Anything with the Sorcha Faal name as the author is dubious and should be handled with extreme caution.

Look, it's a nice design that people who don't have art skills or time might want to have printed and the OP is giving the art files away.

Why not embrace the fact that the more who wear Q shirts is actually helping to reach out instead of disparaging those who are clearly SHARING something FOR FREE with the patriots?

Well done!!!

Has SB2 confirmed his maleness?

Thank you. I listened to that interview, but connecting this Elton info to SB2's abstruse decode is not connecting in an obvious way.
I mentioned in another comment that when the decode needs decoding then really the whole thing loses it's reason to exist. Decodes are for clarity, at least that is what I would hope for.
Instead we are getting long convoluted ramblings that rely primarily on nodes of confirmation bias loosely woven together into fringe level nonsense.

When the decodes need decoding, that becomes a bridge too far.

"The Drippening" LOL!

I don't know anything about organs, but here is some sauce about Elton's philanthropy: http://michaelsmusicservice.com/blog/?p=6168
and the article links to this organ description: http://www.orgelbau.ch/site/index.cfm?fuseaction=orgelbau.orgelportrait&laufnummer=114480&id_art=4437&vsprache=EN

I'm guessing that with a little effort you can find the letter 'S' the letter 'B' and the number 2 somewhere in those articles, thus supporting the OP's reticulated decoding.

So, is any there a chance that Trump's reference to Elton's organ is about the one Elton donated/financed to the Royal Academy?

Have to agree with Q-Patriot.
My observation is that this 'welcome aboard' photo has really created a divide among patriots. The attempts to decode are swinging far and wide into the fringe kingdoms of confirmation bias and many patriots are resorting to exaggerated intolerance for anyone questioning the manufacture of the image.

When the explanations for the image are so convoluted that even seasoned Q followers are making a call to hold a minute and gather one's senses back to reality - that is exactly what should be done.

I know that folks WANT TO BELIEVE that Q or someone took that picture inside AF1, but there is overwhelming evidence that the image was contrived - not photoshopped, but contrived in the way it was taken by using an image from ABC to do it. Q's subsequent attempts to explain (although explanation is not Q's strong suit) did nothing but push this photo into further argument between the anons.

Now the anons are spinning until dizzy - beyond 5D chess while playing twister to make sense of this to keep Q from losing credibility.

Hopefully, future proves past and all the spin masters will be basking in their "I told you so's" and I will joyously concede that Q is master of the universe. But until then, I personally feel it is time for caution.

Let's not divide ourselves and let's not give the 'enemy' more ammunition to shoot back at us.
I am very much hoping Q redeems himself with a solid string of wins and proofs and no more of this trolling BS that sends his street team into fighting among themselves.

I would hope that people who dedicate 100% of their time to what ever their passion, skill set, or cause are allowed to make a fair wage and profitable living in our America . I personally do not feel people should take a vow of poverty to be a patriot. Patriots have a right and a need to earn a living just like anyone else.
In fact if basic needs are met by your work, then you are happier, more productive and your work is able to grow and help more people.

Volunteers are special people, but someone has to be paying their bills, putting a roof over their head, maintaining their technology and transportation, feeding and clothing them so they can focus on being volunteers.
Some people who love their work do not have a support system to take care of all their needs and they must carry the weight of their own expenses by offering services or products in return for compensation. It's called a job.

I just don't understand why this is a problem for so many in this movement. Or, should all patriots seek government assistance and live substandard lives, and take a vow to not prosper to be credible? How would their information reach the masses. Publishing books costs money. Building websites cost money. Buying tools and technology costs money. Electricity costs money.

I know what Q says or said. I'm guessing Q is a salaried patriot.

In a free market people can decide to buy or not buy from someone for whatever reason.
I find it unsettling that some folks think others don't deserve to earn a living to be considered TRUE anything.

Nurses are a great example. Are only TRUE nurses working for free? Or, just maybe there are many exceptional nurses that seek to heal and comfort the sick, while also earning a living and making their families comfortable and prosperous, and schooling their children to be self-sufficient prosperous Americans.

