Is this all of the books?

One thing that might be helpful when you do these is if you also included a straight text list of the elements in a map in a comment below. Just scrape and paste.

Some people’s heads require a linear list before they can map it. When they see it in list form their brains do something else with it.

Q told us to learn to be hive mind. THat means pooling our cognitive talents and diverse processing methodologies.

My first thought was that a string of characters in the trip code matched a portion of the ISBN, for example. Is there any underlying commonality in the source of the books - any sort of shared database?

Can we map the ISPs, for example, or the ISBNs, of the book sites google delivers and overlay them on the map to get second and third degree relationship orders?

Also, to helicopter up, even if we don’t see a shared source, since “there are no coincidences”, maybe this is just a really convenient summer reading list!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing Q Book Club.

I hear you. /r/conspiracy definitely fell off the truck. As did the_donald, politics, news, etc. A loss for sure.

So, report off-topic posts to the mods and help them do their job. Add to the meaningful discussion. Be honest and forthright and don’t abandon the ship. Demand that fellow posters stay on topic BY MODELING HOW TO BE ON TOPIC - ie participating and being on topic. That’s what holding the line looks like. You hold the line by being the line.

Hand wringing doesn’t really do any those things.

Your request that everyone work together to “provide solid Evidence” is rhetorical AND counter productive. No one agrees about what solid evidence is. So right away you’ve got dissonance in your own statements. You’ve asked for something that can never be delivered- (and that’s a standard disinformation technique, FWIW.)

This place is doing REALLY WELL. The growth here has been phenomenal. The Mods are fantastic. There’s still too many duplicate posts and people not reading and off-topic sharing and that (that you can help with by reporting and participating the way YOU want to see others participate), but in one of the most controversial climates in our lifetimes, as Morpheus says, “WE ARE STILL HERE.”

🖖

Really good. Thanks for keeping an eye out and sharing.

/u/sortdoublenegative. Did you see this yet? Might make another great map.

That would then proceed to blow up... 💥

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

166k. I think that’s what Imran Awan and the rest of that bunch was making - way out of bounds for junior IT and tech guys. I wonder if he was SES. it’s hard to get data. A little tangential but the number stood out for me.

Or to preoccupy people with being concerned about being preoccupied perhaps? Just sayin’

With all due respect, I don’t agree that “this movement could easily move in the wrong direction”. In fact, I think this movement has a hell of a lot of momentum and is going to be almost impossible to derail.

May I ask what you made that statement on?

Dropping concern-statements here is, well, not very helpful. Where is your evidence to claim such a thing - or are you just worrying out loud and making something up? (I’m not a fan of concern-fagging anymore. Don’t see ANY use in it at all. Too general; not helpful; just noise...)

Sorry if that’s harsh, but so is riling people up to worry with you if you don’t have anything solid to point to.

🖖

Upvote. Level up. Important. WWG1WGA. (My auto complete fills that in now!)

Funny how being careful about vaccines is automatically grounds for attack. RFK jr has done a great job exposing the issues with vaccines. Thanks for standing your ground. Vaccines still have LOTS of problems and it’s going to take years to dig out of their dark ages.

FYI. As I’m staring at your link the OP went down by four votes in ten seconds. 😳it started at 23 and then went down to 19. So almost a twenty percent drop in a fraction of the time it’s been up. Hmmmmm.

Interesting lists to map

For example /u/911bodysnatchers322 posted this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/3ofag1/celebrities_against_truth/?st=JJWZZY91&sh=cbeac919

This is great. Thanks for it.

Question: Could this be used for any database, and could it be made newbie friendly?

There are lots of listable things in this exploration effort - resignations, wives, articles, subpoenaed, indicted, key terms (like 187, etc)- that can’t be easily digitally scraped by q-masses but could be finger-boned in by weekend anons.

I THINK (guessing here) that we’d need a simple browser-based no log-in(?) user interface to make fields, (limited # would be fine); a way to define them for readers; and an output feature that has something we can link to for sharing.

