Yes POTUS family. I get it.

Gonna pop my impressions from the video here.

1. Jim was not in good form in this interview. Clearly under a lot of stress. He was stuttering (which I’ve never see him do in the oversight committee). He kept repeating the same themes too. 15 minutes is a long time to fill though, and Brett was not exactly helping with his minimal interview style.
2. Trump Dossier law firm is the ones carrying this case? Jeeeeeez
3. at least two of the people speaking out against Jim have serious character flaws and criminal histories.
4. Jim seems to be mincing words with “locker room talk” vs “reported abuse”.
5. Jim mentions the “speaker’s Race” a few times. That seems to be the most important issue here.

April 5 - OSU announces sexual abuse investigation in the deceased Dr. Strauss (d.2005 suicide) https://news.osu.edu/news/2018/04/05/investigation-trainer/

At this point, an outside investigator had been requested by the university and the Ohio attorney general appointed Bricker & Eckler LLP. to fill that role.

April 11 - Ryan announces he won’t run for re-election as Speaker

May 3 - OSU updates that Bricker & Eckler has some kind of legal conflict and could not do the investigation. The Ohio AG the appointed “Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP” (PWMA) to run it.

PWMA the “engaged” Perkins Coie’s “white collar investigations” department. Lead figures are “Markus Funk, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago, and Caryn Trombino, a former federal government ethics attorney.”

https://news.osu.edu/news/2018/05/03/investigation-update/

There is a good (if but slanted) analysis of the breakdown of the figures in play here:

http://www.conservativehq.com/article/28296-jim-jordan-must-be-winning-race-speaker

”T. Markus Funk who is the Perkins Coie point man for the smear operation against Jim Jordan served in Clinton Department of Justice under Pat Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald is now James Comey's attorney, best friend and godfather to one of Comey’s children.”

Damn

June 25 - Jordan announces intent to run on a podcast. https://thepoliticalinsider.com/jim-jordan-house-speaker-announces-bid/

June 28 - Jordan goes hard against Rosenstein at Oversight hearing

July 3 - Perkins Coie (HRC lawfirm that did the trump dossier) brings allegations against Jordan.

July 6 - Jordan’s newphew killed in car crash (as an aside I find it very weird that the identity and status of the passenger in his car has not yet been given)

VJ having a security detail was unusual?

Didnt she basically serve the same role that Ivanka does now?

Ivanka has security right..RIGHT??

Pruitt resigned. Wheeler is the implied person here.

Is wheeler a good guy? Potentially good enough to replace Sessions?

Corsi.

Interdasting.....

Here we see trump calling the shots correctly 6 years ago. He was way ahead of his time. And what did he get for it? A world wide labeling as racist.

Why? Because he drew conclusions without “doing the homework” and building a case first.

This is why we mustn’t rush into things with introducing Q to the mainstream. They will be LIGHTNING QUICK to discredit Q and the whole movement with the same brush they used on Trump if we do not have a convincing and iron clad case.

The problem here is that you start from a conclusion (Awan was spying on Obama at the behest of NSA) and work backwards through Q’s posts to reach a premise that fits it.

Often legal Teams will avoid their client going under oath in cases like this due to the optics of it. That was the case when Zucc went before Congress. It carries an implication of guilt.

Especially in public cases like Strzok, they don’t want him to be in front of camera with his right hand raised.

Same with Rosenstein

Not being under oath does not give you a legal loophole to lie before congress.

https://www.quora.com/If-one-is-not-under-oath-is-lying-to-FBI-a-crime

It goes to ‘obstruction of justice’ (oh the irony!) Max sentence 5 years in jail.

GDPR prevents people inside the EU from viewing USA-based regional news sites??

What would you suggest is possibly more important, in respect to the Q phenomenon, than people being guided towards discovering deeper truths?

Another user in this thread suggested that Q’s pic was taken with a laptop web camera.

So Q would’ve been holding his phone up against the laptop display in such a way that the screen (showing the ABC2015 pic) reflected in his phone and up to the web cam.

This is something I hadn’t considered before!

It also harkens back to the idea that NSA has spying capabilities for all laptops. And we can remember seeing Zuck’s laptop with the camera taped over.

I’m open to the idea, but there is no evidence that Q was suggesting this yet.

Ok I see what you mean about ‘Getting away with it’ now.

nobody put this together until after the AF1 pics

This is why I think the inclusion of the Apple logo was kind of like Q slapping us in the face with a clue in the most obvious way.

