Backstory:
I finally got sick of seeing anti-Q rhetoric being nothing but character attacks, goalpost-moving, and strawmen, so I finally asked someone against Q that I previously respected to defend his position. This is the abortion of a comment he provided, and I promptly destroyed it so badly that he backpedaled and unbelievably claimed it was the wrong video - after pointing me to exact times of what I should watch.
Worse, still, for the anti-Q argument, I provided to him a set of text/images that he could easily debunk if fake, and despite being raked through the coals until there was nothing left, he still hasn't even attempted to do so.
Challenge:
Present your case better than he did. Either defend your position with facts, evidence, and if a video, timestamps to the relevant parts, OR debunk these. Or even some small number of them. Even one is a better start than the aforementioned user had.
Anyone that has known me for any length of time on this site knows that I follow the evidence, and will flip on a dime if I find my position untenable. This is the place to cause that to happen.
TL;DR:
Either prove your position that Q is a LARP, or debunk these.
Promise:
If nobody manages to even cast a non-trivial amount of shade on Q, I will spend my time here demolishing everyone that dismissively mocks Q as a LARP.
If, however, you can convince me Q is a LARP, I will use your arguments to mock those that still believe in Q.
Good luck.
view the rest of the comments →
SoberSecondThought ago
Okay, let's do this. I'll have to break it into chunks as there is so much to cover.
If anyone needs to read Q in the original: https://qanonposts.com/
My Position Hasn't Changed Since Q Started
First, let me just remind you of this post that I made back in November. You posted a reply to it at the time, but as it was long and contained a lot of links, you might not have read all of it.
It lays out my assessment of Q at that point, which was that Q was just a continuation of all the other phony insider personas that he had been running for months previously (HighLevelInsider, WisconsinIsCorrupt, Senate Anon, and so on). Nothing I have seen in the ensuing seven months has changed my mind about that (although I do have some further thoughts about his motive which I will share later).
The Highly Suspicious Timing
Next, I want you to confirm the timing of a couple of things. I started my investigative series on October 24th, when I called out HighLevelInsider as a disinfo shill working for David Brock. I posted follow-ups on the 25th and 26th, giving more details about how he is connected to David Brock and how he misdirects people.
Then on the 27th, I humiliated HLI by proving that he was using ababcd to shill for his other big persona, Senate Anon. This is important, so please read that submission as well. I linked HLI to Senate Anon, and linked both of them to ababcd. I showed that their main method of shilling was by misrepresenting existing information developed by Voaters or /b/tards as if it was "insider" info that came from them. This was a very bad moment for HLI/Senate Anon. It was 2:46 pm Voat time, which is 10:46 am EST, on the 27th. At the end I promised "much more information" in future submissions.
There were 137 responses to that day's submission. Lots of traffic, thousands of people viewing it. The responses to and from WisconsinIsCorrupt were especially important because HLI and Senate Anon never showed up to defend themselves, and I had denounced WIC as another of his personas. Early in the morning on the 28th, it was becoming clear that I was getting more support than WIC was.
The very first post by Q appeared on 4chan at 2:33 pm EST on the afternoon of the 28th, saying Hillary Clinton was about to be arrested. Two more appeared that evening, adding that she might flee, that there would be massive riots and martial law, and that the National Guard was being activated, plus a bunch of vague hints that can be explained as part of his "cold reading" method. None of his specific claims were true. But they were unusually direct and clear by the later standards of Q, and had the useful effect of diverting attention away from Voat and anything I might be saying there. Later the excuse was devised that sometimes Q "posts disinformation," which conveniently explains all the countless times that he posted lies and garbage. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
My next submission was the following day, the 29th, at 7:30 am EST. Again, 122 comments and even more traffic than to the previous one. Q stepped up the pace with eleven posts to 4chan (two just after midnight), but again, it was all either leading questions, or stuff that was already publicly known. He mentioned Pelosi's net worth, her memory problems, Obama having a fake email address to correspond with Hillary on her server, all stuff that was already in the public domain. He noted that Mike Rogers had been allowed to stay on at NSA; this wouldn't raise any eyebrows because Rogers had made a very public demonstration of support for Trump, flying to New York to meet him right after the election. I thought at the time that Rogers was turning on the Deep State, and so did lots of people, and so him staying made sense. But as it turned out, Rogers was NOT going to stay on at NSA much longer; he was replaced by Paul Nakasone in May 2018. Nobody has called Q on this. If it's disinformation, who did it disinform? It's not. It's him tossing out random crap that everyone knows as if it was top secret. Q even asked a few questions about Hillary, like how much of Haiti disaster relief money went to her, but here again, he wasn't betraying any secrets, just asking questions that had been out there for months or years.
