I like the way you are thinking about the drop, and applying logical thought.
That said, I know that there certainly was a consensus among anons at the time that Q was specifically pointing to Wikileaks.
Consider the entire drop:
Desperate agencies do stupid things.
Pointing to an intel agency (eg. the C_A)
Dead cat bounce.
"A dead cat bounce is a short-term recovery in a declining trend that does not indicate a reversal of the downward trend" (sauce: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/101700.asp)
You may have the site but we have the source.
What site? What source?
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1011441579565953025
here is what Wikileaks posted on twitter:
Why is "Qanon" leading anti-establishment Trump voters to embrace regime change and neo-conservatism?
The tweet links to a "Qanon" hit piece: PRO-TRUMP CONSPIRACY-MONGER “QANON” CALLS FOR REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN
Panic is good.
Panic is right.
Here, Q appears to be trolling the C_A (aka the agency that holds the Wikileaks organization now that Assange is not in charge, implying that they are lashing out using wikileaks to post anti-Q narrative.)
Let's put all this together.
Wikileaks, formerly an instrument of whistleblowers under Assange exposing corruption, is now dropping an anti-"Qanon" hit piece. Q directly implies that wikileaks is now in instrument of the Deep State, because who else is pushing the Anti-Q narrative so hard via media? (Many examples of this activity on the Q board.) Q indicates that it is a stupid move to use wikileaks to push their anti-Q agenda, and that it will not result in any change of direction of the Q operator in the long run.
Putting all this together, the consensus among anons at the time was that the C_A indeed had taken over Wikileaks (aka the site) but that Assange was under White Hat control.
In the Assange timeline, Assange was indicted in Sweden he fled to sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012. Wikileaks releases the confidential emails from DNC and Clinton in July 2016.
At this point, Assange himself becomes a source, because he knows HOW the DNC and clinton emails were released, and by whom. (He inadvertently implied this was Seth Rich in an interview he gave to a Dutch interviewer. At a minimum, he is implying that Seth Rich was a whistleblower of some sort): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg
July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH. Conspiracy no more. Time to FEED. Q
It is hard to interpret that Assange is "the site" and that someone else is "the source" in this context. What source? Source of what? Your interpretation makes sense in that one statement alone You may have the site but we have the source, but then, what is this source Q is talking about? And the source of WHAT?
The context here implies that Assange knows what is the truth about DNC Seth Rich, whether there was Russian involvement, Trump, etc, and hence is the "source" for that information. If Q is not referring to this information, then what information is it? Contextually, there's no answer to that, and the entire drop makes little sense.
This post links with a later one that also states "we have the source".
These people are stupid! https://www.cohenmilsteinprocessserver.com. "Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself." Discovery. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/400882-wikileaks-says-senate-panel-requested-assange-testimony-in-russia-probe
Q is painting this picture. The DNC is accusing Wikileaks in their suit against Russia. The case was dismissed with prejudice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_v._Russian_Federation)
The context of this is the DNC attempting to paint the narrative that Russia, Wikileaks and Trump were all in collusion re: the DNC emails. We already know that all of that narrative is a fabrication.
Q indicates these steps will destroy the DNC / Swamp narrative, because neither Russia nor Trump were actually involved, and in Discovery process, the truth would come out. By forcing the case and a discovery process, the DNC Swamp is actually shooting themselves in the foot. It may be, however, that they are simply attempting to reinforce the narrative of Russia, Trump (and wikileaks in this case).
Wikileaks says that the senate panel requested Assange's testimony, further attempting to paint the picture that somehow Russia is involved. However, there is no confirmation from the Senate that this is actually so. It's only wikileaks who is saying this.
Do you believe in coincidences? We have the source. Q
Again, Q mentions the source. If the source is NOT Assange in this case, then who or what is it, and what information is the source holding? Those things seem quite unanswerable if Assange is not the answer. Contextually, it doesn't make sense, and requires mere speculation with reasoning, but without context or evidence.
I like the way you are thinking about the drop, and applying logical thought.
That said, I know that there certainly was a consensus among anons at the time that Q was specifically pointing to Wikileaks.
Consider the entire drop:
Desperate agencies do stupid things.
Pointing to an intel agency (eg. the C_A)
Dead cat bounce.
"A dead cat bounce is a short-term recovery in a declining trend that does not indicate a reversal of the downward trend" (sauce: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/101700.asp)
You may have the site but we have the source.
What site? What source?
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1011441579565953025
here is what Wikileaks posted on twitter:
Why is "Qanon" leading anti-establishment Trump voters to embrace regime change and neo-conservatism?
The tweet links to a "Qanon" hit piece: PRO-TRUMP CONSPIRACY-MONGER “QANON” CALLS FOR REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN
Panic is good.
Panic is right.
Here, Q appears to be trolling the C_A (aka the agency that holds the Wikileaks organization now that Assange is not in charge, implying that they are lashing out using wikileaks to post anti-Q narrative.)
Let's put all this together.
