Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to testify on October 9th, 2025
I wonder if there is a US legal provision for when a body double testifies under oath. I wonder if it matters if the original is dead, in witpro, on the lam, or in prison.
There've been quite a few court proceedings going on recently using doubles. For example, I'm fairly certain Derek Fauvin was a body double, although I don't remember if he testified under oath. I'd bet my life that the past 4 years was just a long movie called "The Mask Part 2", or "Weekend at Bidens", you pick.
I'm fairly certain this "Body Double for 'history'" swap happens quite often, both in the recent past and for centuries (at least). There are recent documented cases of using a double for official proceedings for the Elite, including testifying in court.
We live in the Matrix. "History," is a Show, and always has been. Whatever the truth is, I'd bet everything that the former Secretary of State Hitlery will not been testifying, no matter what "History" records.
That is an association fallacy. I never stated nor implied that they were all replaced, but that some have been replaced is documented. That it has been done often in history is also documented. This provides you with two "conspiracy theory" options:
They use body doubles to create a false history.
They don't use body doubles to create false histories and they are lying about it.
The 'all' in "They have all been replaced' narrative" is hyperbole, intended to emphasize what I personally consider the more extreme levels of nonsense (imo) connected with the topic.
The concept of use of a body double (e.g. decoy) is certainly not radical. However, looking at the two examples you provide, the first one seems very clearly to be a 'stand in' for the queen, and not someone who is/was touted as being the queen deceptively in order to mislead the greater public.
Even then, with someone as high profile as the queen, I'd be surprised if her entourage did not include someone who could, in certain circumstances, step in as a 'pretend', in situations of high risk, etc.
But, pretty much all the narratives I've seen around the topic as it relates to anons, truthers, etc, have nothing to do with such examples. Joe Biden is not Joe Biden, being a great example. What we're talking about is mass deception of the public, supposedly for righteous and benevolent reasons. Me? I don't subscribe to this.
You cited another example, of the controversy around Gu Kailai. Very believable that the CCP could swap in a fake to conduct a trial in hometown China. But again, this example bears very little resemblance to the vast majority of the "joe Biden is not Joe Biden, Hillary is in Gitmo" narratives. At least the ones I am talking about.
Two extremely explainable examples that bear very little resemblance to the "Joe Biden is not Joe Biden" set of narratives (if you know what I mean - I'm using literary license here) don't really stack up as a record of what 'they' do. In my opinion.
There are other options. Doubles used as decoys for security or strategic reasons. Such as (if it ever happened) a double of Churchhill being used to deceive the German intelligence during ww2.
We live in the Matrix. "History," is a Show, and always has been
I think we probably differ in our view of history, and indeed, what either of us means when we refer to 'the matrix'.
And, I don't find your binary offering of "It's either A or B" convincing, or satisfying. Binary offerings often come across as fundamentalist exaggerations touting beliefs rather than logical propositions. Aka not wanting to consider more nuanced views, alternative perspectives that don't align with other certain closely held core beliefs.
(Not trying to psychoanalyze you here, fren. Just trying to explain why personally, I don't find the A or B proposition here convincing.)
In either case, I've already stated I'll take your bet. But, I I do hope that the part about 'betting everything' is, ahem, hyperbole. Dramatic expression intended to emphasize the sense of conviction you have regarding what you believe to be true. I hope it is, anyway.
the first one seems very clearly to be a 'stand in' for the queen, and not someone who is/was touted as being the queen deceptively in order to mislead the greater public.
From the article:
Now, however, they are permitted to resume their duties - and it turns out that the Queen Elizabeth II actually uses someone to step in for important events when she is unable to, something which was previously unknown.
For decades this body double acted as the Queen in an official capacity, and the public didn't know about it. Doing the Queens duties is far from a mere "stand in". Doing the Queens duties for decades is exactly intentions to be "deceptive" and "misleading the greater public". This deception went on until 2022. I suggest if not for Q it would have never been disclosed.
The second example is even more egregious regarding deception. And those are only two recent examples. History records more. Those are the ones recorded as fact. The number of believed to be likelybecause of supporting evidence is many, many times more.
the narratives I've seen around the topic as it relates to anons, truthers, etc, have nothing to do with such examples.
