TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -13-

a reply to: Outlier13

A LARP is someone pretending to be something they are not. I'm someone interested in conspiracies talking about conspiracies on ATS. There is no role playing happening here.

The indictments might not be as ungodly as one thinks if protocol changed after the report that cited 1077 per year came out. I've not seen a comparison to, say, 2015 or 2016.

Resignation: Israeli Defense Minister - link

a reply to: imthegoat

just because it's not being reported does not mean it didn't happen.

Is lack of evidence, evidence?

a reply to: daskakik

Like I said...everyone knows what a LARP is. Back to the point which is you cannot prove nor can I prove Q is who they say they are. You can argue it all you want but it won't change that fact.

Regarding the sealed indictments it is a high number and there is plenty of data available if you want to research since you are into discussing conspiracy theories. The problem with the sealed indictments debate is unless someone takes the time to go through 50 court district websites and add up what is currently still sealed versus having been unsealed and / or carried out then that number is not going to be accurate.

The increase can easily be attributed to Trump's domestic crime policies put into place. That's been proven.

BTW...Q never claimed to be anyone other than someone with a high security clearance. Who has Q claimed to be in a particular post other than someone with a high security clearance? The attribution to MI was bestowed upon Q by the general public. Not Q.

Whether or not Q is real - things get very much worse before they get better. Faith tells me this, so I have little expectation that Q will manage to usher in sunshine and rainbows. What it has done is bring to the fore the depths of the monster, but my take is the more esoteric one. We will lose before we win, but we will win.

And I am not so tethered to the world that I live or die by what happens here. I love my family with all my heart, but this world is just a temporary stop.

Tom Fitton Twit

Court ruled today. Yes, Mrs. Clinton will have more questions under oath about her email. Super work by our @JudicialWatch legal team!



That should be fun

originally posted by: crankyoldman

Tom Fitton Twit

Court ruled today. Yes, Mrs. Clinton will have more questions under oath about her email. Super work by our @JudicialWatch legal team!

That should be fun

In any photo of Hillary Clinton I have seen where she was captured in a moment not posing for the camera she ALWAYS looks bat shlt crazy.

The eyes say it all.

originally posted by: Outlier13
Like I said...everyone knows what a LARP is. Back to the point which is you cannot prove nor can I prove Q is who they say they are. You can argue it all you want but it won't change that fact.

You can't prove a negative so yeah, that was never the point.

What we can do is point out where things have not gone as predicted, putting in question Q's claim that they are an insider posting to inform the public about things going on behind the scenes.

Thinking about it, that is a pretty stupid premise but I guess people need to believe.

The problem with the sealed indictments debate is unless someone takes the time to go through 50 court district websites and add up what is currently still sealed versus having been unsealed and / or carried out then that number is not going to be accurate.

All I can think of is pacer and you have to have an account and pay, IIRC. The people providing the 2018 info seem to have avoided looking and providing any info a year or two ago and rely on a report from 2009.

The increase can easily be attributed to Trump's domestic crime policies put into place. That's been proven.

No, it isn't proven because we don't have numbers from 2010 to 2017.

BTW...Q never claimed to be anyone other than someone with a high security clearance. Who has Q claimed to be in a particular post other than someone with a high security clearance? The attribution to MI was bestowed upon Q by the general public. Not Q.

I doubt he is even that, but they did say Q is a team who is working with MI.

Hollyweird coming apart bit by bit.

Juliette Lewis losing it.

a reply to: tiredoflooking

Seems normal for her.

0:07 - "What is satan controlling the universe?", where have I heard something similar to that?

Quote

a reply to: daskakik

For someone who purports to discuss conspiracy theories you sure don't do your research. You clearly don't understand the sealed indictments based on your response so you lose credibility to foster an argument there. That also negates your second statement regarding the increase in the number of sealed indictments not being attributed to Trump's domestic crime policies.

No, no one from the Q side ever made the statement they are a team working with MI. Again, do your research if you want to make claims. It doesn't matter what you believe. It's what you can prove. Which is nothing.

originally posted by: Outlier13
For someone who purports to discuss conspiracy theories you sure don't do your research. You clearly don't understand the sealed indictments based on your response so you lose credibility to foster an argument there. That also negates your second statement regarding the increase in the number of sealed indictments not being attributed to Trump's domestic crime policies.

You do understand that lack of proof is not proof?

ETA: What part of nobody is providing info to 2015 or 2016 to compare with the 2018 sealed indictments, are you not getting? Do yo have that info?

