That's too bad. The best research is done by oppositional perspectives working together.
Although, for what it's worth, I've had three jabs so far (first in Jan 2021), and I've had no issues so far. Not sure that getting all four at once would be a good idea, but maybe you'd just get super lucky like me.
You can point to the sky, and say, "Look, the Big Dipper is definitely a picture. There's no way that's on purpose. It points right to the North Star. If I can connect these dots into this picture, that must mean something."
But if we examine each individual star, you'd see that no, they have no relation to one another at all. They're very far away from each other. They aren't the same types of stars. They have nothing to do with each other.
But there are around 5,000 visible stars, and with that many data points, it's pretty easy to find pictures in them, if you're looking for them.
When you provide me with a complex and beautiful constellation, I can say, "that certainly does look like a ladle.
But there are thousands of other stars you're ignoring here because they aren't important to the picture you're trying to build. Why are you ignoring the stars outside of the ladle?
And if we look at each star in the constellation, we don't actually see anything unusual about these stars at all. Why did you choose these stars, besides the fact that they lined up in a way you thought was pretty?"
I'm not fleeing. I enjoy talking with you. I just have other stuff in my life going on than Q stuff, so I can't dedicate my life to responding to an entire sky full of stars for every post. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Take care.
As I've said, the plural of anecdotes is not data. Any dots can have lines drawn between them.
If you'd like to write up a report establishing the viable connection of these dots for publication, I am happy to help you sharpen it.
I am not intentionally ducking out here, but I don't really have the time today to go from addressing one source to addressing multiple sources at that same level of analysis. It's Tuesday, and all, and it seems that I can never address a single piece of evidence in the vaccine debate without being obliged to address the entire body of evidence.
I really do wish I was getting paid by someone to talk about this stuff and could spend my whole day doing it. Hey Deep State, if you're listening... :)
Two different communities, two different sets of rules.
I personally would be quite happy to host a Q community on Reddit. I enjoy talking with people I don't agree with.
But Reddit has shut down every subreddit that allows Q stuff to exist following Jan 6th. I don't really like it, but moderators are nobodies. I don't know the people at Reddit. I don't know any other moderator.
Hell, I'm only over there maybe once a week. I don't have any special loyalty to the site. I'm on here FAR more than on Reddit.
This website isn't bound by Reddit's rules. So Q stuff can exist here.
I like talking Q stuff. So here I am. And as long as I'm respectful, and ensure my questions and answers are in the spirit of honest research, I think the moderators recognize the utility of having different perspectives on a research website.
And, to be clear, I don't think I personally have ever kicked out a Q person from the subreddit just for being a Q person. I can't speak for other moderators and, as I said, I'm not over there much anyway.
Not much to be gained by talking with people who agree with you.
Well, that conclusion requires other conclusions about the vaccine that I don't necessarily agree with, but would require more energy and motivation to debate it than I have today. :)
I can say that the video on its own is likely to scare people who believe the vaccine is dangerous, and utterly unconvincing to those who believe otherwise.
That's not a slight against you. That's just the nature of this particular evidence. It's of a non-medical-expert pulling out a clot and saying "weird."
There's no evidence in this video that implicates the vaccine in any way, outside of the opinion of the embalmer, who provides no evidence the victim is even vaccinated. It's not going to be a useful piece of ammo in your arsenal, but you are welcome to test it against other people than me.
Okay, before we go any further on this video, I want to show you who the person doing this analysis is. Per the video, this came from the Twitter account @Euniqueje. Who's that?
https://twitter.com/euniqueje?lang=en
Elchemyst - frequency specialist - blood researcher - inventor + do-er of cool + noble shizzle...
I... don't know what an elchemyst is. Let's look it up.
And I found nothing. It appears to be a trendy spelling for "alchemist."
I've looked into the name associated with the Twitter account. I can't find anything. No credentials. No research. No work history in the field. No associates degree in biology from an online community college.
Nothing.
