"In the matter of Q"

Credence and interest in the QAnon phenomena  

3 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Which choice best represents your interest in the QAnon phenomenon

    • Uninterested
      2
    • Interested, but skeptical
      1
    • I already know what I know
      0
    • None of your business. I don't declare my interests
      0
    • "Don't bother to examine a folly ... "
      0
    • I'd be interested in an objective analysis of the phenomena
      0
    • I will explain everything in a guest post here, if given the opportunity
      0

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 12/02/2018 at 02:32 AM

I'd like to open a field of discussion for the QAnon phenomena.  Here is where I will post in already existing material presented at OL by members.  I'll take direction from comments and from poll answers. 

  • What is Q / QAnon?
  • Why should anyone on OL pay attention?
  • Is skepticism justified?
  • What are the main questions readers have in mind to guide discussion?

No special rules or guidelines for this thread; the OL guidelines are good enough and will apply here. .  Please keep personal abuse to a minimum. Creative insults are kosher, but if they aren't on topic, why post them?

hr

Our forum leader opened discussion on the phenomena back in January of this year.  My key-word search-term was "QAnon,"  not "Q," so the search results will not necessarily return all incidence of discussion touching on the phenomena.

On 1/3/2018 at 4:10 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[...] If you really want to go down a Rabbit Hole where anti-deep state magic happens for real, look into "QAnon."

I will post a thing about him later, probably in a new thread or on the Conspiracy Theory thread. He's been spot on accurate predicting a lot of recent happenings right before they happen. More recently he's been doing some twittering and he seems to like hamming it up a bit, so here are a few teasers:

 

And this:

 

 

And this:

 

 

And this:

 

 

:)

 

More coming...

 



435 Comments


Recommended Comments



Welcome back William. I see the coronavirus didn't stick to your wicket. How are you and your friends Harry and Meghan? And why does "O Canada" have two different lyrics? Peter

Share this comment


Link to comment

A fun read, if you like oddities, quirks and foibles ...

The Church of QAnon: Will conspiracy theories form the basis of a new religious movement?
May 18, 2020 7.12am  EDT

Quote

[...] Everything is explained though the lens of the Bible and QAnon narratives. Bushey then does 45 minutes of decoding items that have appeared recently on the app called QMap that is used to share conspiracy theories. The last 15 minutes are dedicated to communion and prayer.

At a service held on April 26, Wagner and Bushey spoke about a QAnon theory, called Project Looking Glass, that the U.S. military has secretly developed a form of time-travel technology. Wagner suggested to e-congregants that time travel can be explained by certain passages in the Bible.

On May 3, the theme of the QAnon portion of the service was about COVID-19. Bushey spoke about a popular QAnon theory that the pandemic was planned. (There is no evidence of this.) And when an anti-vax conspiracy theory documentary called “Plandemic” went viral , the video was shared on the HCW websites as a way for e-congregants to consume the latest in a series of false theories about the coronavirus.

Leveraging authority

What is clear is that Wagner and Bushey are leveraging religious beliefs and their “authority” as a pastor and ex-military officer to indoctrinate attendees into the QAnon church. Their objective is to train congregants to form their own home congregations in the future and grow the movement.

[...]

 

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I've been wondering if whoever started "Q" was taking a page from L. Ron Hubbard's book and setting out to found a religion.

Ellen

PS:  I haven't read the article yet.  I anticipate that it will be sneery and "sophisticated"-superior in tone.  I'm simply reacting to the article's title, which echoes my own question regarding "Q's" long-range intent.

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 5/18/2020 at 11:19 AM, william.scherk said:

A fun read, if you like oddities, quirks and foibles ...

A Twitter thread by the author of the Conversation story, adding more detail:

 

Edited by william.scherk
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 5/18/2020 at 1:19 PM, william.scherk said:

A fun read, if you like oddities, quirks and foibles ...

