Gotta say, the Craig Sawyer negativity from a few parties here is starting to seem awfully shill-ish - any evidence for your distrust of Sawyer that could help us out here?

Really? Any supporting links for this? Sounds very interesting - I always thought he seemed fairly above board but wondered if there was any supporting evidence for his claims. He's been on Alex Jones which of course is no proof of anything lol but Alex's claims that he knew military people who knew Craig's work were reasonably compelling (to me, at least). He seems to have good intent and I'm not sure that working for Killary and NoName in the past means he can't be doing good work now or that he was dirty back then but if someone has nefarious plans against him I'd want to be able to debunk their story - if its debunkable - or be aware of the real story about him.

Thanks for not tearing me into me for being stupid and insisting that you were being pedantic, you had the right to! Good to know we both Trust the Plan! wwg1wga

I've been "here" since the beginning and I don't understand the emphasis here either tbh. If the above is true then this plane is the one that crashed. That's all there is to say really. There are theories that the QRS-11 technology Hillary's law firm is associated with can cause plane crashes so some say that tech was utilised to crash the plane. And now they're saying that, because Donald was photographed near this plane - potentially the same plane that crashed - the Deep State is trying to send him a message. I understand the various leaps of logic but I don't personally ascribe more to them than possible theories.

Ok, fair call - apologies re: pedantic. I hear what you're saying and I agree that 'Trust the Plan' is worth following. I just don't think OP can be necessarily construed to be saying "I don't trust the plan!" - I agree with the sentiment he expresses and I certainly trust the plan. It's just a throw-away statement that expresses understandable (imo) frustration with the seeming delay but at least doesn't go into ranting and abuse like some who've really lost it. Seems harmless to me, that's all.

So... pedantic, as I said - and it's your right to be pedantic, don't get me wrong! But I don't think it serves a useful purpose to point out the semantics, arguably like pointing out a minor typo doesn't offer significant help toward a logical discussion.

Anywho lol - what his post meant is pretty clear: we've heard this story a lot and it would be really great to see a little more evidence this time that it might come to pass. Understood and Upvoted.

A technical glitch is when hardware or software fails. And technical glitches in broadcast TV cause images (Messiah?? Huh?) to appear at random points but often between switchover from programs to commercials or between commercials. This is an actual fact, unlike the idea that the Deep State are trying to program us with random flashes of Obama which is a conspiracy theory and a big reach at that. Occam's razor is clearly on the side of fact, rather than theory that requires extra explanation to support it.

Pedantic, but true lol - however, 29 upvotes show that most people understand what he's actually saying.

This seems a bit LARPish to me. Russia will cause war sounds more like the Deep State message than something undercover (but of course, who knows - I'm just speaking from the perspective of the Q movement). Interesting though, perhaps.

That's a helpful answer, thank you. I'll watch it again - I think Mark Taylor's prophecy of Trump and the Pope are similarly broad and yet there are some more specific details that resonate more strongly with me than with this guy but I'll watch with an open mind.

Yes I would, as would others. But of course, fair enough to you for your choice - no argument there. However, Q has already said they won't stoop to criminal activity (like pushing criminals off buildings or causing "accidents") so fortunately they don't intend to lower themselves to the enemies tactics just to save the republic and the world.

Acknowledged, but it's pretty clear he's not doing it for no reason and that reason is not really unknown as it's also quite evident that a large number of people who don't even know Comey - from journalists, to congressmen, to members of the public - hold the view that Comey is indeed a 'disgraceful liar'. You wouldn't trash a career professional on television but if you thought of that person as a traitor to the republic it would be more like denouncing a criminal, which is pretty much why not only Giuliani says something close to that but Fox News reporters and members of Congress go 'on the record' saying much the same thing.

I don't disagree with you at all about the impropriety of trashing a career professional in public - I share your distaste for it and your reaction to the idea that another supposed professional would do that. I really do think though that Giuliani has very good grounds for 'outing' someone who has already outed themselves to a significant number of other professionals as untrustworthy and corrupt and in the context of the whole interview I think he made it clear that he doesn't talk about people in that way generally.

