Q Anon: 12/06/19 Trust Trump’s Plan ~ Vol.196, Q Day 770

qmap.pub ^ | 12/6/19 | FReepers, vanity

[fatima]

Looks like OB to me.

[bitt]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767471/Grizzly-shows-cub-rub-against-tree-trunk.html

cuter than kitties?

[fatima]

Here’s another
https://twitter.com/RealErinAtkins/status/1203806790258962432

[SteveH]

> Those are Q posts. In the context of those posts MOS can only be Mossad.

Thanks. I personally would probably agree with all but the last, which still seems ambiguous to me. I do think the context in which these acronyms are used are important.

Thanks again.

[little jeremiah]

It is a surety.

[bitt]

We have it all...

[blu]

Thanks, LJ!

[bagster]

Those are Q posts. In the context of those posts MOS can only be Mossad.

BLAM!

[fatima]

Mossad is last with Q.We don’t have the answers.

[little jeremiah]

So...are you saying that Trump should have gone after Hitlery a long time ago and everything would be better, or something else? What makes you think Hitlery et al have not been investigated? Or are off the hook somehow? Or am I misunderstanding you?

With a huge cast of criminals, including foreign agents, and US citizens working with foreign entities engaged in multitudes of serious felonies, over several years, take a long time to investigate and create an air tight case.

That is what has been happening, and now time the fun time is getting closer.

[bitt]

please give it a rest - we’re trying to READ here...

[little jeremiah]

My pleasure.

[SteveH]

By the way, by citations I was actually hoping someone would come up with something external to Q— a formal citation such as would be found in a published non fiction book or article.
(Still, something is better than nothing.)

[The Toddler]

Thanks. I personally would probably agree with all but the last, which still seems ambiguous to me. I do think the context in which these acronyms are used are important.

But for the last one not to be Mossad he would have to change the meaning of what he has previously posted. So MOS would mean Mossad in some instances while meaning something else in others. That is a bad interpretive scheme. Let Q interpret Q. This would mean that in light of other instances there is strong evidence that MOS means Mossad unless countervailing evidence exists.

[SteveH]

this is a discussion thread? i am just responding to comments (some containing personal attacks) by others.

[nanetteclaret]

No it’s all about you wasting everyone’s time.

[bitt]

++++!

[Bigg Red]

Mark

[generally]

Thanks for bringing this over to us. OUTSTANDING thread.

I completely agree with Cates. (Not hard to do; he is rarely wrong. His research is thorough.)

At this point, I just wonder how much of the report will be redacted. Are we gonna see it all? That would be great. If not, I’ve seen enough of the plan to appreciate that there’s a good reason.

Amazing.

[SteveH]

OK, but is Q’s lexicon an exclusively 1-1 correlation?

I am dimly recalling that we had no such guarantee, at least in the past.

There is a q lexicon online but I am a bit fearful to post it lest i trip over some fr rule. It does not appear to contain “MOS.” I recall a FR lexicon in the past but I can no longer find it in a quick search (i do believe i can recall who maintained it in the past but that may not help, at least on short notice).