I've spent my entire adult life heavily involved in faith communities, issues of faith, including multiple religious faiths and interfaith activities. I've seen the powerful side of faith and belief, and the limiting, unproductive and unhealthy side of faith and belief. Approaches to doctrine and doctrinal thought included.
What stands out for me a mile is the character of the attachment to the "This Biden is Not Real" narratives. In my view, they exhibit far more characteristics of the unreasoned adherence to belief and doctrine than they do to critical thinking OR reason-based faith supported by real life practice.
Just saying.
If people were really applying critical thinking and Q-based approaches to this whole set of narratives (none of which are directly confirmed by the Q drops, but which rather rely on specific interpretations of the Q drops that are by no means definitive, but very much open to debate, if people were willing), then there would be empirical studies, clinical studies (aka comparative reviews and studies that present a fact based case offer explanations for all the things that do NOT support the narratives). But there aren't.
If anyone has real bona fide expertise in any area or practice, then they KNOW the difference between conjecture based on limited evidence, uninformed biases and ideas on one hand, and expert, knowledge-based, definitive evaluation on the other.
I'm still waiting for the latter when it comes to Biden Man Not Biden Man narratives (of which there are many). They aren't there, or else, they are hiding somewhere.
Instead, all we get is: "Look!!! See!!! It's obvious!!!" and "Gee, that looks like X to me...." etc.
I'll admit, there is a modicum of reasoning, for example, attempts to compare older images with new images, and to put together a collection of evidence, but in my view, those attempts I have seen never reach the level of serious clinical expertise that should be possible if the truth upheld the ideas.
For me, that's a tell. And, it's one feature of the tendency towards personal or collective doctrinal thinking rather than free-thinking as Q put it:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
I do think the narratives should be discussed, but so far, I find them far too unreasonable. Not simply the photographic evidence for example, but other aspects, of the HOW, the WHY, etc. For example, how many other premises are required to even make the BMNBM narratives work? Mass deception by the white hats? How is the ethically acceptable? No one around the individual knows? Or are they all silenced? Or are they ALSO all replaced?
Whereas the black hats only have restrictions in terms of their own self interest, and anything aside from that goes for them, the white hats have restrictions and limits. That's what law and order are.
If the White hats were simply conducting a massive deception program in order to get us back from the black Hats rule, then how are they different?
So again, another element (and not the only one) that is needed to buy into the BMNBM narratives is a whole world view that posits mass deception (oh, for our own good), including non-verifiable facts that one has to just believe in, etc.
Another is practicality. Let's jsut say that Biden was not Biden (even though you can NEVER prove it, but you still want to believe it because it seems that way to you), how does this have any real-world impact on the Great Awakening, except perhaps simply for indoctrinating others in those beliefs?
From a multi-dimensional perspective, there are plenty of holes in the BMNBM narratives, even though many prefer to simply dismiss them. As such, do those narratives really warrant the "All -in" attitude that many ..... 'true believers' adopt?
(Somewhat) sadly, not in my view.
PS. Thought experiment: Take photos of DJT, and other evidence around DJT, and apply the exact same standards, objectively, to the idea that the DJT we see now is NOT the original DJT. Can you do this objectively? Or try it with anyone else on 'our' side. Litmus test. hmmm....
What do you think about Trump's repeated mentions that "he's shot!" referring to Joe Biden? And the salute corresponding to a funeral after the ostensible inauguration of Biden?
I don't think it's possible to prove anything with internet photos, either way. They could all be doctored. And yet there's nothing wrong with using circumstantial evidence to form a belief. So I believe it's an actor in a mask, even if it can't be proven to your, or anyone else's, satisfaction. Based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, despite the lack of absolute proof that I'd like to have. At some point, there's enough to form an opinion.
Simple questions. Trump is almost the same age. Why are there not photos of his eyes changing color or sinking? Why isn't his face and skull changed? Why hasn't he he changed from a right hander to a left?
There are millions of photos of Trump out there. Show me these inconsistencies that are from aging.
Trump never drinks alcohol, nor smokes, has lived a very virtuous life dedicated to noble purpose and love of country. His whole life.
Biden is a degenerate, and has been his whole life.
Such things make a LOT of difference, imo.
Oh, and Biden isn't Trump.
Your argument is myopic, and defensive. Expand your view. Keep your opinions and conclusions (aka beliefs) but for Pete's sake, remember why we are here. (Well, most of us...)