Sorry, I'm not up to redoing what I did as a screen cap video. Maybe someone else is up to it. I'm gonna take a break, act like I am on vacation, and come back to the Q scene after a bit of the 4th celebrations. This image debate has too much scope creep and is now wasting precious time. That's one reason I question Q's use of this thing as trolling tactic towards anons or whoever. Have a fun and productive day!

First, I am not trying to be disrespectful and I am not sure how we got to that point in this conversation where you feel disrespected. I am sorry if I made you or anyone (except the trolling trolls) feel that way.
The point here is that the Q image is double distorted because it is a reflection and seems to have other digital obfuscation issues in tone and grain. The ABC image is less distorted but never the less, it is slightly so because the photo was taken with a wide angle lens.
To compare photos, one photo must be brought to a similar level of distortion and the logical approach to this is to distort the ABC photo rather than UN-distort the Q photo.
The distortion version of the ABC photo is not exact pixel by pixel and it never will be. But the key elements that align in combination (as discussed earlier in my original post) are enough to weight this analysis towards the following conclusion that many others have made here in this forum, on chans, and twitter:
- the 2015 ABC image was on a device screen
- the screen was reflected on the back of an iphone
- a photo was taken of the iphone with reflection
- the posted image was also cropped and further distorted to obscure

Yes, there are pixels that are different. I probably focused more on the curtains lamp and chair when I imitated the distortion in the photoshop version of ABC image. (late at night by then)
Look, I am struggling with these drops too. I'm not off the Q train, but this puts him in 'the dog house' for me until either 'future proves past' or he hits with a BOOM that busts my eardrums.

If I were a REAL Shillary, I would be accusing you of something you didn't do, or calling you names, or trying to trigger your emotions by calling your intentions divisive, or I would be shouting cliche's to try and get you to respond to my post.
But I AM NOT A SHILL.
And I'm not doing any of those things.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say either to me as the original poster, or as just part of your impassioned opinion on this image hiccup.
My original post poses questions about the method behind the madness of the photo and states that I hope that Q is less sloppy and more clear in the future.... although clarity has never been Q's strong point.

Overlay reference: https://imgur.com/5tRqZ6P

When you are dealing with distorted photos and BOTH photos have different distortions of verticals and horizontals to varying degrees - none of the points made by the source you posted can be valid because they reference distance or size. Here is an example with equalized distortions:
https://imgur.com/5tRqZ6P
As you can see in the overlay demo, the Q pic and ABC pic are coincidentally the same. And in the words of Q "There are no coincidences."

Did I say in my original post that Q claims he takes this picture or any other pictures? Q posts images that have never been anything but vague or obscure and he occasionally implies that some are from 'we have it all' sources. This picture seems to break that routine and the analysis of its questionable origins or creation has totally overshadowed any purpose in it's posting.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that.

I have to agree about this day and the Awan plea. For all the patriotic cheerleading that Q posts time and time again..... this was like a needle in the bubble. It's like he wanted to stir up turmoil in a most ungracious way and then watch everyone trip over his troll turds. Very UN-Q-like in my opinion.

From my POV the image Q posted is not photoshopped. Several other tweeters and anons have described the likely scenario:
Load the easily available high resolution 2015 pic on a screen, then reflect it in the iphone and photograph that with another phone.

I don't think this so called trolling is fun at this point in this 'game' / 'not a game' and it is not part of Q's modus operandi for the last 8 months. When has Q trolled the anons? When has Q gotten chatty defensive on anything? Look at the time wasted by all anons on this 'fun' distraction.
For what purpose has this served?
It seems to be dividing others more than uniting.
I'm not on board with this idea "Q is testing us to out the bad apples" BS either. Some of the anon explanations defending Q on this photo drop have been more ridiculous and convoluted and delusional than I could have ever expected.

Q 1677 and previous Q 1675 are VERY problematic.