As far as I can tell, this woman is nobody. I have no way to prove she has any ability to talk as an expert on blood whatsoever.
I can't even prove she has access to vaccinated and unvaccinated blood. I can't even prove she took her own videos, and isn't just talking over something she pulled from a database somewhere. I can't prove a single thing about this woman or this video.
All I know is that she's someone on Twitter who makes no effort to establish herself as an expert and has no traceable credentials. But talks like she's an expert anyway.
Like much of the internet, I suppose.
So you tell me. How can I establish that this woman's alleged analysis of blood pathology is any more credible than one done by a gas station attendant? How can I even prove this video is comparing blood when the woman can't even prove she knows ANYTHING about this field?
Well, I have no idea. I'm not a doctor. I've seen clots, and that is definitely a clot, but that's all I can say with certainty.
I've run across this video before. The man who filmed it, Richard Hirschman, is NOT a doctor. He's an embalmer. He's not a medical expert and can't diagnose anything. He is not a pathologist who establishes cause of death.
His only job is to prepare bodies for funerals.
What he can say with confidence is that he is pulling out an unusual number of clots from the bodies he works on.
What he CANNOT say is that these clots happened because of the vaccine. He has no way to know or prove that.
In fact, since the vaccination status of dead bodies is not really useful info for an embalmer, I'm not entirely certain how Hirschman would know or prove the vaccination status of any of these bodies.
So why all the new clots?
Well, probably because COVID-19 is well-known to cause microdamage in vessels, which can lead to clotting problems. Blood clots are a known and established side-effect of COVID-19 infection.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.42094
So with videos like this, what can I say is probably true?
-
Richard Hirschman is probably an embalmer, based on outside sources.
-
Hirschman probably did pull out that clot from a real dead body.
-
Hirschman probably is seeing more clots than he's used to seeing in usual places (although I'd like to see hard data that "over half" of his bodies are showing these clots).
What do I have to assume here to reach your conclusion?
-
That the body he's working on is vaccinated. There is no proof of this, and it's literally the only detail that supports his argument.
-
If the body was vaccinated, that the person had never gotten COVID-19 (which would explain clotting damage), either before or despite the vaccine.
-
That unvaccinated bodies are not showing the same signs of clots (the research I've seen suggests otherwise).
-
That Hirschman actually does even know the vaccination status of any of the bodies he's working on (again, I'm not sure why, and he'd need to document this for it to be credible).
So if I make absolutely no assumptions, what does this video actually prove?
That an embalmer pulled a long clot out of a body, and he thought it was weird.
That's all I can really get from this, because that's all the video directly provides. Anything else, including the vaccination status of the body, is just an assumption.
It’s all good.
In terms of the "false world" Q has described, Epstein and Maxwell have already been arrested for child sex trafficking. The charge of "sex trafficking of minors" implies they had "customers". Not one of these customers has been exposed. There are so many pictures of Epstein and Maxwell with many different famous people. It's not too much a "baseless conspiracy" to wonder if they perhaps were the customers.
I would never contest that sex traffickers of minors exist. We knew that long before Q. I don't even doubt that Cabals exist.
I just doubt that the chan poster Q has anything to do with fighting sex trafficking, or that Trump is being deliberately targeted by this Cabal as some sort of Warrior for Good, or anything like that.
The world is a scary place. It'd be nice to believe that all evil roads lead to one big bad Cabal responsible for everything, but I think the world is far more complicated than that, and that Q theories VASTLY oversimplify the world's problems.
I see no reason why Trump doesn't condemn Q worldview or the idea that he is saving them. It is nothing but a loss for him unless there is a conspiracy, and he is in good faith stopping them. As you say, people will lose faith in the "plan". However, they would also be against him, for many reasons, including not denouncing the plan and misleading them. Therefore, even if he is this terrible self-centered person that NPCs claim, the best thing for him to do would have been to denounce the whole worldview. It only makes sense for him not to, if the worldview is true.