I know why I am here but not sure what you are implying by that comment.
I am not saying a mask but something is off. I have been around a many people who aged over time. Nothing like what I have seen on Biden happened to them.
I have had friends who where chain smokers and drug addicts in their day. I know people who lead alcohol lives and some evil to the core and worse.
When they aged I never saw these physical changes I any of them.
So maybe take time and expand your view ad you stated.
Thank you for a thoughtful response. Much appreciated.
You mention Trump's "repeated mentions" that 'he's shot'. Firstly, as it pertains to my viewpoint on this, I'm mention that I'm a trained linguist (aka have diplomas / degrees in lingustics) and have professional worked in language all my life. So, when i hear something, my first focus is to examine it from a variety of angles, and pin down the exact meaning, if it exists, or any ambiguities, if they exist. (Ambiguities simply mean there may be multiple possible interpretations.)
To be physically, mentally, or emotionally exhausted. :
After two hours in the gym and another hour swimming, I was shot by the time I got home.
I'm already pretty shot from writing essays, and I still have another one to write for tomorrow.
To be in a bad condition or totally destroyed. :
I wish I could have the repairs finished sooner, but I'm afraid your engine's shot.
Between dealing with mounting debt, my four children, and my recent divorce, my nerves are pretty shot at the moment.
To be filmed. :
The surprise independent hit was shot on a budget of less than $100,000.
Of resources, money, etc., to be wasted, spent, or used up. :
I can't believe my entire budget for a week in Las Vegas was shot in the first day!
"is shot" is actually a very common idiom and has been in use for a long time:
So Trump's statement is perfectly explainable in the context it is used. In fact, it makes a LOT of sense in the context it is used.
One might argue "ooh, double meanings - he's secretly telling us. you know, comms", but it's certainly NOT required in order to accept his statement simply as it is. One might say it's ambiguous, but ONLY if Trump is ALSO saying Biden has been shot by firing squad.
So then, there are other questions. WHY would Trump say this i.e. "comms"? For what purpose? During the Q operation, comms had a very clear purpose, and they weren't just for anons. "Comms" is part of how the underbelly of the intel word communicates. But it always has a purpose and reason. So that really requires a clear answer, imo. IF trump is smuggling in some secret message to.... who? Anons? Then WHY? What for? What is the outcome?
I think it's clear that secret comms and hidden meanings are very attractive to some of us. And some of it is real, but not all of it, imo.
Also, you say "repeated" but I only know of one time, possibly two. Do you know of more? I don't follow DJT's speeches all that closely, but even if he said it 5 times,in the absence of any clear reason why I should not, I would interpret him as simply saying, "Joe Biden is kaput! Done. Joe Biden has lost his utility."
Salute corresponding to a funeral:
if Biden was dead, was he then executed just prior to the Jan 20 inauguration, so that he was given a state funeral? WHY would Joe Biden be given a state funeral? Would the WH's let him actually be elected, and then take him out, because "the election was stolen"? Could the ceremony have any other meaning? Symbolic meaning? I don't have clear answers, and I think its interdasting, but so far, it's not something I count as a being clear.
And yet there's nothing wrong with using circumstantial evidence to form a belief.
100% agree. No, 200% agree. But this is really close to my point. If pedes would acknowledge that its a belief, and then approach it as a belief, and recognize it as a belief, then I think, that's OK. But pretending that "my belief is correct and infallible, and obvious" I dunno. I feel like too many pedes don't reflect on what they believe and recognize WHY they believe it. Often, it's for emotionally driven reasons, imo. Not purely logical or empirical.
Also, to be frank, I'm vary wary of disinfo operations targeted at anons and awake people. I see them all around the place, and think they do a lot of damage. When I see people place emotional attachment into certain beliefs, I wonder, what is the benefit? Belief should be tempered and balanced with acknowledged fallibility. "I believe this, but of course I might be wrong" is a good starting point.
I also see a certain 'frenzy" around some narratives, where (in my view,) some people attach to them very strongly, but without a lot of those checks and balances.
Based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, despite the lack of absolute proof that I'd like to have. At some point, there's enough to form an opinion.
Yes, I agree with you here, too.
However, I think it's really important to NOT lose sight of the fact that belief is not equivalent to fact, and opinion is not equivalent to fact, and that as much as possible, we should be open to questioning our choices in belief and opinion, debating them, listening to other arguments, etc.