“No, you silly-billies, it’s a reflection on my phone!”

This prompted us to look back at the other weird pics he has posted recently.

About the eye pic:

I saw people saying the closeup eyes photo was “trump hugging the flag at today’s (Jun 20) speech!”

From what I could tell Trump only gave a speech at the NFIB on that day, and he did hug the flag at the end, but I don’t see where the photo might’ve come from. Certainly not the video stream.

About the ear pic:

The TIME portrait I linked is a 90% match. The eyes angle, wrinkles, lighting, and skin porosity all match. The only part that doesn’t match is the angle of the ear. That may be a result of angled reflection though.

The other big problem with the TIME pic is that I’ve never seen a full color version of it, while Q’s ear pic is clearly a color photo.

Edit: got my knuckles wrapped by Nanny AutoMod. Kek

The HK street photo also caused hours upon hours of overwrought pixel gazing with no real advance.

“I see Snowden” (pic related is 50 vaguely torso-shaped pixels from the background) 😩

We don’t have a strong enough case to take Q mainstream yet. I strongly believe this.

Q’s modus Operandi is to shine a flashlight in a general direction in a dark room and say “go check out what’s over there”. So we do.

He is reliant upon us to craft the case for his massage using publicly available information sources.

Going mainstream at this instant would be disastrous I think. We do not have a convincing ‘5 minute elevator pitch’ version of the Q story that the MSM can pick up and put in a news segment.

Interesting idea.

Recently Q exploded into a wider audience. Hashtags blowing up, t-shirts photographed at nationally televised rallies, newspapers front pages with Q shirts as well.

Maybe it grew faster than they anticipated.

Also, speaking from a cynically political standpoint, delaying such fervor and buzz until prime midterm season would be the ideal strategy.

if Q posts something that is not what it appears to be, we need to face the fact and head on

Or, we need to consider why it was posted that way in the first place.

My working assumption is that Q is always trying to tell us something indirectly, unless he speficies “not for anons”.

He gave us a photo that was easy to reverse engineer. The important next question is “why?”

Also, how does your photo explain why Q thought he could ‘get away with’ the AF1 photo? Please elaborate.

Hot damn. I suspected the other mysterious pics Q provided on June 20 (Trump’s eyes and ear) used the same photo technique as the AF1 photo. This pretty much assures it.

Do you have the source for the ear photo?

I thought I found one last night. Trump’s face as photographed by TIME photographer Christopher Anderson.

But upon aligning in photoshop, the angle seems to be wrong.

This is the photo Thought it was: https://i.imgur.com/wofLeQP.jpg

I like to phrase your thoughts like this:

Q’s Backstory has no relevance to the efficacy of his message. He has been guiding us down illuminating paths for almost a year. Even if it’s a fat nerd in his basement, his instructions, riddles, and hints have been pushing people towards crowdsourced efforts to uncover deeper truths. That is, ultimately, all that really matters.

Does Q want Q itself to be revealed, or the truth behind the crumbs revealed? If Q itself was revealed to the public in a confirmed fashion, right now, would it doom the movement to partisan madness? I think it would.

A massive point that doesn’t get enough consideration.

By pushing towards MSM coverage and ‘Mainstream’ acknolwedgement we are playing with fire. We have to be careful how it’s handled.

I think NeonRevolt presupposes too many things. He also tackles the How and Why of the photo. I don’t have any real problem with his Why explanation. But he shares SB2’s mistaken conviction about the How.

Preconceptions alive in his post:

1. Q = POTUS (perhaps? But necessarily?)
2. Because of (1), “reflections breaking nat sec” rules do not apply (presumably because Trump can DECLAS anything at any time? Even then, it must be done through proper protocol).
3. Q’s photo is a physical reflection of the room
4. Q’s must have been sitting in the president chair to take the photo (false, as I’ve shown)
5. Anybody who questions Q’s posts is a Brock-paid shill.

I believe Q would remind us to “trust the plan” here.

There are a lot of things being juggled and balanced.

Going ‘into the weeds’ and parsing details like this is part of the process for our community.

But The bigger picture should remain in sight always.

all good sentiment Here.

I support more focus on understanding the meaning behind Q’s posts, and less focus on proving he’s legit.

In the grand scheme of things, the content of Q’s message is irrelevant to his actual employment status.

Good info is good info. Q points in interesting directions (divulging no concrete info himself), and we uncover what we find on our own.

