Q source / Qanon

[meta-agnostic]

And I want to be clear. I am not really concerned about whether or not the C's are ever asked about Trump or Q again. I mean, it would be cool, but that's for others to decide. It would just be nice to have a thread, this one or another designated one, to be able to discuss the goings on with other people who are also familiar with the C's and other material here. Preferably without being insulted, ridiculed, lectured and condescended to just for paying attention to something a lot of other "truth seeking" people are paying attention to. Pointed criticisms of specific issues/observations are of course valid and welcomed.

 

[Joe]

And I want to be clear. I am not really concerned about whether or not the C's are ever asked about Trump or Q again. I mean, it would be cool, but that's for others to decide. It would just be nice to have a thread, this one or another designated one, to be able to discuss the goings on with other people who are also familiar with the C's and other material here. Preferably without being insulted, ridiculed, lectured and condescended to just for paying attention to something a lot of other "truth seeking" people are paying attention to. Pointed criticisms of specific issues/observations are of course valid and welcomed.

Nobody has suggested no more should be posted on this thread. Fire away. As for being "insulted, ridiculed, lectured and condescended to" for paying attention to something a lot of other "truth seeking" people are paying attention to, that seems like a bit of an exaggeration. And the issue wasn't that people were merely paying attention to the Q business, the issue was that some were tending to swallow it whole.

 

[nicklebleu]

But is it important to know whether Trump is "good", or whether he thinks he is "good" but is actually entrapped by those who are "bad", or has no choice, etc. etc.?

I think this question is pretty irrelevant - just look at what he does, and for me it is enough to dismiss him. Whether he does it intentionally or “under duress” is pretty much irrelevant. He is a figure-head and while I might have wished at the start of his precidency that he might roll back a few things, I never expected him to be able to “drain the swamp”, the deep state is way too entrenched.

It seems to me that one needs to see these things with some more personal detachment. Just like the whole Q business.

 

[meta-agnostic]

Nobody has suggested no more should be posted on this thread. Fire away. As for being "insulted, ridiculed, lectured and condescended to" for paying attention to something a lot of other "truth seeking" people are paying attention to, that seems like a bit of an exaggeration. And the issue wasn't that people were merely paying attention to the Q business, the issue was that some were tending to swallow it whole.

"Insulted" is probably over-doing it, and subjective. The other three I think a case could be made for, not just with you and me but between others as well. But it's all good. It's not so much a personal affront, it's more like people were "Getting in trouble for appearing to believe in Q" and that started to morph into "Getting in trouble for talking too much about Q in general, unless it was to ridicule the entire concept." It appeared Q's prediction that discussion would be banned across all platforms except 8chan might come true for this forum as well. And who wants to give the whole thing that kind of confirmation?

I think this question is pretty irrelevant - just look at what he does, and for me it is enough to dismiss him. Whether he does it intentionally or “under duress” is pretty much irrelevant. He is a figure-head and while I might have wished at the start of his precidency that he might roll back a few things, I never expected him to be able to “drain the swamp”, the deep state is way too entrenched.

It seems to me that one needs to see these things with some more personal detachment. Just like the whole Q business.

Well, I don't know. All I can say is that hardly appears to be the consensus of everyone on this forum. The whole Russiagate thing does look like it's being turned around and reflected back at those who started it. Consistent with Q, but it can be seen in plenty of news sources without even acknowledging or going near Q. And "Lock Her Up" still gets chanted at pretty much every single one of the multiple Trump rallies per week, as far as I can tell. Is the concept of such a thing ever happening inherently a deluded fantasy for anyone even considering it a viable possibility? Or is it possible, maybe even becoming likely if certain things continue to happen, but not likely to result in the outcome those who chant it have been led to believe? Can it go on like this for at least another 2 years? Something's got to give. These are just the kinds of questions I'm advocating considering, for those who are interested in them.

I know people have compared it to binge watching so maybe this convoluted analogy isn't the best, but for a while I have been comparing the whole Q thing to something like The Truman Show, where we are both watching it and on or in it. Not that many people were watching in the beginning but a whole lot more are watching now (we can debate how many, but I don't see the point since everyone will just think what they want anyway). Some people just have their buttons saying "How's it going to end?" which is a hard sentiment to expect someone to rid themselves of, even for a "psyop", because the whole thing is so crazy and it has to end somehow. Others are glued to it close to 24/7 and it's probably not healthy. And in our case, what happens when Truman or all of us or whoever walk through the door is finding out what "psyops" means. I don't know that telling people they shouldn't pay one bit more of attention to it is likely to do any good unless a convincing case can be made that it's going to fry their brains or something. And then their is the whole multi-meta-cosmic-whatever Truman Show that this forum is rightly and understandably more concerned with. I think there can be time for those interested to pay attention to both, within reason.