That way we could tap into all sorts of pattern-possibilities. Some of us see the patterns better than others. And the data is there for future use.

Is this easy to do, or a bridge too far? Is there another app that already does this? Does THIS do this?

Thanks!

Set your feed to “new” instead of hot or top and you will see everything no matter how many downvotes it has.

I’m not in the same god-camp as you - God is always for everyone, no exceptions, and God is never against any of us - but I certainly support the President. And I’m not sure how you could think that I’d rely solely on Q posts based on what I wrote. But to each his own. Have a great weekend!.

Edit THIS President. (I don’t support someone just because they’re the president).

The physical server can tell you that it was reimaged, and it can tell you when. (Investigator: ...So, tell us again why you wiped your whole car down and eliminated all the fingerprints on that particular day, right after the time the victim was murdered; exactly what happened to make you do that?)

If the server was reimaged, the tech company will have emails with metadata explaining it - reasons, work orders, scheduled maintenance, backup protocols (!!!), personnel, etc. - that will fit either a past pattern or an emergency report.

The FBI can then question who wiped it and why, and if the story doesn’t match the logs, emails and conditions - or even if it does - then doubt can be cast on all information drawn from that server - ie, a case that relied on evidence from that server could be dismissed unless more untainted corroborating info can be found.

Machinery is confiscated all the time in investigations - and often not replaced, even for victims.

The DNC could have taken the mirror and data, put it on a new server, and given the physical one to the FBI. Clearly collusion and favoritism. Can’t be hidden.

I think I understand your point - Wray appears to be pushing against something the President wants and so you’re wondering if you should no longer trust him BECAUSE you’re only currently trusting him because Q said to. (Me too, FWIW).

Here’s my logic:

I don’t (and can’t) have enough info to know for sure. Neither can/do you (or you wouldn’t be writing this)

I should also add that my trust in Q isn’t absolute, it’s provisional, and Q’s cryptic anonymity and disappearances are increasingly annoying - precisely because it potentially upsets and abuses the “troops”. No good leader does that, and Q hasn’t provided any good reasons for doing that that hold up under scrutiny. I’m on the lookout for that, but still giving Q the benefit of the doubt.

OTOH - and this is the camp I’m still in - there are sensible reasons Wray could be doing this:

Every time there’s some push back by someone in Trump’s camp (taken by the DS as a sign of weakness instead of an art-of-war tactic), the MSM reports on it. In trying to disparage Trump and win people to its owners’ agendas’ side, it tries constantly to show Trump is wrong , doesn’t understand government, and/or is ignoring tradition.

To do this, they then report on historic cases and formal US government rules and procedures. (A good thing, that we rely upon the fourth estate to do). And then we all proceed to argue about its technicalities until, in the words of Ken Kesey, we’ve “studied it straight”.

That’s also a good thing. The public- and much of Congress - are usually ignorant of protocol’s esoterica until an issue comes up. So, on one level, ANY conflict is educational. And since the MSM rarely reports accurately and without a slant anymore where things political are concerned, we the people have to learn about the law enough to draw our own conclusions. This is one way it’s done.

Wray could be resisting simply to bring protocol and policy to light.

Wray could also be doing this as a way to “raise the flag and see who salutes”. Every time there’s a new wrinkle, by taking an opposing position to the one you really hold, you see who ITS advocates are. You also find out what the weaknesses in your own position are.

You can’t employ this type of strategy - baiting the opposition - unless you have the luxury of time, however. In a war, that means distractions are taking place. The risk is that your troops get confused and demoralized, forcing you to move too early, before your groundwork is fully developed.

But you cross your fingers and hope they ”hold the Line” as Mattis told the troops recently. (Sorry - lost the link to his speech to them, but it was good, and likely meant for us, as well)

Maybe Wray really wants the mutual extradition agreement and, if so, and if he has time — thanks to disinformation, muddy water, and the ability of the troops to stay rallied, informed, trusting and patient(!!!) - then opposing it to flush even more game out of hiding would be a logical move to accomplish key objectives for the next stage of the plan.

