I'm a bit irritated that they all agree during their shows that the Biden we see on TV is the real Joseph R Biden, when it doesn't take an expert to notice how he's changed since 2017.
Does this mean that Badlands truly doesn't see the differences, or have they collectively been told / agreed to avoid opening that can of worms? Are they being coached, or do they worry that talking like that might cost them subscribers?
Could the White Hats be saving them for a future Press Pool position and they don't want to scare away any noob Q followers? I agree with that approach as the "GREAT AWAKENING" is the end goal.
Some of us are just further along than others, which is perfectly fine.
I don't think that badlanders do not see 'he's changed since 2017'. Rather, their interpretation of the data is different to those that advocate the 'not Joe Biden' narrative. Personally, I think the 'not Joe Biden' narrative is full-on bunk.
Case in point, the amg-news.com website you link to has a lot of the hallmarks of disinfo/clickbait website. (I did a short dive on them and ms 'Medeea Greere' perhaps 2 years back.)
Why is it that fake disinfo website constantly promote the 'not Biden' theory?
If I were to write an academic paper on the phenomena that the 'Not Joe Biden' narrative is a prime example of, it would be a long paper. There is a LOT there that, imo, proponents simply refuse to recognize.
But long story short, you have to be able to buy in and invest yourself in certain unprovable 'beliefs' to accept the Not Biden narratives.
I agree with the Badlanders. It's pretty ludicrous (and not rational). But as I haven't written that paper yet, I'm going to leave it there.
That AMG News site is new to me also. I only linked it because it was recently shared on GAW and it had a lot of examples of old vs new Biden.
My semi-photographic memory works best with faces, shapes, patterns, cars and places / scenery which makes me really good with names and faces.
Watching the first Trump v Biden debate live in 2020 is what first got me scratching my head. Shortly thereafter, I started searching older photos of Obama and Biden together. That's where the vast majority of the differences can be seen. Eye color, forehead prominence, different ears etc are more obvious to me.
I assume that ol' Joe was swapped out in 2019. Maybe we will know for sure in the future.
You contribute a lot of great content here and I'm glad we are on the same team.
Thanks for the great reply. I gotcha on the "I only linked it because..." but the fact that it is (in my view) a clickbait site isn't a plus in terms of the premise. (But I know there will be other places sharing that sort of content, too).
I know that there are plenty of folks who hold to the Not Joe Biden theory. And there are others who do not. Thankfully, we don't need to agree on everything to appreciate each other's strengths and contributions. More than anything, I think it is an opportunity to explore different perspectives and different ways of thinking in how we and others approach how we interpret reality or view the world.
Maybe we will know for sure in the future.
Maybe. (Personally, I'm convinced we will not, but maybe I'm wrong.)
A few of the objections I have to the theory (among the many, many issues - and I'm NOT going to write up an academic paper on it!) include:
The morality issues: For decades, the CIA (as far as I understand it) used the rationale that their enemy was so bad that they had to be able to do all the worst things - "they are all 'justifiable' because of who we are fighting". In other words, the ends justify the means.
But the end justify the means is essentially satanic reasoning, and its why it lies at the root of the entire Marxist / Communist mindset.
So, if Joe was switched out, who did it? Was it the good guys? the bad guys? Why? For what purpose? If it was the good guys, how is this morally justifiable? It means that the good guys, including Trump, are OK with deceiving the entire population and the world because 'the end justifies the means'. No? If it was the bad guys, then WHY ON EARTH would Trump team go along with it? rationale?
Motive, purpose and necessity need to be accounted for, imo. Bubble Bursts has some good reasoning on this, if I recall, although he did not convince me or bring about my agreement. As for me, I cannot conceive or accept that these have been shown or proven to me: motive, purpose, necessity - not to mention moral justification.
Then, how many people would need to go along with the 'scam'? Isn't it axiomatic that the MORE people involved in a scam or ruse, the more likely it is that someone will blow the whistle? Relatives? Friends? Acquaintances? Staff?
They could not keep the lid on Bill Clinton doing crap in the White House. A 5+ year scam running a fake guy in prosthetics? The technology would have to be proven. Just going "oh, I'm SURE they can do this now, for long extended periods of time, like days, weeks, months, etc" isn't evidence. It's speculation (unless the evidence of the technology is established, by ... evidence).
Another factor in my reasoning is exactly this point:
Maybe we will know for sure in the future.
The same talk about this narrative has been going on for years. Personally, I find it very weak because, as far as I can see, it can NEVER be proven. You either choose to believe or you do not. And if you are right, so what? What does that mean? What are the practical outcomes of 'being right' on this? And what are the practical outcomes of being wrong on this?