 

[Pecha]

Anyone who's interested in Q may find something useful in Edward Riordin's remote viewing sessions regarding the phenomenon. Here is his first session:

In one of the sessions, he notes that he had a feeling between two parties arguing intensely how to disseminate information from some kind of profound finding(s). Depending how big/game changing it is, the result of any type of dissemination of this info would have to be done through a psyop, good or bad.

 

[meta-agnostic]

Anyone who's interested in Q may find something useful in Edward Riordin's remote viewing sessions regarding the phenomenon. Here is his first session:

In one of the sessions, he notes that he had a feeling between two parties arguing intensely how to disseminate information from some kind of profound finding(s). Depending how big/game changing it is, the result of any type of dissemination of this info would have to be done through a psyop, good or bad.

Wow. Just wow. Thank you for posting. Never heard of this guy before. I watched the intros to his sessions but not the sessions themselves. Will be interesting to listen to the podcast where he is interviewed about it. He definitely seems to be describing some sort of 4D tech at times. TDARM or something similar? But the handing over of all decisions to AI stuff does sound like a dystopia, a point on which he seems to agree, and interestingly he never gets directly into Q's role in and relationship to all of this. He's sort of agnostic about whether the Q phenomenon itself is positive or negative. It's like someone asked him to investigate Q, this is where it led him and it all goes way beyond any of the things Q even talks about (besides the various times when Q has used hyperbolic-sounding superlatives like "THIS IS BIGGER THAN ANYONE CAN IMAGINE").

Reminds me of this post back in early August where I was going through the various possibilities of what Q could be without having to resort to asking the C's. I used LARP to include all prank-type options, PsyOp to include all Millitary Intelligence type options, and then

3) Something Else. All bets are off with this one. More C's-type hyperdimensional stuff could come into play here.

Maybe even within PsyOp, this one is still on the table?

 

[Pecha]

Reminds me of this post back in early August where I was going through the various possibilities of what Q could be without having to resort to asking the C's. I used LARP to include all prank-type options, PsyOp to include all Millitary Intelligence type options, and then

Maybe even within PsyOp, this one is still on the table?

At some point he talks about some kind of wave/light projecting onto a screen here. I've seen this before in one of the transcripts where the Cassiopaeans speak of human perception being similar to a slide presentation that is being projected from some higher dimensional reality where the projector itself lies.

Q: (SV) But, if there is no time? (J) It is our perception of it. (L) It is all happening simultaneously. We are having all of these lifetimes at once. (SV) Is there a way that we can connect ourselves with all our other selves?

A: Picture it this way: we will access some of your memory banks and give you another reference which, interestingly enough, fits very closely with the perpendicular reality wheel that we described earlier. You know what a slide projector looks like? To give you some feeling of what this expanded nature of reality really is, picture yourself watching a big slide presentation with a big slide wheel on the projector. At any given point along the way you are watching one particular slide. But, all the rest of the slides are present on the wheel, are they not? And, of course, this fits in with the perpendicular reality, which fits in with the circles within circles and cycles within cycles, which also fits in the Grand Cycle, which also fits in with what we have told you before: All there is is lessons. That's all there is and we ask that you enjoy them as you are watching the slide presentation...

Q: (J) In that analogy, the light that shines through the slide, as it projects it upon the screen, is our perception?

A: And, if you look back at the center of the projector, you see the origin and essence of all creation itself, which, is level seven where you are in union with the One.

I thought it was interesting. I'm getting the feeling that Q as a whole is much bigger than it lets on.

 

[angelburst29]

Anyone who's interested in Q may find something useful in Edward Riordin's remote viewing sessions regarding the phenomenon. Here is his first session:

In one of the sessions, he notes that he had a feeling between two parties arguing intensely how to disseminate information from some kind of profound finding(s). Depending how big/game changing it is, the result of any type of dissemination of this info would have to be done through a psyop, good or bad.

