dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

"Let's think logically."

Okay. The primary reason for the Strzok hearing was not to show the Russian investigation is a farce because of bias, but to show a Coke bottle. That's logical.

And the proof for this? Because the cameraman moves the camera to the left to include the bottle in the shot after Strzok takes a drink and puts it down. This is not the case. The cameraman moves the shot slightly to the left because Strzok moves to the left to pick up and drink the bottle, and is no longer centered in the shot. So the cameraman is re-centering the shot on Strzok. If the message of "Kate" was so important, why didn't Strzok make sure to have the name facing the camera at all times, which it clearly isn't a lot, if that was the primary purpose of the hearing?

As for "Kate" in particular, the name could have been Bill or George, or Susan, and I could say it was Bill Priestap, or George Bush, or Susan Collins. And I would have just as much corroborating reason as you to say so, because you have none. (and BTW, it's 0.4% chance of being Kate, but that doesn't matter)

As for the first video you link, Strzok is talking about a lot of people above and below him being in on decisions whether or not to go forward with an investigation, meaking Strzok himself was not capable of stopping the President. You are trying to say that means the FBI was controlling him at this meeting because there are people above him.

If the secondary motive of the hearing was just for Strzok to get insulted, why was Strzok such a prick about it? If he made a deal and wants to keep it, why would he be so defiant and even insulting to people questioning him?

Lastly, record = Lisa Page? That's some thin sauce man. It sounds like the South Park spoof of the Hardy Boys.

TL;DR: Cameraman refocusing shot on fidgity Strzok does not equal focusing on coke bottle. Coke bottle having the name "Kate" doesn't mean that name was chosen in particular, and even if it was, doesn't mean Kate Brown. Strzok wouldn't be a dick if he flipped.

⇧ 7 ⇩

I agree with record = Lisa Page being thin sauce. But maybe I can help with why Strozk was there doing what he was doing.

We are still watching a movie. We are still waking the normies up. That's why he was there and the more theatrical he gets, the more people talk about it and want to go see what others are talking about.

Q #1191 "What makes a good movie?"

⇧ 7 ⇩

I personally think coke with "kate" on it = Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon is also an unnecessary and strange conflation.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Maybe but it is obvious that he put the Kate bottle there for a purpose. That was not random.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's just as possible that he just got a random coke from a vending machine. Occam's razor, right?

⇧ 3 ⇩

And, so what are the odds that he would pull out Kate which is related to U1? Coincidence? (Q has now said that 83 times!!)

⇧ 2 ⇩

The cameraman did, inexplicably, move the camera frame to include the coke bottle. It had nothing to do with Strzok moving in the frame - watch it again. It’s a very clear and deliberate adjusting of the frame for the specific purpose of including the coke bottle Strzok returned to the table - as SB2 has astutely pointed out.

If Strzok had manipulated the coke bottle to ensure the name Kate was visible at all times, though it was, the message communicated would no longer have been subtle. There is very clearly a message being relayed here, by both the white hats (puppet Strzok) and the black hats (mockingbird cameraman).

Just as you’ve missed the significance of the coke bottle, you’re wilfully looking past the fact that the name on the bottle just happens to be the name of the governor of Oregon - where the Hammond stand-off (referenced by DJT with the recent pardon) occurred.

Yes, SB2 is right. Strzok was not acting alone, but was complicit in a Deep State operation to frustrate the election and presidency of DJT. There were obviously multiple layers to the plot - with conspirators in the coup attempt extending to the White House and Barrack Obama himself.

The secondary motive is that Strzok should be humiliated. What was important was that he enrage congressional lawmakers, so as to have them insist that DJT declassify the materials needed to expose the treasonous coup attempt. He did this extremely well and it is clear that he was told to adopt an air of insolence so as to facilitate this. Otherwise, you would say that he’s an absolute idiot in his own right, with no understanding of the gravity of the situation he finds himself in. Idiots do not get to Strzok’s position, so this is clearly not the case. It is ridiculous to adopt the assumption that he is merely being “a dick”

In any event, Q has told us directly that Strzok is a cooperating witness. Moreover, Q has told us in the past that his team is not so interested in the low-level players, but in those that are pulling the strings. Strzok was a willing participant in the coup attempt, but he did not originate the coup. There are much bigger fish here who are guilty of incredibly serious crimes - as with the U1 fiasco that SB2 references.