The Church of QAnon: Will conspiracy theories form the basis of a new religious movement?
May 18, 2020 7.12am  EDT

I read this and the more I went along, the more I kept thinking it was so beside the point. Talk about irrelevance on steroids.

But I ended up reading the whole thing.

I took a look at the author, Marc-André Argentino. He's a crank funded by globalist establishment think tanks. He tries to come up with cutesy sounding terms like "infodemic" and so on. His main interest is how to find ways to shut down free speech, especially on the Internet. His main smokescreen, from what little I looked through search results, is fighting the QAnon dragon. He has even proposed that QAnon is a public health threat. He haunts the fringe of QAnon with regularity, so it's obvious he is a paid troll. See here (direct quote from his article):

Quote

On Feb. 23, I logged onto Zoom to observe the first public service of what is essentially a QAnon church operating out of the Omega Kingdom Ministry (OKM). I’ve spent 12 weeks attending this two-hour Sunday morning service.

Two hours every Sunday for twelve weeks? LOL...

🙂

I bet he feels like a regular James Bond.

🙂 

The organization that funds him, the Global Network on Extremism and Technology is even more interested in shutting down free speech, in monitoring the Internet and so on through the guise of fighting terrorists--mostly Saudi Arabian and far-right terrorists. I mean, after all, terrorists only come from Saudi Arabia and the far-right, right? 🙂 I took a look at the peeps at that site. Impressive. But if you know what the term "public-private partnerships" means, and all of the peeps are involved in that activity, you will know the essence of this organization. In other words, the Global Network on Extremism and Technology is an elitist ruling class think tank focusing on top-down control of communications media, which means a propaganda firm.

The article was posted at a site called "The Conversation," which has the slogan of "Academic rigor, journalistic flair." The lady in charge is Beth Daley (Editor and General Manager). I never heard of her, so I looked her up. She's essentially a manmade climate change missionary fighting the good fight at local levels.

But back to my feeling of wasting my time as I read the article. How relevant is that thing to the real world? After all, Marc-André Argentino has been doing some rip-rory-righteous infiltration by watching a fringe QAnon group online for twelve weeks in a row on Sundays. Let's let this Sherlock tell you in his own words from the article:

Quote

As of May, OKM moved from Zoom to YouTube to accommodate the growth in attendees. At last count, approximately 300 accounts participated in the recent services.

While that’s not a lot of followers, we should be concerned about these latest developments.

Three hundred whole accounts? And how many people, pray tell, watch the service from each account? Obviously one. Why one? Well, can you see the whole family or a group of friends sitting around a computer screen to watch a YouTube video every Sunday for two hours? That just doesn't happen.

So, in essence, Mr. Argentino is so worried about three hundred QAnon people, he thinks a new religious movement will come out of it and threaten the world.

Well, if this guy thinks the important part of QAnon is only made up of 300 fringe people, he's a crank. So I wonder what in the hell he is really being paid for.

The answer is obvious.

He is being paid to manufacture propaganda.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

  Elsewhere ...

4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

 

What is funny/sad about this is that whoever is manning the Q account on 8kun had to do some cleanup ... 

q4383.png

 

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 6/1/2020 at 7:57 PM, william.scherk said:

  Elsewhere ...

What is funny/sad about this is that whoever is manning the Q account on 8kun had to do some cleanup ... 

q4383.png

 

What the fuck are you talking about now, Liar?

MSNBC showed faked pics.

What aren’t you getting?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Them chemtrails can hollow out a man's ability to check claims, it seems.

Quote

 

In late May 2020, a Twitter user with 47 followers named “Bad Scooter” posted a video that combined visuals from the trailer of the 2013 zombie apocalypse film “World War Z” with an MSNBC clip of Brian Williams describing scenes from George Floyd protests in Philadelphia.

