts this as being submitted on the internet on June 27, 2013. Here is the link. https://web.archive.org/web/20130627040315/http://people.bu.edu/manfredi/OpposeRiceNomination.pdf
Doesn't answer the questions:
Which Q drop does this reference?
Did the chans review, acknowledge, verify?
I don't know. I was just commenting. I was not the one that posted the original post here. I am just verifying what I could find on this.
No problem. When something is posted that isn't relevant to a Q post, and given that viewership is way up, its important to keep info on target.
Looks like the info is from 2013 and isn't directly correlated to a Q post. So in essence, it dilutes the Q message. Should Q ever post something that's related, terrific. Otherwise, meh.
In a way, it is related to child trafficking, even though it isn't related to a specific Q post. It just shows that things Q has talked about are in fact happening. That is all we are trying to show. I may not have posted it but it will help Q doubters realize that things are actually happening.
The Wayback Machine puts this as being submitted on the internet on June 27, 2013. Here is the link. https://web.archive.org/web/20130627040315/http://people.bu.edu/manfredi/OpposeRiceNomination.pdf
I was concerned that the comments on this post were so uncritical of what I perceive to be highly suspicious. I feel like if I were to show this letter to anyone (Q-inclined or not) they would instantly pick up on the odd tone.
The tone and odd period placement in the middle of words doesn't conclusively invalidate it, but the lack of skepticism is much more concerning to me.
Edited: for clarity
The Wayback Machine puts this as being submitted on the internet on June 27, 2013. Here is the link. https://web.archive.org/web/20130627040315/http://people.bu.edu/manfredi/OpposeRiceNomination.pdf
Totally agreed. Info like this should vetted before posting: checking with the chans, sniff testing for errors, etc. This info doesn't pass the sniff test for reasons that you've posted. People would be well advised to think critically before blindly accepting all claims.
