Could be. Also not what D’Souza said happened.
I can't find any record of an arrest made in connection with the Yuma fraud case yet. If this Twitter dude is legit, I imagine we'll see something soon.
Oh, sure I do.
"Trust, but verify."
You can do the trusting, but it appears I'm the first person in this thread to do the verifying on this particular claim. If you still want to trust it, you're welcome to do so.
Well, that's one possible explanation. But Occam's Razor requires the simplest explanation, and your theory still requires a huge number of people to be lying and Part of the Plan.
The other possibility is "D'Souza is trying to increase his own credibility by taking credit for something he had nothing to do with."
This only requires one person to lie on a podcast.
In the normieverse, this is generally going to be the simplest assumption. D'Souza has not really made much of a splash outside of the Q World, so if the point was to get normies to listen to him, I'm not sure that "optics" is the best game to play.
I appreciate the response. Here is mine.
But I will ask one, slightly rhetorical, question: Do you think it's conceivable D'Souza received information from the same source the sheriff recieved his information?
Absolutely!
But that's not what either of them claimed. D'Souza specifically said the sheriff was responding to his film. I don't see how that can be the truth.
Perhaps D'Souza didn't present his argument clearly, but that's... not a good trait for a guy trying to defend the way he's presented evidence of election fraud.
I don't really have any reason to give D'Souza a benefit of the doubt.
In regards to super secret operations with plausible deniability, which are further complicated by a complicit, enemy controlled media, how does one tell the people the truth? How does one SHOW the people the truth?
I've actually asked a variation of this question.
If there is no super secret operation with plausible deniability, how would you ever prove it to yourself? What in the Q narrative allows you to PROVE to yourself that you are wrong about it?
Every failure is interpreted as optics. Every apparent setback is making the enemy "expend ammo." Every idiot move or denial of Q by Important People is seen as "disinformation is necessary."
To respond to your question, ask yourself. Why does this site exist? HOW does this site exist?
If the Cabal can control everything, and this site still exists, then clearly there's a dissonant conclusion. Either they are controlling this site, or the internet is too big even for the Cabal to effectively control.
So put Frazzledrip on the internet. Let me see Clinton eating a child instead of just taking people's word for it. Let me actually see the TrueTheVote data instead of being told what it said in a movie. The MSM can suppress it all they want, but I watched D'Souza's movie on his own site.
Now, what about you? Is Q falsifiable for you? Have you left yourself any way to know if this Plan doesn't come to fruition or never actually existed? How would you know if all the stuff that you think is happening secretly actually isn't happening?
Hey, this is a research site. Anyone is welcome to beat me to an analysis. There’s nothing magical about comparing dates. You guys do that all the time with deltas anyway.
I dug into these raids a bit.
What he’s referring to is the Yuma County investigation that was announced a couple of weeks ago.
D’Souza specifically claimed on a podcast that this Yuma investigation was a direct result of his movie. 1 minute mark.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WhitlockJason/status/1526315725446688771?s=20&t=G0PMzHJOcENn1vC8F9ZRdQ
"The sheriff of Yuma saw our movie, went berserk and has opened up an investigation in Yuma, Arizona and I believe there will be arrests very soon."
Alright. So we have a timeline. 2000 Mules was released at the beginning of May, and the Yuma County press release regarding the election fraud cases was announced about a week later.
So far so good. Here’s the press release from the investigators.
https://www.yumacountysheriff.org/pr-2022/PR-2022-30-Yuma-County-Voting-Fraud.pdf
Here’s the opening line from the release;
The Yuma County Sheriff’s Office (YCSO) and the Yuma County Recorder’s Office (YCRO) are working together to actively examine cases of voting fraud from the 2020 General Election and now a recent pattern of fraudulent voter registration forms leading up to the 2022 Primary Election. As of March 2022, YCSO has 16 voting/registration open cases. All relevant evidence is being formally documented by the Yuma County Recorder’s Office and further investigated by the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office.
Hold up. As of March?
So this investigation has been going on long before March, and even longer before May?
D’Souza specifically said the sheriff saw the movie, not a report, not just data. So was this a very, very unfinished movie that the sheriff saw much earlier than anyone else? Maybe he saw the story boards?
