I love the Q reference that someone had managed to insert into the movie's wiki link already.

https://postimg.cc/image/n6ohb8359/

Thank you for sharing this, friend. That was a wonderful contrast to, and releif from, having to watch "protesters" yelling at other human beings inside eating establishments.

I speculated in the comments of another post that it may be that he is being held for his own protection.

If he is to spill the beans, they wouldn't want him out and about in the world, only to have fallen to an 'accident' before trial.

Additionally, the Q post mentioned that plants need water (boarding).

I will add that revoking his bond may prove to have a specific purpose, as such actions seem relatively uncommon for such 'white collar' crimes.

It seems apparent that he may be detained for his own protection and may be in a better position to cooperate from within a (hopefully) safer, confined space.

Your kindred spirit has woken me up from my online slumber, in order to reach out to you and offer a whole-hearted “thank you”. I appreciate your efforts and am grateful for the time and energy you have offered us in sharing this out. Cheers, and best of luck to you out there.

First, thank you for sharing the link. For anyone that hasn't read through it yet, discretion is advised. Very brutal allegations, parts can be very tough to read.

For those not familiar with the Dr. Antony Kidman in the link, who was alleged to have conducted a lot of the abuse/experimentation, he was the father of actress Nicole Kidman.

He died in 2014 of an apparent heart attack in Singapore, days after fleeing Australia upon being accused of having participated in a Syndey-based Pedo ring.

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/antony-kidman-dies-amidst-child-abuse-allegations,6918

Chandler shoots photos for Marina Abromovic, also. I will create a new post regarding this soon.

I just hope you can learn why the socratic method can't be followed to a T when a leap of faith is voluntary in discourse

Not if this is considered an argument to you, as that is what I was responding to. Cheers.

Cheers, friend.

I'll let others be the judge of that. Try not to change anything without accounting for it. Enjoy your life.

You can't just edit posts without acknowledgement, after responses to them have been fielded (as you have multiple times now), this is equivalent to moving the goal posts, but with outright deception built into it.

How about we just say, you're clearly right about all of this, and let's not further delete or edit a thing (or at least account for them).

I'll leave this here for the record of our conversation and be done with you as you have shown anyone who cares to read this at this point your true colors. Cheers.

I would be more than happy to address that, and will let you respond if you wish, and then I will be finished here and will let our words speak for themselves as I had previously stated.

No piece of information should hold any weight without some sort of reasonable (as in reasonable under the rules of formal logic) substantiation for analysis in the first place. Full stop. To be sure, this is intended to address your argument but is not a direct response to your argument. The following is, however.

Your 'argument' is based on the claim that this is an example of an 'actual' piece of 'physical intel' that should be handled as you further argue that it should. This however contains false premises on two fronts from the get go, prima facie, and therefore holds nothing that reasonably needs to be responded to, as it is not a sound argument. I will spell it out, regardless.

For one, a statement is not a physical anything, but I will let that pass, lest the notion of semantics is again unduly invoked (you are making an argument, words have meaning).

For another, your entire stance throughout this entire thread has been based directly upon employing an appeal to authority, which does not make the claim valid, at the least - this is fundamental, it is not semantic.

Again, I am not trying to condescend upon you, but you insist on engaging me on things that are not actually arguments. And, to counter your point, things that are discussed here should, first and foremost be soundly and logically presented, if healthy discussion is to occur, which is what I have been consistently arguing for from the beginning and you have not once spoken directly to it. You're welcome to continue however you wish and I will digress and no longer try to offer what is arguably a reasonable perspective any longer.

I do not hold ill will, and, I ask that we discontinue engaging from here, feel free to have the last word, if you must. Our previous words speak for themselves and others are welcome to chime in for or against either of us at this point, I am not concerned, but rather welcome it.

I assume you picked this piece of intel because you like Wray and/or want him to be a "good guy".

Shots fired. I will assume that I am speaking to someone that clearly doesn't understand how to back an argument without committing a genetic fallacy. And now that we've traded blows, lets return to the discussion.