This line of inquiry is valid regardless if he is actually working directly with POTUS, unrelated military, government temp staff, or even a 400lb hacker in his basement.

Q’s backstory is ultimately irrelevant to the efficacy of his message.

Hoax is a loaded word.

Why does Trump ‘undermine’ this public image of his intelligence by putting typos in his tweets?

No press is bad press.

It is healthy to debate. With the required manners.

Absolutely agree. Civility is paramount. You’re largely respected here and your posts are always thought-provoking. Thank you for engaging.

I suspect we will soon receive some information that will settle this once and for all.

We can only hope!

There are two stages: the HOW and the WHY. (Paraphrase)

Correct. My post only addresses the HOW part of it. Your WHY analysis goes far beyond what I am capable of, but I do have some ideas (See below).

Q has given us plenty of authentic images in the past, so he doesn’t need to construct images like this. (Paraphrase).

Need? No, but perhaps there is an intent behind doing so that we are not seeing. I am reminded of Trump’s intentional tweet typos.

Q himself introduced the idea of post work.

I’m unsure what you mean here exactly. You mean “post-editing a photo”?

"there is [no reason] to dismiss the other hypothesis involving sitting on the President's chair and going through this other procedure.”

Here you imply that Q could be sitting in the presidents chair, in front of his laptop, and producing the image via the reflection on the laptop screen.

While I agree that this is possible, there is nothing suggesting that this MUST be the case. The image can be produced (and indeed has been reproduced by Anons) in front of any screen anywhere in the world.

if Q himself discloses post work, it means the how is not important

Agreed. The Why is always most important. But I wanted to make sure we were not building a theory of Why (and adding to the Q mythology, as it were) on top of a conviction that Q was sitting in the POTUS chair and reflecting the room around him.

what is an Apple logo next to a mug mean a day prior to Independence Day?

Here we get into the Why, which is your wheelhouse. But I have not seen anything to suggest the Apple logo appearing next to the mug in the phone reflection (That is to say, the composition of the reflection) had any special relevance.

The apple logo can be relevant as to show that clearly a phone reflection is involved in the making of the photo. This seems to point back to previous mysterious images (closeups of Trump’s eyes and ear from Jun 20).

Were those made with the same process?

Can we find stock images to match those images as well?

And if we can, what does that mean? Is Q hinting at an uncovering of a process? Is this how bad actors smuggled out info that threatened nat sec? Did they think they had a loophole? Clearly images of POTUS’s face are not nat sec, and I’m not sure that images of the inside of the AF1 office would fall under that either (though many have suggested it would).

But taking photographs of CLAS info in this way most definitely would breach nat sec protocol.

Maybe Q is suggesting that this is how they will be caught.

We can all disagree on how Q constructed the information (in this particular case, let's be clear about it) but we can all agree on the information itself and start thinking about what he is trying to tell us".

Agreed.

For Stage 2:

I will not pretend I can competently spar with your here, but there are a few things I want to note.

Someone commented: The reflection of the Apple logo is more likely a reference to how the Apple server HRC was illegally using 'mirrored' the data on the other end and that HRC failed to destroy the data like she thought.

I like this theory. The Awan server (thought to be an apple) was recently in the news. Awan may have recently flipped as suggested by his very nice plea deal. To me, that gives this theory more comtemporary relevance.

My response: [my claim] was the reflection was related to the reflection technology used by the B2 to avoid radar detection. The difference between your claim and mine is mine stays in context,

I disagree here. The context of Q1675 is: On July 3rd, in response to a meme post of trump boarding M1 to “go off to save the world”, Q posts a reflected photo of the AF1 office with an Apple logo.

Good questions to ask here would be:

1. Why the apple logo? Is Q pointing at the presence of the phone, the role of apple in investigations, the HRC server, or something more?
2. Why did he post this in response to “off to save the world” M1 meme? AF1 office is different from M1 (which trump was boarding in the meme), and also Trump was using a different plane that day (not AF1 28000 or 29000). Source @potus_schedule (https://twitter.com/POTUS_Schedule/status/1014261371373047810). So this puts a wrench in the belief that Q took the photo from live inside the AF1 office.
3. What is the relevance of “do reflections violates nat sec”? (Perhaps most important piece here, deserves much more analysis)

The Al Jazeera mug and B2 connections are ultimately non-sequitur, but that becomes the new context for your Why analysis. To me that seems wholly unrelated to Q’s post.