"Reasonable doubts" are not the same thing as "proof." I suggest "proof" is a verb, not a noun (bear with me). Proof means "there is enough evidence to meet some level of proof by my estimation." It is an action of choice, based on evidence, employing the process of reason (a verb).
Within the reasoning process there are different levels of proof. In lawfare, these different levels are called "the burden of proof." The lowest level of "proof" is called "Some evidence." That means that there exists at least one reasonable doubt, AKA "there is some contrary evidence that can't be discounted through the process of reason." At the other end of the spectrum is "Beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that there is no evidence that exists contrary to the proposition that can be considered meaningful after the process of reason has been applied to it. At each level, and for each person, they have to decide for themselves if there is enough evidence.
By themselves, most people fail in the process of reason. In groups, if the members are truly independent, they tend to do better (though far from perfect). In the process of reason there are two components; logic and axioms. Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic. Almost all people are logical (eventually). Where they fail is in their assumptions (axioms). People generally don't recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions, or even that they have made those assumptions, rather they unconsciously take their assumptions as truth and call it a day.
Biden is an excellent example. The amount of reasonable evidence that supports Biden as not Biden is substantial. Here is one example (of dozens); the earlobes.
There is clear uncontroversial evidence that the ears of the person called Biden in 2019 are not the same ears of Vice President Biden 2016. The explanation for that change, the story, is that Biden had plastic surgery and that that was why his ears were so drastically different. That belief relies on that story being true, sufficiently complete, and that the surgery was the cause of the drastic ear change.
Maybe those assumptions are true, maybe they are not. There are three different assumptions listed there (there are probably others), all must be true for the conclusion to be possibly true through the process of logic. Anyone who believes that all of those axioms are truth without further investigation is not reasonable. That doesn't mean that those assumptions are false, but most people don't even think of those things as assumptions. It's media reports citing doctors reports, two of the most trusted institutions, so it must be true.
Yet I can provide substantial evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the media says things that are false constantly. I can provide substantial evidence that doctors, indeed, the entire medical establishment says things that are false constantly. Sometimes these false statements are unintentional omissions, some are provably intentional omissions, some are provably intentional lies (purposefully false statements of fact). Not only do these institutions lie, they lie about similar things to this topic to create false narratives. As a well known example of provable lies from both institutions is the JFK "lone gunman" story. Only now, 80 years later, is that narrative, previously pushed constantly by both institutions, finally proving false. Not only do these institutions lie, I can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the media is designed, from day one, to create such false narratives for Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc.. I can also show that doctor's training, numerous individual medical professionals, and the medical establishment itself is designed to kill people and steal all their property for Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc..
Anyone who insists that the media reports of plastic surgery is sufficient evidence is unreasonable (not using reason), instead believing (assuming) a known liar is telling you the truth about a controversial topic. All the other pieces of evidence that I've seen "for Biden is the real Biden" relies on similar assumptions. That doesn't mean the assumptions are true or false. I am saying that most people don't realize what their assumptions are, what their foundational axioms are, who they are relying on, what a deeper investigation shows, and they don't ask themselves the most important question, why they believe what they believe.
In the case of Biden, like I said, there are numerous issues, the earlobe issue is only one and I haven't even really gotten into it. By itself it is far from sufficient. But it is, by itself, even with the minimal suggestions of supporting evidence (much more than I've described), a reasonable doubt. With investigation into all of the reasonable evidence, anyone who can make definitive claims "for Biden" is not a reasonable person (not properly employing the process of reason).
What we're talking about is mass deception of the public, supposedly for righteous and benevolent reasons. Me? I don't subscribe to this.
Enjoy the Show.
Q
What makes a movie GOOD?
GREAT actors?
Q
What do you think those Q posts mean?
You cited another example, of the controversy around Gu Kailai
The first example (the Queen) was relating to the use of long term large scale deception. The second (Gu Kailai) was the use of a double for testifying in court, the main topic of my first post. They were selected for those purposes. I could find others more to your liking if you prefer.
