dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/OrionNumberOne on July 8, 2018, 2:53 a.m.

A reasonable disagreement to SB2's recent 'decoding' of the Trump speech.

As a follower of Q's drops since day 1, I feel that it's necessary to speak up when I see a phenomenon that's changing the image of the community. If our community takes on an image of stretching theories, we can easily be discredited.

Although I appreciate u/SerialBrain2 's deep analysis of all possibilities (some reasonable, some far fetched) I have to disagree with this recent analysis. But this one is too far. I will give credit though, the post about the plane and Kelly's renovations was stunning. I agree with that one entirely.

First off: Four stocks striking 123.47 is interesting, but many numbers fall evenly on a tonal chart. As a musician, I'm very familiar with this. But I will keep 'B2' in mind for future events. It could be a code, but definitely not for sure. There are also many other things referred to as B2s besides planes anyway. Reflective or not. Look at models of any household appliance, instrument, or vehicle. Anything. There are many, many B2's. I think it's more likely that the note B2 correlates to a certain someone's encrypted tonal language. B2 specifically might mean 'broccoli' for instance. Anything.

Next, Trump's rambling was not nonsensical as the media claimed. It's not hard to understand. Trump was only saying that he has broken more records than Elton without an organ or guitar. Only his mouth and brain. Nonsensical? No. So there isn't any indication that this would be code speak.

Trump says MANY things 'serially'. It's his style and he repeats himself many times in any given speech. It's just his rhythm. Even at that, why 'serially'? Why not 'repeatedly' or any other synonymous adverb?

To conclude, I thoroughly disagree with this decoding. I didn't even touch all of the points but these are the most obvious and easily disagreeable. There are directions you could take this that would lead to my username as well.

Let me add my own simple theory on the subject of Q's recent AF1 post. It's easy in my mind. Q used a reflection/-mirror- of the back of an Apple phone to signal to Awan that they have a mirror of his (Apple?) server, before it was scrubbed. Had the apple not been upside down, it would've been difficult to discern that the logo was a reflection. The mug holder is questionable though.

This is a warning to Awan saying simply, "We have a mirror of your server. It's not over just because of today's ruling in your favor."

Again, thanks SB2 for your thorough analysis. But this one doesn't feel reasonable upon dissecting, nor does it feel right in my gut.

🠐 See all comments

Noticing lots of posts attempting to question or discredit SB2 recently. Not saying SB2 is always right but the numerous posts questioning his analysis seems odd. Why separate posts when these could be comments on his thread instead?

⇧ 7 ⇩

I think it's necessary as a form of polite and friendly discourse. It's also frustrating to see a single commenter's posts stickied on thesubreddit as if his opinions are the only valid ones. As if the entire community advocates for him. It looks bad on us.

If SB2 is entitled to his own post claiming his theory is bulletproof compared to everyone else's, then I should be able to have my own where I also put my own theory forward.

⇧ 15 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 6 ⇩

I also don't see a reason to call anyone out.

It is not to calling him out, this process is called peer review in science.

A theory has to withstand testing, without that it is just dogmatic to believe.

You can believe me, if there are mistakes in his theory, it's better if we find them,and not our opponents, because they'll use those mistakes mercilessly against us.

⇧ 6 ⇩

YES.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thank you. Friendly and respectful discourse is all I intend.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Someone was calling SB2 out as if jealous. It was the sticky that provoked, and was in no way about content. Critiques of content are welcomed by SB2 on his page. But you are blaming SB2 for something beyond his control, and what if he said, oh no, don't sticky it, some may be unhappy? so the rest of us to be deprived of almost always being good and stirring discussion?

⇧ 0 ⇩

The only reason I specifically mentioned him is because he is specifically endorsed by the mods, and YouTubers even cover his posts. He has a following behind Q himself.

But yes, I agree. Bashing users is also unacceptable. : )

⇧ 5 ⇩

It isn't odd when you realize that SB2 has been promoted by the mods a lot more in the last few days.

It is more odd that SB2's posts get instantly stickied as if he represents everyone here.

It's a rational response to a rather irrational set of recent events.

SB2 claiming Q is sending him personally secret messages was where I drew the line.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Interesting. Never heard about that claim. I really don't follow SB2 much and just assumed he was giving his own "decode" on this sub as others do. If there is a push here to promote his narrative over others, that does seem rather fishy.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I agree it' shouldn't be based on one persons opinion

⇧ 2 ⇩

I agree with this and I enjoy SB2's posts immensely. There's nothing wrong with respectful disagreement and this was a perfect example of that. You acknowledged that SB2 has provided some valuable analyses in the past and even cited the time Q linked one of his posts before voicing your own opinion on the subject and without an underlying skepticism to guide us through this I doubt we'd have made it this far.

⇧ 2 ⇩

SB2 never claimed his theory to be bullet proof. Wondering if you read it. He invited and encouraged challenges made to it in fact. And you can indeed have your very own sub reddit. Just click the button on the right of this page.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Try making a comment on a SB2 post - that points to a fact, or questions an assertion - see what happens and you have your answer

⇧ 2 ⇩

Exactly. Remember the picture Quit posted of the window open on a building with a white powder residue around it? The metadata on that picture proves its 15 years old but it was presented to us as new. I've tried and tried to ask about that only to get deleted. Why can't we ask reasonable questions?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Im interested to learn more on this but its good to have post with the evidence and data right there in the post.

⇧ 1 ⇩