One example comes to mind: Human driven climate change. There are real, bonafide experts, specialists who know their stuff through and through who present their view on CC and offer a fact-based, evidence based, rigorously developed case why HDCC is a load of bunk. It includes not only the science, but also tangible and reasonable arguments for the WHY and the HOW, too.
So far, I've not see that vis-a-vis the Biden Not Biden arguments. Lots more too it all, obviously. I appreciate the thoughtful reply, and I'm certainly open to hearing WHY you believe what you believe or why you have the opinion you have. That's how we draw closer to truth: listening.
I'm not trying to convince you. But here are a couple bits of info on the mix. There are better and longer compilations of the "he's shot" repetitions, but this is first one I found.
Either way, there's a lot of truth that is purposely absent from MSM. Here on GAW we try to suss out the truth from the incomplete pictures we're shown. Pinning down the reasons for deception is an extra level, requiring more study, beyond just seeing through the lie.
I agree with you about how many anons mistake opinion for fact, but the anons here are generally better at it than YT influencers that make their living with flashy headlines that often lack substance. I personally haven't been bothered by the fake-Biden-advocates' reason-denying extremes, but that might be because I agree with their position anyway.
Not a fan of the conjecture that vp Joe Biden has been executed by firing squad and that the person in the white house (or the white house set) is a fake impostor.
The crowds NOT at the inauguration are easily explained due to Covid. They deliberately changed from previous inaugurations (remember, everyone on Earth was going to die if they got together... sarc)
I don't know about the 21 gun salute.
It seems pretty clear that there were weird things happening, and a lot of evidence pointing towards some form of devolution (which does not mean, however that DJT is CIC. IN fact, if the office of president is devolved, then likewise the authority of CIC is likely to be devolved to. Devolution does NOT necessarily mean DJT is potus or CIC.)
But none of those things I find inspire me to the theory that Joe Biden is dead and an impostor is where he is. I find other more convincing (to me) explanations. Perhaps another point I think of is Real Raw News and how there are clear and obvious disinfo operations pushing the "everyone is executed or at gitmo, and the whole world of public figures are clones/fakes" narratives.
It's strange times, and we may never find out the actual truth. Maybe in 50 years? I think it's important to be OK with not knowing a lot of stuff, for that matter. It takes a based sense of security to recognize that I cannot or do not know everything, and to still be Ok with that. (whereas one core trait of normie cognitive dissonance is a rejection of the idea that what the media tells us isn't the truth, aka that I really don't know the truth.)
I love the compilation of DJT saying he's shot, but then, like I wrote previously, I don't see anything in this other than him saying what he is on the surface, aka that Biden is kaput and has lost his utility. Aka regular and normal meaning of "he is shot".
(In fact, if it were otherwise, he'd really have to say "he's been shot". That would be a whole different kettle of fish.
Also, the oddities. Well, for me, I don't see anything in this to make me go, wow. The quality of the video, the lighting, etc, the angles, there are a LOT of variables there, for me. But perhaps my own biases influence what I see. That's just as possible for me as for others, I guess. Goose and gander and all that.
I find the idea that some public figures got 'fake shots' to be totally plausible, however. I.e. footage and stuff as if they were getting shots, because that's pretty much standard for slimy public figures: Drama put on for the media.
Ah, curious comparison with YT influencers. To my mind, they do not even come close (there is no comparison with most of our GAW pedes.)
I'll tuck the salute inauguration threads away for a closer look later. But yeah, no need to try to convince each other (although I must admit, I try to convince anons to review HOW they look at things, rather than to convince them of MY own conclusions or beliefs. That's pretty useless.
In the meantime, thanks for the thoughtful res, and I'm keep to keep my eyes open.
I realize that the word "shot" can mean, in this instance, he's just not up to the job. Q told us everything has meaning. We were given strong clues that McNoname was executed. Do you think it was one and done? OK they executed McNoname but then stopped. Uh, no. Q was giving us a peek into what was happening behind the scenes. I have no proof, but then, you have no proof they are still alive.
.....you mean apart from their continued presence and action as human beings, viewed via media etc?
With that reasoning, Angel, we have no proof that Q is real, that we aren't being ruled by Aliens and lizard people, and that we aren't living in the Matrix like the movie matrix, or that everything we do NOT see directly in person is even happening, and that we aren't living in the Truman Show.