I'm not aware of remote viewing sessions - being done in this way?

In the video, it's claimed that "it's the first session" on the identity of Q anon? With remote viewing, you are given or you select "one target or subject" to focus on. "Q" and "anon" are two separate things/entities. It's unclear - which one he selected as 'target'?

After a remote session, you jot down "your immediate impressions" which might include sketching a "picture-gram" of some sort. The impressions are generally - short descriptions - the equivalent of a half dozen or more (entries). The information is then put on file, to be retrieved at a later date, after several more sessions and a comparison study is done - using the information gathered.

In the video, he's using "recall" to draft a few entries on paper ... but then ... he's suddenly going through all these elaborate motions - to fill in blanks of a hypothetical jig-saw puzzle???

"In one of the sessions, he notes that he had a feeling between two parties arguing intensely how to disseminate information from some kind of profound finding(s)."

The only thing "profound" about this video - "It's lost in Space!" A drug-induced-trance will do it every time!

 

[Laura]

Probably the most useful way to "observe" Q would be to log here "predictions" as they come out, and then compare them to declared "fulfillments" with a good dose of skepticism.

Being an "insider in psy ops" doesn't mean not sometimes telling the truth. In fact, it is telling the truth about some things that hooks the reader/listener and engages to tap their psychic energy. It's this tapping of psychic energy that one has to watch out for and the only way to block it is with "skepticism", so to say.

The Cs have pointed out that STS are quite capable of telling the truth when it suits their purposes and agenda.

2000 Mar 18:
Q: Whitley Strieber and Art Bell have published a book about a "global superstorm." Is any of the information they have given in this book fairly accurate?
A: Derived from non-human sources known for stark accuracy, when convenient.
Q: What makes it convenient at the present time for them to be "starkly accurate?"
A: Fits into plans.
Q: Plans for what?
A: Do we not know already?
Q: In other words: world conquest and the takeover of humanity?
A: Not as simple.
Q: What would make my statement more accurate?
A: Call it amalgamation.

And this one gives background to the "amalgamation" remark:

1998 Jul 25

Q: (L) I read the new book by Dr. David Jacobs, professor of
History at Temple University, concerning his extensive
research into the alien abduction phenomenon. [Dr. Jacobs
wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the history of the UFOs.]
Dr. Jacobs says that now, after all of these years of
somewhat rigorous research, that he KNOWS what the aliens
are here for and he is afraid. David Jacobs says that
producing offspring is the primary objective behind the
abduction phenomenon. Is this, in fact, the case?
A: Part, but not "the whole thing."
Q: (L) Is there another dominant reason?
A: Replacement.
Q: (L) Replacement of what?
A: You.
Q: (L) How do you mean? Creating a race to replace human
beings, or abducting specific humans to replace them with
a clone or whatever?
A: Mainly the former. You see, if one desires to create a
new race, what better way than to mass hybridize, then
mass reincarnate. Especially when the host species is so
forever ignorant, controlled, and anthropocentric. What a
lovely environment for total destruction and conquest and
replacement... see?
Q: (L) Well, that answered my other question about the
objective. Well, here in the book, Dr. Jacobs says that
there is ongoing abductions through particular families.
I quote: 'Beyond protecting the fetus, there are other
reasons for secrecy. If abductions are, as all the
evidence clearly indicates, an intergenerational
phenomenon in which the children of abductees are
themselves abductees, then one of the aliens' goals is the
generation of more abductees. Are all children of
abductees incorporated into the phenomenon? The evidence
suggests that the answer is yes. If an abductee has
children with a non-abductee, the chances are that all
their descendants will be abductees. This means that
through normal population increase, divorce, remarriage
and so on, the abductee population will increase quickly
throughout the generations. When those children grow and
marry and have children of their own, all of their
children, whether they marry an abductee or non-abductee,
will be abductees. To protect the intergenerational
nature of the breeding program, it must be kept secret
from the abductees so that they will continue to have
children. If the abductees KNEW that the program was
intergenerational, they might elect not to have children.
This would bring a critical part of the program to a halt,
which the aliens cannot allow. The final reason for
secrecy is to expand the breeding program, to integrate
laterally in society, the aliens must make sure that
abductees mate with non-abductees and produce abductee
children.' Now, this seems to suggest that there is a
particular bloodline that is susceptible to...
A: We have told you before: the Nazi experience was a "trial
run," and by now you see the similarities, do you not?
Q: (L) Yes, I do see...
A: Now, we have also told you that the experience of the
"Native Americans" vis a vis the Europeans may be a
precursor in microcosm. Also, what Earthian 3rd density
does to Terran 2nd density should offer "food for
thought." In other words, thou are not so special,
despiteth thoust perspective, eh? And we have also warned
that after conversion of Earth humans to 4th density, the
Orion 4th density and their allies hope to control you
"there." Now put this all together and what have you? At
least you should by now know that it is the soul that
matters, not the body. Others have genetically,
spiritually and psychically manipulated/engineered you to
be bodycentric. Interesting, as despite all efforts by
4th through 6th density STO, this "veil remains unbroken."
Q: (L) Now, the big question is: what are we supposed to DO
with this information?
A: As with all else, it is not what you should do with it, it
is just that you have it.
Q: (L) Is there any possibility of defeating the plans of the
4th density STS in this project?
A: Is there any possibility of defeating the Spanish
Conquistadores and the English, French, Dutch and German
"colonists?"
Q: (F) Did they say what I think they said? (L) Yes. That
is inexpressibly depressing.
A: And you expected a Rose Garden?

