A little Gem that was on Truth Social. Nothing we really didn't already know I suppose.
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧠 Memory Hole 🕳️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (248)
sorted by:
I have tried and failed to find the original source of this screenshot. I have even used the subscription-based databases to search for archived news stories from foreign countries. I cannot find this story or wording anywhere in existence.
However, I do find ALMOST the exact copy of this wording in multiple copy-cat articles from that time, which isn’t uncommon with the AP. Here is one that is almost exactly the same, except for the every word but the “Kenyan-born” phrase.”
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jun-27-adna-ryan27-story.html
So without the original source to evaluate, and with the other evidence that exists, I have TWO possible conclusions.
In 2004 (the time that the alleged source cited was published as well as the MSM stories copying it), Barack Obama, an unknown, was already having his international birth status covered up by the MSM. Please note that in 2004, Obama was an Illinois State Senator, so the entire MSM would have to be covering for a random state Senator just in case he might run for POTUS in four years, among all the other more popular candidates like Clinton who was Supposed to Win.
This is a fake screenshot that used an existing story from 2004 and added a Kenyan-born line. There is no evidence that this story has ever existed outside of this screenshot, and there are plenty of existing versions of this story published at the same time that do not have this line.
Wouldn’t you expect a Kenyan-based newspaper to spell the name “Barack” correctly? Then why is it misspelled in the screenshot?
Without the original source to analyze, I can’t tell that this is real. And without a real source to analyze, I can’t verify anything about this screenshot.
I paid actual money searching for this original article and could not find it. Is anyone else able to source the original text in this screenshot?
If not, what exactly is convincing you that this is a trustworthy piece of evidence besides the conclusion it supports?
Alright, I appreciate the source, although it's seeming... obvious... why it doesn't come up in a search of traditional databases.
For this to be some sort of damning evidence, it needs to be considered a credible source. You seem to see it as one. So I need some help understanding something.
I've read the story. I see that it seems to share wording with popularly-run AP stuff, and to be clear, your sourced story cites the AP as the author of the text, even though it differs from the actual text run in the AP.
Are you suggesting, then, that the AP did originally run the story that said, "Kenyan-born", but then realized its mistake, erased it, and the only people who didn't change the story was this East African Standard? So that's why it's credible?
Can you explain to me why I should take a source that misspells Barack Obama's name as the most credible source of his heritage?
If I presented a single source to you confirming that Don Watkins is Q, and then told you that meant Ron Watkins was definitely Q, would you be willing to give that evidence the benefit of the doubt?
So the answer is no, you can’t explain why I should take a random website that misspells Obama’s name as an authoritative source on his heritage that outweighs those sources that properly spell his name.
If this is an incorrect assumption, I’ll hear the justification for why this source should be considered as authoritative anyway.
If we’re talking about moving goalposts, I am expecting the argument that this website is revealing the True Name of Obama, and that “Barack Obama” is a cover name or something developed by the Deep State, and there are no such things as misspellings in Q World. I’ll be interested in a more dynamic theory, but I guess I’ll see how you respond.
Interesting. I’ll take a look when I have some more time. I hadn’t been able to find anything before. Nice to see an actual source.
It’s worth practicing the skill of “examining a source that counters your argument.”
That’s what I need time to do on occasion. I would be very happy to see you do the same thing once in a while.
You often insist on a single possible interpretation to Q's questions without definitively showing me why I should rule out anything else. "Because it agrees with the mainstream news stories" is not ever a logical reason to simply dismiss an assertion, nor is it ever a logical reason to simply accept it. Every claim must be examined.
I can think of a million reasons why someone would take Russian, especially if they have any aspirations to serve in the government, in the military, in business, etc. Literally anyone who might interact with someone across borders would consider learning Russian a valuable skill.
I took Russian in college because I was bored of taking Spanish in high school. I knew there was always someone around who could speak Spanish, so Russian would be a valuable skill.
Why did Obama choose Renegade? Well, the whole family needed to start with the same letter, as is tradition. So the White House Communications Agency (which is staffed by the military) offered him a selection that started with R.
Let's assume just the sparkliest of intents for a moment. You don't see any non-suspicious reasons that Obama could identify as "Renegade"?
Not coming up and beating Clinton against all odds? Not for becoming the first black President? There's nothing about what he apparently accomplished that might explain this choice?
I don't find "he speaks a scary language" or "using a code name I don't like" to be a convincing argument for casting suspicious eyes. I understand that for you, it's simply a small part of the pile you think proves your case, but because I'm trying to examine each argument as it's presented and not simply accept or reject anything, I am evaluating each small piece of the pile.
Scientists aren't convinced there is a pile of anything until they have verified that each piece of that pile actually exists and agree that there are enough verified pieces to constitute a "pile" under a reasonable definition. I'm still working on that with your Q interpretations.