He Was In Serious Trouble Once I Showed His Face
The exact sequence of events is especially important here, because my submission on the 30th at 6:45 pm EST linked to video of HLI/Senate Anon, in his YouTube persona of "Tory Smith". I outed the guy.
Okay. Now if I was mistaken about "Tory Smith," then presumably HLI/Senate Anon wouldn't have cared. He'd have relaxed a bit once I got something wrong. But I think he cared a great deal, because he went back to 4chan and starting at 11:00 pm on the 31st he promised that Podesta would be indicted Nov 3rd, and Huma on Nov 6th. Again, totally wrong, but what is particularly interesting about that is that he had implied just a few posts previously that Huma was cooperating. "Husband in jail. What would you do?"
He also returned to an esoteric theme that he had spent a lot of time on as HighLevelInsider, talking for the first time about Satan and evil and the "four families" that rule everything. He has gone back to that a lot. And he threw in some technobabble about how shills were using a "5 prong pre packaged injection" of sliding posts. This is a particularly interesting claim, because you can Google that string of words and discover that it has never appeared anywhere except in his 4chan post. There are 70 hits and every last one is just another copy of him saying it.
As I have said from the beginning, this performance did not fool me even slightly. I have been reading this guy's crap for the past year and a half. He just doesn't have that much imagination, and he hasn't been given a lot of resources beyond his imagination. He was firing shotgun blasts of old stuff from previous characters he had played, just to see what got attention, and then playing up to that.
From that point on, he played the Q character every day, multiple posts per day. After a few weeks, he gave up on his last remaining "insider" persona on Voat, WisconsinIsCorrupt. He was committed to Q, and has not been able to "dismount the tiger" since, because at all costs he has had to keep diverting attention away from my investigative series.
Frankly, I find it goddamned amazing how this story has unfolded. Today's barrage of mainstream media coverage of Q is surreal to me. It is hard to believe that so much could happen as a result of me and my little investigative project. However, that was my only possible conclusion last November and I see no reason to alter it now. I will start going through all the phony "proofs" in my next post.
Crensch ago
Yet you failed to provide any evidence or arguments that would convince anyone really looking at your words of that.
I don't need a motive, I need support for your position that Q is one of a string of "insider" LARPs by HLI and DB.
All right.
10/24/2017 11:57am Voat time.
10/27/2017 2:46PM Voat time.
Same as above.
All right.
You're saying that this same guy switched to Q from WIC and HLI, yes?
HLI's last submission was 10/6/17 and last comment on 10/15/17.
HLI's first submission was 5/20/17 and the first comment I can find is 5/20/17
WIC's last comment was 11/23/17 and first comment I can find is 8/19/17 (no submissions)
Q ostensibly appeared 10/28/17.
You claim you started your investigation posts on Oct 24th. 9 days after HLI's last activity.
Later still. No activity from HLI.
WIC continued till nearly a month after Q ostensibly started. (according to qanon.pub anyway)
To be continued.
Crensch ago
@SoberSecondThought
Here's what you have so far:
1) "Insider" usernames on voat active around the same time. You mentioned the chans, but failed to link to the posts there which makes a mockery of your declaration that I don't need to read your 40,000 words, and that you don't expect me to. Unless the ONLY relevant parts here were VOAT usernames, which makes a bit of a mockery of your arguments against Q, which is NOT on Voat.
2) Somebody claiming to have been Q.
That's it.
That is everything I've found to this point.
All that patting yourself on the back and writing yourself in as the main character superhero is complete horseshit.
@kevdude @srayzie @Vindicator @dooob
SoberSecondThought ago
So just to make sure we're talking about the same material, I have a couple of questions:
I didn't think that I had to link to the individual posts by Q, since right at the top of the comment you are criticizing, I linked to a comprehensive dump of Q's posts:
I then specifically say that we're starting from the very beginning, Q's first post, Oct 28th. Couldn't be much more straightforward.
