-@TH3WH17ERABB17-Q- Questions. White House Insider's posting twitter account- PART 2

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Vasa Croe


And we don't have access to the four cameras or what they recorded, so back to... he's talking to the black hats to let them know that they can see from those four cameras what they were texting and receiving, upon one of which is the incriminating statement.

Not that we're supposed to try to find it as a roll of film or a video clip from one of the newsies..

Just making sure.

We need more Anon's on the research board where Q is posting these days to relay questions, just to make damn sure that we don't drop the ball and misunderstand and misinterpret if there's to be any action taken or if he's got it and all we need do is wait with popcorn at the ready.

Tired of those boards...so over filled with stupid posts it gets annoying...and mob mentality takes over for leads...while there has been a lot of good there, i dont think thats where ive gleaned most of my info and certainly not where I've drawn my theories on Q from.

4500...

For our technical geeks:

The original file from the camera was not in .RAW format.

twitter.com...

a reply to: Trillium


If so, some autist on the chans will turn it up I'm sure.

As a ruse, it's quite ingenious - to make everyone who was texting and tweeting under those four cameras wonder who among them is the traitor who would send or receive such a message during the SOTU.

A way to internally divide the sheep from the goats so to speak.

Even if it's disinfo - could still have a purpose.

So all we can do is wait with popcorn for the fireworks. With Trump there's always fireworks at some point. Fireworks by the river.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Popcorn or Ice cream.

Bake cookies.

a reply to: IAMTAT

You have a choice on many cameras. RAW would be high-quality and a larger file.

If the image is, say, now in jpg, it could mean that the photog had his pic quality set that way or it could mean that after the shot was captured and/or edited it was saved to jpg rather than the original (and much bigger HQ) RAW format.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
For our technical geeks:

The original file from the camera was not in .RAW format.

twitter.com...

From timestamp, the original was edited 1 hour 50 min later...there is an obvious edit in original pic from one of the phones...

originally posted by: Greenanon
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Popcorn or Ice cream.

Bake cookies.

And music of some kind..

I like this rather strange song which I think has some relevant prophetic and poetic allegory to it, maybe it's just me I don't know.

For Q
The cats are everywhere, looking on. Obama thought he was one.

But in their midst doesn't God prepare for us a table of fellowship and good will to all people?

Question: How can one herd cats? It's impossible. They'll scatter though and find obscure places to hide away.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That one section looked blurred out. If so there's at least one edit.

Is there any chance the photographer used actual film? And he had four rolls from that night? Or is everything digital nowadays?

a reply to: The GUT

If this was done intentionally then someone watched the unedited version and felt the need to censor it post haste. That would indictate that all pictures that are available online are now censored the same way. Watching the videos won't help because there is no way we can zoom in close enough to read the message. I guess Getty Images is the only source of the exact same pic, correct?

a reply to: Perfectenemy

I'd say that the photog, or whomever he shot if for, or whomever posted it didn't want that one section to be seen.

There might be an original untouched online but I haven't looked into where it came from, but it is curious about that blur for sure. 👍

a reply to: The GUT

Could there have been indentifying information in between two messages (names, numbers, email addresses)? Plenty of reasons to not want to print that as a news service.

originally posted by: Kindling
Is there any chance the photographer used actual film? And he had four rolls from that night? Or is everything digital nowadays?

Here he says he uses a Canon 5d Mark III, and a Canon 1dx, im not familiar with cameras but there are descriptions of each.

Whether he still uses those, I'm not sure, and I couldn't find a date on the article.

a reply to: The GUT

Find the 4th. What if we have to find a fourth person with the exact same text message that the people who censored it somehow overlooked? Anons discovered a lot of people who looked at their phones during the SOTU. Find the film. Could this be a hint to the person who read the message and got filmed a well? I don't know but the roll and film thing bugs me.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: The GUT

Could there have been indentifying information in between two messages (names, numbers, email addresses)? Plenty of reasons to not want to print that as a news service.

It appears to start with a quote "I _________".

So she was quoting someone, or herself I guess...giving whomever a statement to publish....

a reply to: Perfectenemy

BINGO perfect enemy... and HELP please!

I recorded BBC SOTU live onto a hard drive and I have the exact frame that shows a fourth phone screen at exctly the same moment.

It is on a 2.5MB JPEG which I have tried to upload 3 times and its not registering in my upload library... HELP!!!

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: Perfectenemy

BINGO perfect enemy... and HELP please!

I recorded BBC SOTU live onto a hard drive and I have the exact frame that shows a fourth phone screen at exctly the same moment.

It is on a 2.5MB JPEG which I have tried to upload 3 times and its not registering in my upload library... HELP!!!

Has to be jpg...won't upload jpeg.

any you guys have a image editor with a de-blur tool?
know what im sayin?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

thanks I'll try again!

a reply to: C84K2

He most likely, being a professional, shot it in RAW. Especially with those cameras.

In reply to RR; Yeah it could be as simple as that or maybe some idiot did say Trump should be shot and the publisher would certainly edit that out.