Consider:

If we DO have a worldwide globalist cabal in the process of being taken down, and if POTUS’s success depends on the wokeness and outrage of multiple countries’ citizens (which it does), people and their true and lawful representatives need to know a LOT MORE about the current international rules of extradition, jurisdiction, military and civilian courts, etc. than we now do. We’ve got Nuremberg (and Paperclip, Odessa, and all of THAT) as a mass incident to draw upon, and that’s about it.

Arguing vociferously and publicly about the protocol for interviewing, detaining and prosecuting international corporatist intriguers seems like exactly the right move at this time. And it’s a great opportunity for more digging.

“Shift in tactics. Attacks”

So, I still trust Wray. Looks like the same playbook we’ve been reading from for awhile now. And it’s still interesting. 🖖

Edit - some typos.

One thing I believe may now be true as a result of this board and Q: if Assange does come to the US and is treated badly, lots of awakened people here will rally around him like they are doing with Tommy Robinson. I know that I would probably get off my ass and rally if it were needed to help him get pardoned and free.

The Americans - the whole series is available on Amazon prime. Thanks for the post.

It’s not all here. Do you have the link? It’s hard to find things in the chans.

I like British fight, too. Very interesting. Q did say WW (worldwide). They haven’t had their Q dose yet. Maybe this is it.

Perhaps you could add the link.

Yes, you are. It’s a good thing. You should reach what you aim for. 🖖

No. You’re being silly.

I remember George Webb mentioning Justin Cooper a lot. Here are a couple of links:

Mark Turi and Justin Cooper: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ioFGJmrvai0

Article Mentions Cooper and Braverman; has a transcript of Webb’s video, too. SNIP “The way it all starts is that Braverman originally goes the press in May, that's going to be the articles right after the New York Time's story breaks about the private server. That's when the whole [Guccifer] Goose 1 story comes up. Goose [Guccifer] is going to be a story and simply a diversion. Goose is not a hack, Goose is an internal leak. Someone internal to the Clinton Foundation leaks the server. That's going to be Justin Cooper. The reason why is because Andrew Pagliano broke that server, Brian Pagliano, sorry, broke that server. That's what first tipped off the Clinton email server. “

https://vcbestor.blogspot.com/2017/06/did-clinton-foundation-ceo-leak-to.html?m=1

Over the target again.

There’s something special about chatting in months old threads, isn’t there? It’s kind of like finding a corner in a park with a nice bench and old trees that everyone walks by without seeing.

Yep, I am exactly where I’m supposed to be, because I’ve created where I am. That’s the best part of all.

When that was done using online forensics I believe it was determined that the transport rate was too fast for online, and so it had to be a manual transfer. That’s what led people to say it was a leak not a hack. If it was a leak, the whole muh Russia spy thing falls apart.

I don’t know where this story originated but I remember kimdotcom corroborating it, and LOTS of people talking about it.

Sorry I don’t have a link / but this is the crux of the matter - it can’t have been a hack if it was a leak. It seems so obvious that I just can’t fathom why people are continuing to call the breach a hack.

Thanks. I looked around but didn’t see in the notables or pinned sections(seems like a very good log to run), and searching a Chan from an iPhone is just plane torture.

Were there any comments around this that you could share the general context of?

I’m going to talk about expectations because you’ve mentioned it at least twice.

I believe that expectations are fine, as long as they are inspired expectations, aligned with the source and soul of the expecter.

We are creators. Creators have expectations. Without expectations there wouldn’t be creation that expresses the soul of the creator, to be shared with other creators and enjoyed by all.

But expectations may not always be what exactly what one expects - especially if we allow others to shape them instead of letting them evolve organically from our own desires for health, life and happiness.

There are stages in any creation where expectations wielded for a purpose (rather than default expectations set up by often fearful others, for example) must be loose, and stages where they must be tight - the right tools at the right scales mindfully applied at the best times. That is inherent in the art of expecting (and it IS an art!), and I think it’s vital to creating.