It seems to me that by and large, the only outcomes are warm and fuzzies because I think I see X and I cannot conceive of an alternative explanation.
(Also, I am yet to come across a clinical or forensic analysis of a decent level been presented on why "this man is not Biden". Lots of people offer layman opinions, but where is the forensic analysis offered by a specialist trained specifically in human physiology and biology? The absence of such studies are a BIG gap, in my view.)
Is it possible that stand-ins have been used? I.e. by Biden staff, the clique around him, etc? In specific short-term situations? Sure. yes, I think that's a reasonable supposition, given what we DO know about the technology and the situation, etc, but this is a very different idea from the "Byden is not Biden" narrative.
And, fwiw, the "Byden is not Biden" thing is NOT Q. It is anon. That's not a deciding element, but it is worth noting.
There is 'Q'. 1 There are 'Anons'. 2 There is no 'Qanon'. 3
Anyway, just throwing this in here. Not to convince you in any way. (Don't have a bone in that dogfight!) But just to share a bit of my thinking process.
There are many other factors and elements that formulate the way I view the matter, but the above are a few of them.
Ps. Thank you for the generous compliment! So glad to have you here, too.... !
Yeah, I’ll be certain to look more closely at potential click-bait sites in the future. For several years I used to share a link to a convincing Telegram post, but the post has recently gone dark. 🤷♂️
I also struggle with the morality of installing a fake Joe. The only justification I can think of is; that any other option where they didn’t have full (presidential figure head) control resulted in a massive genocide event across many nations. Maybe the baddies can deploy HAARP to liquefy the soil of entire nations, or maybe the vax will kill more if it lays dormant too long without an antidote / detox, or possibly a sky event will hypnotize millions to walk off cliffs like lemmings. They weighed the options & timelines and this was the path that made the most sense in a reasonable timeline.
Certainly as you pointed out, too many people involved in the scam means more opportunity for leaks and even sabotage. Maybe “Military is the only way” to manage command and control from the top, especially if this script has been playing out for 40+ years.
Good point also, there is no practical benefit of being right or wrong about any matter on the Great Awakening. Neither of us will be invited onto Hannity to explain how we “figured it out”. We can only help wake people up. TELLING people what we’ve convinced ourselves of is a waste of time. Skillfully utilizing the Socratic Method to let them develop their own conclusions carries more weight, just as long as 94% of the population eventually wakes up.
Are you saying you've lost faith in Badlands?
I'm a bit irritated that they all agree during their shows that the Biden we see on TV is the real Joseph R Biden, when it doesn't take an expert to notice how he's changed since 2017.
Does this mean that Badlands truly doesn't see the differences, or have they collectively been told / agreed to avoid opening that can of worms? Are they being coached, or do they worry that talking like that might cost them subscribers?
Could the White Hats be saving them for a future Press Pool position and they don't want to scare away any noob Q followers? I agree with that approach as the "GREAT AWAKENING" is the end goal.
Some of us are just further along than others, which is perfectly fine.
I don't think that badlanders do not see 'he's changed since 2017'. Rather, their interpretation of the data is different to those that advocate the 'not Joe Biden' narrative. Personally, I think the 'not Joe Biden' narrative is full-on bunk.
Case in point, the amg-news.com website you link to has a lot of the hallmarks of disinfo/clickbait website. (I did a short dive on them and ms 'Medeea Greere' perhaps 2 years back.)
Why is it that fake disinfo website constantly promote the 'not Biden' theory?
If I were to write an academic paper on the phenomena that the 'Not Joe Biden' narrative is a prime example of, it would be a long paper. There is a LOT there that, imo, proponents simply refuse to recognize.
But long story short, you have to be able to buy in and invest yourself in certain unprovable 'beliefs' to accept the Not Biden narratives.
I agree with the Badlanders. It's pretty ludicrous (and not rational). But as I haven't written that paper yet, I'm going to leave it there.
That AMG News site is new to me also. I only linked it because it was recently shared on GAW and it had a lot of examples of old vs new Biden.
My semi-photographic memory works best with faces, shapes, patterns, cars and places / scenery which makes me really good with names and faces.
Watching the first Trump v Biden debate live in 2020 is what first got me scratching my head. Shortly thereafter, I started searching older photos of Obama and Biden together. That's where the vast majority of the differences can be seen. Eye color, forehead prominence, different ears etc are more obvious to me.
I assume that ol' Joe was swapped out in 2019. Maybe we will know for sure in the future.
You contribute a lot of great content here and I'm glad we are on the same team.
Γo
Thanks for the great reply. I gotcha on the "I only linked it because..." but the fact that it is (in my view) a clickbait site isn't a plus in terms of the premise. (But I know there will be other places sharing that sort of content, too).