I'm going to be honest: I would bet actual money I could beat Donald Trump in a Q trivia contest.
I don't think Trump really knows or wants to know what "QAnon" is about. Q people are his supporters. That's what he knows. And Trump has always been extremely hesitant to call out his supporters for any reason.
I don't think he has any idea what you guys think "the Plan" is, or how important it is to you that it succeed.
I think he knows you want him back in office, and that you believe that he won 2020, and so he'll continue to talk about it and use that political power as long as he has it. And maybe he'll run in 2024.
But I have never seen any evidence that Q is remotely important to him, and while you will likely see that as Sun Tzu optics, I see it as Trump simply saying what he needs to say to keep his supporters voting for him.
Which includes not deliberately antagonizing the people who see him as a strategic genius who fights pedophiles.
I don't think there will be a true domestic terrorist attack as you and them are implying.
I didn't intend to imply this.
What I do know is that this forum recently had a thread fantasizing about ways to graphically torture politicians while at the same time insisting that any violence committed by alleged Q-aligned people must be a false flag.
You guys believe in a war. A real war with real casualties against real people you can name for alleged crimes that would not only be traitorous, but monstrous.
And if Q isn't fighting these monsters, you still believe it's paranoid for normies to worry about what the "digital soldiers" will consider their marching orders to be in absence of any real soldiers? That's something you can't understand?
Well, I'm not asking anyone to follow me anywhere.
But if you're asking about my opinions and perspectives, I build them off the best information I have available, as interpreted by my own education and experiences.
Same as anyone else.
To be clear, if it turns out that Q is nonsense, and it turns out Trump did just use these fraud accusations to defend his ego and set his supporters to work proving his lie, then would you hold yourself responsible for spreading Q theories and "leading sheep to the slaughter"?
You can only work with the information you have, and be doing your absolute best at all times to make sure you're honestly assessing your own perspective.
Whichever one of us is wrong, we're wrong because we were lied to by a sophisticated web of disinformation.
If it's you, then I don't hold being tricked against you if you're doing you are making an honest effort to arrive at the truth. If it's me, I would hope you would extend the same courtesy.
We are both fighting the same complicated lie, and we don't know yet which one of us is the greater victim of it. I think that's the value of the cross-talk between Q and non-Q people, truly.
Also, what is "the outside world" scared Q supporters will do?
This is a delicate thing to discuss on GAW, especially as a non-supporter, so forgive me for tiptoeing a bit.
Forget Jan 6th for this conversation. Let’s agree for this that it’s uncertain.
Q people have two distinct types of Q-related beliefs:
-
Belief in the world Q described, and the one that Q supporters have extrapolated from other conspiracies. So, the world is controlled by a cabal of pedophilic Satanist cannibals who control everything. They steal elections and falsify scientific evidence and create a false reality through media manipulation to conceal their child sacrifice and such.
-
Belief Donald Trump is a hidden strategic genius working to fight these monsters, and is aligned with an anonymous entity called Q that has promised a complicated, brilliant plan that will eliminate the Cabal, and as a byproduct, reinstate Trump to power and execute every traitor.
The second belief doesn’t worry people much. I don’t think the outside world is worried that Trump has a secret army and is part of a secret Plan to do anything.
It’s the first belief that gets Q people outside attention.
Because if you lose faith in Q, but not in the world that Q is supposed to be fighting, then what exactly happens next?
Why is “military the only way”? What can a well-armed, organized military do that literally nobody else can?
It seems, then, that if the military is required, then “the only way” requires the military to either threaten to kill people and break things, or it requires those military to actually kill people and break things. The Plan requires lots of big guns and military people willing to use them on traitorous politicians.
So what if the “outside world” is right? What if the military is not willing to kill people and break things on behalf of Q? What if Q was a fraud, and never shows up?
Do people here then question the first belief? Do they question whether there actually is a Cabal and a war and a power structure based on theistic Satanism?