I don't find your binary offering of "It's either A or B" convincing, or satisfying.
You suggest my "binary offering" is insufficient, but instead of addressing why you think it was unconvincing, you created a not-that-veiled psychoanalysis as ad hominem. If you want to be convincing, be direct in your protest.
As for my capabilities of reason, and how complete The Matrix really is, I suggest you read my report.
It's a little disheartening to have gone thru all this waking people up and then not getting a reward of the baddies actually being them in panic and terror but having a fake double 'arrested' for show. lol. If you follow some accounts you'd believe literally everyone you see in Government is some sort of mask wearing actor which means the whole thing is silly to begin with. What gives me pause is Q went on and on about doing things by the book, it must be done to the rule of law...I hardly doubt Jim Carey pretending to be Sleepy Joe would be legal even under COG.
After (during) 8 years of Q, I've seen theories come and theories go, I've seen all sorts of nonsense and all sorts of passionately held perspectives, a very wide spectrum indeed.
As things have unfolded, many, many of those theories have just fallen away and their relevance to what is unfolding often seems (feels) distant.
People are strange beings. We have emotional needs, intellectual needs, and the need to see accomplishment. Navigating all of that, while attempting to make real progress, requires above all else, balance. At least, so it seems to me.
Some interpretations of the Q message (board) appear to me to be lacking in various forms of balance, and for those reasons, I find myself not gravitating towards them. They might spike interest for a time, but very few really have staying power.
I put the mask-wearing fake/false/replaced 'person' theories (if you listen to some, they are not theories, but self-evident facts!) in that basket. There may be some measure of truth there (as there is in almost any perspective) but the way that some grasp it appears to me like a person coming into the roulette room at the casino, and putting all their hard earned cash on No. 7 to win. Or even just splitting up their chips, on this or that etc.
I don't find that sort of approach to be all that productive, personally. But I guess some do.
It must be done by the book.
And, there's the real kicker. It has to be done properly.
The DS has shills masking as Patriots too. They will grab the wackiest theories and state them as Q posting them, then you can go literally into the Q drops and see Q denounce exactly what they are talking about. But they know people only read headlines and not dig into the information. For instance, my MAGA normie friends were sending me clips of Trump "aimlessly walking around the roof of the White House" saying he's lost his goddamn mind....not realizing if they just watched the full video he was up there touring the renovations he's paying for.
I wonder if there is a US legal provision for when a body double testifies under oath. I wonder if it matters if the original is dead, in witpro, on the lam, or in prison.
There've been quite a few court proceedings going on recently using doubles. For example, I'm fairly certain Derek Fauvin was a body double, although I don't remember if he testified under oath. I'd bet my life that the past 4 years was just a long movie called "The Mask Part 2", or "Weekend at Bidens", you pick.
I'm fairly certain this "Body Double for 'history'" swap happens quite often, both in the recent past and for centuries (at least). There are recent documented cases of using a double for official proceedings for the Elite, including testifying in court.
We live in the Matrix. "History," is a Show, and always has been. Whatever the truth is, I'd bet everything that the former Secretary of State Hitlery will not been testifying, no matter what "History" records.
All due respect, not a fan of the 'They have all been replaced' narratives.
Anyhow, I'll take your bet. Let's check back here mid-October.
That is an association fallacy. I never stated nor implied that they were all replaced, but that some have been replaced is documented. That it has been done often in history is also documented. This provides you with two "conspiracy theory" options:
Both are "conspiracy theories." Pick your poison.
The 'all' in "They have all been replaced' narrative" is hyperbole, intended to emphasize what I personally consider the more extreme levels of nonsense (imo) connected with the topic.
The concept of use of a body double (e.g. decoy) is certainly not radical. However, looking at the two examples you provide, the first one seems very clearly to be a 'stand in' for the queen, and not someone who is/was touted as being the queen deceptively in order to mislead the greater public.
Even then, with someone as high profile as the queen, I'd be surprised if her entourage did not include someone who could, in certain circumstances, step in as a 'pretend', in situations of high risk, etc.