To say that people right in front of is is "no proof that they are alive" is.... it's silly, sorry. Just plain silly.
We were given strong clues that McNoname was executed.
Exactly. That was solid information given by Q.
Q never said anyone else was executed.
"Do you think it was one and done?" No. But now you are stepping into theorizing and conjecture, building conjecture on conjecture, on conjecture.
Do I have proof perfect that Joe Biden is Joe Biden, or that Elon Musk is Elon Musk, or that Michael Flynn is Michael Flynn? No. But I have a LOT more evidence that they are who they say they are than otherwise.
Hey, choose your beliefs! It's your prerogative. But don't try and pass your belief of as if its fact. Also, interpreting "everything has meaning" to mean "you can just pick and choose whatever fact or thing you like and make your OWN meaning out of it".... I don't think that is what Q was saying.
And how do you tell the difference? At what point does a "detached" earlobe become an "attached" earlobe? Does it ever occur to you that the human body has a remarkable range of presentation? Maybe it is only your problem in trying to categorize an earlobe that is at the boundary of what you imagine to be the two cases.
You are correct. We don’t know a lot of things, and can be black hats narrative just to make us believe that a lot of people are not the same person, it is a good tactic to distract us from the real problems we are facing right now. God bless you for explaining us.
A) yes, are these narratives simply distractions? How do they help? There are real, verifiable, and important problems we face, including waking people up to the DS itself, their methods of control that have been going on for decades and for centuries, the use of psychological warfare via the corporate and state media, etc. These things are much more important to grasp than whether or not the man known as Joe Biden is Joe Biden. IMO.
B) Whatever the narratives, what's really important is HOW we approach them, what kind of thinking (or non-thinking) we use, and what drives our formulation of beliefs, ideas and understanding. That's the important thing here, imo.
You are one of the people here that open more my eyes in 2020 and I really thank you for that. God gives a lot of wisdom and we are lucky to have you here in GA. God bless you friend.
I've spent my entire adult life heavily involved in faith communities, issues of faith, including multiple religious faiths and interfaith activities. I've seen the powerful side of faith and belief, and the limiting, unproductive and unhealthy side of faith and belief. Approaches to doctrine and doctrinal thought included.
What stands out for me a mile is the character of the attachment to the "This Biden is Not Real" narratives. In my view, they exhibit far more characteristics of the unreasoned adherence to belief and doctrine than they do to critical thinking OR reason-based faith supported by real life practice.
Just saying.
If people were really applying critical thinking and Q-based approaches to this whole set of narratives (none of which are directly confirmed by the Q drops, but which rather rely on specific interpretations of the Q drops that are by no means definitive, but very much open to debate, if people were willing), then there would be empirical studies, clinical studies (aka comparative reviews and studies that present a fact based case offer explanations for all the things that do NOT support the narratives). But there aren't.
If anyone has real bona fide expertise in any area or practice, then they KNOW the difference between conjecture based on limited evidence, uninformed biases and ideas on one hand, and expert, knowledge-based, definitive evaluation on the other.
I'm still waiting for the latter when it comes to Biden Man Not Biden Man narratives (of which there are many). They aren't there, or else, they are hiding somewhere.
Instead, all we get is: "Look!!! See!!! It's obvious!!!" and "Gee, that looks like X to me...." etc.
I'll admit, there is a modicum of reasoning, for example, attempts to compare older images with new images, and to put together a collection of evidence, but in my view, those attempts I have seen never reach the level of serious clinical expertise that should be possible if the truth upheld the ideas.
For me, that's a tell. And, it's one feature of the tendency towards personal or collective doctrinal thinking rather than free-thinking as Q put it:
I do think the narratives should be discussed, but so far, I find them far too unreasonable. Not simply the photographic evidence for example, but other aspects, of the HOW, the WHY, etc. For example, how many other premises are required to even make the BMNBM narratives work? Mass deception by the white hats? How is the ethically acceptable? No one around the individual knows? Or are they all silenced? Or are they ALSO all replaced?
Whereas the black hats only have restrictions in terms of their own self interest, and anything aside from that goes for them, the white hats have restrictions and limits. That's what law and order are.
If the White hats were simply conducting a massive deception program in order to get us back from the black Hats rule, then how are they different?
So again, another element (and not the only one) that is needed to buy into the BMNBM narratives is a whole world view that posits mass deception (oh, for our own good), including non-verifiable facts that one has to just believe in, etc.