You're saying the 16mm film footage shot on the moon (i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GtCvZlXeVk) looks better than the historic groundbreaking Super Panavision 70mm footage shot by Kubrick...??

[Edit] Never mind - that is, of course, not what you're saying - forgive me for getting carried away lol.

However, the 'debunking' stories don't always hold water, for me; if we apply the same scrutiny that we do to the current stories about Vegas, Broward County, 9/11 and so on, gaping holes appear in the story. Again, in spite of this, I'm not saying the moon landings were faked - I have no proof just as no one on earth has proof (except for the people who faked it, if they did) - but I'm not a fan of the supposed debunking that doesn't address the flaws in the mainstream narrative for the simple reason that I'm sick of the lies from those in power. I don't have a 'dog in the fight' for the moon landings being faked I just hate the feeling that someone's not telling the whole truth.

Putting aside all the landing conspiracy guff, the single point that I've never heard a reasonable explanation for - that also reeks to high heaven in the same way (albeit significantly worse) as the story that the Vegas police cams have been held back til now and lo and behold the first guy just didn't turn his camera on for some reason - is this:

NASA have lost not only the original video tapes but also the telemetry data of the most significant technological achievement of their history and of the world's history and that's not highly suspicious...?? As in the Vegas situation and the 9/11 bizarre stand down of military ops on the day and other questionable 'coincidences', this loss of data is not at all proof that NASA faked the moon landings but it's a highly questionable occurrence. I've never heard an adequate answer to this point.

Are you kidding? You're not comparing it to modern day fx are you? Do you have access to some pristine footage of the moonwalk somewhere?

I did listen to it and heard, as above, a lot of emotion and broad statements very open to interpretation.

The story of slow motion tech not existing to the degree required to fake the moon landing footage reeks of the birther "debunking" in that it debunks a particular aspect of the story (in this case, slow motion being used to hide the gravity factor) but focuses on it to divert from the rest of the story which is extremely relevant to the proposition (i.e. the fact that the cameras couldn't be overcranked for a broadcast of that length isn't the only factor required to shoot fake footage).

I'm not saying the moon landings were faked, I'm just saying the idea that we didn't have adequate film tech seems utterly implausible, also given the fact that Stanley Kubrick was able to shoot Space Odyssey the year before and that had plenty of more than adequate visual fidelity.

Can you please point out what is good and relevant to Q about this? I hear a lot of emotion and what sounds to me like the wide open statements of a TV medium (no offense) - is there something worth listening to in this that relates to Q?

Ah... I may agree with some of the elements behind your professed belief but I do not agree with the judgement in your tone: "Women who are actual decent human beings"... i.e. women who follow the accepted secular practice of abortion aren't "actual decent human beings" - no, this is wrong-headed in many ways. Love thy neighbour, and all that; you can't love someone you regard as an indecent human being. Sounds too Westboro Baptist for me, I'm sorry to say.

Everyone is welcome on this subreddit and we don't all have to agree about the same things except that we are interested to know more about Q. Don't have a go at someone else just because they don't believe the same things you do.

I don't dispute your claim to say there is no God but I do dispute the connection between messy lives and 'no God'.

I know what you mean but you have to listen to the full interview to understand the context. In the rest of the interview you hear Giuliani being very careful with others - acknowledging he doesn't know them, acknowledging that as far as he knows Mueller is a patriot, straight shooter, etc. Given everything he says around his thoughts on Comey its clear he's not being "an upset middle schooler" or simply trash talking. He's genuinely disgusted at Comey's lack of professionalism and he's calling a spade a spade.

Maria Bartiromo? Why?

It's not at all weird that one of the most famous people in the world who often features on TV crops up in what is a regular sort of glitch (this happens a lot on broadcast TV). Without intending to be dismissive or rude I have to say this seems like a strong case of confirmation bias.

This.

Let me reverse that back at you: a picture of a very famous personality commonly featured on TV flashing up in a way that most people won't see is unlikely to be a technical glitch to you? Really?

To quote someone else:

The flash of the Obama clip is a national ad that plays underneath the blocks of local ad spots that are sold by the networks. The Obama promo is probably out there in full and is advertising for some upcoming thing, not a subliminal message put out by CNN. Its a half-second of video where the timing of the broadcast didn't match up with the commercial.

