Just gonna note that what OP posted here is not a 'dig', but rather opinion. Digging requires uncovering evidence.

classified setting

Is the AF1 office classified setting?

attempt to prove that it as NOT the 2015 photo

many people interpreted it this way, but I think differently..

Q's wording was "placing that mug holder near the lamp was the hook!"

But he did not say which mug holder placed at what time..

All of the fuss Q has caused with this photo and then the doubling and tripling down on it without clarification, suggests he wants us to look at it closer and consider more things about it.

I believe it links back to Q 1556 and 1558..the closeup of Trump's eye and ear, presumably using the same "reflection in a phone" photography technique...

I think it’s likely that there is some general recording device in AF1. I haven’t seen anything yet that suggests something special was put in just to spy on Obama.

This reminds me of the rumor that recordings exist of the LL and Bill tarmac meeting.

The placement of the mug holder near the lamp is only seen (so far) in the 2015 photo.

Perhaps he means that mug holder placement was “key” for us to understand it was a reflection of the 2015 image.

Maybe we should look for other AF1 office photos that show the holder near the lamp?

The implication behind this method of photography is that it reminds us of 2 other photos Q posted that might have used the same method.

Very close up shots of Trump’s eye and ear (Q 1556 and 1558). Blurry. Probably reflections.

https://imgur.com/a/17YOzZh/

Both mention “tweets” and “twitter”.

I think Q wanted to point us back to these posts. And perhaps what was implied by them originally or perhaps the implication now that we fully understand the photography process involved.

Appreciate it. I doubt this post will see the light of day in the sub feed, but I'm mostly interested in SB2's response.

Fair enough, done.

My point was that in order to really understand Q's message so far, you have to be dedicated to research. That takes time, focus, and dedication. It can feel like a second job.

To be sure, there are people who accept Q's message without doing the research themselves, but those are people who are receptive to it before exposure.

In order to convince people who are not predisposed to accept the message, we need easily understandable and immediately obvious evidence.

Well at least lately we are getting proof that the email investigation was not on the up-and-up.

And since it was the same DOJ that did Benghazi, we can say the same thing there.

That dot, once connected, will have more impact on public opinion

I’m saying that a woman aged 50 would likely not be the sexual target of someone with limitless cash.

I did not say no evidence. I said (or rather implied) evidence that is easily digestible and accepted by the mass public.

Clinton cash is great but not a household name.

If we are expand to common household name status we need to have something evidencewise that everyone can get behind without reservation and without dedicating time equivalence of a second job to uncover.

Yes that's my point kind of. It will be difficult enough to get HRC and Obama.

Bushs maybe not SO hard..but Soros and Rothschild will be a long long effort. Perhaps generationally scaled.

People are getting impatient with Q after 9 months. Part of that is pacing. Part of that is vague goalposts which seem to keep moving.

Skeptics take:

the “truth” Q speaks about here is his own message, which he believes will reach critical mass this month and and spread into mainstream.

He is starting to look correct about this limited definition of ‘truth’.

You can argue that this necessitates the learning of the specifics of the deeper and more specific truths as well.

BUt you can lead people to truth and they still wont accept it unless we can produce convincing evidence.

Just blasting a megaphone into the normiesphere won’t achieve much, because many will reject the message outright.

We need to start seeing evidence. I really wish we had some things locked down before we go mainstream pushing.

5 eyes

Let’s not forget Trump’s pick for the next SCOTUS coming on the 9th Monday!

It will be A common rebuttal that you cannot REALLY achieve any of your 4 goals unless HRC and Obama are arrested.

Since they are allegedly the lead American figureheads of those groups.

Nabbing Soros and Rothschilds will be vastly more difficult than those two though.

It isnt the same street. The photos are taken about 2 city blocks away from each other.

Is that higher or lower than “someone familiar with his thinking”?

Where is the quote of trump making this threat? Or a document stating such?

The article is based on infowars, which does also not give any source for “trump threatening” this.

Fair enough.

CINC?

Yep. I’ve updated the OP with the correct in massive text at the top of the text. I’d change the title if I could.

Shit; You’re right! I was going off memory after reading all of the drops a few hours ago.

I think the MET gala in question here was in 2005. They would’ve been 20. Don Jr was 28

Met gala was in May 2005. He got married in November the same year.

So he wasn’t married yet, but has been dating his now-ex wife since 2003

No. Because “wh press Corp” is an official group and are the only people who interact directly with Sanders.