 

 

Though the original (and since deleted) video included the Twitter user’s handle and was labeled “not real” in text added above the MSNBC logo, the gag nonetheless spread. The post fooled many, including reporters. Most notably in terms of virality, however, it also fooled the anonymous entity behind the sprawling “QAnon” or “Q” conspiracy theory. On June 1, 2020, Q “dropped” a side-by-side shot of the gag segment on top of the the trailer, accusing the press of pushing an “America on Fire” narrative:

Screen-Shot-2020-06-02-at-9.05.54-AM.png

Q would later admit the mistake, confusingly blaming the mix up on “helicopter rides” which create verification “challenges.”

The viral attention apparently shocked Bad Scooter, who tweeted “I dramatically underestimated Twitter.” The user deleted the original video and posted an all caps clarification that the video was fake. As proof, the user included the actual MSNBC clip from which the audio was derived:

 

*** MSNBC NEVER USED THE WORLD WAR Z CLIP!! PERIOD!

AUDIO TAKEN FROM THIS REAL VIDEO LAST NIGHT (BELOW), WITH GRAPHICS ON TOP OF A TRAILER RIPPED FROM YOU TUBE.

AGAIN, MSNBC NEVER NEVER AIRED THE WWZ FOOTAGE!!*** #WorldWarZ #PHILLY #MSNBC #FAKEVIDEO #NOCONSPIRACY #BADJUDGEMENT

 
Embedded video
 
 
 
 

 

MSNBC’s parent company also confirmed to The Verge that the clip was a fake. “To confirm, the posts are fake,” NBCUniversal spokesperson Alexandra Roberts told the outlet. For these reasons, the claim that MSNBC tried to pass “World World Z” trailer footage off as video of protests in Philadelphia is not rooted in reality.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Even if they are not guilty of this one instance in a million of faked fuckery, why are you trying to rescue their integrity? You’ll say, facts matter, but really? This fact, matters? Matters to what? To your thesis that they are not frauds, afterall?

Scum defending scum.

You are a bag of shit.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Q and QAnon having a bit of a ruckus over Obama.org and modern Twitter-enabled website coding.  Q-Watcher Feminist Proper Gander wraps up the story in a series of tweets:

The kerfuffle started with this Q drop (screen cap from the site Qanon.pub) :

q4436.png

"Reconcile" ... 

Next came drop 4437 ...

q4437.png

Some QAnon folks were critical, some were gyrating wildly to explain away the error. 

The kerfuffle rests on a misunderstanding of how Twitter Cards work their magic in a few lines of HTML code in the 'head' portion of a website. 

<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image">
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@DarleneViewer">
<meta name="twitter:title" content="This is an example of a Twitter Card with a Summary and Large Image">
<meta name="twitter:description" content="&quot;Tweet this page&quot; -- A simple set of <meta> tags in the head of an HTML document allows Twitter to insert an image, video, audio or an app within the body of the tweet.">
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/Q3/q4436.png">

These lines in the <head> of an HTML document "fill in" a tweet from the particular page:

The <meta> code on the web page can of course be changed, especially if the body of page itself is updated. If you change the code to insert a new Summary Card with Large Image, then the change will propagate on Twitter's servers. The next time you tweet from the same page, the image may be different than it was at an earlier point.

So ... what does this have to do with the kerfuffle ongoing in Q-World?

Well, because Twitter itself delivers the image from its own servers (rather than merely 'passing through' the URL of the image file on your server),  previously posted Tweets are themselves updated.  This can appear to show some kind of chicanery -- if the image rendered in an old tweet shows a 'new' image. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Oh, so Q doesn't understand how that works? 😆

The Obama website got caught testing the image prior to Floyd's ritual murder.

Q is trolling. Just letting the inept scum idiots know he caught them doing that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

This is a screenshot of the above tweet:

OL_screenShot.png

I will change the <meta> information to update the image and text in the Twitter Card. What will happen to the body of the tweet just capped?

