2
19841776 2 points ago +2 / -0

God is in control. The ultimate white pill.

4
19841776 4 points ago +5 / -1

Yeah, umm, no. But I can understand your interpretation. Here’s the thing, you’re seeing a phenomena known as parallax and it’s related to the depth of field from the camera lenses. Take a look at the overhead shot in the scene prior, and you’ll see how the stage is laid out. Notice the distance involved between the eventual “swearing in” position and those who are gathered around and those who are seated further back. If you have a couple cameras (phone or otherwise) with lenses of different focal lengths, you’ll be able to see how the background can “collapse” and bring people closer in behind a subject vs pushing them further out with more depth. There are a thousand web pages on photography that will explain this stuff better than I can.

Now I did see something interesting though in looking at these scenes in slo mo. How about the creepy moment where Hunter stares at Roberts, just after he hands off the Bible to Jill. Ugggh.

2
19841776 2 points ago +2 / -0

But there is no reasonable connection between Pompeo’s tweet and Q 123.

Now if you look at Q 123 and Q 124 a day later, it says:

+++
++
+
Q

So, obvious relation to the preceding message.

Had Pompeo’s tweet been “1384+++123” then you could argue there is a reasonable connection. You have to have some scrap of relationship... and I’m not seeing it.

Anons, stop wasting your time on finding “every possible meaning” and look for the “likely intended meaning.”

20
19841776 20 points ago +21 / -1

Do you even realize this photo is from his previous inauguration as VP?

2
19841776 2 points ago +3 / -1

There is most definitely a gaslighting op in play here (either coordinated or de facto) and at this point I’m afraid Mods are either (1) promoting it or (2) overwhelmed and unable to stop it. I sincerely hope it’s Option (2).

Posts about fake White Houses, Castle Rock sound stages, body doubles, etc are taking over the site. Your “grasping onto any branch” idea is a perfect description. We need more sane, level headed discussion. Unfortunately someone who is all wound up about lizard people in skin suits will instantly attack you as a “shill”, “doomer”, or “LARP”.

I’m not even willing to say it’s a coordinated attack by a shill army, either. I think there are seriously just that many people who get off on trolling (i.e. 4chan et al). But there is a battle on right now and it’s going to eventually drive away those of us trying to keep the peace, digging for truth, and unwilling to believe in a Flat Earth Surrounded By An Ice Wall Protecting The True Winter White House From The Adrenochrome Child Cannibals.

Mental illness is a real thing. If you are looking for a coded message in my sentence containing “Adrenochrome” you might want to take a break from the screen.

4
19841776 4 points ago +4 / -0

I worry that many will downvote as soon as they read “Q is a decoy” and not continue to read your message and take it to heart. Your interpretation is a valid way to perceive the situation and for that I wanted to thank you for this contribution.

I share your view that we need to rely on the basic facts: Trump won. By a lot. We got ‘em all. The swamp is at this moment more drained than it’s ever been. The swamp creatures are exposed without the cover of murky water.

2
19841776 2 points ago +2 / -0

That’s my whole take on this “pronoun” crap. I really don’t care if you are visibly or actually a he, she, or whatever word you choose. I really don’t.

But the flip side of this situation is, you shouldn’t care whether I care. And by trying to impose an instruction upon me to use “your pronouns” is violating this relationship. So people who care about pronouns are doing the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve, because they’re making it an issue. It’s ludicrous.

But if I have to choose my own pronouns, I guess I’m going to pick Anon and Anon.

9
19841776 9 points ago +9 / -0

Can anyone confirm if this site had or has a Canary Clause posted anywhere?

view more: ‹ Prev