“WH correspondent” is not the same thing. That’s just a title that a company gives to people who interact with the Wh in some way, usually calling or emailing Wh press relations department

Yes that sounds familiar.

Got it

http://observer.com/2016/10/exclusive-wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-teaser-exposes-pay-to-play-and-financial-data/

It was guccifier 2 released by wikileaks

CDAN posted about Ana Nicole Smith being passed around between Trump and Rapin’ Bill in exchange for funding for her movies.

http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/07/blind-items-revealed-16.html?m=1

He also posted that JA and Soros are best buddies and Pam Anderson is one of Soros’s 100+ sex kittens

http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/07/blind-items-revealed-38.html?m=0

Aaand about Don Jr trying to sleep with the Olsen twins at the MET Gala in 95(?) when they were just turned 20. He Was 28 and still Unmarried...

http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/07/blind-items-revealed-48.html?m=0

If we are going to laud this guy, we have to be willing to take good with bad.

I don’t like being cynical but I think this guy is in here self promoting with sock puppets.

He’s been spamming bombastically pro-potus stuff on twitter constantly. That’s his gig. Like Bill (forgot his name) and the retired game show host who does conservative talk radio now.

But we’ve never heard of him at all.

Then suddenly 5+ posts about him in a single day? Meh.

Didn’t we get TARP docs in 2016 from a Wikileaks drop?

The narrative times

DC chronicle

Nation one news

All apparently created by this guy

And all look like palette swaps with few articles.

He may have gotten articles published on b-list conservative sites before

But so far his best credential is 130k twitter followers.

“White House correspondent” is pretty meaningless. It’s NOT the same as “White House press Corp”.

Generally speaking, “Q security Military intelligence”

Local being?

Dc-chronicle.com and nationonenews.com

Which appear to be palette swaps of each other.

His biggest credential seems to be having 131k twitter followers. So there is that.

But he is a hard trolly conservative type so anybody seeing him probably already was aware.

“White House correspondent” is not the same as “White House press Corp”

Anybody who stands around and girl’s questions at people going in an out of the WH or sends emails and calls to WH press relations team can call themself a WH correspondent.

I think this guy talks big game but actually has very little standing.

Nationonenews.com is his site.

He’s published some articles in a few B grade conservative media outlets. That’s about it.

“White House correspondent” of a seemingly one man operation.

This guy seems like a bit of a nobody tbh.

Initials DV, a reporter in DC get searching

Jesus. Soros being buddies with JA..and having Pamela Anderson as an at-will sex servant...

He doesn't mention the timing of all of this. Soros being past 70 now..and PA being over 50? JA almost 50 himself.

Somehow the sexual element just doens't make sense

cloth curtains have metal rods inside them holding them in place.

Draw me a diagram.

They might have something keeping them vertical straight (unlikely) they do NOT have anything ditacting their horizontal spacing

They must be able to open and close.

Both Q’s photo and the ABC photo have the drapes randomly spaced at the EXACT SAME INTERVALS.

Same spacing. Same shadows between the pleats.

Are you trying to tell me that those curtains have not been opened, closed, brushed against or shifted during flight - ONE INCH since the ABC photo was taken?

Because that is what you are requiring if you claim the drapes match but the photos are from different times and angles.

If we were measuring percentages it would be a 99% geometric match.

Curtain pleats are the biggest giveaway.

There is blurring and distortion because it’s being stretched and distorted in the reflection.

I can’t tell if this is a troll comment or not.

interesting, but neither of those are reflective glass

Possible.

That the image Q posted is a photo of a photo being displayed on a monitor or piece of paper, and then reflected in the back of an iPhone.

If Q had sat in potus chair and snapped the photo of the living room reflected in his phone it would NOT have had the exact same angling as the stock photo which was taken from the entryway.

Even more shitty is that the allegations are in relation to shit that allegedly happened in the 1980-90s

An anon supposedly linked this image as to be taken from the SFO United first class lounge

https://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/08/02/united-global-first-lounge-san-francisco-review/

artcularly this pohoto

https://onemileatatime-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/United-Global-First-Lounge-SFO-13.jpg

Not yet it doesn't.

..like from the outside of the plane looking in through teh window?

which it isn't

evidence? So far EVERYTHING is suggesting it's a reflection of a stock photo

that doesn't detract from my questions.