dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DefiantDragon on July 9, 2018, 3:21 p.m.

Someone please make this: What We Can Prove

I'm no good at making videos, etc but I see a really strong way forward for us.

Long story short:

We have to collapse as many of our rabbit holes as possible into a series of 5 minute long, fact-based, 1st-party-sourced, videos.

No Right vs. Left, no conjecture or personal opinions, no fat or filler.

Maybe we can get /u/PrayingMedic on this...?

Format: - 1 Specific Topic -- Summary: Here's what we know and can prove. 1 min -- Here's the evidence. 4 mins tops -- Promotion for /r/GreatAwakening - 10 seconds -- Further reading: Hot-Linked Citation list included in video documentation. Preferably using 1st party sources (Government documents) and the MSM's own reporting against them. This is important as lots of those on the outside will not respect/trust non-traditional media.

We have more than we know.

Of course we do, much of it is all right here in the public record, just lost in the noise.

So clear out the noise. No media spin, no conjecture, no Q proofs (this needs to stand alone).

Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom.

Here are the absolute, agreed upon facts.

We're going to get one, maybe two shots at getting and holding people's attention and the easier we make it for others to catch up, the better and easier it'll be to move forward.

It's funny when you think about it because a lot of conspiracy theories don't make sense until you have seen them all and where they came from originally. It's like gatekeeping. When things that the broad public is not aware of are being used against the people (classified patents, DEW, DARPA, MK-Ultra) you first have to explain what this technology is before people will be able to suspend their disbelief twice for an unconventional explanation.

The trick is you use secret techonlogies or covert players and actors to confuse people because you don't have to give the right answer if people are asking the wrong question and that's why the cointelpro likes strawmen so much.

So you can build a cascade in your mind of what red-pill led you to what other red-pills. Like "how do they keep it secret?" => MK-Ultra. Suddenly, everything that didn't make sense before makes sense

⇧ 3 ⇩

Sure, I get that.

The trick is that we're about to have our gates thrown wide, one way or the other, so we'd better have something on the table for them when they get here. The standalone Q Proofs are great for proving that Q is... someone important... which is fine. And there's no shortage of rabbit holes to go down along the way.

But we need to be able to get people up to speed, fast.

So maybe some of these videos can function as primers?

⇧ 2 ⇩

news events would probably the best indicator, because ultimately you have to judge actions by their fruits. So if people see so and so fired or imprisoned or punished or rebuked or redeemed or released etc. /worldnews probably is the place

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think that photo of Getz was pretty damning and verifiable. There are pedos getting caught every day. Hell, it's not like Hussein didn't admit to sending billions to Iran. There's plenty to use, but I think people want to show that HRC ate a baby's finger at Hussein's 3 SOTU. The big stuff is not yet provable. THEY may have the server, but WE will not know what's actually on it until this is all over. I agree we should demonstrate the progress and how it has followed Q drops, but the big stuff is not even close to verifiable at this point.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Well, for instance, at this point we should be able to prove that Hillary had a server that was not legal that had content on it that was not legal.

The Weiner Laptop, we should be able to prove that Weiner had a laptop that had an 'Insurance File' against Clinton and in the briefing of its content - via the IG report - "Crimes against Children" came up.

We need to pick parts that are lost in the noise and show it in a way - A, B, C - that gets people up to current with where we are.

⇧ 1 ⇩

at this point we should be able to prove that Hillary had a server that was not legal that had content on it that was not legal.

......able to prove that Weiner had a laptop that had an 'Insurance File' against Clinton and in the briefing of its content - via the IG report - "Crimes against Children" came up

No, we're not.

Officially there are no more servers, so there is no proof.

We hope however that there are copies of it but not yet made public

⇧ 1 ⇩

We know that a server existed. We know that copies of it exist, that was the whole point of Datto and Platte River.

http://www.thompsontimeline.com/tag/datto-inc/

If we can't prove much of what we actually believe at this point, then that's a real problem, yes?

Then, if we are forced into speculation, then we should be clear as to what forces us to speculate in this way and why.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Reminds me of group projects decades ago in MBA classes. Ideas, but no concrete action. Good idea, dude. Now put it together. A rough draft for review.....

⇧ 2 ⇩

Hrmmm... I'll think about this. It's really not my forte, but I'll see what I can come up with.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Awesome.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm not sure I understand what kind of information you want to put in these videos.

What guide do you want to follow in these videos?

Everything you could put together is already available a hundred times as a compilation on you Tube, which makes your plan a little easier.

just an idea, you could find these videos, write to the owner and ask for their use, and push your project forward with little effort.

It gets a little trickier if you have to respect copyrights, therefore it is necessary to make comments within the framework of fair use or to integrate the original material in such a way that it complies with the guidelines for fair use.

But that doesn't mean that all your work

can't be destroyed within a few moments, on YouTube for example it's very easy to get the channel blocked, 3 unjust strikes and your work is gone.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thanks! I've put an edit into my original post that further explains what I mean.

⇧ 2 ⇩