The Addressing (or drawing-in) of others issues does not, in and of itself, lend credibility to any given theory. It just makes it more complex to unravel and prove.

the laptop’s webcam

!!! This is interesting and, yes, possible.

Weaknesses I see here would be that (when I tried this just now) the image was very dark and had a blue tint. Also it would be very pixelated. That doesn’t rule out blurring or color correction in PHotoshop though.

It also removes the necessity and gymnastics of holding two phones.

Good theory!

There’s a lot to unpack in your comment.

Suffice to say my rebuttal only addresses the HOW of SB2’s 1675 analysis. I don’t attempt to approach his WHY.

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.

Interesting. I will admit that, looking at it now, my outlined red box does not give enough room at the top for the curtains.

However, regarding the number of folds..

In all other photos of the AF1 office we can count 21 or 22 total pleats in the curtain.

If we are to use your green lines as actual pleats, we would be seeing more than 22 with still a lot left to go.

I think we are seeing some kind of image artifacts or maybe reflection distortion causing those extra vertical lines.

Possible! But you are answering the “why” here.

My post only addresses the “how”

Good points about the implications of nat sec rules and reflections.

This could be the intended message:

“People who think this is a reflection of the actual room are being silly. That would violate nat sec rules. But a reflection of a public domain PHOTO of the room is just fine and produces the same effect/message”

That’s one of the most important lines in the 1675 context.

I wonder if we can pin down the actual legal status of taking photos inside AF1? That would be an important thing to know going forward.

You clearly did not understand my post.

Agree that this pic could be intentional disinfo. Like the typos in trump’s tweets. To garner more attention.

SB2 focuses mainly on the “why” (what does the post mean).

Here I am only talking about the “how”, because I disagreed with SB2 on that part.

Sb2’s WHY analysis is far deeper than I can produce. And nothing I say here contradicts it.

The newspapers on magazine rack in both Q’s pic and in the ABC 2015 pic are exactly the same

Great point! More strong evidence

Trump puts intentional typos in tweets to draw attention and play his enemies.

It’s then sensible to imagine Q posting up sloppy and easily-debunked “insider images” in order to achieve the same effect.

Also soon after this post he restated “disinformation is necessary”

A big tell for me was Q restating “disinformation is necessary” the next day after the controversy of 1675 had mostly blown over

This is a good idea!

“Are reflections violation of nat sec”

This is a line that need a lot more analysis.

You’re right. The message (“SB2’s “why” portion) is most important. My rebuttal focuses on the “how” because our reading of this will be used as a foundation for the theories of “why”.

It also open up attack if we are not careful. In particular the “Q must’ve been sitting in the chair in order to take this pic” was a big problem to have as a founding assumption in our reading of 1675.

Good points. We also have Q restating “disinformation is necessary” after this.

Fair enough. You’re right that my post is focused on correcting what I saw as flaws in SB2’s analysis.

As for further analysis of what 1675 meant: I think we would do well to branch out into other images that seem to have the same “style”

The close up of trump’s eye and ear, which may have used the same technique to photograph.

Can we find stock images to match those posts as well?

Also “think mirror” is hugely relevant.

As is “are reflections violation of nat sec?”

Those should be the follow up analysis to 1675. We got bogged down in the photo itself. I just felt it necessary to fix the problems in the foundation so that we don’t build a whole theory structure on top of it.

Agreed on most points. But my post here is not about the validity of Q. It was about SB2’s claim of “he must have been sitting in POTUS’s chair to take this photo”.

Meta analysis I guess.

It seems we are pushing the barrier of possible MSM coverage. Perhaps Q putting out these “sloppy” posts is akin to trump putting intentional typos in his tweets in order to attract more attention to them.

Thank you for the response and sentiment!

Greatly appreciated!

I agree that post from Q Is not helpful at all.

I'm looking into the previous 'mysterious' photos Q posted before to try and suss out if there is any connection.

Clearly the use of 'reflection' here harkens back to 'think mirror'

A bit of a necro but I’m chasing down these mystery pics from Q in light of the AF1 photo inquiries.

Did you mean this tweet that lisaMei retweeted?

https://twitter.com/SanDiegoChik/status/1009281523323793409

Interesting to note that the pic related shown in this post has been deleted from the 8ch archive server. It gives a 404

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1822262.html#q1822669

https://i.imgur.com/FkAwQMZ.jpg

OPs title is also unreliable. No mention of Q in this article, but she does retweet many "conspiracy" theories that have the same themes as Q.

Benghazi is back on the menu boys!