If not, then do they simply sit back and accept that the world is fucked, and that we simply must feed children to Satanic pedophiles for society to function?
Do Q people just go back to their families and friends and pretend they were never Q followers?
I don’t know. But I do know what the ammo box is.
And most importantly, I absolutely believe everyone here takes their belief in the Q World very seriously.
You tell me this is a life-or death war to save thousands of children from being sexually cannibalized, and I believe you are sincere in this belief.
So you tell me. If Q doesn’t show up, and 2024 passes with a non-Trump person in the White House, and no arrests or executions happen, what do you personally do? Do you continue to believe the Q theories themselves, but believe Q failed? Or do you re-examine the world that Q and Friend sold in the first place?
Do I get tired of reality always being followed by a question mark?
Absolutely not! I don’t know what I’d do with myself without that question mark. That question mark and I have been places together. We’ve seen some stuff. That question mark and I know shit about each other that would be difficult to explain to our wives.
That journey gave me a different perspective than it gave you. That’s all.
It’s not impossible that the Q Plan is real. It’s not impossible you guys got it all figured out. The only possibilities at this point is that one of us is really, really wrong.
I don’t risk anything by being wrong, except the promise I made to GAW to let you guys throw eggs and tomatoes at me when the arrests happen and Trump is reinstated. So I am happy to continue pursuing the question mark.
I don’t blame you for being tired, though. CSI makes research look all exciting and musical, but it’s tedious, frustrating work that only rarely shows anything interesting.
You either research because you enjoy the work, or you research because you feel that something is confusing and you need an explanation. I’ve been in both positions, and so I get it.
I believe that it's absolutely possible that Donald Trump could lose the 2020 election to Joe Biden without there being election fraud, without a Plan, without Q, without the Cabal, etc.
This is something that I think almost every Q person will contest. Q people don't accept that Trump could lose, and certainly not that he would leave the White House in Biden's hands without some sort of master plan that makes the sacrifice of himself (and his supporters) worth it.
But I absolutely believe that the world we live in could exist without Q. I believe that measuring rally size is a nonsense way of measuring likely voters. Biden didn't need to provide energy for Democratic turnout, because Trump did that.
I also think that Trump supporters made the same mistake that Democrats did (twice) in 2016: they assumed that energy level translated into reality. Bernie Sanders was the most popular person on Reddit, and so it was a shock to see him lose.
Trump supporters did the same thing. They looked at the rallies, the attention on Trump, and then looked at Biden and saw him sitting quietly in the corner. And they assumed the cat was in the bag.
And it wasn't, because Biden never needed supporters. He just needed people to want Trump out of office. That's why a mayonnaise sandwich like Biden was perfect. He offended nobody outside of the conspiracy circles, including the Republicans who were unhappy with Trump (and, again, never would go to a Biden rally).
I think the difference in when mail-in votes were counted, and the political bias in favor of one type of voting or another, makes the majority shifts less suspicious to everyone else than they are to you.
When you believe that it's impossible for Trump to have lost the 2020 election, then yeah, of course the evidence seems obvious. Because how else could this impossible world exist?
In my opinion, that's where Q people tend to struggle the most in the normiesphere. It's one thing to offer an interesting story connecting dots, but that's only half the battle. Defeating the null hypothesis is equally important, and simply dismissing the evidence as fabricated by the Deep State is unlikely to make much progress with people who don't accept the impossibility of Trump's loss.
I looked around. The source provided above seems to be the main source every other story on this is citing.
From the source:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-white-house-oval-office-teleprompter.amp
And the White House has largely abandoned using the Oval Office for press events in part because it can’t be permanently equipped with a teleprompter.
"Biden aides prefer the fake White House stage built in the Old Executive Office Building next door for events, sacrificing some of the power of the historic backdrop in favor of an otherwise sterile room that was outfitted with an easily read teleprompter screen," the report added.
