Is this building near the white house? Found it on GAB link in comments
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
I see the similarities in the image, but look from this point view, taken in March with the same tree cover, from the PP house. Not possible to see it. Also the depth of field is wrong. The wide angle lenses need to be opened wider inside - low f stop. The lower the f stop, the shorter the depth of field.
View from PP house: tinyurl.com/ek43t73c
I haven't lost hope at all. I've been w/ Q since day 01 and Pizzagate before that.
Here's an earlier photo with Kayleigh McEnany with a similar angle of view to the buildings. Here you can again see the blue-green canopies but this time you see the upper storey of the cream-brick building that neighbours Peter Parker House. The cameraman is situated further back in this photo so the direction is closer to true NW, and is also taken from a lower angle.
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/kayleigh-mcenany-briefing-washington-district-of-columbia-usa-02-dec-2020-11091138i
This should prove that is is indeed possible to see the upper storey of Peter Parker House, which is the same height as the cream building.
It's good that you haven't lost hope at all. I'd rather that you do so armed with the right information though than with any information that our opponents would poke at and disprove.
You've made a good case. Something is still off. Out of the same window in the Kayleigh pic, you are looking at what appears to be the Eisenhower OEB. Granted, the sight line is more acute than the other photo. I'll remain open minded about it and am going to dig more. Of course, I could always hop in the car and go check it out since I'm 20 min from the WH. But, I'm not a fan of disarming to go into town. Thanks for the alt view.
No worries. That window annoys me because it's often blinds-down to control lighting so you can't triangulate what's in that general direction.
My feeling is that the WH-is-a-set theory is a misdirection that can have us easily ridiculed. I've seen enough to say that editing has definitely occurred (think Sunny Capitol on "inauguration day"), and that some of the photography may have been taken on a set (I recall an earlier photo of Biden in an "oval office" where the windows were the wrong way around), but I don't think all of it is fake. In this case, I argue that this photo is geuninely at the WH.
One theory I have is that some of the earliest footage and photos were staged elsewhere until they could get access to the WH and the Capitol, but now that they have access they don't need to fake it if if they could help it. They just don't have the resources available to a real sitting President, such as the missing button call box for the Secret Service.
In fact they might actually be missing more than that, like relics to display in the Oval Office. It looks a bit... empty.
That's the funny thing about 20 Jan - It started overcast, then the wind picked up, we had snow flurries for about 30-45 min, then the sun came out. So all types of light were present that day.
You are probably correct that we are seeing a mix of real and staged WH photo ops and video.
The background of Biden in the OO is very strange, the one with the dump truck, as it doesn't show the trees anywhere near what is actually there.
What I cannot explain is the video with the disappearing Biden family members as he was being sworn in. Even watching the video, I can't tell what is going on there.