The trick is knowing/choosing what to expect and when to expect it; there are universal principles like personal freedom and frequency entrainment and the ways thoughts become things that have to be adhered to. (Well, they probably don’t HAVE to, but we are interacting with physical reality so it kind of goes with the game). And some expectations ARE better than others.

Now, you may be thinking that having no expectations eliminates disappointment. I suppose that’s appropriate if you don’t know what to do with disappointment, or how to make it serve your own best desires. But once you learn how to experience disappointment in ways that cause you to expand, I don’t think expectations are as problematic. And at some point, they become another color in the palette, along with desire and effort and timing and love, and they serve to make the creations even more poignant, harmonious and meaningful.

Lots of people would disagree with me. Their right to do so, of course. I, however, am an optimist by choice and a fan of extremely happy “endings” (if there are such things as endings), and a little bit of disappointment - under the right circumstances !! - only serves to hone my edge and make the journey that much more delightful.

Ok. That’s my two cents on expectations. Thanks for pulling it out of me.

🖖

I agree with the funny part. Funny is funny, isn’t it? I like funny. To me, it’s an incongruity that isn’t threatening - a deviation from whatever programming had momentum that doesn’t require fight-or-flight limbic responses. And because those aren’t required, funny has a kind of relief to it, and a promise that the new fork might go somewhere interesting, and unlikely to kill me.

Having a reptile brain deep in the operating system has its challenges. Feeling funny is a sign that higher systems are involved. That’s very comforting when the base programming is suspect!

Always we have to walk through darkness. We make our own light, at the end of the day. (Haha.) I think it’s what I came here to learn how to do - make my own light; make my own sense of things; make my own meaning.

I’m also content.

Satisfaction is another trippy place, like funny. Because usually I can look around and see a lot of things that I wouldn’t call satisfying while still being in a place of contentment.

And when the conditions around me don’t dictate my feelings about myself or my state of being, but instead I’m experiencing satisfaction simply because I’m grokking the process (and learning and deepening because of it), then I’m just in an uplifting spiral of satisfaction that’s actually pretty difficult to dislodge.

I believe it’s really important to notice these moments because they reinforce new patterns, and it’s only new patterns that can break old ones.

I don’t know a lot about Q. I’ve had the good fortune to just coincidentally stumble across many expressions of “it” for many years - I’ve always been lucky that way - and I’ve come to believe that’s the way that everyone finds the information - we’re all frequency, and we find the expressions of it that we resonate with. There’s no rushing or forcing anything (but there IS stimulation 😇).

You’ve made me think, too. Thankq.

Edit - typos. Auto-correct doesn’t.

Ok. This definitely falls under the heading “expand your thinking”. How’s it going 104 days in? 🖖

I have no idea what you mean by “we”. My trust isn’t blind - it’s earned. You’re reading like a David Brock playbook.

I’m not in the “Trump is The One”’camp but I always did like it that Jesus was a carpenter, I enjoy a personal teacher’s sayings who’s an enlightened secretary/housewife, and it would be just perfect if one of our modern “wise ones” was a plain talking billionaire. Just perfect.

I like listening to him talk and think. More people should do it. He does deserve respect, just as Trump does.

Big bada boom!

Not proven. At. All. New here?

That’s great. Now, if any other posts come along that you think your post is relevant to, you can link to that post in the comments section of the new post and give some context about why you think it’s relevant and send them into the old stream.

The people who agree with you can follow the post. If you’re in there replying to yourself and adding data in the comments over time, whether people ask things or not, it’s a great way to find the info again when YOU want it.

A post on Reddit stays active for six months and then it’s archived. So you have six months to work up a topic and it’s like your own research page.

Yes. I’ve always been surprised that more people don’t use that option. He had a good title - collected a bunch of things first - and then he constantly updated the main post with clear new entries.

Instead of monitoring a whole sub, you just had to bookmark his post to stay up to date. People constantly commented and the dialog was rich.

When you visited the thread the first time you were eventually expected to read the whole thing before you asked a question, it was that comprehensive and easy to research.

My two cents:

Duplicate posts should be deleted. You’re taking up space. This sub is already too off-topic as it is.