 

[Laura]

I'm not aware of remote viewing sessions - being done in this way?

The only thing "profound" about this video - "It's lost in Space!" A drug-induced-trance will do it every time!

Yes, "remote viewing" is problematical for many reasons though when I studied it more extensively some years ago, I did note that there are interesting results. The following discussion seems to me to be a good description of the "Q Phenom".

1996 Nov 23
Q: (L) Okay, let's move on to Courtney Brown. (T) We all know who he is, and what he is writing about in regard to remote viewing... what is it all about?

A: Vague.

Q: (T) Is the book Courtney Brown wrote, "Cosmic Voyage," concerning the Martian population...

A: It is true that there are underground bases on Mars, but they are Orion STS.

Q: (T) Are there Martians as portrayed by Courtney Brown?

A: Not exactly. He is portraying the Orion STS as the Martians.

Q: (T) Is Courtney Brown a government disinformation agent?

A: More as an "agent provocateur."

Q: (T) Is he working for the government?

A: Not directly, and remember, the government is not one entity.

Q: (L) Who is primarily backing Courtney Brown?

A: Rockefeller group. [...]

Q: (T) Did Courtney actually do remote viewing to obtain the information in the book?

A: Not really. Not needed.

Q: (T) Does this mean that the whole story is concocted on his part?

A: Semi. Elements of it are factual.

Q: (T) Yes. I could see that there were factual elements. I could also see that there was a LOT that was questionable. that conflicts with EVERYTHING else that has come out from other researchers. This is all totally twisted and different.

A: Close.

Q: (T) Is Courtney able to do remote viewing?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) But he did not use it with this book?

A: No.

Q: (T) So, the book was made up the way it is. It is a story. Some factual information, some invented information, some pure BS thrown in to fluff it out. So, the book is NOT an account of work that has come from remote viewing sessions?

A: No, but not needed.

Q: (L) You have said twice that remote viewing was not "needed." Where did he get his information?

A: Secret sources. Agents of the “nation of the third eye."

Q: (J) What or who - is the "Nation of the Third Eye?"

A: Terran civilization under the surface.

Q: (L) Now, wait a minute. I remember that when they said the Aryans were brought from Kantek, and that they were "sturdier," or something like that, and I remarked that it seemed that they would be less sturdy - and the C's answered "on the surface." Now, that has always bothered me. I don't think they meant "surface appearances." Have the Aryans been glorified as the "master race" because they are more suited to living underground?

A: Close. All types there are "Aryan."

Q: (L) Okay, is this a Terran underground civilization that has been 'managed' by Orions, or did it develop on its own?

A: One at a time.

Q: (L) Did the underground civilization develop on its own?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Is it managed or manipulated by Orions as well?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are these "managers" Orions from other densities?

A: Yes and no.

Q: (L) I don't understand. Are there some that are 4th and some that are 3rd?

A: The human types there are "bi-density."

Q: (L) Holy Shiite Moslems!

A: Grays and Lizards are 4th density. They can "visit" 3rd density, but they must keep returning to 4th in order to "regenerate."

Q: (T) Are you saying that the human/Aryan types can exist as long as they want in any density?