Here is the original Politico report that Fox is referring to.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/05/biden-trump-rematch-00030250?_amp=true
Looks like the “fake White House set” people were on to something. Not a great look for Biden to need a teleprompter that badly, if the reporting is accurate. I am really doubting he is going to run again.
Yeah, I remember reading about these guys a few years ago. I thought the FBI already released this stuff. Is there an addition to it?
I would be surprised if someone like Dr. Oz could gain considerable interest by voters on either side without an endorsement by Donald Trump. This was the first I'd even heard of the man in years.
So you want to censor a pro-censorship lecture? :)
Sorry, I've been getting a lot of replies and this got lost in it.
Source for which part?
The YouTube source is the only video hosted by a channel claiming to be owned by the 4th Psyop group.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5_w5lEuy_i43Yz2QzHr2uQ
I can't verify that's true just because they have the username. However, their use of the motto would be consistent with the identity they're claiming, and that's likely verified by the military's retweet of the video.
As for the patch, I can't seem to find an official site for this particular group, which isn't super uncommon for the military (which will often rely on larger hub pages).
I can find some outside sources that refer to the Verbum Vincet unit patch, though.
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/4th-misga-45th-anniversary-the-word-will-conquer/
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4psyopgp.htm
Oh, it would be, absolutely.
But again, who would believe it around here?
People here are willing to entertain body doubles and devolution theories and “everything is a movie” to justify their continued faith in Q.
People here have posited everything from Q being an insider to Q being a team of military intelligence agents to Q being an AI with the ability to see the future to Q being an actual religious prophet.
I see no reality in which Q was a troll, Q is legitimately exposed as a troll, and it is accepted by even the majority of Q supporters as the truth.
I don’t know what evidence could possibly be provided that would convince you. I don’t know what name you could possibly accept as the truth if Q was arrested.
Q isn’t a falsifiable theory. I don’t know of any way that would be possible to disprove it to Q’s supporters.
But why don’t YOU try to expose Q? Why doesn’t the Q community? You guys are the super researchers, and you guys more than anyone else should want to verify that Q isn’t going to make his own supporters look stupid.
This wasn’t a conversation that involved you, so the terms aren’t yours to dictate. I was responding to someone else.
And I’ve made it pretty clear that you and I aren’t doing this anymore after the last thread in which I tried to engage you respectfully.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15HbWlrbJ3/q-to-trump-deltas--one-of-the-be/c/
I responded once in earnest, and once to tell you I’m done talking.
How many times did you respond to my one post?
How many times did you go ad hom in each response?
No, I’m not going to continue to do that with you.
You’re welcome to continue to respond to my stuff and nip at my ankles if you’d like, but I am not interested in continuing to try to figure out which angry thread calling me a child-grooming moron I’m supposed to respond to.
Incredible. In only eight minutes after I posted that long response (TO SOMEONE ELSE), you found my response, read it, and replied to it with Q stuff?
Oh, and made sure that none of my posts in my post history were left without your little (-1) contribution.
Seriously, do you have a notification set up to text you when and where I post or something? This is an impressive amount of time you spend chasing me around this site and ensuring you are a part of every conversation I have.
I promise you won’t fade from existence just because I’m temporarily not talking with you, friend.
I really am sorry you feel that way. You provided me two different videos and asked my opinion on them.
I gave my opinion to you. One is a video from a professional embalmer who has no training to diagnose anything, and the other is from a Twitter user who calls herself an "elchemyst." Which, given the anti-Satanism attitude around here, I imagine should be setting off alarm bells with some GAW users.
My opinion is that these videos do not prove the thing they say they prove, because the evidence is not presented either by the videos themselves or implied by the credentials of the people talking.
I'm not sure what else to say. I'm sorry that you find that opinion idiotic, but I would encourage you to watch that video from the perspective of a nonbeliever.
A video of a non-expert agreeing with you isn't scientific evidence. It's not much better than a petition. These videos don't offer enough evidence to connect it with anything else. It's just a conclusion you like.
I am sorry that this analysis isn't the one you wanted.
Good day to you too.