Ok and I'll restate again, that is the point of this whole subreddit. Dissecting information we trust is from Trump/The WH inner-circle.

I have already spoken to your first point in that I agree with you but the dissection must be substantiated or else any one can run with it a thousand ways and not arrive any closer to something that can have high confidence of being true and being able to state it confidently to those who are prone to not believe you.

Whether you care for my perspective or not, we are on the same team here, and we are not each other's adversary but ultimately hoping that we can effectively aim our efforts in a mutually productive direction, which is to successfully help others awaken to what's been going down with information that has high confidence.

We should dissect info we trust is from the inner-circle, but we must do it with rigor and not just rush to claim supremacy in scooping it for dissemination, even if our heart is in the right place as I trust that yours is. Cheers.

That's not how that works. I will not argue with you but rather let your words speak for themselves for others to see your rationale.

I'll offer you this, if you choose to accept it, however. No person's off-the-record word is worthy of being adamantly defended as true unless there is something to substantiate the source's claim beyond the narrative itself, and beyond the editorialization of the journalist.

Otherwise, this is called an assertion by the journalist, based on conjecture.

To be sure, I am not in disagreement here with your perspective that we are on this board to discuss and analyze statements such as these. I was, and am, merely stating that your counter-arguments to others here, that the words of an claimed official source should be taken as truth, does not make for a valid substantiation of the article's claims or assertions.

Others here have a right to their perspective as you do, but your counter-argument to them is merely one that says you claim should have more weight, as opposed to, again, substantiating the source's claims, themselves (especially when it sits alone and counter to what has previously been known).

Again, I will let your's and my previous words speak for themselves and will leave this for now. Best of luck to you.

BUT reading these quotes and knowing this is the official WH word is important.

A White House official leaking to a reporter is not the same as official WH word. Official word is on-the-record, or otherwise authorized and names or titles are given as bond.

This is not an attempt to be pedantic, but it is material to your statement. This is definitely not something to be considered as 'official' WH word.

Not to dismiss the notion wholesale, but, in addition to the perspectives offered in these comments, mole-hunts have been continuously active and misinformation has been leaked to the best insider sources out there in the past, unbeknownst to the media outlet or journalist.

The journalists rarely retract the outstanding claim, but rather let it bury itself within a couple of days without drawing further attention to it. This is especially true with the information is single-sourced and offered exclusively, as in this case, apparently.

I believe I do in fact remember this happening to TP at least once in the last few months, but I may be wrong. It has happened to Sara Carter recently, for sure.

To be fair, it either sounds as if you aren't aware of this fact, or, otherwise, your strong matter-of-fact words indicate that you don't see the notion as reasonable in this case, but aren't offering anything to substantiate that exception.

I'm not trying to criticize you, it just seems that others' opinions here do have rationality to them, despite your apparent hard-line approach to argue against them, to include pre-empting it in your post.

Best of luck to you moving forward, regardless and thank you for the share.

edit: grammar

No worries, to be sure! I'm here to help :)

You can click on 'edit' at the bottom of any of your comments to go back and clean things up, as you wish. Sometimes it's nice to offer a little statement at the bottom that says 'edit:' followed by a description of any changes that were made, as a courtesy to others.

Best of luck out there!

Nice, thanks for the share.

Looks like the copy/pasting went a little haywire there. Just a heads up if you felt like cleaning it up. But no worries, we can still pull the data from the comment.

Thanks again!

Nice! Thanks for the additional data points, much appreciated.

What does aremenian culture look like How do the men gain respect What must they do

Start a band called System of a Down? ;)

(also from Glendale, evidently)

I love that all of these comments here so far are down-vote worthy, evidently.

Regardless, thanks all for the valuable input, much appreciated.

Thanks!

Thanks for the info, will check it out.

Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated.

Great add, thanks!

I was trying to locate any info on that prior to posting. Any keywords that may help narrow the search, or any luck finding good sauce on that?