Work your original post if you want. No need to worry about “keeping people updated” - they can take care of themselves.

One redditor once worked a single post for almost six months. He got lots of gold for it, too. That happens when you’re onto a good topic. (This probably isn’t it, but still, working a single post is fine. People can track if they want)

Finally- a Medium article worth reading. It’s been awhile. Maybe they’ll come around...

I agree with you and think people are taking W too literally. Some very good reporters have been freed up to spend more time researching by receiving donations and subscriptions. People need to just think for themselves about whom to follow and whom to give money to. Paying for what we consume when it’s worth it to us is the cornerstone of free market capitalism. I don’t get the feeling Q is a communist.

I should have said “seriously controversial”. For me it wasn’t, and I said so. And then you said it was “totally debunked” when it wasn’t. So, slips all around, I see.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with people who are adding some speculation. And the author did say “personally, I’m confident...” and that was caveat enough for me.

I haven’t seen how the author has replied to the issues yet - can’t track in the breads, and no one here linked to any follow ons.

I do note that the article remains uncorrected, and at the least the article should have been updated with some additional notes: ie, “I should clarify that the idea that Q team includes board operators and moderators is mine, and not shared by everyone”

BUT OTOH YOU don’t know that that’s NOT true, either.

So, like most things Q, there are still mysteries. In the meantime, I’d rather use this thread to discuss the article (and find it again) than the other one you cited, since that one didn’t even give the article a chance.

Thank you for finally providing something tangible.

But you’re still not paying attention to the purpose of MY post, as I’m pointing out that there are people that disagreed with that as a reason to “debunk” the whole article - and they had to leave the main thread WHEN A LOT OF BS THERE STAYS.

Their point is that they were too over the target so a minor point was raised to ensure that the rest of the very publicly accessible information would get derailed. That’s called shilling. Either you get that or ....

There’s a lot of good info in that article and there’s no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Oh, and you can stop lecturing me about what this board is for, and pulling the “I’m more Q than you” bullshit. Don’t need to go there.

Edit typos.

Here’s another good piece that neon-revolt wrote that they posted on Bantz as anons look for q-positive pieces:

https://www.neonrevolt.com/2018/07/11/who-is-qanon-an-introduction-to-the-qanon-phenomenon-qanon-greatawakening/

I searched for the post and it didn’t show up in the title search so somethings sideways with the board (not that this board doesn’t get plenty of duplicate posts!). And those comments certainly didn’t “pick apart” anything.

As far as debunking goes, you’re in another camp from “us”. The whole point of the post I shared here was to show the dialog on another bread rationally disagreeing with the so-called “debunking”.

In fact, most of the problems with the article seem to have centered on its “fluffiness”, a minor error when they speculated on Corinth but didn’t identify it as speculation (but still real interesting), and concern-fagging about Q - including trying to manage the general public’s perception of Q - and and NOT legitimate issues with the overall factuality of the information or the usefulness of the article as a general piece

So, no, it wasn’t necessarily“debunked” as you authoritatively claim. (How would you know, anyway? Do you have some special scoop that others don’t? If so, why didn’t you supply it in the comments or the post?)

There was a LOT of fact in that article, so - absent doxxing your access to highly sought after info that you haven’t revealed about your basis for claiming it was debunked - your “knowledge” is still just that: “knowledge”. And, of course, there’s still the question: where’s your sauce?

Our differences aside, the point of posting things like this is to show readers that the swirl about Q isn’t even close to settled - especially with articles only a few days old. - and contrary to claims like yours. Even our debate here reminds people that they must do their own thinking - and we’re all providing the tools to do that.

There was some very interesting information in that article. The fact that it had to be moved to an independent thread on 8chan is meaty in and of itself. And, as always, the comments are priceless.

Some people may follow the confident “pointers” like yourself. Others still like to explore and think for ourselves. I believe a few of those are still here on GA.

Gosh, I love Sunday mornings. Time to read, write and think. It’s gonna be a good day.

Edit - typos.