A: In 4th and 3rd.

Q: (L) They can move back and forth, existing with equal ease on either density?

A: Well, not with "equal ease," because 4th density is easier, naturally.

Q: (T) So, the information Courtney Brown was given to write this quasi fiction book, is about the Aryans and not about the Martians?

A: "Martians" is easier to understand for the less well- informed, not to mention any discussion of the densities!

Q: (T) Absolutely. Martians are easier to accept. A lot easier to understand than densities! (L) Okay, Third Eye. What is this?

A: That is what they call themselves when pressed for an explanation by surface types, such as yourselves. They were the inspiration for Masonic lore and Illuminati, too.

Q: (L) Does this "Third Eye" designation have a connotation of third eye abilities as we understand them?

A: Psychic.

Q: (T) Does Courtney know he has been had?

A: He has not been "had." He is under the employ of those who pull the levers, so to speak.

Q: (L) You said "pull the levers." Is Courtney Brown a robot, Greenbaumed, mind-controlled, implanted, or any or all of the above? (T) Or is he just foolish?

A: No. Not so foolish, he does not worry about paying the power bill. As Forest Gump said: "Stupid is as stupid does."

Q: (L) Are you implying that I am foolish or stupid because I DO worry about paying the power bill?

A: No, we are not implying that you are stupid, or foolish, for that matter... But, Courtney Brown is not either. Who is he hurting? And, he has hit the jackpot with this one. Knowledge can be procured by reading literature, then analyzing it.

Q: (T) Is the time-table that he has given correct?

A: Close.

Q: (T) So, the powers that be are going to follow this time table and present the Aryans as Martians?

A: No.

Q: (L) Are the Aryans going to present themselves as Martians?

A: Initially. In order for the Terrans to get used to the idea of EBEs.

Q: (T) But, they are not the good guys. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

A: Some of the "good guys" are identical in appearance.

Q: (T) Is this a subterfuge on the part of the Aryans so that they can slide in quietly and take over?

A: No, they do not need that at all. It is a way for the "government" to introduce everyone to the new reality of the existence of intelligent life all over the place, not just here.

Q: (T) So, they have their own agenda, but it is not what Courtney presented in the book.

A: It does not matter. The book is a somewhat altered "New Reality 101."

And then later, I asked specific questions about Remote Viewing itself since that wasn't directly addressed in the above session:

1998 Oct 10
Q: There are people who claim to 'remote view,' and I think that it is possible and probable. In specific, when a person is remote viewing, are they able to view other densities when doing this?

A: Sometimes.

Q: Is there any way to tell when you are viewing other densities as opposed to 3rd density? Is there any distinguishing characteristic?

A: That would be up to the awareness of the viewer.

Q: Is a person who is capable of remote viewing in higher densities, generally capable of perceiving higher densities in a 'normal' state?

A: Maybe.

Q: So, if a person is unaware of higher densities, are they still able to remote view higher densities?

A: The viewer must have a "clue" as to the view.

Q: What do you mean 'a clue?'

A: Review your previous question.

Q: I see. So, it IS connected to the ability to perceive higher densities in general awareness. Okay, in particular, is it a condition of remote viewing higher densities, assuming one has the general awareness of higher densities, that one is able to look in all directions at once; that is, to sense oneself as a 'point' of consciousness and to perceive material reality as being somewhat amorphous or fluid; is THAT evidence of viewing higher densities?

A: It could be.

Q: Is there anything that one could look for in a remote viewing exercise that would clearly indicate that one is NOT viewing higher densities?

A: These questions are a bit elementary for you, when one thinks of that which you already know.

Q: Well, my opinion is that, depending upon the scenario that is presented, and the way it is presented, that one could tell. And, there are a great many people who are doing remote viewing, who are claiming to be remote viewing higher densities, and getting information that is clear to me that it is what somebody at higher densities WANTS them to think, or WANTS them to see and MANIPULATES them to see.

A: It is a two way street.

Q: So, individuals COULD remote view higher densities to see what the higher densities are up to?

A: No. Expectations... ? Anticipation... ? Prejudice... ? What have we told you?

Q: Is it possible that, when one person gives a target to another for a remote viewing exercise, say, as just a code number, can the person doing the remote viewing use this exchange as a means of locking in on the frequency of the person giving the assignment?

A: Close.

