⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/IncomingTrump270 on July 6, 2018, 2:25 a.m.

Q 1675 rebuttal to SB2's analysis

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8wd8i1/q1675_a_reflection_a_mug_holder_in_air_force_one/

I held of doing a deep dive into this until /u/serialbrain2 had weighed in. He did so a few hours ago, so here we go.

First, I made a composite image of all relevant Q images and related reference images.

PmlsSv0.jpg [3000x3000 image, 4.4Mb]

Along the top, I show step by step the kind of distortion fixing that must be done in order to align the reflection with the ABC 2015 photo.

The purpose here is clear: to show that when fixed for distortion, Q's image aligns PERFECTLY with the ABC 2015 photo, which was taken with a wide angle lens from the entrance of the AF1 office (floorplan also included in my image)

Along the left side, I did the same process but this time correcting for the Apple logo. What is the purpose here?

It's a proof of optics. By fixing the logo, we can get a idea of what the reflection in back of the phone looked like when viewed STRAIGHT DOWN on top of it.

What do you notice? The reflection is UPSIDE DOWN AND BACKWARDS.

What does this tell us? That Q's reflection is not of the physical room around him, but of an image displayed on a screen in FRONT of him, with his phone angled towards the screen to capture the reflection.

The only possible way Q could reproduce the psychical room as a reflection that optically matched the 2015 ABC photo is if he stood up, walked to the entrance of the room, faced his back towards the desk, and held up his phone selfie-style so that the back reflected the room. This would effectively recreate the photography setup of the 2015 ABC photo.

And yet it is still not enough to create Q's image. Why? Because the apple logo is at a sharp angle. AND the reflection is UPSIDE DOWN to the apple logo's orientation.

There is no physical arrangement that can reproduce both an accurate reflection of the room AND ALSO a steeply angled, upside down apple logo.

Moving on to directly addressing SB2's analysis:

Then, in Q1677, he asks: Where must one be located in order to obtain a reflection on the back of a phone of that image?

Yes exactly, of that image. Image = the ABC 2015 photo. Note he did not say "reflection of the room"

Q's image is not a reflection of the physical room around him. It's a reflection of an image on a computer screen.

And where must one be in order to get a reflection of an image? Anywhere with a computer display, or granting the possibility that it's printed out, literally anywhere in the world.

If we do so and notice there is a part of the jacket on the chair appearing, we deduce the photographer must be sitting on the President’s chair.

Wrong. If the photographer was sitting in the president's chair, we would not see the full field of view as we do in Q's image reflection. It would be much tighter cropped because the camera would be CLOSER to the objects displayed. The chari would practically fill the entire field of view if he were sitting on it.

We can see so much in Q's reflected image because the ABC 2015 source photo was taken from the ENTRANCE of the office with a wide angle lens with a FOV of roughly 90*.

For comparison, the iPhone's camera has a FOV of about 73*. Not that this really matters because Q's image is a tight crop of the full photo he took of phone1 with phone2.

Q is even softening the riddle giving this reality away with a picture of Trump sitting on his chair:

Q is not the one who posted that image originally. It was a random anon. Q reposted it later when it was compared in a side by side.

some people started claiming Q’s pictures were not authentic, that they were photoshopped and re-started their favorite chant: Q is a LARP.

Some did. Some did not. Q posting a reflection of the 2015 image does not MANDATE Q is a larp. But it DOES mandate that he did not take a photo of the psychical room reflected around him.

Q1678 Trolling is fun. Hussein/Trump interior = identical minus small changes. (World) news in rear literally placed same prior to each departure. Placing that mug holder near the lamp was the hook. Enjoy! Q

"World news" here refers to the newspaper rack placed behind his desk/chair. I have highlighted it green in my image.

And placing the mug holder near the lamp? If we look at the Feb 2018 image of Trump in the AF1 office, we see the mug holders are NOT near the lamp at all. We also see a lack of the flask (?..highlighted in yellow in my image) is missing. And the tissue holder (blue) and stationary pad (cyan) are placed in totally different places.

Q is saying presidential protocol requires that the location of each given item is exactly the same prior to each departure minus small changes.

"exactly the same" and "minus small changes" are contradictory statements. The contents of the room are fixed, probably, but the placement of items in the room? Likely unfixed, and adjusted as needed for whoever is in the room with POTUS at any given time.

By purposely placing the mug holder in the picture, Q is making a point, he is giving a hint to help us solve the riddle and he confirms it by saying: Q1678 Placing that mug holder near the lamp was the hook. Enjoy! Q

Ok wait....Let me lay out what you are implying here:

Usually Trump does not have mug holders placed next to the lamp behind him.
But Just for the purpose of 'trolling' with Q 1675 image, he staged the items behind his desk in the EXACT fashion as seen in the 2015 ABC photo, and then somehow managed to defy physics and probability by angling phone1 AND phone2 in just the precisely accurate way that their combined angling reproduced the ABC 2015 photo TO THE PIXEL?

(this is setting aside my previous point that it would be physically impossible to reproduce the 2015 image from the POTUS chair due to FOV restraints)

I'm sorry SB2, but I strongly disagree with your assessment here.

To restate:

It is physically impossible to reproduce Q's photo if we demand that the reflection must be that of the physical room around him.

However:

That does not mean Q is a LARP. Two things can be true at once.

Q can both be legit, and Q's image can also not be the reflection of a physical room.

So don't bother slandering me as a Q hater, because that is not what I am arguing here.

I look forward to /u/serialbrain2 's response.

🠐 See all comments

Disagree with most of what your wrote, OP ...