But, pretty much all the narratives I've seen around the topic as it relates to anons, truthers, etc, have nothing to do with such examples. Joe Biden is not Joe Biden, being a great example. What we're talking about is mass deception of the public, supposedly for righteous and benevolent reasons. Me? I don't subscribe to this.
You cited another example, of the controversy around Gu Kailai. Very believable that the CCP could swap in a fake to conduct a trial in hometown China. But again, this example bears very little resemblance to the vast majority of the "joe Biden is not Joe Biden, Hillary is in Gitmo" narratives. At least the ones I am talking about.
Two extremely explainable examples that bear very little resemblance to the "Joe Biden is not Joe Biden" set of narratives (if you know what I mean - I'm using literary license here) don't really stack up as a record of what 'they' do. In my opinion.
There are other options. Doubles used as decoys for security or strategic reasons. Such as (if it ever happened) a double of Churchhill being used to deceive the German intelligence during ww2.
I think we probably differ in our view of history, and indeed, what either of us means when we refer to 'the matrix'.
And, I don't find your binary offering of "It's either A or B" convincing, or satisfying. Binary offerings often come across as fundamentalist exaggerations touting beliefs rather than logical propositions. Aka not wanting to consider more nuanced views, alternative perspectives that don't align with other certain closely held core beliefs.
(Not trying to psychoanalyze you here, fren. Just trying to explain why personally, I don't find the A or B proposition here convincing.)
In either case, I've already stated I'll take your bet. But, I I do hope that the part about 'betting everything' is, ahem, hyperbole. Dramatic expression intended to emphasize the sense of conviction you have regarding what you believe to be true. I hope it is, anyway.
Either way, let's check back here mid-October?
From the article:
For decades this body double acted as the Queen in an official capacity, and the public didn't know about it. Doing the Queens duties is far from a mere "stand in". Doing the Queens duties for decades is exactly intentions to be "deceptive" and "misleading the greater public". This deception went on until 2022. I suggest if not for Q it would have never been disclosed.
The second example is even more egregious regarding deception. And those are only two recent examples. History records more. Those are the ones recorded as fact. The number of believed to be likely because of supporting evidence is many, many times more.
"Reasonable doubts" are not the same thing as "proof." I suggest "proof" is a verb, not a noun (bear with me). Proof means "there is enough evidence to meet some level of proof by my estimation." It is an action of choice, based on evidence, employing the process of reason (a verb).
Within the reasoning process there are different levels of proof. In lawfare, these different levels are called "the burden of proof." The lowest level of "proof" is called "Some evidence." That means that there exists at least one reasonable doubt, AKA "there is some contrary evidence that can't be discounted through the process of reason." At the other end of the spectrum is "Beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that there is no evidence that exists contrary to the proposition that can be considered meaningful after the process of reason has been applied to it. At each level, and for each person, they have to decide for themselves if there is enough evidence.
By themselves, most people fail in the process of reason. In groups, if the members are truly independent, they tend to do better (though far from perfect). In the process of reason there are two components; logic and axioms. Coming to false conclusions usually isn't a function of faulty logic. Almost all people are logical (eventually). Where they fail is in their assumptions (axioms). People generally don't recognize or appreciate the details of their assumptions, or even that they have made those assumptions, rather they unconsciously take their assumptions as truth and call it a day.
Biden is an excellent example. The amount of reasonable evidence that supports Biden as not Biden is substantial. Here is one example (of dozens); the earlobes.
There is clear uncontroversial evidence that the ears of the person called Biden in 2019 are not the same ears of Vice President Biden 2016. The explanation for that change, the story, is that Biden had plastic surgery and that that was why his ears were so drastically different. That belief relies on that story being true, sufficiently complete, and that the surgery was the cause of the drastic ear change.
Maybe those assumptions are true, maybe they are not. There are three different assumptions listed there (there are probably others), all must be true for the conclusion to be possibly true through the process of logic. Anyone who believes that all of those axioms are truth without further investigation is not reasonable. That doesn't mean that those assumptions are false, but most people don't even think of those things as assumptions. It's media reports citing doctors reports, two of the most trusted institutions, so it must be true.