<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image">
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@DarleneViewer">
<meta name="twitter:title" content="This is an example of a Twitter Card with a Summary and Large Image">
<meta name="twitter:description" content="&quot;Tweet this page&quot; -- A simple set of <meta> tags in the head of an HTML document allows Twitter to insert an image, video, audio or an app within the body of the tweet.">
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/A47KF/images/IntheMatterOfQ_JL-cap.png">

 

Edited by william.scherk
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

How will you all make up for this with Baal? You've lost killing thousands of babies a day with taxpayer funds. You've lost selling baby parts to rich Chinese billionaires. He will not be pleased with your distractions from your main problem, try to get it together.

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

To return to this question ...

On 6/9/2020 at 11:58 AM, william.scherk said:

So ... what does this have to do with the kerfuffle ongoing in Q-World?

The basic issue is that Obama.org's  initial "landing page" is updated throughout the year -- with the Twitter Card code in the <head> area of the HTML document being updated from time to time.

When a coder changes the Twitter Card code in the <head>, to replace the image address, (<meta name="twitter:image" content="IMAGE_URL.jpeg">),  previously posted tweets from the page return the current image from Twitter servers. 

Someone in the QAnon world noted that a Tweet from Obama.org from before Floyd's death showed a depiction of Floyd's image:

may15_obamaOrgTweet.jfif

How could a tweet from May 17th contain an image depicting Floyd when Floyd did not die until May 25th?

How could my tweet from June 9th contain a screenshot image that wasn't published until today, June 10th?

 

On 6/9/2020 at 11:58 AM, william.scherk said:

 

 

Now, if anyone says "The Obama website got caught testing the image prior to Floyd's ritual murder," they do not know what they are talking about.

Edited by william.scherk
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
15 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

How could a tweet from May 17th contain an image depicting Floyd when Floyd did not die until May 25th?

How coincidental is it that Floyd worked with his future "murderer"? They worked together, as security guards, I think it was. How often do "random" murders by police involve people who have a past with the "murdering" police?

Share this comment


Link to comment
37 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Now, if anyone says "The Obama website got caught testing the image prior to Floyd's ritual murder," they do not know what they are talking about.

Was five years sentencing enough for that time he entered a woman's home and held a gun to her baby while his cohorts robbed her?

Why exactly should anyone mourn the earth being cleansed of him?

Police brutality bad, but they are saluting his casket.

How long do you really think the world will tolerateyour satanic and masonic bullshit and evil?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Here is an article from Jemima Kelly at the Financial Times. I will stretch the criteria for fair-use as much as I can:

Quote

It’s a great time for conspiracy theories to thrive

It’s awkward when you accidentally let slip that you knew about the killing of a man more than a week before it actually happened, and that you knew his death would spark a wave of worldwide protests, isn’t it? Especially when you do so on Twitter, and then don’t notice you let the cat out of the bag until someone points it out to you several weeks later.

So if the conspiracist theorists are to be believed, the Obama Foundation must be feeling pretty awkward right now:

17d42edc-0035-40ed-8d46-c7a4dad2c312.png

Yes, that’s the official Obama Foundation Twitter account, and a tweet from May 17 about some “commencement message” from Barack Obama, alongside not just a picture of George Floyd, the man who was brutally killed by a police officer on May 25, but a picture of what appears to be a Black Lives Matter protester holding up a picture of Floyd. (This was no small-scale conspiracy. They planned the whole thing.)

The idea that this was all some giant hoax seems to have come from the infamous and mysterious online character going by the pseudonym of “Q” (the person behind the “QAnon” far-right conspiracy theory). But it proliferated frighteningly quickly across social media and on to far-right websites.

“How Did the Obama Foundation tweet a George Floyd Poster on May 17, when he wasn't Killed until May 25?” was the headline run by the popular far-right Hal Turner Radio Show website, with story racking up almost 200,000 clicks on Facebook over the weekend, according to AP.

[...]

oDd HuH?!?!

