-@TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART -8-

a reply to: XAnarchistX

if they have everything, prove it...

Has science come up with a theory of everything yet ? I wonder what the prof would look like ...just a guess but a lot of 1's and 0's ...Having the data for everything would take up space everywhere . **SNIP**

 

Mod Note Please Read -
From the Terms and Conditions of Use-
ii) You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to collect or ask for the personal information (data mining) about forum members, including email addresses and "real life" names, in any manner whatsoever, or for any reason whatsoever.

edit on 6/29/2018 by Blaine91555 because: Removed request for private email against T&C

a reply to: the2ofusr1

who worships science for one. and for two, why believe scientists just because they say they "know everything" but fail to prove anything...

this collectivists herd mentality is lunacy

and the same for this "Q"

if they "have everything" how easy would it be to prove it than, predict something before it happens not vague cold-reading statements and then attempting to claim it after, and getting it wrong many times

a reply to: XAnarchistX

who worships science for one. and for two, why believe scientists just because they say they "know everything" but fail to prove anything... this collectivists herd mentality is lunacy

Lets be fair for a second . You said "prov everything" ...what does that even mean . Maybe its not about proving anything but is about being convinced of things . At least that would be fair for those who would choose not to be convinced one way or another .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

No, if you claim to "have everything" if you claim all these things, this knowledge, this "plan" and this inside information, and this inside team with power etc... and you can't prove anything... anything let's be fair, your authenticity is Zero

especially when you have gotten multiple things wrong, and continue to move the goalpost time after time

a reply to: crankyoldman

I don't see how you guys are different from the press in this scenario you paint. You also see two sides. G v E, R v W is a huge theme in Q's posts. So do you also follow the same principles?

And to answer your question, they'll do what they've been doing so far. They'll say Q is a conspiracy theory. Why would they start talking about pedovores if Trump doesn't, or if someone else doesn't show proof of it?

You seem so invested in Q that you see the whole world in terms of these two sides; liberation and the traffickers. You can't even imagine that someone else might be able to think differently from you. And you say they are brainwashed into dialectics or whatever it's supposed to be.

But this is why Trump hasn't associated with Q openly. Q is a conduit for campaign tactics that are too risky or controversial for him or his advisers to say in public.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
Hmmm...well Assange was adopted by Richard Assange, can't find any info on his biological father ?

www.imdb.com...

They're both wearing the same tie too ?

John Shipton is Assange's biological father ..

www.rt.com...

Jarrod Ramos' therapist: Sandra O'Neil?
twitter.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Good catch! Interesting that Ramos made a complaint about her!

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

PM'd U

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Jarrod Ramos' therapist: Sandra O'Neil?
twitter.com...

Did anyone else hear (during the conference) that the destroying his fingertips was fake news? I cant find a transcript from the conference, but I admit I haven't looked very hard. Cant see why they'd need to use facial recognition if his fingerprints were intact.

originally posted by: iamthegoat

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Jarrod Ramos' therapist: Sandra O'Neil?
twitter.com...

Did anyone else hear (during the conference) that the destroying his fingertips was fake news? I cant find a transcript from the conference, but I admit I haven't looked very hard. Cant see why they'd need to use facial recognition if his fingerprints were intact.

Finger tip story is now being debunked.
CNN attributed the original story to it's "sources".

a reply to: iamthegoat

This whole topic is interesting.

Like the news narrative was to tell us how they can easily use and are using facial recognition.

Fingerprints must be pretty obsolete.

I find it odd they were widely announcing the guy had been identified by facial recognition across media platforms...so quickly.

The fingerprint damage thing seems to have driven that.

Not sure the purpose of it all, but it's something.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

No, if you claim to "have everything" if you claim all these things, this knowledge, this "plan" and this inside information, and this inside team with power etc... and you can't prove anything... anything let's be fair, your authenticity is Zero especially when you have gotten multiple things wrong, and continue to move the goalpost time after time

Moving goal posts (barriers) may be a element of the plan . Maybe the plan (game) is not to destroy them but to neuter and isolate them stuck way out in left field or sitting on the bench which is also part of the game .

I watch carpenters go about doing things and sometimes am at a loss as to just what they are creating especially because I would not go about it that way . But when its all said and done I surely won't argue with the finished product . Q is a process that means different things to different people . Like it or not there are few people it doesn't touch one way or another . I would imagine back in the day when ATS was being set up they could only have dreamed what it could turn into . But it gave a home for the yay Sayers as well as the nay Sayers . Q is not much different in that respect . You can agree ,disagree or agree to disagree . Q is what it is ...believe it or not .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

"Q is a process that means different things to different people"

Fine, if that is what it was being advertised as, but "Q" is claiming things, specific things, "Revolutionary" things, things that will allegedly "change the world"

those are specific claims, those are not "open to interpretation claims"

so you can see why people would question the authenticity especially with the vagueness, the goalpost moving, and the things that have been wrong

originally posted by: tiredoflooking
a reply to: iamthegoat

This whole topic is interesting.

Like the news narrative was to tell us how they can easily use and are using facial recognition.

Fingerprints must be pretty obsolete.

I find it odd they were widely announcing the guy had been identified by facial recognition across media platforms...so quickly.

The fingerprint damage thing seems to have driven that.

Not sure the purpose of it all, but it's something.

Yeah, I thought it was odd too. I noticed the LEO that gave a press conference made a point to say something about the "controversial" face recognition technology they used. He seemed to be saying how great this technology is and how it helped in this case. My 1st thought was WHERE did they get the pics of faces to begin with ? !

originally posted by: LurkNoMore
You FEW will always be known as the doubters in future history classes WW. For the rest of mankinds time here and in other solar systems. Eternal Doubters has a nice ring to it

Good, I would proudly wear that badge.

I doubted 2YK, 2012 and the economic apocalypse that always seems to be around the corner (fear is a hell of a drug).

Q? I guess time will tell. Everyone seems to keep saying that but are so impatient that they can't help but call "we win" at the least significant thing.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel

originally posted by: tiredoflooking
a reply to: iamthegoat

This whole topic is interesting.

Like the news narrative was to tell us how they can easily use and are using facial recognition.

Fingerprints must be pretty obsolete.

I find it odd they were widely announcing the guy had been identified by facial recognition across media platforms...so quickly.

The fingerprint damage thing seems to have driven that.

Not sure the purpose of it all, but it's something.

Yeah, I thought it was odd too. I noticed the LEO that gave a press conference made a point to say something about the "controversial" face recognition technology they used. He seemed to be saying how great this technology is and how it helped in this case. My 1st thought was WHERE did they get the pics of faces to begin with ? !

Possible they were using facial recognition software to locate his social media postings.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: iamthegoat

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Jarrod Ramos' therapist: Sandra O'Neil?
twitter.com...

Did anyone else hear (during the conference) that the destroying his fingertips was fake news? I cant find a transcript from the conference, but I admit I haven't looked very hard. Cant see why they'd need to use facial recognition if his fingerprints were intact.

Finger tip story is now being debunked.
CNN attributed the original story to it's "sources".

Something seems more fishy than normal about this. Why wait 6-7 years for a revenge killing over a civil lawsuit? Why the fingertip narrative and simultaneous debunking and addition of facial recognition? My instincts are telling me the story we're hearing about this is utter horsepoo. I dont want to dive too far into conspiracy with this; but could the fingerprint damaging be the real story, and this suspect is a professional? I can't fathom someone going that far because they're mad. It would also give a good excuse as to why facial recognition was used to identify.