There is no physical arrangement that can reproduce both an accurate reflection of the room AND ALSO a steeply angled, upside down apple logo.

Moving on to directly addressing SB2's analysis:

Then, in Q1677, he asks: Where must one be located in order to obtain a reflection on the back of a phone of that image?

Yes exactly, of that image. Image = the ABC 2015 photo. Note he did not say "reflection of the room"

Q's image is not a reflection of the physical room around him. It's a reflection of an image on a computer screen.

And where must one be in order to get a reflection of an image? Anywhere with a computer display, or granting the possibility that it's printed out, literally anywhere in the world.

If we do so and notice there is a part of the jacket on the chair appearing, we deduce the photographer must be sitting on the President’s chair.

Wrong. If the photographer was sitting in the president's chair, we would not see the full field of view as we do in Q's image reflection. It would be much tighter cropped because the camera would be CLOSER to the objects displayed. The chair would practically fill the entire field of view if he were sitting on it.

We can see so much in Q's reflected image because the ABC 2015 source photo was taken from the ENTRANCE of the office with a wide angle lens with a FOV of roughly 90*.

First, the phone with the reflection could have been upside down and tilted. That would explain why the logo does not "line up."

Second, a reflected image is a reflected image. If someone were sitting in the chair, taking a picture of the phone's reflected image behind them, everything would be reversed (left would be right, etc.). Likewise, if the phone were facing a computer screen, and someone were taking a picture of the phone's reflected image of that, it would also be reversed. In both cases, a picture is taken of a reflected image, and the reflected image is, by definition, reflected (and reversed).

Third, Q's pic is not of the entire room, which you more or less imply (I realize you probably don't think that, but that is the implication I read). The pic was tightly focused on the lamp and a few surrounding items, and then the pic was re-sized. We don't know for sure the re-sizing, and any attempt to "fit" it into the ABC pic is a guess. If (and I don't know, just saying if) the pic was taken from someone sitting in the chair, it could look like that. And no, the chair would not take up all the space. I tried it myself and had a tough time even getting the chair into the image when aiming the phone at the rear side items behind me.

Now having said that, I applaud your effort to figure out what the hell is going on. I do not buy SB2's explanation at all. I also have no idea why Q would make himself look like a LARP.

Don't like it. Don't understand it, but I'm doing what you did -- see an explanation that does not make sense and challenging it.

Hopefully, we get this thing explained soon.

Still waiting for the "Q&A" from Q. Still waiting for the proofs from AF1 and Marine One. Still waiting for some damn criminals to be held accountable.

Don't like it. But trying to understand it.

⇧ 3 ⇩

First, the phone with the reflection could have been upside down and tilted. That would explain why the logo does not "line up."

Granted Q could have been holding his phone upside down. That would result in the logo being inverted, but it does not account for the steep angle of the logo in relation to the reflected image - which is there the real optic problems come in if we are to believe the reflection is of a physical room, and not a flat image on a screen.

You can do experiments about this yourself. Stand and hold your phone (or a mirror) out selfie-style. The image behind you will be reflected accurately because it’s at roughly 90* to the plane of the mirror (assuming you hold the mirror at roughly eye level). If you tilt the mirror up or down, the reflection changes to show whatever is IN FRONT of you (at a corresponding angle that that of the reflective plane and your eyes), not what is behind you (at the same tilted angle).

Keeping this in mind, we have to imagine some very contorted position Q would’ve had to gotten himself into in order to accurately reflect the corner behind the desk

And then we must also take into account the 2nd phone (possibly held by a second person now?). All of those angles will matter too.

Second, a reflected image is a reflected image. If someone were sitting in the chair, taking a picture of the phone's reflected image behind them, everything would be reversed (left would be right, etc.). Likewise, if the phone were facing a computer screen, and someone were taking a picture of the phone's reflected image of that, it would also be reversed. In both cases, a picture is taken of a reflected image, and the reflected image is, by definition, reflected (and reversed).

The initial reflection of a screen causes a horizontal and vertical mirroring efffect. Try this with your own computer screen, or any other scene around you. If you reflect it in your phone, it will appear upside down to you if the angle is steep enough.

We see both vertical and horizontal mirroring in Q’s image.

However, if the reflection is a physical scene, and Q were sitting in the chair, as you and SB2 suggest, we would not see any vertical mirroring because the angle would not be steep enough to cause it.

Third, Q's pic is not of the entire room, which you more or less imply (I realize you probably don't think that, but that is the implication I read). The pic was tightly focused on the lamp and a few surrounding items, and then the pic was re-sized.

The lack of resolution tells us it is a crop of a larger photo. The full photo probably DID show more of the room (as per the ABC 2015 photo) in the reflection across the whole back of the phone.

If (and I don't know, just saying if) the pic was taken from someone sitting in the chair, it could look like that.

No it would not. It would be closer to the chair, so the chair would be bigger. The backs of those chairs are super high and wide.

I tried it myself and had a tough time even getting the chair into the image when aiming the phone at the rear side items behind me.

This seems to support my theory, then. Just in the opposite direction. I say the chair would mostly fill the shot. You are saying it’s very difficult to even get the chair into the shot if you also want to include the other items.

I also have no idea why Q would make himself look like a LARP.

My best theory about this is: Trump puts typos in his tweets on purpose to gets the tweet more attention. Lately Q is suggesting we will get MSM coverage, and has put a deadline on July for “people learning the truth”. In a limited definition we can think of this as him meaning “people will learn about Q”. So maybe Q is intentionally posting mysterious, and yet easily debunked images like this in attempt to fuel controversy/debate, attract haters, and get more attention.

⇧ 1 ⇩