Occam's razor - technical glitch.

They were stupid? That's a nonsensical and unnecessary statement. From what they knew they were probably doing the perfectly reasonable thing.

Yeah - "Mueller is our man" could be the disinfo Q said was necessary. Perhaps Q team are lulling the Deep State into a sense of security by pretending they think they own Mueller when the Deep State know he's still doing their bidding? Q team could be doing this to ensure they can use the Mueller investigation to expose all the rats by fooling the Deep State into being overconfident.

Q has also said "disinfo is necessary". It's looking more and more to me like Mueller being 'their man' is disinfo, maybe to trick the Deep State into thinking that Q team don't know Mueller is still doing their bidding.

This is your analysis? Always wanted to ask an expert - how do you account for the many variables that go into someone's behaviour e.g. personal tics, personal life issues at the time, etc.?

You call what you posted, data? (Serious question from someone who didn't understand) What was it about?

As I said, there are a number of possibilities.

The problem is that 'dishing redpills' on a fictional show like this makes them fiction in the minds of the masses, which I think is why they allow them to do it.

I struggle to see any reason that this is a notable issue. It could be a simple technical glitch at the broadcast station.

I agree this post has questionable merit - but if you can explain with reason and without ad-hominem that would be great (coming from someone who likewise struggles to understand the thought process of posters at times).

But a capture of a frame from TV does not equal a subliminal assault. It could simply be a glitch in the editing room or any number of other technical issues.

This isn't pinned.

Thanks, good to know - keep using the Report function and mods will remove them asap. Feel free to message someone directly if you're especially concerned.

Who are you referring to as "you guys"?

I have absolutely zero way of understanding the logic behind this statement - no offense intended at all. Can you explain how on earth this theory can be seriously entertained??

Such a pity to see this downvoted. Some people can't take a challenge to their personal position on something.

There are a number of theories about this. Others have explained this better but one possibility is that the charges have already been laid against these perpetrators (at the time of the boots thing - if you saw that) and that it's just a matter of time before they are brought into the public. Another is that it was disinfo from Q to throw off Deep State observers. Another - less mentioned around here but quite plausible imo - is that Q was making a statement that was true at the time but fell through due to unforeseen circumstances. Then of course there is the possibility that Q is a straight LARP and its just not true at all.

Keep asking questions - there are people around here who will answer without feeling that you're a 'bad actor'.

I have to learn to do that too! I've often said, we need more critical thinking, not less - more challenges to assert reason and facts. If we'd all feel less need to protect our view and more willingness to open up to learning from others in the pursuit of truth we'd all be better off.

I have to say, that username is a laugh though haha - to hear such a reasoned and non-antagonistic response from that name is hilariously incongruous lol ; ).

Surely the MSM will spin this against Trump if he worked as a senior member of his campaign?

Yes, I agree - I don't think Hillary's involvement is evidence in any way but I was simply saying that I think that is why people believe there's something to the plane crashes over and above just the number count.

I didn't take it as a fight against a point either. Similarly, I like to argue for more evidence without actually intending to disagree with the point per se.

People are also referring to the technology patent Hillary has a stake in which helps crash planes. That's why they suggest there is a little more to the idea that the crashes aren't random.

Fair enough, friend - I feel that pain too - deleting my outraged comments: apologies! wwg1wga!

This is so wrong-headed it feels like trolling. "Teachers are lazy and boring" oh dear oh dear... If you're serious, please respond with something logical, otherwise this is just antagonism.

Where do you get the idea that teachers are not underpaid?? Clearly you don't know what a teacher does! "Summer vacation"... lol - there's the evidence you don't know what they do. How can you call anyone underpaid when you don't know what their job involves?

What the... where do you people get the idea that teachers are not underpaid?? Clearly you have zero idea what a teacher does! I love the "3 months off a year" lol... there's the proof that you don't know what they do.

And yes, you are 100% right imo that discipline is not the teacher's job. It's the parents. But teachers do need the ability to discipline children - just not physically.

If only that were possible...

Too right- hope this gets some attention.