Posted on 01/09/2018 2:55:02 PM PST by MNDude
Some of us have been following the postings of Q on 8chan. I started out skeptical about this an ominous figure who claimed to speak for the White House and its secret war against the swamp. This week he really dismissed many doubts I had about his legitimacy. If you did not see this, it will blow you away.
Q made this statement as proof: good[win] [win] when [15]
EXACTLY 15 minutes late Trump added the word "Goodwin" to one of his recent Tweets.
Next, president Trump misspelled the word consequential with the word consensual on his Twitter. (letter q missing)
Q points out the next marker with [1]
Exactly one minute later president Trump updates his tweet and puts the Q into the misspelled word.
Q immediately posts "marker [1] confirmed "
There have some other pretty big proof given in the past of the legitimacy of Q. For example, you stated we are crossing the Delaware, and the next day one of Trump's generals posted a picture on Twitter of Washington Crossing the Delaware.
If Q is legit, and it is hard to see otherwise considering the New Evidence, then it is really exciting based on everything that he has posted!
Can you provide us a link / some links of posts on 8chan by Q? That forum looks pretty confusing...
thanks for your response. Definately something I’ll keep watching with great interest.
Interesting. And kind of confusing... :-/
That said, I do keep in mind that we here at FR are supposed to be playing on the same side and we each have our strengths AND our weaknesses. We used to come here and and share without resembling the RINO party we so despise by eating our own first.
I personally choose to look at as many sources as I can before passing judgment about information.
Not one of us can claim to know who Q is and not one of us knows what Trump has been made situationally aware of as POTUS.
What I can wish for is a little less flaming and devouring of our colleagues, like MNdude, who are simply attempting to share and inform.
P.S. This is not a rant about you. So please don't take it personally FRiend.
8 Chan is horribly confusing!
this link has the questions and statements from q. The answers are from the community, not him.
I’m not sure how current this gets to. I know it gets more interesting as it gets more current.
https://app.smartsheet.com/b/mpublish?EQBCT=e3d1071b533c412f8bc08ebbb1b444f6#sheet
Thanks, I won’t take it personally... :^)
I try not to get involved in any of the FR flame wars that occasionally erupt. I try to look for the best info and discussion I can find here, but I don’t have time for or interest in hostilities, generally.
This particular item just jumped out at me because I *know* AF1 would not be flying over N. Korea, and the comment in #31 attributed that claim to Q and his photo. But now we see that Q may not have linked the photo with North Korea in any way. I still don’t know if it was *really* taken from AF1 over the South China Sea on Trump’s recent Asia trip, but at least we can put aside the incorrect item about North Korea and hope that doesn’t keep coming up in the future.
FReeregards,
umbob
Yes, this is all quite fascinating and important. I want to sit down and really read through all of the Q archives soon. I have not yet made any study of this Q, beyond seeing a few threads that have popped up here on FR. It does seem to have great potential.
You also talk about people behind their back in email.
Another FReeper on this thread provided one of the links below. I found the other. Are these links good?
https://8ch.net//qresearch/res/799.html#2012
When/if I can find time, I'll try to understand it all...
I can only say that I'm pretty sure our government may or may not have practiced flying over perceived enemy countries such Russia the USSR and NoKo during the 1980's. Our friend never uttered a word about his fly time while stationed in Alaska then but he did a really great imitation of the guard at the Queens palace in London when we razed him about his "site seeing" getaways.
Oh, I’m not saying we may not sometimes do classified fly-overs some places, although with the war potential we’d probably be pretty reluctant to approach N. Korea. BUT, we definitely would never use AF1 in that kind of role. Inviting the Norks to take a shot a POTUS? No way. Even if someone wanted a “Tonkin Gulf” scenario they’d never use the REAL AF1 and President.... except maybe in a movie.
You haven’t provided any clear reasoning for your conclusion.
This kind of error is probably the “autism spectrum” thing, which many of these guys claim to be part of. High focus and deep insight certain areas, but lack of knowledge or details in others.
"15" isn't a when. It could mean anything. 15 seconds. 15 minutes. From the beginning. Before then end. A different source entirely. You are the one filling in the details to make it mean something.
"fortunetellers don’t predict extremely specific words in the presidents tweets."
Neither did this guy.
I just recently heard about Q...
When I went searching, to try to figure it out for myself, this is what I found, billed as the proof of his authenticity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/wiki/proof
as they say “Knowledge of future events”
As compared to the conclusions you jumped to?
It is often amazing to us how so many pajama clad keyboard jocky's who quickly scan some headlines and maybe some paragraphs or a few pages are suddenly more brilliant, knowledgeable etc. than say Dr Jerome Corsi who was in intelligence for decades.
In terms of the thousands of sealed indictments--there's a site/page around somewhere listing the numbers of sealed indictments by district in each State, IIRC. Assuming the naysayers can still count to 1,000, they could check that out.
Of course, they might have to trot down to Sam's Club to buy several cases of humility, first.
It's a complex picture. We are convinced that the authentic Q-anon will prove out to have been overwhelmingly accurate--as he has so far. Further, that the public stuff disclosed and about to be disclosed will turn out to have been the tip of the iceberg.
Thanks for your post.
However, as Bandler & Grinder documented in their exhaustive research, there are times and contexts when coded, obscure communications are better and more powerful toward the goals involved than plain speaking.
We realize you are likely not geared up to appreciate those nuances and contingencies.
1. Maybe an imposter Q was the source of that.
2. Maybe it was a thoughtless, brain-fart error in speaking on the part of someone authentic and in the know but sloppy in language.
3. Maybe it was a bit of disinformation.
We saw no need to discredit the CREDIBLE and documented contributions of the authentic Q (not counting the hacked imposter versions).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.