Not really. What happened is that when the tweet was posted on May 17, the Obama Foundation’s “Twitter card image” — ie, the image that a website automatically generates when it posts content on Twitter — was a graduation photo of Obama, which would have been what accompanied the tweet at the time. Later, the website changed its Twitter card image to the picture of the protester holding up the Floyd image. That meant that its website automatically generated that image in its tweets, both past and present. No conspiracy.

One reason we know this phenomenon is possible, we should say, is that we have first-hand experience of it. We illustrated the first post we did in our hard-hitting, award-winning* “Corona Tools” series with a picture that was not deemed quite appropriate, and so we changed it (we won’t go into what the original picture was; suffice to say that it is tricky finding an image to illustrate a corona tool). Our stories are automatically tweeted by our Twitter account when we publish them, and therefore the original image did appear on Twitter for half an hour or so. But now, if you look it up, you’ll find a very respectable image:

c99200e3-b7ad-44aa-a1b9-9b9ad0be677f.png

The idea that the George Floyd killing was some kind of sick hoax or conspiracy has now been debunked by AP, and the Twitter card image has been updated to now show just the foundation’s logo.

But what proportion of the hundreds of thousands who saw and shared the conspiracy over the past few days will notice that it’s been debunked? And now the idea has been planted that this was just a way for the US to justify the use of martial law, or to divide its citizens, as suggested on social media, how much will a debunking from the “fake news” liberal elite MSM help anyway?

A quick Twitter search shows four different accounts tweeting about it in the past half-hour (from the time of writing on Tuesday) alone:

e9e628ca-1c6f-4c8a-a6e2-9a81f51e53ed.png

[...]

 

We need to be super careful about what we see on the internet right now; there’s a whole lot of rubbish out there. You might not believe the former US president foretold the future, but you might believe that Trump said Floyd should be happy about the US jobs numbers (he didn’t), or that a woman from the WHO said that asymptomatic coronavirus cases are only very rarely infectious (OK so she did say that, but, erm, she didn’t mean it). Stuck in our little echo chambers on the internet, we are beginning — slowly and surely — to lose our minds.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

[Quoting Jemima Kelly:] But what proportion of the hundreds of thousands who saw and shared the conspiracy over the past few days will notice that it’s been debunked?

I know that there are more than one guy with 'you disgusting scumbag' in his mouth reading here. I think 'yds,' and I and invisible readers are all dealing with some relatively straightforward questions, questions that should be amenable to reason of the Randian stripe. Which explanation of of the Twitter Card image behaviour is the more reasonable, makes least assumptions, is the fruit of investigation and inquiry?  Which stands up to close scrutiny? Which accounts for all the evidence (including such items as the Q cut and paste from a dev blog)?

There would be plenty more questions in play, maybe, if we had a bigger quorum of active members.

"Did Obama.org (or Obama race riot sorrows machine) organize a ritual murder of George Floyd?"
"Some folk may claim that  Q 'warned off' Obama in drops 4436 & 4437*. Does the evidence brought forth from rational inquiry support that claim?"
"How would you explain in your own words the three Q drops that caused much discussion and explanatory hypothesizing?"

My question to myself is 'what explains why and how some people's beliefs survive a reasonable debunking?' 

"Let a hundred flowers bloom," said Deng, before he realized how that would probably work out for one-party rule in China and shut it all down. 'Let your freedom of conscience ring. Don't be afraid of devils conjured up to incite prejudice and rage. If evil there is, beware of making The Fundamental Attribution Error.' I paraphrase.

As might be apparent, I am not of the Gibbet Enthusiast Party. 

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 6/9/2020 at 11:58 AM, william.scherk said:

Q and QAnon having a bit of a ruckus over Obama.org and modern Twitter-enabled website coding.  Q-Watcher Feminist Proper Gander wraps up the story in a series of tweets:

Some readers may not go to a Twitter thread off the OL site, so I'll add this in as an example of what you are missing.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Not much longer.

And it will be particularly amusing to watch the Free Seattle Zone twerps scream like little girls when they are beaten and taken away in unmarked cars.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...