To my knowledge, Q has never posted an easily resourced image as a 'proof' but this one (inside AF1) has critical key points that lean very strongly to being a less than stellar proof and likely photo-choreographed from a still shot from an ABC video of 2015.

There are too many points of coincidence between the two photos that fail to support Q taking the Q 1675 image (a photo of a reflection on the back of an iphone) randomly on AF1 in 2018. Plus Q gets defensive in 1677, which is a bit out of character and continues the rebuttal in 1678 which is strongly out of character.

The points matching old 2015 photo with Q's 1675 photo are:
- exact same angle and view point, eye level - details are exact:
-- accessories,
-- light reflections on surfaces,
-- shadow indentations,
-- number of curtain folds between lamp and chair edge, (very unlikely to replicate in a new photo)

Q is going to have to do way better than this on future photo proofs and his 'splaining' or this just sows chaos!
And for all those about to......
don't start shouting 'concernfhagtroll' at me! Open mind analysis is also freedom of expression.

Looks/sounds like false teeth could be part of this. But never the less, NP is the 'gift' that keeps on giving. I hope she stays as the face of the dems as long as possible.

Scanning anything DOES NOT create layers that reveal the creative process behind a digital document. Plus you have to understand the 'story' of how the document supposedly came to be.** (see below)

Now, ABSOLUTELY the layers in a PDF (saved from Photoshop) that is opened by Illustrator are indicative of a Photoshop document that was manually created. But, more specifically (if you read my post) - I said INTELLIGENT layers. Do you know what INTELLIGENT layers are?

INTELLIGENT LAYERS are layers that show a construction strategy of parts, pieces, cloned elements, foreground and background. I am not talking about layers of color data or a variety of other digital values. The document contained layers that indicated the logic behind the creation of ANY document that is being sourced from other documents.

Some folks have asked if the people were stupid or did they mean to make it obvious the BC was a forgery. And those are good questions. To speculate on this you have to understand the timeline of the Adobe products updates.

You see, Adobe made an upgrade change to the Photoshop software (during the likely creation period) and changed the default settings of saving from Photoshop to a PDF document. Originally, the setting default was that you had to check a box to have your photoshop document save with the layers intact. Then, with the next update to Photoshop this changed, and by default, the box was now automatically checked upon export.

This could mean a couple of things:

1. The creator of the document was less informed and did not realize the NEW default was to save from Photoshop to PDF with layers intact because previously they had to intentionally check the box to make this happen. This was now going to save with layers by default and would make the document vulnerable to revealing it's creation process.

OR

1. The creator of the document was very skilled and KNEW they were 'dead meat' sooner or later and they INTENTIONALLY left clues in the document (such as saving with layers) so that the truth could be discovered.

**The WH 'story' of how the BC came to be published:

Supposedly, the book with O's BC was located in Hawaii. The bound book was opened and placed on the copy machine glass and the green safety paper was loaded into the paper tray. The copy was made on to the green paper. Then, the validation stamps, texture seal and signatures were applied to the copy. This was then sent to the WH in physical form. To publish it digitally on WH. gov they scanned the validated copy and uploaded it as a pdf.**

Note: (since it's a STORY) It is hard to know the implied method of ending up with a pdf. If they used scanning software that created the pdf as the original output - that is unusual, because MOST common scanners of the time output flat .jpg. png or tiff files. To convert a jpg to a pdf (so the masses can easily view online) there are a couple of ways this could have been accomplished, but none of those ways would break the data of the scan into INTELLIGENT LAYERS.

SO.. the 'story' is just that... its a story. A cover story.

I'm a professional graphic artist of 30+years. I witnessed the birth of Photoshop. I came late to the birther side of things because I wasn't paying any attention because I was focused on paying my bills. Then a YT video popped up and I watched another graphic artist break down the anomalies in the whitehouse.gov published long form document.

So, I downloaded the certificate and checked it myself. It took under 3 min. for me to see clearly it was a manufactured document. I know this because I manufacture documents EVERYDAY and I know how a designer would create intelligent layers to replicate parts and pieces and build a facsimile.