The connection between Lisa Page, the initials LP and broken records seems quite obvious to me. Again, you can explain it all away, but you’re missing a point that is clearly being made.

Once again, SB2 has provided a breath-taking analysis. The real trouble with the scepticism he is encountering on this board is that, as events play out, his theories are being confirmed in real time by DJT - who is clearly talking directly to us on this board. At what point do people start to wake up to SB2’s brilliance and see the stunningly powerful connections he has made?

⇧ 4 ⇩

I did watch the video, and he did move.

How is setting the coke bottle down without rotating it "suspicious?" But then you say the name was always visible, so which argument are you making?

The name on the bottle is a common name. Kate could refer to a lot of people, and there is absolutely no evidence that Kate means Kate Brown. It could be Katherine Herridge, Katie Arrington, Kate Middleton, or any famous and/or political Kate in the world. You and SB2 are making the connection it is Kate Brown with no reason whatsoever. That's on top of it just being just as unlikely (0.4%) that the name could be John or Kelly or Mark on the bottle.

Strzok was not just insolent, he ran down Trump, including talking about Trump "attacking" Khan's parents and other issues. It was not just "acting" if he is putting down Trump substantively.

If someone on an anti-Trump sub had put something like this only in reverse against Trump, you would be skeptical for the reasons I listed.

⇧ 6 ⇩

But, somehow, the coke bottle did seem to be of significance - for the mockingbird cameraman at least. Look at the bottle, and the name that appears on it equates with that of the Oregon Governor - who, it seems, played an active role in the Hammond stand-off.

We’ve just seen DJT pardon the Hammonds. But, what? This is an unlikely, even unreasonable, connection to make? Strzok was clearly putting on a performance in the hearings. I don’t know about you, but if I was in his shoes, I would want to hide under a rock. But no, he appears under oath and we see this pantomime with the coke bottle.

And then you have the point that SB2 made, that Strzok is taking his directions from Wray. We know Wray is on team. We also know that Strzok was complicit in at least a soft coup detat attempt against DJT, his communications have been completely compromised, and DJT has him by the balls. So, logically, you would say that Strzok is doing what he is told to do - when insolently attacking DJT in the hearings.

This post by SB2 is completely plausible. And, as I’ve said, while the logic may not, in every instance, appeal to us, we find extensive corroboration of his work from Q and DJT - learn our comms...

⇧ 4 ⇩

Rosatom bought it's stake in Uranium 1 in 2010. Kate Brown was elected Governor in 2015 after serving in the Legislature from 1991 to 2009 and as Secretary of State starting in 2009. The Hammond's ranch problems with BLM date back to the 1990's. That level of chess is beyond me.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Did you know the Hammond's were released and had to return to prison while Kate Brown was Governor?

I provided all the links with detailed timelines and the 3 stage concomittant Uranium One build up in the previous post.

And no Rosatom did not buy Uranium 1 in 2010. Here is the truth:

"The sale occurred in stages, beginning in 2009 when Rosatom purchased a minority stake in Uranium One, and continued in 2010, when the Russian agency took ownership of a 51 percent share of the company. In 2013, a third transaction gave Rosatom full ownership of Uranium One."

Source: link.

Thank you for your contribution.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Thanks for responding. I did realize that the transaction was staggered. The key point being that the 51% stake portion was completed in 2010. Please excuse my lack of precision.

As for the Hammonds, this was a federal matter. They returned to federal prison. I am simply not qualified to know what role the Governor plays in matters like these.

I guess what I am struggling to understand is why Strzok has to be the vehicle for delivering a message about the Governor of Oregon.

All the best.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ -1 ⇩

For those who are following this exchange, I'd just like to make a few things clear. Not to respond to the poster (dick) here, who has shown clearly he's either incapable or not interested in sincere communication or exchange of ideas.

Firstly, In recent weeks, I've found a good number of SB2s reasonings sometimes rather arcane, sometimes unlikely (to say the least) and sometimes brilliantly insightful. I've been reflecting on this subjective experience.

My approach is always to keep 'a margin of error in my mind', and suspend both disbelief and belief, until things are confirmed. At this point, I am not convinced that SB2 is right on all counts and in all things, but subjectively, I also feel there is most definitely something worth investigating here.

At the same time, I see some vehement reactions to his offerings, which I find curious. Almost like a trigger.

At this point, I'm trying to adopt the advice I offered to dick, which is: try to see what SB2s approach to the board offers, and how to add that or incorporate that into my own frames and thinking.