Another is practicality. Let's jsut say that Biden was not Biden (even though you can NEVER prove it, but you still want to believe it because it seems that way to you), how does this have any real-world impact on the Great Awakening, except perhaps simply for indoctrinating others in those beliefs?
From a multi-dimensional perspective, there are plenty of holes in the BMNBM narratives, even though many prefer to simply dismiss them. As such, do those narratives really warrant the "All -in" attitude that many ..... 'true believers' adopt?
(Somewhat) sadly, not in my view.
PS. Thought experiment: Take photos of DJT, and other evidence around DJT, and apply the exact same standards, objectively, to the idea that the DJT we see now is NOT the original DJT. Can you do this objectively? Or try it with anyone else on 'our' side. Litmus test. hmmm....
What do you think about Trump's repeated mentions that "he's shot!" referring to Joe Biden? And the salute corresponding to a funeral after the ostensible inauguration of Biden?
I don't think it's possible to prove anything with internet photos, either way. They could all be doctored. And yet there's nothing wrong with using circumstantial evidence to form a belief. So I believe it's an actor in a mask, even if it can't be proven to your, or anyone else's, satisfaction. Based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, despite the lack of absolute proof that I'd like to have. At some point, there's enough to form an opinion.
Simple questions. Trump is almost the same age. Why are there not photos of his eyes changing color or sinking? Why isn't his face and skull changed? Why hasn't he he changed from a right hander to a left?
There are millions of photos of Trump out there. Show me these inconsistencies that are from aging.
Trump never drinks alcohol, nor smokes, has lived a very virtuous life dedicated to noble purpose and love of country. His whole life.
Biden is a degenerate, and has been his whole life.
Such things make a LOT of difference, imo.
Oh, and Biden isn't Trump.
Your argument is myopic, and defensive. Expand your view. Keep your opinions and conclusions (aka beliefs) but for Pete's sake, remember why we are here. (Well, most of us...)
I know why I am here but not sure what you are implying by that comment.
I am not saying a mask but something is off. I have been around a many people who aged over time. Nothing like what I have seen on Biden happened to them.
I have had friends who where chain smokers and drug addicts in their day. I know people who lead alcohol lives and some evil to the core and worse.
When they aged I never saw these physical changes I any of them.
So maybe take time and expand your view ad you stated.
Yet another.
CQVFEFE 15 minutes ago +2 / -0 Amazing, isn't it?
His face looks totally different → he's had plastic surgery
His chin keeps changing from day to day → no it doesn't
His teeth used to be huge, ultra white and perfect → he went to the dentist and had them replaced with normal-looking teeth, as is commonly done
He writes with the other hand → he's ambidextrous
He talks and sounds nothing like Senator Biden → people age
His face looks like a silicone mask → no it doesn't
People keep saying he looks different and presenting visual confirmation → they're all crazy conspiracy theorists
He's been adjudged incompetent to stand trial for his many crimes → still competent to be president of the United States of America
Hmmmmm.
Not just me.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17si0dleyG/all-of-these-things-are-not-like/c/
Thank you for a thoughtful response. Much appreciated.
You mention Trump's "repeated mentions" that 'he's shot'. Firstly, as it pertains to my viewpoint on this, I'm mention that I'm a trained linguist (aka have diplomas / degrees in lingustics) and have professional worked in language all my life. So, when i hear something, my first focus is to examine it from a variety of angles, and pin down the exact meaning, if it exists, or any ambiguities, if they exist. (Ambiguities simply mean there may be multiple possible interpretations.)
So, for example: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/is+shot
"is shot" is actually a very common idiom and has been in use for a long time:
So Trump's statement is perfectly explainable in the context it is used. In fact, it makes a LOT of sense in the context it is used.
One might argue "ooh, double meanings - he's secretly telling us. you know, comms", but it's certainly NOT required in order to accept his statement simply as it is. One might say it's ambiguous, but ONLY if Trump is ALSO saying Biden has been shot by firing squad.
So then, there are other questions. WHY would Trump say this i.e. "comms"? For what purpose? During the Q operation, comms had a very clear purpose, and they weren't just for anons. "Comms" is part of how the underbelly of the intel word communicates. But it always has a purpose and reason. So that really requires a clear answer, imo. IF trump is smuggling in some secret message to.... who? Anons? Then WHY? What for? What is the outcome?
