Posted on 03/16/2021 11:38:22 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Q: Into The Storm is airing on HBO Max on March 21
It names Ronald Watkins, the son of 8Chan owner Jim Watkins, as Q
The filmmakers say they spent three years studying the right-wing conspiracy theory
Ron is the administrator of 8Chan, now known as 8Kun, where QAnon erupted
The founder of 8Chan - Frederick Brennan - has previously named Ron or his father as Q
They are the only two who have verified Q's posts on 8Chan
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
We have you on record.
It is your contention that people who didn't succumb to the Derp State, anti-Q psyop and propaganda campaign that you and many other shleps pushed so hard (and still are), are 'deluded, or mentally not all there'. People like General Flynn.
Divisive, bro.
I recommend that you thank us and pick up a keyboard and stand a post.
#WWG1WGA
By the same token, just saying something is the 'truth' does not magically make it the truth.
#LogicWorksBothWays
You’re lying by asserting facts not demonstrated.
You have not proven that Q’s photograph was a photoshop of the other photo.
You keep assuming the thing you’re trying to prove.
And changing the subject to the emotional state of your disputants is not logically valid, nor compelling.
You must first show that someone is wrong, before it becomes meaningful to discuss why they are wrong.
For example, a photo of known provenance, proven to have been taken of that same spot on Air Force One, between 2015 and Q’s photo, which differs significantly from both the above photos, would establish more credibility to your claim; unless (as was discussed on the boards, long before this thread) those in a position, set the decor under President Trump to resemble earlier decor, to send a message to the Obama crowd, or yank their chain.
Or open up the Q photo in GIMP or somesuch and show the layers and artifacts from photo manipulation, as was done to the erstwhile O’Muslim birth certificate.
Thanks for proving my point!
If your point is that the photo you claim is an ABC press photo and the one Q used to illustrate the location of the Apple reflection, then there is no proof necessary. A side-by side analysis clearly shows that.
But you said that many of the things were the same and from a different admistration. Now you say they are not when shown a photo NOT from ABC of Trump sitting at the same desk. You seem to think that Trump wouldn't have made some changes to the decor, especially considering that Obama's people left 'bugs' all over the place (different lamp, for example. See "The Sopranos").
Also, you're stuck on the one photo example. There are many others that you can't chalk up to ABC press photos. 'Splain that.
Truth is, Boog. You have no idea what you're talking about cause you didn't spend three years analyzing all this stuff.
You're like a kid at the grown-up table.
No they weren't.
You've really got to stop the lying, Booger, if we are to have a productive conversation.
People reading your lies might start to believe them.
“You have not proven that Q’s photograph was a photoshop of the other photo.”
No, because anyone can look at the two photos, see all the details in the photos are exactly the same except for the photo being flipped and distorted, reflected off an iPhone, and come to the correct conclusion for themselves. It’s not something I feel like investing a lot of effort in “proving”, since it is obvious to any fair minded and rational person, and those to whom it’s not obvious aren’t going to change their mind no matter what I say.
“if we are to have a productive conversation”
It’s impossible for anyone to have a productive conversation with you, so that’s not something I feel like pursuing.
Like I care?
#YouFlatterYourself
p.s. Or maybe I should instruct you to 'never ping me again forever and ever amen' or I'll tell Big Papa on you, like some of these weakmeats around here do. But I'm a man, so nah.
“But you said that many of the things were the same and from a different admistration”
Nope, I didn’t say that. I said that it’s implausible that all the objects on the table, the desk, the chair, the jacket, all the individual blinds, and the lighting remained in exactly the same position between administrations. The photo you posted with Trump proves that they did not. So you just proved my point.
Thanks!
Blah, blah, blah, more blathering from a propagandist whose propaganda is blatantly obvious to everyone at this point. You’re a walking, talking joke Boogieman.
#ReflectionSpell
#JokesOnYou
You're right. We get some trolls (like you) who come there with their weak sauce. They like to end up conversing with each other like a pack of sycophantic lepers. It makes them look desperate for friends.
They are silly people.
*Snerk*
If you bother to read Q’s actual drops, the word “predict” isn’t used. Only the word “predictable” when discussing the Deep State’s counter-moves.
And quoting from (*guffaw*) REDDIT!
You loser.
ROFL!! All of a sudden, after Bagster shoves some facts up your ass, you add the ‘reflected off an i-phone’ as though you’d included it all along.
Turkey.
Are you telling me Ron (Codemonkey) had access to AF-1, the White House, North Korea, travelled to the streets of Hong Kong and China and all the other places that Q posted original photos of?
You're not being serious, are you? Best you analyze the body of Q posts before you spout off about a computer nerd being Q.
That would be great.
Because Ron as Q changes everything. IMO.
Carrot Top as Q also changes everything. And George Castanza, and the Professor and Maryanne.
Duh.
Before you guys make this stuff up, you got to think.
No, I didn’t mention it at first, but that’s a fact that was known years ago. It was literally talked about on the original reddit thread by the people who found the ABC news source photo.
So Bagster really should give credit to them, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
I have discovered the lie in this statement.
"...that was manipulated by Q...".
You just made that part up and threw it in there, thinking nobody would notice.
Lucky I'm here to bust you, Booger. Otherwise, people might think you know what you're talking about.
I do, I do!
I love your mama too.
“No they weren’t.”
Yes, they were, and the most beautiful part is that nobody even needs to worry about your silly “proofs” anymore, because all they have to do is look at the world around them, see that reality does not match ANY of the predictions of the fraudulent huckster Q, and everyone except for a few half-wits such as yourself knows that it was all a load of crap.
That whooshing sound you hear is your little fantasy world deflating all around you, Bagster.
“You just made that part up”
No, it’s called a conclusion, see if you have this fact:
“Q posted a photo from AF1”
and this fact:
“Q’s photo is a manipulated version of the ABC News photo”
then the obvious conclusion is:
“Q manipulated the ABC News photo”
I suppose someone else could have manipulated the photo for Q if he is too incompetent to use photoshop, but I thought I would give Q the benefit of the doubt on that one.
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.