Firstly: it’s 10:09 and the finger doesn’t point at the 2. Secondly, it’s Qanon. There’s no such thing as unintentional details. If it’s a stock photo it was selected for a reason
I put 10:00 because it looks closer to the 2 and I was again, assuming a "close enough." I get that every detail counts, but what are the odds of just the right image with just the right small details being available to use?
I could certainly be wrong and will be more than happy to eat my words if so. Looks like we'll find out in a few weeks.
Firstly: it’s 10:09 and the finger doesn’t point at the 2. Secondly, it’s Qanon. There’s no such thing as unintentional details. If it’s a stock photo it was selected for a reason
I put 10:00 because it looks closer to the 2 and I was again, assuming a "close enough." I get that every detail counts, but what are the odds of just the right image with just the right small details being available to use?
I could certainly be wrong and will be more than happy to eat my words if so. Looks like we'll find out in a few weeks.
I’m sure that Qanon would seek an image that is just right and use it, and this one happened to be that.