I'm of the same mind, at least regarding the list of names. That list is sketchy, but it seems to have been put together by compiling lists that just appeared on social media.
The court documents and pictures, though. Those seem to be more legitimate.
When it lists that someone has been "executed", does that just mean that their trial has gone through? Because that list said that it was current through September, and that Adam Schiff had been executed, but he was speaking in the capitol on camera just last week.
Friday the fifteenth, sure, but I don't see any reference to January, except in the hour of the time. It's very close, though.
If you look at (https://qalerts.pub/?n=3868), based on the number of texts, the post was sent out one February 17, 2020, for what that's worth.
I looked into the tarmac meeting mentioned in the post, and despite the meeting occurring four years earlier, this report just so happens to be dated for February 17, 2020 as well.
The tarmac meeting was on June 27, 2016. The announcement of the end of the HRC investigation seems to have been on January 10, 2020, although I'm having trouble confirming that.
How 1+1=2 play into those dates, I don't know.
Other than that, the post promises a very hot [sprint/summer], which could be taken in a few ways.
1:56, if taken as 156, refers simply to "++" (https://qalerts.pub/?n=156). In programming languages, this call will increment the affected value by one.
I don't recognize these three, but I don't follow pop culture or anything like that. Is there anything significant here that I might be missing?
The opposite (4251) links to a Fox article talking about Nevada vote by mail primary fraud.
"Just to clarify, I'm not talking about looking up an outage map. I've just seen this criticism before, and I find it to be counter-productive."
Help others prepare. That's what this time is for. If others ask for help, provide it. Don't pull a sanctimonious, self-righteous attitude and turn them away. Don't be counter-productive. You certainly don't tell them what to think, but at the very least, you can give them a place to start to look for their own answers while you're complaining about them wanting to learn more, so that they can learn what to do the next time they have a question.
People are scared and they are demoralized. Disinformation is everywhere. There isn't time to chase down and prove every lead, not at this critical juncture. Do your own research, but don't just ignore pleas for help, and certainly don't scoff at and alienate them. Is that really what you think we're here for?
I don't know why people have issues with others asking for sources. Particularly, I don't know why you assume that it's only leftists who want sources.
If you want credibility when you make a claim, then you should always provide a source, or at least reason out your logic. There's no reason to be offended when someone asks for a source or for help, because not everyone has the same knowledge base, and by providing sources, you can help others expand their own knowledge base. That's part of what "helping others to prepare" is about, as far as I can tell.
I mean, a good number of leftists probably hold the beliefs that they do because they only have the MSM as their providers of information, and they never had the personal need to look deeper. They shouldn't be snubbed when they ask for or challenge you for a source, because they might actually need some proof put under their nose before they'll question things deeper. If they're being obstinate, and actively ignoring or deriding any proof provided, then that's a different case altogether, but that shouldn't be the assumed default expectation.
Just to clarify, I'm not talking about looking up an outage map. I've just seen this criticism before, and I find it to be counter-productive. I have trouble convincing my family and co-workers of some things, because they've already given up, and were wary of Q to begin with. Being told "you're lazy, do more research" is very ineffective in trying to convince them of anything.
Could A29 be anything? If taken as hexadecimal, the decimal value would be 2601.
The links are dead, I don't know what HUBER is, and I don't know how Rosenstein fits in, but the rest is kind of cryptic.
Instructions unclear.
I'm sorry.