Yet I can provide substantial evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the media says things that are false constantly. I can provide substantial evidence that doctors, indeed, the entire medical establishment says things that are false constantly. Sometimes these false statements are unintentional omissions, some are provably intentional omissions, some are provably intentional lies (purposefully false statements of fact). Not only do these institutions lie, they lie about similar things to this topic to create false narratives. As a well known example of provable lies from both institutions is the JFK "lone gunman" story. Only now, 80 years later, is that narrative, previously pushed constantly by both institutions, finally proving false. Not only do these institutions lie, I can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the media is designed, from day one, to create such false narratives for Rockefeller/Rothschild/C_A/MI6/etc.. I can also show that doctor's training, numerous individual medical professionals, and the medical establishment itself is designed to kill people and steal all their property for Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc..
Anyone who insists that the media reports of plastic surgery is sufficient evidence is unreasonable (not using reason), instead believing (assuming) a known liar is telling you the truth about a controversial topic. All the other pieces of evidence that I've seen "for Biden is the real Biden" relies on similar assumptions. That doesn't mean the assumptions are true or false. I am saying that most people don't realize what their assumptions are, what their foundational axioms are, who they are relying on, what a deeper investigation shows, and they don't ask themselves the most important question, why they believe what they believe.
In the case of Biden, like I said, there are numerous issues, the earlobe issue is only one and I haven't even really gotten into it. By itself it is far from sufficient. But it is, by itself, even with the minimal suggestions of supporting evidence (much more than I've described), a reasonable doubt. With investigation into all of the reasonable evidence, anyone who can make definitive claims "for Biden" is not a reasonable person (not properly employing the process of reason).
What do you think those Q posts mean?
The first example (the Queen) was relating to the use of long term large scale deception. The second (Gu Kailai) was the use of a double for testifying in court, the main topic of my first post. They were selected for those purposes. I could find others more to your liking if you prefer.
You suggest my "binary offering" is insufficient, but instead of addressing why you think it was unconvincing, you created a not-that-veiled psychoanalysis as ad hominem. If you want to be convincing, be direct in your protest.
As for my capabilities of reason, and how complete The Matrix really is, I suggest you read my report.
It's a little disheartening to have gone thru all this waking people up and then not getting a reward of the baddies actually being them in panic and terror but having a fake double 'arrested' for show. lol. If you follow some accounts you'd believe literally everyone you see in Government is some sort of mask wearing actor which means the whole thing is silly to begin with. What gives me pause is Q went on and on about doing things by the book, it must be done to the rule of law...I hardly doubt Jim Carey pretending to be Sleepy Joe would be legal even under COG.
After (during) 8 years of Q, I've seen theories come and theories go, I've seen all sorts of nonsense and all sorts of passionately held perspectives, a very wide spectrum indeed.
As things have unfolded, many, many of those theories have just fallen away and their relevance to what is unfolding often seems (feels) distant.
People are strange beings. We have emotional needs, intellectual needs, and the need to see accomplishment. Navigating all of that, while attempting to make real progress, requires above all else, balance. At least, so it seems to me.
Some interpretations of the Q message (board) appear to me to be lacking in various forms of balance, and for those reasons, I find myself not gravitating towards them. They might spike interest for a time, but very few really have staying power.
I put the mask-wearing fake/false/replaced 'person' theories (if you listen to some, they are not theories, but self-evident facts!) in that basket. There may be some measure of truth there (as there is in almost any perspective) but the way that some grasp it appears to me like a person coming into the roulette room at the casino, and putting all their hard earned cash on No. 7 to win. Or even just splitting up their chips, on this or that etc.
I don't find that sort of approach to be all that productive, personally. But I guess some do.
And, there's the real kicker. It has to be done properly.
The DS has shills masking as Patriots too. They will grab the wackiest theories and state them as Q posting them, then you can go literally into the Q drops and see Q denounce exactly what they are talking about. But they know people only read headlines and not dig into the information. For instance, my MAGA normie friends were sending me clips of Trump "aimlessly walking around the roof of the White House" saying he's lost his goddamn mind....not realizing if they just watched the full video he was up there touring the renovations he's paying for.