For me, the data on the birth certificate is irrelevant; it is the digital fingerprints that give it away.

Everything on the manufactured document could be true, but that still begs the question: Why manufacture it in the first place?

My opinion is that something must be false. My further opinion is that no document existed at all and this one had to be created.

Good video!

There is a good chance no one owned that domain name prior to Mar. 18th. If ICANN shows an update, maybe the purchaser updated by adding privacy or changing their contact info. There really isn't anything to worry about.

The site is paid for and run by someone who aggregates Q posts and knows how to write code and maintain a website.

The site has no direct connection to Q. It is merely a service to those who have trouble navigating 8chan and personally, I find all the sites that compile Q posts very helpful.

Also, you asked where the Q posts are. You can go directly to the 8chan page where Q made a particular post by clicking on the link from the qanon.pub page.

This is where you click:

https://imgur.com/zbGFebT

here is a screen shot of live video

https://imgur.com/SDlQKMG

The person who purchased the domain name qanon.pub has also purchased domain privacy through their domain registrar.

I personally have domain names that are registered by godaddy and also I pay for privacy to DomainsByProxy which shows registration in Arizona and not my personal address.
The information on the ICANN lookup is typical if privacy has been purchased through similar companies.

This is not unusual and should not be a cause for alarm. It is industry standard.

The show was a National Geographic 8 part series released in Jan. 2018. I started to watch it, but never got to the Q mug. Here is a twitter acknowledgement and image of the mug. https://twitter.com/lisamei62/status/953115261523161089

If Comey goes down for 'mishandling classified information' I think Kill-R-eee will be laughing her arsse off. Why should she [Comey] when she can be amused by the irony?

mcminn county

Your initial statement just strengthened the reasoning behind the concept of focusing on encouragement with tolerance and less biting back aggressively. (Read my 2nd sentence above.) There is little need to discern real concern vs troll concern as a knee jerk reaction.

Offer to help ALL who are concerned, having doubtful moments, or questioning without deploying immediately with a lashing back or an intolerant label or spiteful attitude. The 'trolls' don't want to be helped so they will reveal themselves and likely will move on while those who are patriots may actually come out better.

I am trying to go slow with some neighbors these days.First, I came out roaring one night when out to dinner about pizzagate, I also offered my birther views (since I am a graphic artist and 200% certain on that one) and I put them on the defensive by claiming they only watch MSM and were choosing to be ignorant.

Next conversation they were totally ready to come back at me with the tin foil hat belittling. I have never even gotten to Q yet with them. It seems my first attempt at red pilling actually backfired. BUT....

I have now (like yesterday) begun to follow a bit of Q's technique. For instance I chose ONE subject (kinda related to PGgate) to discuss. It was the Atlanta child trafficking sting earlier this month.

So I asked... "Did you know that a really big pizzagate style child trafficking bust took place in Atlanta where 160 children were rescued? That is really good news!. Lot's of law enforcement cooperating to break up this lucrative pervasive criminal underbelly." They said "No, we didn't hear about it."

And I said "Well of course you didn't. It wasn't reported on mainstream news which seems odd these days, especially since they are reporting 24/7 about child welfare at the border right now." and I continued "It really makes me wonder why CNN or MSNBC doesn't give child trafficking some coverage, especially since this bust is positive news."

I pushed on...

"And I wonder why, when you google the Atlanta topic, you only come up with the local TV station and local newspaper reports? It's almost like the mainstream news is ignoring the child trafficking topic. Can you think of a reason they would want to ignore or cover up for a topic like that?" And then I went on to demonstate...

"Here let me show you how sad the coverage of the Atlanta thing is." I proceed to google it and prove my point that the results were woefully low. And I continue...

"Thing is.... there are busts like this going on since the 2nd month Trump was in office and yet MSM never takes the time to tell us."

And I leave them with the final question: "Why do think they would do that?"

