Bess is just an example of nickname like Betty is a nickname of Elizabeth.

Elizabeth I is associated with snow white skin. She is always depicted with white clownish make up caked on. It's a famous association.

It's how the comm is set up.

Elizabeth II is then compared to her and how they are so alike. Now you're setting up the association.

The people involved in a plot to install their chosen puppet on the British Throne did not want to openly talk about it. If your message gets intercepted it could spell doom. What they're discussing is treason. You develop comms to talk about the illegal stuff while maintaining plausible deniability.

Instead of talking about wanting to ensure that Princess Elizabeth becomes Queen you give her a code name. You can't send a message saying "Elizabeth's code name is Snow White". If your code is broken or that message is found then you've been caught in an act of treason. Instead you time things in a way to create the association without it being too obvious.

Comms are very hard for normies. Heck, even most anons couldn't figure out Q comms. Even anons get stumped by them.

Q tried to send the comm "Babies on Floor, hands in mouth" and it took an anon forever to realize the comm was for "Syria".

I made a post on it. Q posted a picture of a palm tree and asked what is it. Anons struggled to realize "plant" and that plant has the double meaning of a "spy".

Q said "plants need water" (Spies need info). Q said "learn our comms", but there are still many anons who struggle with the idea. Comms are very hard because it requires abstract thinking to make the connection.

You need to create a way to talk about something clandestine (classified or dangerous to openly discuss) without it being obvious what you are doing. That is the nature of the comm.

For example, say you want to discuss a plot to assassinate a US president like JFK, you can talk through comms. Openly discussing that plot in public is dangerous. You need to keep plausible deniability.

Why do you think the released emails from Tony Podesta talked about "pizza"? Even though they HRC's emails got exposed they could deny stuff because they had talked in code. They talked about "pizza" instead of kids.

That's why they denied, denied, denied on Pizzagate.

Normies look and go, "So what? They're talking about REALLY expensive pizza. Seems like a nothingburger to me."

Do you see how they get away with their crimes by using comms? If you can't understand their comms you won't recognize their crimes.

Bess is just an example of nickname like Betty is a nickname of Elizabeth.

Elizabeth I is associated with snow white skin. She is always depicted with white clownish make up caked on. It's a famous association.

It's how the comm is set up.

The people involved in a plot to install their chosen puppet on the British Throne did not want to openly talk about it. If your message gets intercepted it could spell doom. What they're discussing is treason. You develop comms to talk about the illegal stuff while maintaining plausible deniability.

Instead of talking about wanting to ensure that Princess Elizabeth becomes Queen you give her a code name. You can't send a message saying "Elizabeth's code name is Snow White". If your code is broken or that message is found then you've been caught in an act of treason. Instead you time things in a way to create the association without it being too obvious.

Comms are very hard for normies. Heck, even most anons couldn't figure out Q comms. Even anons get stumped by them.

Q tried to send the comm "Babies on Floor, hands in mouth" and it took an anon forever to realize the comm was for "Syria".

I made a post on it. Q posted a picture of a palm tree and asked what is it. Anons struggled to realize "plant" and that plant has the double meaning of a "spy".

Q said "plants need water" (Spies need info). Q said "learn our comms", but there are still many anons who struggle with the idea. Comms are very hard because it requires abstract thinking to make the connection.

You need to create a way to talk about something clandestine (classified or dangerous to openly discuss) without it being obvious what you are doing. That is the nature of the comm.

For example, say you want to discuss a plot to assassinate a US president like JFK, you can talk through comms. Openly discussing that plot in public is dangerous. You need to keep plausible deniability.

Why do you think the released emails from Tony Podesta talked about "pizza"? Even though they HRC's emails got exposed they could deny stuff because they had talked in code. They talked about "pizza" instead of kids.

That's why they denied, denied, denied on Pizzagate.

Normies look and go, "So what? They're talking about REALLY expensive pizza. Seems like a nothingburger to me."

Do you see how they get away with their crimes by using comms? If you can't understand their comms you won't recognize their crimes.