Posted on 02/20/2022 7:06:09 AM PST by DAVEY CROCKETT
Think “FAKE NEWS”.
It takes as many as 5 or 6 leftist to write a article.
So,not surprising.
“...was likely the result of a collaboration between Paul Furber and Ron Watkin...”
So...they’re still guessing.
The guy Watkins, who ran the 8kun board after Q got too hot for 4chan was an obvious suspect for a while.
The weird pseudo Perl syntax [[why square brackets] ‘looks cool’]], always made me wonder if there was a failed coder behind some of it. Oh, wait. Paul Furber fits that bill.
Anyway, the counter will be:
1/ New York Times
2/ This is part of the plan to put the deep state off of the scent
3/ Misinformation from the pedo ring under the pizza parlor
Making popcorn, thus should be fun!
>>> I’m curious as to the purpose of the whole thing
I have a theory on that... but it’s just a theory.
Remember when Trump said “This is the calm before the storm” during that military even in the oval office?
And the press went nuts asking him what the storm was?
And Trump dodged the questions and finally said “You’ll find out”?
My theory is that when Trump did that, he was actually divulging classified information...
SO.... the intelligence community had to come up with a diversionary response so that nobody would figure out what the storm really was. (Covid-19/lockdowns/vaccines/global power grab)
That’s really the question here... “What is the storm?”.
Big Clue: “What do Trump and Biden agree upon”?
Answer: Safety and efficacy of the so called “vaccines”.
Old news.
Everyone knows that except the Q Followers………
(Because Q didn’t tell them, I guess.)
and apparently a fan of Jeremiah...
“Watkins, 34, who is running for Congress in Arizona, defended the movement but denied that he was Q”
—
The purpose of this Daily Mail story is a hit piece on a Republican candidate.
Text analysis only works to a high degree of certainty if one uses a substantial documented reference from the author, such as published books, and the text in question is substantial enough to reference unique phrases particular to the author. A few paragraphs, especially if cryptically written, will provide nothing that would associate a phrase to a given author with any certainty.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ron_Watkins
Then again...
;>)
ransomnote and bagster are QAnon’s apostles on FR.
Ah, but have you heard of double-secret probation?
This is just four-dinensional chess, a psyop that digital soldiers will see right through.
I think it was something to make conservatives look crazy and to distract people with nonsense. I followed the Q thread here for a few days when it was new (I have never gone to 4chan or whatever). It was obvious that it was meant to get people excited about vague rumors and send them off on a rabbit trail to nowhere. If you can’t keep people complacent, then get them stirred up about weird things and say, “Oh look, there’s something over here! I have part of the secret, can you figure the rest out?” People will eat that up. They won’t be busy trying to get someone decent elected, they will be spending their time on useless stuff.
I agree. The Q thing did more to harm Trump than to help.
And all the Biden Ukraine war supporters suddenly crawl out from under their rocks… interesting…
Run that analyss on the Bible.
This article is political opposition research released targeting a possible pro-anti-DNC candidate and to fire up the press to attack the candidate. The Left hates the 4chan and 8chan. Pure “speculation”. This conflating of several issues that are unrelated is the cue that op research to stop a candidate who has done much to upset the press and Left already.
From the start I’ve thought the Qanon was a sort of trap for conservatives to fall into. The ridiculous notion that JFK jr was going to rise from the dead should have been the end of this crap but somehow it survives.
When your core beliefs are somewhere between Alex Jones and the flat-earthers you’re doing something wrong.
I don’t know anything about either but if I am supporting an group, I want to know as everything I can about it. That includes who the leaders are. If they’re not willing to disclose that, I certainly won’t get on board.
The problem with Qanon, which I noticed early on - was all post hoc analysis, and “curve fitting.”
Contrary to the claim they were “insiders” - they never ever predicted any events, they posited extreme notions they could never support, and they never created a useful inductive logic, ie) connecting the dots the dots in a coherent way.
Who was excellent at this - who people SHOULD HAVE been following? Was “Sundance” at Conservative Treehouse.
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.