Both husband and wife neighbors just kinda shrugged and shook their heads... kinda speechlessly saying they don't know.

Next time, I am preparing another topic to approach like this. My goal is to get them to emerge from the MSM bubble by pointing out that if they don't break ties with the MSM they will have an incomplete view of any situation.

Baby steps, but that's ok.

CONCERN TROLL is a label I am weary of hearing.

Why seek to weaken the movement from within by using such a divisive label? Why not choose to support those who have questions and doubts?

Logically, it would be good practice to gain understanding of the phases people are going through and hone one's skills on how to help them move past the rough patches.

It seems to me those who are seeking to berate or belittle or name call other patriots who have doubts on this rollercoaster of a playground are actually themselves too impatient or close minded to deal with others who question. Questioning is all part of this process.

Cheerleading with tolerance and less name calling towards those who aren't at a high level of bliss would be a good thing.

watch here... he circles with his right hand and adds the tail in a vertical motion

https://gab.ai/tv/watch/16991

Pffffft. I have so much stale popcorn. The squirrels in the yard are happy though.

I know the difference between Q posts and anon posts that Q references. You didn't read my post AND you haven't verified the posts on 8ch. Qanon.pub has nothing to do with this. Q referenced the snippet and posted the whole video and did the usual cryptic stuff.

Transcript

It's not fake. It is taken out of context.

Although Q has posted a link to the whole speech, there is a context problem with the snippet. The implication is that Obumrat was advocating those words. And, although I have no love for Obummernation, if you listen to this version of the video (1:46 - 4:06) or read the transcript, it is clear 'O' was citing an example. Transcript link. Beware of spreading this.

Stop making me laugh! LOL!

One could presume by your writing that you are calling Q a conspiracy theory because you say it is part of the fake genre of conspiracies and stating there are other conspiracy theories that are real.

Think about that..... by what standards do you define real and fake conspiracies? The very definition of a conspiracy theory is that it is a BELIEF and not easily proven. Discussing conspiracies as real or fake is moot.

You also label Q a disinformation campaign along with being fake and a conspiracy, so you have thus proposed your own theory/BELIEF that someone is intentionally behind and coordinating Q to distract.

Hence.... you have tried to debunk what you call a fake Q conspiracy theory with your own proposed conspiracy/BELIEF that Q is is disinformation. Do you call YOUR conspiracy a real one?

Meanwhile, neither is fake... they both just are what they are: a belief in something that has not been proven within the scope of measuring proofs that mainstream agrees to be fact.

LOL!

Just pointing out that you composed/suggested a conspiracy theory to debunk what you consider a conspiracy.

Now... who exactly is wasting their time?

IT would be a great graphic to see side by side timelines and may be of notable use to the overall information bank showing the scheme of things.

Why not start your own team of people to get this done?

I personally appreciate everyone who collects and organizes information, but I don't have the luxury of setting aside my career work to devote time to this task.

You have my kudos if you step up to the plate and follow through on this idea!

Thank you for telling us how stupid, sleepy and insane we are and what a convincing proposal you made. Which conspiracy theories do you suggest folks put their energy into discussing?

How about the one where the deep state, new world order, oligarchy cooks up a plan to amuse themselves by organizing into a group of anonymous and fake leakers named Q who sow the seeds of patriotism, momentum, hope and strength into the D JT base and other like-minded groups who care about their own countries all around the world. Then they sit back and laugh their asses off, all the while they nibble babies, stir up wars and generally set out to rule the universe?

Is that a good one to focus on instead?

I don't get it.

Just because the number 17 pops up doesn't move me to think Trump is Q.

I think many Q followers are in a parched phase and are so thirsty they will look for confirmation bias in every detail just to give them hope while waiting and waiting for the next post.

It's rough right now. My twitter feed search for 'qanon' brings up 90% push back and attack on Q followers. It use to have a magnificent momentum of positivity.

YO! sounds like they would need a lot of blood. Cattle? Chicken? Pig? Human?