I think it's clear that secret comms and hidden meanings are very attractive to some of us. And some of it is real, but not all of it, imo.
Also, you say "repeated" but I only know of one time, possibly two. Do you know of more? I don't follow DJT's speeches all that closely, but even if he said it 5 times,in the absence of any clear reason why I should not, I would interpret him as simply saying, "Joe Biden is kaput! Done. Joe Biden has lost his utility."
if Biden was dead, was he then executed just prior to the Jan 20 inauguration, so that he was given a state funeral? WHY would Joe Biden be given a state funeral? Would the WH's let him actually be elected, and then take him out, because "the election was stolen"? Could the ceremony have any other meaning? Symbolic meaning? I don't have clear answers, and I think its interdasting, but so far, it's not something I count as a being clear.
100% agree. No, 200% agree. But this is really close to my point. If pedes would acknowledge that its a belief, and then approach it as a belief, and recognize it as a belief, then I think, that's OK. But pretending that "my belief is correct and infallible, and obvious" I dunno. I feel like too many pedes don't reflect on what they believe and recognize WHY they believe it. Often, it's for emotionally driven reasons, imo. Not purely logical or empirical.
Also, to be frank, I'm vary wary of disinfo operations targeted at anons and awake people. I see them all around the place, and think they do a lot of damage. When I see people place emotional attachment into certain beliefs, I wonder, what is the benefit? Belief should be tempered and balanced with acknowledged fallibility. "I believe this, but of course I might be wrong" is a good starting point.
I also see a certain 'frenzy" around some narratives, where (in my view,) some people attach to them very strongly, but without a lot of those checks and balances.
Yes, I agree with you here, too.
However, I think it's really important to NOT lose sight of the fact that belief is not equivalent to fact, and opinion is not equivalent to fact, and that as much as possible, we should be open to questioning our choices in belief and opinion, debating them, listening to other arguments, etc.
One example comes to mind: Human driven climate change. There are real, bonafide experts, specialists who know their stuff through and through who present their view on CC and offer a fact-based, evidence based, rigorously developed case why HDCC is a load of bunk. It includes not only the science, but also tangible and reasonable arguments for the WHY and the HOW, too.
So far, I've not see that vis-a-vis the Biden Not Biden arguments. Lots more too it all, obviously. I appreciate the thoughtful reply, and I'm certainly open to hearing WHY you believe what you believe or why you have the opinion you have. That's how we draw closer to truth: listening.
I'm not trying to convince you. But here are a couple bits of info on the mix. There are better and longer compilations of the "he's shot" repetitions, but this is first one I found.
https://truthsocial.com/@QBeliever3/110988758486573034
https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9bDJ8BF/the-oddities-of-joe-bidens-arm--/c/
Here are two threads on the salute and the inauguration.
Https://greatawakening.win/p/16aTLs6FLL/derek-johnson-explained-how-bide/
https://greatawakening.win/p/141EwRJETX/the-21gun-salute-president-donal/c/
Either way, there's a lot of truth that is purposely absent from MSM. Here on GAW we try to suss out the truth from the incomplete pictures we're shown. Pinning down the reasons for deception is an extra level, requiring more study, beyond just seeing through the lie.
I agree with you about how many anons mistake opinion for fact, but the anons here are generally better at it than YT influencers that make their living with flashy headlines that often lack substance. I personally haven't been bothered by the fake-Biden-advocates' reason-denying extremes, but that might be because I agree with their position anyway.
RE: The salute and inauguration
Not a fan of the conjecture that vp Joe Biden has been executed by firing squad and that the person in the white house (or the white house set) is a fake impostor.
The crowds NOT at the inauguration are easily explained due to Covid. They deliberately changed from previous inaugurations (remember, everyone on Earth was going to die if they got together... sarc)
I don't know about the 21 gun salute.
It seems pretty clear that there were weird things happening, and a lot of evidence pointing towards some form of devolution (which does not mean, however that DJT is CIC. IN fact, if the office of president is devolved, then likewise the authority of CIC is likely to be devolved to. Devolution does NOT necessarily mean DJT is potus or CIC.)
But none of those things I find inspire me to the theory that Joe Biden is dead and an impostor is where he is. I find other more convincing (to me) explanations. Perhaps another point I think of is Real Raw News and how there are clear and obvious disinfo operations pushing the "everyone is executed or at gitmo, and the whole world of public figures are clones/fakes" narratives.