Well, who is this berserk sheriff? It says right at the top of the press release. Sheriff Leon Wilmot.
So if this sheriff both saw this unreleased movie and was disturbed enough by it to immediately open an investigation thanks to D’Souza’s hard work, why is he also publicly denying it?
“The Yuma County Sheriff’s Office has been working jointly with the Yuma County Recorder’s Office and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office extensively regarding allegations of voter misconduct for over a year,” Wilmot said. “
Over a year. Well before D’Souza could have had a viable movie to show Wilmot.
There’s always the possibility of “this is a super secret operation and plausible deniability is necessary.” Maybe making D’Souza look like a liar is part of the Plan.
But if that’s the case, then that means D’Souza’s role here is to look like someone who can’t even get the sheriff who can prove the value of his movie to lend any credibility to it. That seems strange for a movie specifically designed to wake people up.
TL;DR
Sheriff’s press, both officially released and in interviews, has suggested this case has been going on for months before the movie was released. D’Souza probably saw that the press release came out a week after his movie and made the assumption, but neither the sheriff nor anyone from his office is backing up that claim, and nothing from their office seems to support it.
“Trust, but verify.”
One detail I thought was particularly well-done was pointing out how their data led to the arrest of the pair of child murderers - that will really help cement the argument against people saying this data is fake/can't be tied to real people etc.
I thought it was a compelling assertion as well. Have you done any research into this claim beyond what the movie said?
It seems to be okay to waste taxpayer dollars on court cases that are destined to fail in order to cause the Deep State to "expend ammo" and such, isn't it?
Although it admittedly seems more irritating when you're the one who is being forced to expend that ammo.
Forcing the opposition to defend something they don't have the desire to defend and expend ammo is a good strategy regardless of who is using it.
Midterms are coming up. Democrats were justifiably worried about a meager response in those midterms and a red wave as retaliation for 2020.
Now, abortion rights are back in the news, and Democrats are absolutely going to be motivated to vote again. Reigniting this old war was one of the best things that could have happened for Democrats right now before midterms.
Republicans vote more reliably in midterms, so Republican politicians definitely wanted a quiet midterm where Democrats didn't even realize it was happening.
Of course Democrats going to be forcing the Republicans to "expend ammo" on this every single minute they can. It's an issue that will definitely benefit Democratic voting numbers as long as it's an issue and might actually offer a prayer of Democrats holding on to some seats.
A virus can kill rich people.
Starvation generally cannot.
Easier to motivate people to respond to things that can actually hurt them.
Seems like an easy enough explanation.
I would like to give a detailed answer to this, since it asks specific questions of non-supporters, but I don’t have the time at the moment to give a full response.
I will quickly say that I believe it’s less likely that Q is a deliberate attack against Trump supporters by some Cabal, and more likely a nobody who fed a narrative that supporters wanted to believe about Trump.
When Trump talks about the Deep State and the Cabal, it always seems to be as a scapegoat for what I see as his failures and incompetencies. He used the Deep State as a way to protect his image as a perpetual winner and genius.
“Trump didn’t fail. This is obviously a strategy about the deep state.”
Trump never fails if every failure is reinterpreted as optics.
Because I don’t assume that Trump actually was competent in the ways he claimed, I look upon his tendency to blame every failure on a secret army out to destroy him with skepticism.
Because I doubt a Deep State or Cabal serves any other purpose than to serve as a scapegoat for Trump and his supporters, I do not even have the same foundation of the world as Q people.
The basic facts that you guys take as given (that Trump is involved in a war against an international cabal of pedophilic satanists) is something the rest of the world doesn’t accept yet.
Maybe they will. Maybe when they read the Q posts they will react differently than I did. But I am doubtful.
And since the I don’t see that foundation as having the evidence you do, I don’t see Q’s existence or his narrative as validating anything. It’s as real to me as a Donald Trump mythology. It is excellent at claiming predictions in hindsight, but that’s not convincing of much.
Trump did condemn Duke. I’m not sure which media outlets are reporting otherwise. I do know Biden was incorrect when he suggested otherwise a few years ago.
Is it? 10-20% miscarriage rate isn’t unexpected regardless of vaccination status.
Alright, let's crack this thing open.
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
WHAT IS IT?