I know that there are plenty of folks who hold to the Not Joe Biden theory. And there are others who do not. Thankfully, we don't need to agree on everything to appreciate each other's strengths and contributions. More than anything, I think it is an opportunity to explore different perspectives and different ways of thinking in how we and others approach how we interpret reality or view the world.
Maybe. (Personally, I'm convinced we will not, but maybe I'm wrong.)
A few of the objections I have to the theory (among the many, many issues - and I'm NOT going to write up an academic paper on it!) include:
The morality issues: For decades, the CIA (as far as I understand it) used the rationale that their enemy was so bad that they had to be able to do all the worst things - "they are all 'justifiable' because of who we are fighting". In other words, the ends justify the means.
But the end justify the means is essentially satanic reasoning, and its why it lies at the root of the entire Marxist / Communist mindset.
So, if Joe was switched out, who did it? Was it the good guys? the bad guys? Why? For what purpose? If it was the good guys, how is this morally justifiable? It means that the good guys, including Trump, are OK with deceiving the entire population and the world because 'the end justifies the means'. No? If it was the bad guys, then WHY ON EARTH would Trump team go along with it? rationale?
Motive, purpose and necessity need to be accounted for, imo. Bubble Bursts has some good reasoning on this, if I recall, although he did not convince me or bring about my agreement. As for me, I cannot conceive or accept that these have been shown or proven to me: motive, purpose, necessity - not to mention moral justification.
Then, how many people would need to go along with the 'scam'? Isn't it axiomatic that the MORE people involved in a scam or ruse, the more likely it is that someone will blow the whistle? Relatives? Friends? Acquaintances? Staff?
They could not keep the lid on Bill Clinton doing crap in the White House. A 5+ year scam running a fake guy in prosthetics? The technology would have to be proven. Just going "oh, I'm SURE they can do this now, for long extended periods of time, like days, weeks, months, etc" isn't evidence. It's speculation (unless the evidence of the technology is established, by ... evidence).
Another factor in my reasoning is exactly this point:
The same talk about this narrative has been going on for years. Personally, I find it very weak because, as far as I can see, it can NEVER be proven. You either choose to believe or you do not. And if you are right, so what? What does that mean? What are the practical outcomes of 'being right' on this? And what are the practical outcomes of being wrong on this?
It seems to me that by and large, the only outcomes are warm and fuzzies because I think I see X and I cannot conceive of an alternative explanation.
(Also, I am yet to come across a clinical or forensic analysis of a decent level been presented on why "this man is not Biden". Lots of people offer layman opinions, but where is the forensic analysis offered by a specialist trained specifically in human physiology and biology? The absence of such studies are a BIG gap, in my view.)
Is it possible that stand-ins have been used? I.e. by Biden staff, the clique around him, etc? In specific short-term situations? Sure. yes, I think that's a reasonable supposition, given what we DO know about the technology and the situation, etc, but this is a very different idea from the "Byden is not Biden" narrative.
And, fwiw, the "Byden is not Biden" thing is NOT Q. It is anon. That's not a deciding element, but it is worth noting.
Anyway, just throwing this in here. Not to convince you in any way. (Don't have a bone in that dogfight!) But just to share a bit of my thinking process.
There are many other factors and elements that formulate the way I view the matter, but the above are a few of them.
Ps. Thank you for the generous compliment! So glad to have you here, too.... !
wwg1wga
Yeah, I’ll be certain to look more closely at potential click-bait sites in the future. For several years I used to share a link to a convincing Telegram post, but the post has recently gone dark. 🤷♂️
I also struggle with the morality of installing a fake Joe. The only justification I can think of is; that any other option where they didn’t have full (presidential figure head) control resulted in a massive genocide event across many nations. Maybe the baddies can deploy HAARP to liquefy the soil of entire nations, or maybe the vax will kill more if it lays dormant too long without an antidote / detox, or possibly a sky event will hypnotize millions to walk off cliffs like lemmings. They weighed the options & timelines and this was the path that made the most sense in a reasonable timeline.
Certainly as you pointed out, too many people involved in the scam means more opportunity for leaks and even sabotage. Maybe “Military is the only way” to manage command and control from the top, especially if this script has been playing out for 40+ years.
Good point also, there is no practical benefit of being right or wrong about any matter on the Great Awakening. Neither of us will be invited onto Hannity to explain how we “figured it out”. We can only help wake people up. TELLING people what we’ve convinced ourselves of is a waste of time. Skillfully utilizing the Socratic Method to let them develop their own conclusions carries more weight, just as long as 94% of the population eventually wakes up.
Carry on soldier, you helped expand my thinking!
Thank you, WMW