Did you also read this comment? Are you dismissing it as well? Your challenge invited people to show where items from Wright's list of 55 "proofs" are wrong. I was planning on posting some more on that topic, but it might not be a good use of my time, or yours, if you keep on not bothering to read what I do post.
When I say that I don't expect you to read all 40,000 words, I'm being polite. I'm not saying the 40,000 words aren't necessary, just acknowledging that it would require a lot of effort. Did that not come across clearly?
Your challenge was to show why Q is a LARP. There are two ways to actually do that. First, to see who Q really is, you have to go back to the Glenn Beck whistleblower episode of June 2013 (the same week as the Snowden story broke), then use Wikileaks to follow David Brock and John Podesta setting up the cover-up of that episode, and do a whole bunch of work to trace the operation of the cover-up down to the present day. It's a complicated story. For example, there's a woman who helped "Tory Smith" set up his YouTube presence, and later helped him fake his death. Her name -- her real name -- is Alexandra Meadors. She runs a site called Galactic Connections. To understand how these two people gave themselves away, you have to watch some of their videos and understand how they attack other people (like Mike Pence) as being pedophiles while covering up their attack with religious mumbo-jumbo about "the Galactics" and "blue avians".
So if you're not willing to read the whole series with the 40,000 words, and follow the links to the Glenn Beck video and the "Tory Smith" videos and so on, then no, I'm not going to make you understand who Q really is. Not a chance. I wanted to be considerate of your time and acknowledge that going through the whole thing would require some effort.
However, the second way to respond to that challenge is to go through Q's posts, one by one, and show just how many times he has made completely arbitrary and unfounded claims. In the first five days that he was posting, he asked 269 rhetorical questions. It's not hard to show that where he made any sort of original claim, it was bullshit, and when it wasn't bullshit, it wasn't anything useful or interesting. You don't need to view me as a superhero, or indeed to pay any attention to me at all, to accomplish that. The criticisms of Q by the normies are entirely correct. He is not an insider, and nothing that he has written proves otherwise.
Before I put up any more about Wright's "proofs" or anything more about my series, I'll wait for your response on these points.
Finally I just want to make it clear: I respect the work you have done keeping this place going. I am grateful for that, and since you offered to hear me out, I've come forward. But strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if you believe me about either my own role in this story, or the fact that Q is LARPing. I already accomplished way more than I expected to here on Voat, and I don't give a crap about getting public credit for it.
P.S. to @srayzie: Hey! Still calling me a whack job, I see! Are you having a good summer?
srayzie ago
I’m not going to argue. You will write a book and I’ve had to deal with shills like crazy. I am still going thru notifications. Why? Because we’re over the target. Mainstream media is calling it all a conspiracy theory. That’s what they are trained to do when it’s time to brainwash the American people.
srayzie ago
Yeah. Great summer. How about you? 🤔
Crensch ago
No, links to where you claimed HLI was on the chans - I think you said the other guy was, too, but who the fuck knows. Somehow users on Voat = chan users but not a single link to any of them, just Q posts - as if that's somehow convincing.
You've worn out your welcome on this. I have spent a stupid amount of time parsing your horseshit already, and now you want to switch gears because you got stomped into the ground?
If you want to pretend that this is your best argument, you should have used it first. Or you should have not wasted my goddamn time with your narcissistic bragging about how you're a central character in the story of Q. I gave you more than a fair shake at this, and I won't be shoveling any more of your shit.
@Vindicator @kevdude @srayzie
SoberSecondThought ago
shrugs
It's your time, spend it how you see fit. But again to be clear, I don't think attacking the text of Q on its own merits is my best argument. I think my best argument is the 12-part series. But you invited me to do the other thing as well, so I did.
srayzie ago
Me and @SoberSecondThought have had lengthy discussions. I came away with the conclusion that this person was a whack job. You can read my lengthy comment where I prove that this person continues to knowingly push disinfo.
@Vindicator @Kevdude @Crensch @Think- @Shizy
Crensch ago
Yeah, he seems like a high level disinfo shill. A ghostwriter paid to run us in circles.