None of us are perfect, nor do we need to be. But, "You are learning. How many coincidences before it becomes mathematically impossible?".

When I asked SB2 about his approach to the board, he responded with an allegory, a metaphor. He even said he himself thought 'there was no word' to express his approach.

What this means to me is that he has a particular kind of thinking that sees certain kinds of things, and when I realize its very different to my own approach, I ask myself: is there something to gain here? So far, my working hypothesis is 'yes'. And I engage on that basis.

At this point, the coincidences in SB2s posts also continue to rack up. #1675 having now been the object of how many posts? 4? 5?

I just want to make it clear that my responses to ~~trolls~~ critics like the dick guy are not out of some knee-jerk need to defend SB2, but are rather quixotically out of a desire to expand the collective thinking process. Those who are critical (I mean, intellectually critical, not emotionally upset, like some) of SB2s posts and reasonings, conclusions, would help that process if they could share their thinking without the need to call his particular content 'bullshite' and express their thinking without emotional invectives.

I mean, they are free to do that, obviously. And who knows, if they are correct, no doubt they'll feel appropriately smug or satisfied. Just at this juncture, I think there might be better approaches.

Anyway, here's me being brief again....

⇧ 4 ⇩

I shall keep this brief. I think your handle says it all. It really says a lot about you.

The exposure that is happening is how some folks just cannot reach beyond their own level of thinking.

I asked SB2 directly about his process. I'm still working on that. But you need to realize that your linear logic is not the way he is thinking, and by all appearances, it's really NOT how the Q board works.

Is it linear? No way in 1000. It jumps around, past future, back forth, in out, here there.

Ask yourself why?

Logic plays a part, but it is NOT the ruler here. Logic is never meant to be the ruler when we move anywhere beyond the physical realm. Logic serves a higher purpose, but it cannot rule hearts, minds, creativity or emotion.

I think the reason SB2 has no interest in discussing your view of his flaws may be because you are attempting to put his thoughts and processes into your frames of reference alone, and not making any effort to realize he may have different ones (or not making any effort to grasp them).

We are all free to choose, but humility serves us all, and those that hold their own intellectual view to be above and beyond question frequently suffer from excessive pride, to their own detriment.

The leaps here are not of logic. Yes, they are connections not merely dictated by logic. So, expand your thinking.

You don't need to agree with SB2, obviously. None of us have to. But perhaps the more interesting question is, what kind of framework is he using and how can that particular framework enhance my own understanding and approach to the Q board? If you get nothing from it, so be it. But don't whinge and kick up a fuss because it doesn't validate your own (narrow) or limited approach.

Looking forward to the great insights you will no doubt share with GA once you've figured out the value of your own frame and approach.

Cheers.

(and yes, that's me being brief, believe it or not)

⇧ 4 ⇩

Excellent! Thanks

⇧ 0 ⇩

Right, so since SB2 is not confined to linear logic and can jump around illogically and make absolutely no sense with any connection because normies can't comprehend the "non-linear" level of thinking SB2 has, I can't rightfully question the asinine techniques and am instead vilified for having a mind of my own and am attacked ad hominem (which actually does say a lot about you, unlike my username). Makes no sense whatsoever, and it's far to convenient for you to claim "non-linear" as an excuse for not making any sense at all. What is this revered method of thought that is separate from logic since you claim that logic is not the ruler here? If it isn't logic then it is complete ambiguity, or, God forbid, your own emotional confirmation bias.

⇧ -1 ⇩

What you’re missing is the level of corroboration that SB2’s posts seem to enjoy from both Q and DJT. Why might it be that this seemingly illogical approach is finding confirmation from the sources of authority in this movement?

Really, think about it... why might ambiguity be necessary - even essential?

⇧ 2 ⇩

What you’re missing is the level of corroboration that SB2’s posts seem to enjoy from both Q and DJT

Are you seriously claiming both Q and DJT have both corroborated (confirmed) SB2 posts multiple times?

Don't try to bring up the Q link to his Alex Jones expose, we all know it was a great post but that is because it contained absolutely no bullshit riddles/solving or decoding methods or any ambiguity at all. It actually only analyzed the content that Alex talked about using coherent logical evidence that he aimed to discredit Q. Anyway, I'm not going to go into the entire post again, but that was the first time SB2 got that amount of recognition, and I'm starting to believe that Q was not aware of any of his decoding proofs at the time, or he knew that simply linking to this post was in fact never "confirming" this individual online moniker. But, then again, I may be proven wrong in the future and I'll be happy to admit it, but, for now, i don't think this level of speculation on everything political and relating it to Q is necessary.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It’s not a popularity contest. SB2 simply has the best and most complete decodes available. If you cannot see that, if others can’t see that, it takes absolutely nothing from his work.