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
This is a document discussing adverse events reported to Pfizer's reporting system. Anyone can submit.
As is the case in VAERS, adverse events are NOT confirmed vaccine side effects. They are medical things that came up in some period after being vaccinated.
The term "adverse event" never means "confirmed reaction." They are two different types of data. It takes a lot of work for an adverse event to become a confirmed reaction, and this report doesn't do that work.
Because at this stage of the data, all anyone knows is that these medical symptoms have been reported by someone who filled out a form on the internet.
An accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular AE was caused by the drug; rather, the event may be due to an underlying disease or some other factor(s) such as past medical history or concomitant medication.
I know this seems like an ass-covering cop-out, but like VAERS, this database is only a tip line. They collect this data to help point them in areas to investigate, not to confirm any particular side effect was actually caused by the vaccine.
All they know is that OF THE PEOPLE WHO REPORTED TO THE SYSTEM, some who got vaccinated also got sick with something, and that's all you can pull from this data.
WHAT DOES THIS DATA SHOW?
So first off, when this report was gathering data, over one hundred million vaccine doses were shipped out.
It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.
And from those 100,000,000+ vaccines? They received a little over 40,000 reports that someone got sick after the vaccine.
Cumulatively, through 28 February 2021, there was a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events.
So right there, even if we wrongly assume all these reports are 100% proof of vaccine injury... well, you can divide 40,000 by 100,000,000.
And again, we're remembering that this is a tip line, and some people just get sick regardless of whether or not they're vaccinated. There is no way to differentiate those situations in this data, just like you can't differentiate which tips are worth following just by looking at 100,000,000 tips of a suspect's location
BUT THE DATA IS UNDERREPORTED.
Probably, yes, but that line will ALWAYS be in reports like this, because again, this is a tip line.
When the police put out a tip line, they are going to get a LOT of incorrect tips, and a LOT of the people who saw the suspect are not reporting it. Both of those things are true.
The data is both flooded with garbage AND underreporting from the total desired dataset. This is expected. You get a lot of data you don't need, and you can never be sure you're getting the data you actually want.
This is not proof (or even implication) that the situation is much worse than we think. Only that we'd love to have EVERYONE who took the vaccine reporting in to the system, for every little boo-boo, but we don't have that.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE PREGNANCIES?
Page 12.
So, OF THE 42,000 REPORTS, only about 400 of them involved someone who was pregnant. As stated in the report, this is less than 1% of all the data.
Of those, only 84 reported serious problems (which means that the other reports could include someone who was both pregnant and a sore elbow, which would not be considered serious).
Number of cases: 413a (0.98% of the total PM dataset); 84 serious and 329 non-serious;
SO DID 27 BABIES DIE FROM THE VACCINE?
Maybe? Maybe not. This report has ABSOLUTELY no way of telling us that.
Here's what it tells us.
- 100,000,000+ vaccines were out there.
- Of those, only 40,000 people complained about medical problems afterwards.
- Of those 40,000 people, 400 were pregnant.
- Of those 400 people, 27 pregnancies resulted in the death of the child.
So did 27 of those 100,000,000 vaccines cause 27 out of 400 pregnancies in this dataset to result in failure?
Perhaps. And that's why this report exists. That's why VAERS and this reporting system exist.
But this report can't prove anything about it. This report is the STARTING POINT for such research. Just like VAERS.
Which is why any assumption that adverse event reporting data can be used to prove vaccine damage is going to fall apart in the normieverse. It's a simple correlation/causation error.
An adverse event is a correlation, and you cannot assume causation from it. And the adverse event reports CANNOT establish causation. At all. Whatsoever. It's not a mathematical obstacle, despite what some people here insist.
WHAT ABOUT THIS SCARY PART?
Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).
This comes from Table 6, which discusses "missing information." What this means is that they don't have enough information to know much about these cases, but in the spirit of transparency, will provide that data anyway in the report. Just in case.
These reports are not part of the 400+ that were considered full reports.
Of these "missing data" reports, 238 of basically said, "I'm pregnant" and never followed up with additional information about the pregnancy. "No outcome" means "they could have been fine, or not, and they didn't tell us."
This is also normal. This information is essentially being collected by survey, and anyone who has run an enormous survey before knows that lots of data doesn't get filled out correctly or completely and can't be used. Most reports wouldn't even include it.
