We know that there are 10 individuals..... which of course could be misinformation but to theorise that a whole agency is part of the Q team is not logical mate.... no more than saying that the military is part of the Q team....
I would also recommend you consider your theory from the other side of the fence... ie, consider how and what the USSS has done for the other side in the last 12 or so years....
Now it may have been just one or two Secret Service agents that were dirty, but almost certainly at least one was in on the conspiracy to murder JFK.
Let's say you are a borderline retard, but not full, and you have received exactly zero training, but for some reason you have been given the job of driving the President of the United States in an open limousine. The other guy got sick or something.
You hear a gunshot.
WTF are you going to do with the gas pedal in this situation? No matter if a vehicle in front of you is going to get bumped.
You're going to nail it.
Not come to a virtual stop.
Are we seriously supposed to figure the actual driver was that stupid, below borderline retard, or that he wasn't extensively trained to respond decisively and properly? They don't get the job because of being the only guy willing to work for a buck-oh-five an hour.
Besides this, the Secret Service surely was involved in the route planning and had to approve it.
Now, does that mean they had to stay dirty? Absolutely not.
The one Secret Service agent I've known, from before he was an agent through his early years in it, was as clean a Patriot as anyone could possibly find.
I've been in the dark for a long time and dismissed the JFK thing. I've always been conservative but didn't start slowly waking up until they started ranting about global warming, then changed it climate change, etc. all while they got stupid rich off it. Election night was the final straw.
I do need to revisit a lot of former theories I had dismissed.
As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.
As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.
Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It."
Even to the point of trying to prove the gloves would fit. Absolutely no need.
And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert, instead of relying on clear facts everyone can understand.
No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.
This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.
It's really simple.
What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds from rifles of that power look that way, or entrance wounds?
Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?
So which direction was he shot from? You tell me!
Anyone who's ever shot a deer or anything else can solve that one with 100% confidence. No "Commission" report needed.
And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?
Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?
But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last.
If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal.
After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.
The USSS is a division of the US Treasury Dept., but they don't "control" the US currency. They were created originally to investigate fraud, counterfeits, and other crimes that would threaten the value of the currency. It's the Fed (our Central Bank, which is really not a part of the Federal government) that controls our currency and interest rates.
yes they definitely are.
hillary - evergreen = orion (think Bible, Babylon, Pyramids)
obama - renegade = traitor
trump - mogul = huge penis
their twitter backdrop is a picture of USSS guarding Trump but Trump and FLOTUS are hidden behind profile pic
cherry on top they were created to secure America's money (gtfo bankers)
Which of the Q team is from the USSS?
We know that there are 10 individuals..... which of course could be misinformation but to theorise that a whole agency is part of the Q team is not logical mate.... no more than saying that the military is part of the Q team....
I would also recommend you consider your theory from the other side of the fence... ie, consider how and what the USSS has done for the other side in the last 12 or so years....
WWG1WGA
They've been real pissed that they lost JFK and then almost Reagan too.
Now it may have been just one or two Secret Service agents that were dirty, but almost certainly at least one was in on the conspiracy to murder JFK.
Let's say you are a borderline retard, but not full, and you have received exactly zero training, but for some reason you have been given the job of driving the President of the United States in an open limousine. The other guy got sick or something.
You hear a gunshot.
WTF are you going to do with the gas pedal in this situation? No matter if a vehicle in front of you is going to get bumped.
You're going to nail it.
Not come to a virtual stop.
Are we seriously supposed to figure the actual driver was that stupid, below borderline retard, or that he wasn't extensively trained to respond decisively and properly? They don't get the job because of being the only guy willing to work for a buck-oh-five an hour.
Besides this, the Secret Service surely was involved in the route planning and had to approve it.
Now, does that mean they had to stay dirty? Absolutely not. The one Secret Service agent I've known, from before he was an agent through his early years in it, was as clean a Patriot as anyone could possibly find.
Wouldn't doubt that one or more were / are dirty.
I've been in the dark for a long time and dismissed the JFK thing. I've always been conservative but didn't start slowly waking up until they started ranting about global warming, then changed it climate change, etc. all while they got stupid rich off it. Election night was the final straw.
I do need to revisit a lot of former theories I had dismissed.
As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.
As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.
Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It." Even to the point of trying to prove the gloves would fit. Absolutely no need.
And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert, instead of relying on clear facts everyone can understand.
No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.
This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.
It's really simple.
What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds from rifles of that power look that way, or entrance wounds?
Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?
So which direction was he shot from? You tell me!
Anyone who's ever shot a deer or anything else can solve that one with 100% confidence. No "Commission" report needed.
And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?
Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?
But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last. If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal.
After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.
The USSS is a division of the US Treasury Dept., but they don't "control" the US currency. They were created originally to investigate fraud, counterfeits, and other crimes that would threaten the value of the currency. It's the Fed (our Central Bank, which is really not a part of the Federal government) that controls our currency and interest rates.