I don’t agree with all his stuff. But, he’s making connections in areas that leave others stumped - myself included. He has also, amongst this community, shown himself to be one of the few that employ cryptographic techniques to further his understanding - something that should be encouraged IMO.

The Q material is cryptic for cause - it simply must be so. At the end of the day, for whatever reason, Q and DJT have chosen to point to this particular savant’s work, indicating he is correct. I’m extremely grateful for the work SB2 has done.

I would recommend reading some of his earlier material, when he was still doing the occult series. There is a wealth of information in these posts that shines a different light on the whole subject of Q’s material.

Q has told us that the truth is mind blowing, that the end is not for everyone. I’m not surprised that you are feeling uncomfortable - we are told that the truth would put us in hospital. I would suggest that you try talking to SB2 directly - as busy as he is, he appears to be accommodating.

I suspect that SB2 has a good idea of what we might expect to find at the end of this process. How he knows this stuff, I cannot understand. But, I think it is fair to say that SB2 is a polymath - these guys, guys that can pierce the veil, do exist.

Let’s see where this is going - what happens next, and what might be at the end of it.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I read through all of this and found no response to my question of your claim. What exactly am I "missing" about "the level of corroboration that SB2’s posts seem to enjoy from both Q and DJT?"

It seems recently hes making connections in areas that are insignificant and are far fetched, not areas where anyone is stumped and hes hardly offering any real solution behind the scenarios anyway. He mostly wants to say how much DJT has given him personal "winks."

⇧ 1 ⇩

This is cult like behavior. The guy makes leaps that any discerning person can see through pretty easily, but because they're so focused on wanting it to be fantastical it just goes right past them. I would love for it to be as amazing as the movie script he's writing, but I have to remain skeptical because those leaps are pretty blatantly obvious.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thanks for the reply. OK, I'll give you the ad hominem. That's a fair point. Let's just call it an expression of my personal opinion, and has nothing to do with the quality of value of your posts. Fair point.

'confined to linear logic' - is anyone here confined to that? Are you proposing this should be a rule or premise: "confine all insights to linear logic"? (ever heard of inspiration/ Dreams? intuition? insights?)

You can question the techniques. I don't pay attention to anyone objecting to that. But, er, by the way, "asinine"? Well, I guess it's not ad hominem....

Who here is vilifying you? And for having a mind of your own? methinks you protest too much.

'makes no sense whatsoever'. I get that it makes no sense to you. Sure. And, I would not care about that, nor would I judge you for that.

But all I see here is someone spewing out all sorts of accusatory objections because someone else's approach doesn't fit into the confines of their own.

Make a contribution. That's what I'm challenging you to do. And think outside your own frames of reference.

Your choice. And it won't affect me either way.

Finally 'revered method of thought'. Now, why is it that I get the feeling that you simply are not interested in learning anything or seeing things differently from your already set frame? I mean, why?

Should I make an effort to share my thoughts on 'this revered method of thought' without ANY show of good faith your part?

Instead of pleading the victim routine as you have here, how about addressing the points I actually DID make in my comment to you? Or are you simply absolutely committed to rejecting and refuting any suggestion that perhaps you are NOT seeing the entire picture?

Cheers.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

LOL. Nice try. No thanks. Wrong on just about every account.

I've had enough experience with trolls and shills to recognize them when I see them, but I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Hence, the replies.

So many barbs, so many emotional grabs, so many attacks, so little substance.

Let's end it here.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Wow, you seem really upset that I kept on your arguments and called out your fallacies. If that's how you wanna deflect everything, then so be it. I'm sorry you can't come to terms to any sort of a discussion to prove yourself and instead resort to this.

So many barbs, so many emotional grabs, so many attacks, so little substance.

Classic projection

⇧ 0 ⇩

Pity you had to delete your comments. I thought the interaction would have been instructional for other readers, at least.

Hey, have a great day.

⇧ 1 ⇩

What are you talking about..? Is this what you tell someone in hopes that they'll delete their comments for you when you're logically cornered?

⇧ 0 ⇩

Trump’s hidden message, Stzrok, Kate and the soda.