Replies

I read an analysis of tonight's drops re the images of George Floyd and the request to "reconcile" them. The discussion is too technical for me, but I kind of get the idea behind the tweeters' assertions that Q just checkmated some 8K trolls:

The analysis is here and is written by Truth and Art TV @TruthandArtTV1.

https://threader.app/thread/1269461735037001728

At the end of this analysis, he discovered another technical intrigue. Having barely hung on to the chin up bar long enough to glimpse Q proving the Clowns at 8Kun wrong again, I let go. I leave it to the more technical to follow, although there are some nice summary tweets in the linked thread for people like me.

Despite Q coming through with proof, Jack Posobiec is once again crowing that Q has been debunked.

Remember how Jack's protege Microchip was debunked to a humiliating degree (i.e., chat log Waterloo) and Posobiec and other sell outs pretended debunking never happend? Yeah, they're planning on ignoring Q's evidence refuting the 8Kun Clowns.

Jack Posobiec claims Q is debunked and since Jack has no credibility left, there'll no doubt be troll parties down by the lakehouse for months on end, because they don't need proof, they need fake assertions to party down.

This tactic is similar to Pencil Neck reading a fake Ukraine transcript into the Congressional record as if it was the truth; all that is needed is a performance which will be stamped "authentic" by the MSM or controlled Social Media .

Brian Cates is taking this opportunity to gently remind people he never was a Q "believer" never joined the "Church of Q" and doesn't like to "read tea leaves" etc. This is one example of Cates' "softer side" compared with prior Q denunciations. I wonder why he's toned it down so much? Here's "Cates Lite".

Okay I am replying to my own post upthread wherein I gathered Tweet content with a theory about the “reconcile George Floyd” wherein the Tweeter asserts the image cannot be dynamically updated and therefore debunks Posobiec et. al. But at the end of that thread a new intrigue arose and the Tweeter was hot on the trail analyzing it again.

Now I’ve come across another theory explaining Q is trolling and the drop is not what we think it means.

I suppose that’s all well and good because I hadn’t really grasped it in the first place.

Here’s a “reconcile” Q drop trolling theory.

https://twitter.com/QNE_ANQN/status/1269461234400792578

It’s interesting that archive site cached the page on 5/17 but rendering it now does *not* show the image “card” under discussion:

web dot archive dot org/web/20200517162150/https:/twitter.com/ObamaFoundation/status/1262054709772324866

NOTE: My understanding is FR does not like links to archive ... so I’ve cribbed url above - but this is most curious:

NEITHER DOES GOOGLE RENDER SAME FROM THEIR CACHED RESULT!

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KmX9wCAg4GoJ:https://twitter.com/obamafoundation/status/1262054796137238529+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

THIS DEFIES EXPLANATION!

It implicates Google ... CLEANUP IN AISLE 5!

There is absolutely no rational explanation for why a copy of the page from the day it was published has apparently been altered to remove whatever image or card was present on the page the day it was posted, crawled by Google and stored in their cached data.

The technical thread linked above is good but only expands upon what was discussed last night being that there is a way to force the images to be refreshed and that Twitter’s own internal algorithms refresh the image once a week. But that doesn’t help us here because we want to know what that post looked like when it was posted ... and our ability to do that is now prevented because, it appears, however + whatever appeared on May 17 has been removed from the mechanisms (Archive, Google Cache) that would enable us to do so.

I went and the commencement speech - I considered there may have been something said that indicated foresight ... there’s nothing specific and their general race-speak is the same forever so anything even remotely tied is ambiguous in context then or now. So I think the point of this post by “Q” last night remains the image ... and the “cache flushing” (Ruby) code posted by “Q” afterwards further suggests that this is the point of focus here.

GOOGLE: WHERE IS THE PICTURE? WHY DOESN’T IT RENDER ANY LONGER?