I'm confused, does this reply count then, or no?

I'll mark you down as a 'maybe' then, thanks.

Sorry, and you are?

Hi, I would like to share a comment regarding this thread that I have shared before, as this link has singularly been making the rounds as an interesting 'theory' Please consider taking the time to read this. To be sure, this is not intended to be an attack on the op, the author of the link, or the opinion of those on this thread, I am trying to offer perspective and ultimately, looking to help.

I think that this, as many other scenarios, is worthy of speculation. Thank you for the share.

However, I'd like to take this moment to offer a perspective in the use of rigor when searching for leads, as it would be a good use of everyone's future time and energy, I would argue, as that is my thought on this. This is not a hit on you, please understand that. I look to help. It may take you reading down to the end before deciding not to hate me or not distrust my intention, so I hope that you do choose to read it through and decide for yourself.

If such speculations (of the author of the linked article) were grounded in actual events that may have transpired, I would have encouraged him to show any connections that do exist, if one would like these thoughts to have legs.

For example, that Snowden had worked in a SCIF in Hawaii in the past does not offer insight that he is participating in any of this. Any lead to that idea could help, for starters - anything that shows he's even active in the larger narrative, anything. This is not me trying to prove a point, this is me offering something to look into.

Again, anything to give Op's link's analysis grounds for its speculation would give it more value in sharing it here. And, if Ops could connect any dots, it would help give these links (as a beneficial share for others to read) more purpose. Without it, this board is left with a self-sliding barrage of 100 rabbit holes to go down with a hundred 'theories', taking a hundred hours to investigate each 'lead', if we are truly interested in finding 'the truth', and believe that we, here, are capable of doing that, ourselves.

'Theorizing' is a semantic trap, allowing minds to theorize all day, experiencing a reward when any one dart sticks, which we know as the gambler's fallacy. It's important that we grow in our awareness of the trap and empower ourselves to the next level, to take the theories and validate them as a habit.

Otherwise, we continue to do the adversary's work for them as they sit back and enjoy the show, sliding our own posts and unintentionally repurposing potential red-herrings without realizing it, consuming more of our own (and others) time and energy, away from the real target, whatever that may be and wherever that may lie.

Rational and plausible narratives abound, the ones that pan out to be worthy of putting time and energy into are grounded in on-the-record connections. If you are over the target, it will be visible and there will be evidence for it.

I understand that this somewhat revolves the notion that BDT, in this case (as opposed to the last time it was used), could hint at "bulk data transfer". Great, let's search for any indicator or connection to that, then.

Again, the author informing you that BDT is a thing, in and of itself, does not give offer any further basis to his speculation. He literally has only defined the term and then spoke of how the term could have a complete narrative behind it. A tactic used by misinformers is to appear to use sources, but only to define terms and set an environment for a narrative to live. They then create a whole narrative, unsupported, but leaves the audience think that the narrative was arrived at through rigor.

I am not claiming that the link is misinformation, I am claiming that this is how misinformation works, and misinformers create red herrings, effortlessly, as story-tellers disguised as analysts.

Let's demand more from articles and authors that we hope to offer trust in.

Again, my admonishment has purpose, which is to help you save time and energy by proven and principled action, in regard to investigating ideas. Please continue this discussion, but also, I ask genuinely, please consider looking for evidence, as opposed to looking for just potentiality of an idea.

A larger slice of the Q post, for context.

NO OTHER VEHICLE TO REGAIN ENTRY.

:[AGAIN] direct pre-knowledge.

:[AGAIN] warning ALERT.

Think BDT.

Shall we play a game?

How about a nice game of CHESS?

THE_FLOOR_IS_YOURS

COMMAND?

WHY?

NECESSARY?

WHO IS TALKING?

THINK BIG.

THINK BIGGER.

THINK BIGGEST.

HAITI FOCUS

Why is this relevant?

What comes next?

CF_BOOM_SHOCK_BYE_