It's strange times, and we may never find out the actual truth. Maybe in 50 years? I think it's important to be OK with not knowing a lot of stuff, for that matter. It takes a based sense of security to recognize that I cannot or do not know everything, and to still be Ok with that. (whereas one core trait of normie cognitive dissonance is a rejection of the idea that what the media tells us isn't the truth, aka that I really don't know the truth.)
Thanks again for the top value reply.
I love the compilation of DJT saying he's shot, but then, like I wrote previously, I don't see anything in this other than him saying what he is on the surface, aka that Biden is kaput and has lost his utility. Aka regular and normal meaning of "he is shot".
(In fact, if it were otherwise, he'd really have to say "he's been shot". That would be a whole different kettle of fish.
Also, the oddities. Well, for me, I don't see anything in this to make me go, wow. The quality of the video, the lighting, etc, the angles, there are a LOT of variables there, for me. But perhaps my own biases influence what I see. That's just as possible for me as for others, I guess. Goose and gander and all that.
I find the idea that some public figures got 'fake shots' to be totally plausible, however. I.e. footage and stuff as if they were getting shots, because that's pretty much standard for slimy public figures: Drama put on for the media.
Ah, curious comparison with YT influencers. To my mind, they do not even come close (there is no comparison with most of our GAW pedes.)
I'll tuck the salute inauguration threads away for a closer look later. But yeah, no need to try to convince each other (although I must admit, I try to convince anons to review HOW they look at things, rather than to convince them of MY own conclusions or beliefs. That's pretty useless.
In the meantime, thanks for the thoughtful res, and I'm keep to keep my eyes open.
I realize that the word "shot" can mean, in this instance, he's just not up to the job. Q told us everything has meaning. We were given strong clues that McNoname was executed. Do you think it was one and done? OK they executed McNoname but then stopped. Uh, no. Q was giving us a peek into what was happening behind the scenes. I have no proof, but then, you have no proof they are still alive.
.....you mean apart from their continued presence and action as human beings, viewed via media etc?
With that reasoning, Angel, we have no proof that Q is real, that we aren't being ruled by Aliens and lizard people, and that we aren't living in the Matrix like the movie matrix, or that everything we do NOT see directly in person is even happening, and that we aren't living in the Truman Show.
To say that people right in front of is is "no proof that they are alive" is.... it's silly, sorry. Just plain silly.
Exactly. That was solid information given by Q.
Q never said anyone else was executed.
"Do you think it was one and done?" No. But now you are stepping into theorizing and conjecture, building conjecture on conjecture, on conjecture.
Do I have proof perfect that Joe Biden is Joe Biden, or that Elon Musk is Elon Musk, or that Michael Flynn is Michael Flynn? No. But I have a LOT more evidence that they are who they say they are than otherwise.
Hey, choose your beliefs! It's your prerogative. But don't try and pass your belief of as if its fact. Also, interpreting "everything has meaning" to mean "you can just pick and choose whatever fact or thing you like and make your OWN meaning out of it".... I don't think that is what Q was saying.
But that's my opinion.
Good for you. I've spent a lifetime looking at my own face in the mirror, and it changes...it changes.
Is it possible for detached earlobes to be “attached” its been a real head scratcher. Referring to images of Vice Joe vs Pres Joe
And how do you tell the difference? At what point does a "detached" earlobe become an "attached" earlobe? Does it ever occur to you that the human body has a remarkable range of presentation? Maybe it is only your problem in trying to categorize an earlobe that is at the boundary of what you imagine to be the two cases.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You are correct. We don’t know a lot of things, and can be black hats narrative just to make us believe that a lot of people are not the same person, it is a good tactic to distract us from the real problems we are facing right now. God bless you for explaining us.
A) yes, are these narratives simply distractions? How do they help? There are real, verifiable, and important problems we face, including waking people up to the DS itself, their methods of control that have been going on for decades and for centuries, the use of psychological warfare via the corporate and state media, etc. These things are much more important to grasp than whether or not the man known as Joe Biden is Joe Biden. IMO.
B) Whatever the narratives, what's really important is HOW we approach them, what kind of thinking (or non-thinking) we use, and what drives our formulation of beliefs, ideas and understanding. That's the important thing here, imo.
You are one of the people here that open more my eyes in 2020 and I really thank you for that. God gives a lot of wisdom and we are lucky to have you here in GA. God bless you friend.
Superb and sophisticated analysis, fren.