Other news organizations generally don't claim credit for videos taken from other sources.
In the description for the inauguration video: "GEORGE News B-roll footage taken around D.C. from Jan 15 to 20, 2017. Never seen before"
From the blue angels video description: "How do you take photos of, The Blue Angels? We had the unique opportunity to photograph the first Blue Angels Super Hornet Delta over NAS Pensacola!"
I don't have the time and energy to look into this, other anons feel free to do so and reply for me.
You cant click on a few links to verify the information? I did it for you. u/anonymooser has valid links and valid information that doesn't line up with your preferred belief, and so you assume he's a shill without even looking at his evidence.
But you do have the time to look at his comment history?
I find their behaviour pathetic, and ineffective.
Yea, it's really pathetic to try to educate fellow Q researchers that they may be wasting their time by using verifiable links and information. Just so pathetic... /s
research independently (checking each other's work)
This is literally what I'm doing and you just disregard me as a shill immediately? I enjoy digging into things, sue me. GeorgeNews smelled fishy to me as soon as it popped up again so I started looking into it.
Other news organizations generally don't claim credit for videos taken from other sources.
In the description for the inauguration video: "GEORGE News B-roll footage taken around D.C. from Jan 15 to 20, 2017. Never seen before"
From the blue angels video description: "How do you take photos of, The Blue Angels? We had the unique opportunity to photograph the first Blue Angels Super Hornet Delta over NAS Pensacola!"
On this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKHuDMkABVU they even append "For: GeorgeNews" to the title card of the original video https://www.dvidshub.net/video/782791/iron-union-b-roll-part-1
It certainly seems like behavior consistent with someone who wants to pretend they're more connected than they are.
You cant click on a few links to verify the information? I did it for you. u/anonymooser has valid links and valid information that doesn't line up with your preferred belief, and so you assume he's a shill without even looking at his evidence.
But you do have the time to look at his comment history?
Yea, it's really pathetic to try to educate fellow Q researchers that they may be wasting their time by using verifiable links and information. Just so pathetic... /s
This is literally what I'm doing and you just disregard me as a shill immediately? I enjoy digging into things, sue me. GeorgeNews smelled fishy to me as soon as it popped up again so I started looking into it.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkhl547E/george-news-is-hereby-banned-on-/