Wikileaks, formerly an instrument of whistleblowers under Assange exposing corruption, is now dropping an anti-"Qanon" hit piece. Q directly implies that wikileaks is now in instrument of the Deep State, because who else is pushing the Anti-Q narrative so hard via media? (Many examples of this activity on the Q board.) Q indicates that it is a stupid move to use wikileaks to push their anti-Q agenda, and that it will not result in any change of direction of the Q operator in the long run.
Putting all this together, the consensus among anons at the time was that the C_A indeed had taken over Wikileaks (aka the site) but that Assange was under White Hat control.
In the Assange timeline, Assange was indicted in Sweden he fled to sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012. Wikileaks releases the confidential emails from DNC and Clinton in July 2016.
At this point, Assange himself becomes a source, because he knows HOW the DNC and clinton emails were released, and by whom. (He inadvertently implied this was Seth Rich in an interview he gave to a Dutch interviewer. At a minimum, he is implying that Seth Rich was a whistleblower of some sort): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg
July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH. Conspiracy no more. Time to FEED. Q
It is hard to interpret that Assange is "the site" and that someone else is "the source" in this context. What source? Source of what? Your interpretation makes sense in that one statement alone You may have the site but we have the source, but then, what is this source Q is talking about? And the source of WHAT?
The context here implies that Assange knows what is the truth about DNC Seth Rich, etc, and hence is the "source" for that information. If it's not this information that Q is talking about, then what information is it?
This post links with a later one that also states "we have the source".
These people are stupid! https://www.cohenmilsteinprocessserver.com. "Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself." Discovery. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/400882-wikileaks-says-senate-panel-requested-assange-testimony-in-russia-probe
Q is painting this picture. The DNC is accusing Wikileaks in their suit against Russia. The case was dismissed with prejudice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_v._Russian_Federation)
The context of this is the DNC attempting to paint the narrative that Russia, Wikileaks and Trump were all in collusion re: the DNC emails. We already know that all of that narrative is a fabrication.
Q indicates these steps will destroy the DNC / Swamp narrative, because neither Russia nor Trump were actually involved, and in Discovery process, the truth would come out. By forcing the case and a discovery process, the DNC Swamp is actually shooting themselves in the foot. It may be, however, that they are simply attempting to reinforce the narrative of Russia, Trump (and wikileaks in this case).
Wikileaks says that the senate panel requested Assange's testimony, further attempting to paint the picture that somehow Russia is involved. However, there is no confirmation from the Senate that this is actually so. It's only wikileaks who is saying this.
Do you believe in coincidences? We have the source. Q
Again, Q mentions the source. If the source is NOT Assange in this case, then who or what is it, and what information is the source holding? Those things seem quite unanswerable if Assange is not the answer. Contextually, it doesn't make sense, and requires mere speculation with reasoning, but without context or evidence.
I like the way you are thinking about the drop, and applying logical thought.
That said, I know that there certainly was a consensus among anons at the time that Q was specifically pointing to Wikileaks.
Consider the entire drop:
Desperate agencies do stupid things.
Pointing to an intel agency (eg. the C_A)
Dead cat bounce.
"A dead cat bounce is a short-term recovery in a declining trend that does not indicate a reversal of the downward trend" (sauce: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/101700.asp)
You may have the site but we have the source.
What site? What source?
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1011441579565953025
here is what Wikileaks posted on twitter:
Why is "Qanon" leading anti-establishment Trump voters to embrace regime change and neo-conservatism?
The tweet links to a "Qanon" hit piece: PRO-TRUMP CONSPIRACY-MONGER “QANON” CALLS FOR REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN
Panic is good.
Panic is right.
Here, Q appears to be trolling the C_A (aka the agency that holds the Wikileaks organization now that Assange is not in charge, implying that they are lashing out using wikileaks to post anti-Q narrative.)
Let's put all this together.
Wikileaks, formerly an instrument of whistleblowers under Assange exposing corruption, is now dropping an anti-"Qanon" hit piece. Q directly implies that wikileaks is now in instrument of the Deep State, because who else is pushing the Anti-Q narrative so hard via media? (Many examples of this activity on the Q board.) Q indicates that it is a stupid move to use wikileaks to push their anti-Q agenda, and that it will not result in any change of direction of the Q operator in the long run.
Putting all this together, the consensus among anons at the time was that the C_A indeed had taken over Wikileaks (aka the site) but that Assange was under White Hat control.
In the Assange timeline, Assange was indicted in Sweden he fled to sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012. Wikileaks releases the confidential emails from DNC and Clinton in July 2016.
At this point, Assange himself becomes a source, because he knows HOW the DNC and clinton emails were released, and by whom. (He inadvertently implied this was Seth Rich in an interview he gave to a Dutch interviewer. At a minimum, he is implying that Seth Rich was a whistleblower of some sort): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg
July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH. Conspiracy no more. Time to FEED. Q
It is hard to interpret that Assange is "the site" and that someone else is "the source" in this context. What source? Source of what? Your interpretation makes sense in that one statement alone You may have the site but we have the source, but then, what is this source Q is talking about? The source of WHAT?
The context here implies that Assange knows what is the truth about DNC Seth Rich, etc, and hence is the "source" for that information. If it's not this information that Q is talking about, then what information is it?
