Seems like a warning, telling the cabal that the orphanages are not their farm anymore. The article doesn't mention the church or the purpose, or if anyone else was on the bus, only that "17 missionaries were arrested after visiting the orphanages." From the NYT and the Sun, seems like pure comms, especially with such sparse detail.
It's not easy to learn comms. The biggest difficulty for me is overcoming the natural bias of believing that the writers are sincere and reporting in good faith. But once you overcome that hurdle, you still have to learn the codes and symbols. I'm generally happy to have other people, who are better at it than I am, do the decodes, simply because I don't want to change my natural bias of trusting others. Unfortunately in current times, if you want to learn the truth you must learn the art of lies, if only to see through them.
I don't want to change my natural bias of trusting others.
Think about it this way. You will continue to naturally trust new people you meet as you have always been doing. But you will not do so with those who subsequently prove themselves untrustworthy. Its the same case. People reporting in main stream have proven themselves untrustworthy, so you can look at them with skepticism without losing your instincts to trust new people.
We will never learn all the full comms - its just too complex and even those initiated it seems take years to uncover all comms. But when it comes to news with "17" branding (and "33" branding for Cabal) its impossible to ignore. Chances are, more often than not its comms. Then we have to use all the information we have learnt from Q, and coincidences.
We have learnt that almost all humanitarian groups in Haiti are child traffickers. We have also heard Bill Clinton getting admitted to hospital. These are strong connections in my mind along with the "17" branding.
On top of that, a final thing to ask. "Does the main stream narrative make sense at all?". Well they cant even give any details, and it doesnt make sense for someone to kidnap missionaries (its not like good missionaries are loaded or have people who will pay ransom) and their families. So we can conclude reasonable that there is more to the story.
Then we ask whether the comms oriented analysis makes better sense - and it does. Seems like Clinton oepratives being rounded up after Bill got "admitted to hospital". There are whole bunch of comms right there that indicates he got arrested.
At least this how I have learnt to analyse potential comms, and when things check out in future we bolster these methods, and if we are proven wrong, we correct our assumptions
You are right. My post was venting: if the world were a nicer place we could all be honest and there would be no need for learning comms. But... that's not the world we live in. Yet.
I enjoy reading decodes because I love learning the truth. But I don't enjoy the need for decoding skill; it's like literary analysis of a genre I don't like.
Spitballing here, but something tells me if Bill Clinton dies in the next few days or by early next week, maybe the white hats intercepted the 3 kids whose blood was meant for his 'treatment'.
Seems like a warning, telling the cabal that the orphanages are not their farm anymore. The article doesn't mention the church or the purpose, or if anyone else was on the bus, only that "17 missionaries were arrested after visiting the orphanages." From the NYT and the Sun, seems like pure comms, especially with such sparse detail.
And this is couple days after Bill is in "hospital". I am glad Anons are sharp :)
It's not easy to learn comms. The biggest difficulty for me is overcoming the natural bias of believing that the writers are sincere and reporting in good faith. But once you overcome that hurdle, you still have to learn the codes and symbols. I'm generally happy to have other people, who are better at it than I am, do the decodes, simply because I don't want to change my natural bias of trusting others. Unfortunately in current times, if you want to learn the truth you must learn the art of lies, if only to see through them.
Think about it this way. You will continue to naturally trust new people you meet as you have always been doing. But you will not do so with those who subsequently prove themselves untrustworthy. Its the same case. People reporting in main stream have proven themselves untrustworthy, so you can look at them with skepticism without losing your instincts to trust new people.
We will never learn all the full comms - its just too complex and even those initiated it seems take years to uncover all comms. But when it comes to news with "17" branding (and "33" branding for Cabal) its impossible to ignore. Chances are, more often than not its comms. Then we have to use all the information we have learnt from Q, and coincidences.
We have learnt that almost all humanitarian groups in Haiti are child traffickers. We have also heard Bill Clinton getting admitted to hospital. These are strong connections in my mind along with the "17" branding.
On top of that, a final thing to ask. "Does the main stream narrative make sense at all?". Well they cant even give any details, and it doesnt make sense for someone to kidnap missionaries (its not like good missionaries are loaded or have people who will pay ransom) and their families. So we can conclude reasonable that there is more to the story.
Then we ask whether the comms oriented analysis makes better sense - and it does. Seems like Clinton oepratives being rounded up after Bill got "admitted to hospital". There are whole bunch of comms right there that indicates he got arrested.
At least this how I have learnt to analyse potential comms, and when things check out in future we bolster these methods, and if we are proven wrong, we correct our assumptions
You are right. My post was venting: if the world were a nicer place we could all be honest and there would be no need for learning comms. But... that's not the world we live in. Yet.
I enjoy reading decodes because I love learning the truth. But I don't enjoy the need for decoding skill; it's like literary analysis of a genre I don't like.
Kek
Spitballing here, but something tells me if Bill Clinton dies in the next few days or by early next week, maybe the white hats intercepted the 3 kids whose blood was meant for his 'treatment'.