The anon who said "walk it back" appears to be correct from what I can see. Although, maybe something in the subsequent gibberish html that Q posted in 4437 proves otherwise..but I'm not at all following what it proves or how it proves it.

The Obama.org site (like many sites) has opengraph tags embedded in the source code. This is simply meta data that can be used by other sites when a link is posted. So for instance, if you post a link of a website or news article on twitter or facebook, it will populate a thumbnail image in your post as directed by the opengraph tag for image. If there are no opengraph tags, then twitter or facebook will randomly grab an image from the page or site to use as a thumbnail (this isn't relevant in this case as Obama.org had opengraph tags when that tweet was originally posted and still has opengraph tags).

The opengraph image tag on the Obama.org site as of 6/4/2020 looks like this:

<meta property="og:image" content="https://web.archive.org/web/20200604231033im_/https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/053020_GeorgeFloyd_Protests_Chicago_IL_CD_1588-scaled.jpg"/>

If you paste this portion of the tag in your browser, you'll see the George Floyd photo: https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/053020_GeorgeFloyd_Protests_Chicago_IL_CD_1588-scaled.jpg

If you want to check me on this, simply go here (https://web.archive.org/web/20200604231033/https://www.obama.org/), open the source code (right click on page and then click view source), and then command+F (find) and search for: og:image

This image is controlled by the webmaster and can be switched out whenever someone with access to the backend of the site wants. It appears that twitter automatically updates an old tweet with whatever the current opengraph tags are from what I can tell. So THAT is why you see a tweet with an old date but with a newer image.

Unless the wayback machine is full of shit (which I've never seen proof of in my life), here is the Obama.org homepage on 5/17/2020: https://web.archive.org/web/20200517224631/https://www.obama.org/

If you do the same exercise of looking for the opengraph tag in the sourcecode, it looks like this:

<meta property="og:image" content="https://web.archive.org/web/20200517224631im_/https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/M1Hi_j0246-copy-scaled-e1588695935923.jpg"/>

And then you can paste this into your browser and you'll see the image that was featured as the opengraph image on 5/17/2020: https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/M1Hi_j0246-copy-scaled-e1588695935923.jpg

Which is NOT the image of George Floyd, but rather an image of Obama giving a commencement speech in graduation looking clothes/robe.

For those of you who aren't following what I'm showing here, sorry. I've explained it and given you the steps as best as I can. I can't do it for you otherwise.

For those of you who do follow what I'm saying, you should easily understand what this means: twitter simply updates tweet thumbails with whatever the current og image is on site. Likely upon each page load of a given tweet.

Basically, unless Q's subsequent post 4437 somehow proves that the image of George Floyd was actually embedded in the source code on or before 5/17/2020, then he does indeed need to walk that shit back at the least.

If anyone understands the significance of 4437, I'm all ears. But I have to say, at face value, this looks bad and pretty amateur for a group of "high level mil intel operatives".

Not that it changes my view of POTUS and I'll still crawl naked over broken glass to vote for him again in November, but I'm not really sure how to reconcile the Q I thought I knew with this shit.

Also, for the haters: I 'aint a shill, so save it. If you're going to talk shit but don't even understand anything I just posted, then you don't even know what you're talking about in the first place. I'm just being intellectually honest here. I don't like what I've found here, and I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't look like some sort of fuckery, or at the least that Q apparently knows how to take down worldwide criminal orgs but doesn't have the slightest understanding of how websites work in 2020 (which doesn't square with me at all).

Again, if anyone can explain 4437 as a way to reconcile 4436, I'm all ears. And there may well be an explanation that somehow invalidates my findings here, it's just that I just don't know what it is based on what we find in 4437.