Hope this helps.
Oh, sure we do. If Trump hadn’t come along, I imagine the conflict between the establishment Democrats and the Bernie Sanders-style Democrats would have been the defining political issue of the last few years.
The only reason the Democrats are closing ranks so efficiently is because they don’t want a repeat of 2016. Many blame that loss on us “eating our own” rather than focusing on Trump.
That’s why Biden ended up as the frontrunner, despite nobody really supporting him. The 2020 Democratic campaign relied on Trump providing Democratic turnout. All the Democrats had to do was provide somebody that offended nobody and could stay quiet until everyone voted. Biden was way better at that than any of the other contenders.
You can expect that Democrats will keep doing that in response to Trump-powered movements until either Trump stops being a political power, or they are all in Gitmo and the Great Awakening occurs, whichever comes first.
I would find it strange if Russia captured a high ranking member of the American military in Ukraine, videotaped proof of them perp-walking him out, and then used it in none of the anti-American propaganda they've been using for over a month.
You’re insisting on me feeling shame when I’m clearly outlining security-based reasons for it. It’s okay to just admit you view your security differently than I do. It’s not a point we have to agree on.
Like I said, security is about layers. Absolutely nothing guarantees your security.
If I changed my license plate every month, I could still be tracked.
If I used multiple aliases for each part of my life, I could still be tracked.
If I dealt exclusively in cryptocurrency, I could still be tracked.
But a person who uses all three? They’re getting pretty hard to track.
A mask costs almost no money, is acceptable to wear in almost any location in the country, and effectively gives you more control over your own identity.
It is essentially a free layer of security. A decade ago, it would have been mystifying for personal autonomy advocates to be on the “anti” side of the mask-wearing debate.
Look, I’m not the one who turned masks into a political symbol, and I honestly couldn’t care less if you wear one or not.
But if you’re snickering at someone who is masked up in public, there’s a distinct possibility you’re mocking someone for taking their personal security more seriously than you do.
As I’ve insisted all along, the world is not so simple as to be easily divided into “with me” and “against me.”
It’s not shame. Introversion isn’t a mental disorder. :)
Yep. Nobody has a right to see my mouth just because we’re sharing a public space. I don’t have to pretend to smile at people just for social niceties. I don’t have to be easily recognized by people I don’t feel like talking to.
Honestly, I kind of like being left alone in public. The mask gives me a little bit more control over that. It’s not much, but it costs me nothing and wearing a mask for hours doesn't bother me.
Could she have? Would she have been allowed to?
I kind of like being able to stay somewhat anonymous in public. I like knowing that my face isn’t showing up on doorbell cameras and traffic cameras and so forth.
I can’t think of anywhere in the pre-COVID US where someone could get away with wearing a mask in public without the police getting called on them within a few hours.
I get why Q people are rebelling against the notion of being told what to do, but I’ve always found it a little peculiar that you can now wear a mask in a police station or government office, and the biggest critics of this are the people who identify as “anons.”
I’m an anon who likes anonymity. Security is about layers. If I’m allowed to throw on a mask in public, that’s an additional layer of security I can enjoy.
Not every public action can be boiled down to one of two political motivations.
I have promised to do so.
I'm sorry you don't trust me, but I'm not dishonest. I am careful about the information I divulge, but I don't lie here. I honestly have no reason to lie. Regardless of whether Q is legitimate or not, Q presents no threat to me.
I can tell you that I did not experience any unusual medical effects, nor did anyone else in my office. We were all vaccinated around the same time.
Anecdotally, I also know someone who is required to take heparin for blood clotting problems, and she also has had absolutely no problems after three shots.
Which, as some have suggested, only proves that I was in one of the saline batches or something, I surmise.
Guys, before you argue this point, please remember how frustrated you get when people don’t even read your arguments simply because you are a Q person. And how you believe you are better than the average person at not falling for such fallacies.
Also remember that this is a research site that REQUIRES contrasting arguments to be legitimate, because without them, this becomes a pseudoreligious Q fan club, not a research site.
The research process requires every facet of the argument to be examined by every side. I am participating faithfully in that process. It is not required to be a Q believer to be a Q researcher.