No, no one from the Q side ever made the statement they are a team working with MI. Again, do your research if you want to make claims. It doesn't matter what you believe. It's what you can prove. Which is nothing.

Drop # 12

Military Intelligence ref above is the absolute biggest inside drop this board will ever receive.

So you think Q didn't need an OK from MI to make the "absolute biggest inside drop this board will ever receive" on MI?

How about the drops where they are pretending to be communicating with MI units?

Sure, no ties to MI at all, although they are mentioned 9 times by drop 14.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
If Iran is resolved. Apologies, I should have been more elaborate.

Your post starts out saying that it might be resolved and we just don't know.

I'm not sure we can say something is coincidental if we don't know if it really happened.

It would be like me telling you that I'm going to win the lottery next week and never telling you if I actually did and then you saying that you are open to the possibility that me saying that I was going to win and winning might be a coincidence when you have no idea if I even bought a lottery ticket.

I was actually agreeing with your assessment about the vagueness of Q drops. How the vagueness leaves open the possibility of coincidence. IF we find out that Iran has been dealt with/resolved/negotiated with etc. Q said 11-11 resolved. Obviously nothing was reported that day about a resolution reached with Iran. IF in the future we find out that Iran has been dealt with, Q could very well point back to the 11-11 posts as "future proves past," or something of the sort, when it could simply be coincidental.

Can someone not agree with you? Are you that emotional over Q that you're consistently defensive towards everyone who engages with you? I dont understand. Lighten up, dashakik, we're all in this together whether we believe in it or not. As I've said before -- I appreciate your input.

a reply to: daskakik

I already gave you the equation but you're too lazy to do the actual work to solve it.

Re-read drops. Still no claim to be MI. You are simply attempting to validate your misstated comments from earlier saying Q claims to be MI when Q never makes that claim. For someone who pretends to speak in absolutes I find it ironic you twist the vagueness of Q drops to fit your weak argument.

You are OBSESSED with Q. OBSESSED. I don't believe you don't believe in Q. You need to look into the mirror and deny your own ignorance.

originally posted by: imthegoat
IF in the future we find out that Iran has been dealt with, Q could very well point back to the 11-11 posts as "future proves past," or something of the sort, when it could simply be coincidental.

That is the thing, if Iran was dealt with by 11-11 and we just didn't hear about it and later it turns out to be true then they got that one right.

Seems like you are saying that it could have still been a guess but if it actually happened then it works in their favor because they guessed right and that lends credibility to their claim.

NK is a good example of this. If people don't actually dig , it seems like Q had some inside info but when you realize that Henry Kissinger had been advising Trump and he was pushing to resolve NK, he met with the president of China and a few of days before the drop it was announced that a delegation from SK would meet Kim Jong Un in NK then that is an informed guess but the info was public.

Can someone not agree with you? Are you that emotional over Q that you're consistently defensive towards everyone who engages with you? I dont understand. Lighten up, dashakik, we're all in this together whether we believe in it or not. As I've said before -- I appreciate your input.

I think people have the wrong concept of me. Someone could drop the HRC gore vid, have it check out and my reaction would be, "well, guess I was wrong. What's next flat earth?".

a reply to: crankyoldman

If you notice, Hillary's IRIS in her eyes look like that of a cat. Narrow and vertical. Damn creepy and not human. I honestly think she's been taken over by an alien life form, that only tries to "look human" when required. That would explain why she doesn't know basic stuff....like classifications of documents, and why she drove her van into a concrete support last month.

a reply to: Outlier13

I already gave you the equation but you're too lazy to do the actual work to solve it.

I actually read the report. In the method it says:

The subcommittee decided that we should study completely sealed cases, not partially sealed case files.

and

The more recent the cases we look at, the more likely information about them will be available electronically; because we began the study early in 2008, selecting cases filed in 2006 avoided cases sealed only for very
short periods of time soon after their filing.

So right off the bat they are telling you that they are excluding cases but that inaccurate number is the only thing that people are comparing to the number in 2018.

Still no claim to be MI.

That is where that came from. Thinking back I thought I explained that I was stating what other people believed about Q.

I don't think he is MI, or even close to Trump.

You are OBSESSED with Q. OBSESSED. I don't believe you don't believe in Q. You need to look into the mirror and deny your own ignorance.

Who cares what you believe. I'm not consulting your beliefs to form my own.

Whatcha waiting for Q?
Tick Tock

And then the Jokes started writing themselves.





I love this timeline.