This post links with a later one that also states "we have the source".
These people are stupid! https://www.cohenmilsteinprocessserver.com. "Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself." Discovery. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/400882-wikileaks-says-senate-panel-requested-assange-testimony-in-russia-probe
Q is painting this picture. The DNC is accusing Wikileaks in their suit against Russia. The case was dismissed with prejudice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_v._Russian_Federation)
The context of this is the DNC attempting to paint the narrative that Russia, Wikileaks and Trump were all in collusion re: the DNC emails. We already know that all of that narrative is a fabrication.
Q indicates these steps will destroy the DNC / Swamp narrative, because neither Russia nor Trump were actually involved, and in Discovery process, the truth would come out. By forcing the case and a discovery process, the DNC Swamp is actually shooting themselves in the foot. It may be, however, that they are simply attempting to reinforce the narrative of Russia, Trump (and wikileaks in this case).
Wikileaks says that the senate panel requested Assange's testimony, further attempting to paint the picture that somehow Russia is involved. However, there is no confirmation from the Senate that this is actually so. It's only wikileaks who is saying this.
Do you believe in coincidences? We have the source. Q
Again, Q mentions the source. If the source is NOT Assange in this case, then who or what is it, and what information is the source holding? Those things seem quite unanswerable if Assange is not the answer. Contextually, it doesn't make sense, and requires mere speculation with reasoning, but without context or evidence.
I like the way you are thinking about the drop, and applying logical thought.
That said, I know that there certainly was a consensus among anons at the time that Q was specifically pointing to Wikileaks.
Consider the entire drop:
Desperate agencies do stupid things.
Pointing to an intel agency (eg. the C_A)
Dead cat bounce.
"A dead cat bounce is a short-term recovery in a declining trend that does not indicate a reversal of the downward trend" (sauce: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/101700.asp)
You may have the site but we have the source.
What site? What source?
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1011441579565953025
here is what Wikileaks posted on twitter:
Why is "Qanon" leading anti-establishment Trump voters to embrace regime change and neo-conservatism?
The tweet links to a "Qanon" hit piece: PRO-TRUMP CONSPIRACY-MONGER “QANON” CALLS FOR REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN
Panic is good.
Panic is right.
Here, Q appears to be trolling the C_A (aka the agency that holds the Wikileaks organization now that Assange is not in charge, implying that they are lashing out using wikileaks to post anti-Q narrative.)
Let's put all this together.
Wikileaks, formerly an instrument of whistleblowers under Assange exposing corruption, is now dropping an anti-"Qanon" hit piece. Q is indicating that they are doing this via Wikileaks because they are desperate and panicking, and indicates that this will not reverse their downward decline.
Putting all this together, the consensus among anons at the time was that the C_A indeed has taken over Wikileaks (aka the site) but that Assange is under White Hat control.
Once Assange was indicted in Sweden he fled to sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012. Wikileaks releases the confidential emails from DNC and Clinton in July 2016.
At this point, Assange himself becomes a source, because he knows HOW the DNC and clinton emails were released, and by whom. (He inadvertently implied this was Seth Rich in an interview he gave to a Dutch interviewer. At a minimum, he is implying that Seth Rich was a whistleblower of some sort): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg
July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH. Conspiracy no more. Time to FEED. Q
It is hard to interpret that Assange is "the site" and that someone else is "the source" in this context. What source? Source of what? Your interpretation makes sense in that one statement alone You may have the site but we have the source, but then, what is this source Q is talking about? The source of WHAT?
The context here implies that Assange knows what is the truth about DNC Seth Rich, etc, and hence is the "source" for that information. If it's not this information that Q is talking about, then what information is it?
This post links with a later one that also states "we have the source".
These people are stupid! https://www.cohenmilsteinprocessserver.com. "Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself." Discovery. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/400882-wikileaks-says-senate-panel-requested-assange-testimony-in-russia-probe
Q is painting this picture. The DNC is accusing Wikileaks in their suit against Russia. The case was dismissed with prejudice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_v._Russian_Federation)
The context of this is the DNC attempting to paint the narrative that Russia, Wikileaks and Trump were all in collusion re: the DNC emails. We already know that all of that narrative is a fabrication.
Q indicates these steps will destroy the DNC / Swamp narrative, because neither Russia nor Trump were actually involved, and in Discovery process, the truth would come out. By forcing the case and a discovery process, the DNC Swamp is actually shooting themselves in the foot. It may be, however, that they are simply attempting to reinforce the narrative of Russia, Trump (and wikileaks in this case).
Wikileaks says that the senate panel requested Assange's testimony, further attempting to paint the picture that somehow Russia is involved. However, there is no confirmation from the Senate that this is actually so. It's only wikileaks who is saying this.
Do you believe in coincidences? We have the source. Q
Again, Q mentions the source. If the source is NOT Assange in this case, then who or what is it, and what information is the source holding? Those things seem quite unanswerable if Assange is not the answer. Contextually, it doesn't make sense, and requires mere speculation with reasoning, but without context or evidence.