Q: So, if I were to give an assignment to someone, this person could then lock in on our frequency here and remote view us?

A: Maybe. Try it.

Q: Well, Ark doesn't want me to because of his work. He thinks everybody is a potential agent.

A: Spies do not ask.

Q: I just have a lot of reservations about remote viewing in general. I think that it is just a different name for practicing clairvoyance. And, I am not so sure that people who claim to be able to do it as they claim, are really able to do it. In other words, it is like a talent, some are better than others.

A: Yes, you are right.

There were a few later comments on Remote Viewing that are furiously interesting:

2000 Apr 15:
Q: (L) So, in effect, we ARE the new Neanderthals on the eve of extinction. You have said that those who transition into 4th density in the body will go through some kind of rejuvenation process or body regeneration or something. Does that mean that these present "Neanderthal" type bodies that we presently occupy will morph into something more in line with the new model? Is it genetically encoded into some of them to do so?

A: Something like that.

Q: (L) So, that's why they have been following certain bloodlines for generation after generation; they are tinkering with the DNA and arming genetic time-bombs that are waiting to go off. (A) What is interesting is how do those who are trying to get these people, to abduct them, how do they spot them? How do they get the information? By following the bloodline, or by some kind of monitor you can detect from a long distance - and they can note that "here is somebody of interest" or "here is somebody dangerous" or "let's abduct this one" or whatever. How do they select? Do they search the genealogies or is it some kind of remote sensing?

A: Now this is interesting Arkadiusz, as it involves the atomic "signature" of the cellular structure of the individual. In concert with this is the etheric body reading and the frequency resonance vibration. All these are interconnected, and can be read from a distance using remote viewing technology/methodology.

Q: (L) Can it be done in a pure mechanical way without using psychic means?

A: At another level of understanding, the two are blended into one.

Q: (T) Computerized psychic remote viewing, maybe. Like artificial intelligence. Maybe a mind connected to a computer?

A: That is close, yes.

Q: (T) Which we are not capable of yet - that we know of, anyway. (J) I'll bet the Russians are. (L) Why?

A: Work? Yes. Succeed? Not much.

 

[Pecha]

Probably the most useful way to "observe" Q would be to log here "predictions" as they come out, and then compare them to declared "fulfillments" with a good dose of skepticism.

Being an "insider in psy ops" doesn't mean not sometimes telling the truth. In fact, it is telling the truth about some things that hooks the reader/listener and engages to tap their psychic energy. It's this tapping of psychic energy that one has to watch out for and the only way to block it is with "skepticism", so to say.

The Cs have pointed out that STS are quite capable of telling the truth when it suits their purposes and agenda.

I agree Laura. I would not doubt that the Q phenomenon is ultimately tied to STS forces.

It's this tapping of psychic energy that one has to watch out for and the only way to block it is with "skepticism", so to say.

"Thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee"

It is important to address Q as objectively as possible and from a distance. This includes discarding preconceived notions that they are aligned with "good". At this point, Q seems too big to be ignored and it feels like a change in the perception of the public will come about because of it.

Thank you for sharing Laura.

 

[meta-agnostic]

Thank you Laura for the elaborations. Remote viewing has always been something that kind of creeped me out, but I figured it probably had some validity, going back to reading Robert Monroe's books and hearing about how the CIA took over his work or something to that effect.

In the video, it's claimed that "it's the first session" on the identity of Q anon? With remote viewing, you are given or you select "one target or subject" to focus on. "Q" and "anon" are two separate things/entities. It's unclear - which one he selected as 'target'?

It has become somewhat confused over the months in that people were referring to the person(s) signing posts with "Q" as "Q anon", meaning another anonymous user of the chan boards but singled out to be known as Q. That seems to have morphed into people sometimes using Qanon to refer to Q, and also to refer to other anons who support Q as in "I'm a Q anon! Where we go one, we go all!" or to refer to the idea of the movement as a whole. Maybe not a super semantically helpful way to get your message across, but it seems like it was clarified relatively precisely in this case.

In this audio-only video of the podcast interview he goes over the exact wording of the "tasking" specifying the remote viewing target, which he claims to have gone into "blind", i.e. not having conscious knowledge of what the target was in order not to be biased about it, I guess. Description is from about 43:24 to 45:13:

It's something like, "The person, persons, or program, hereinafter termed as entity, using the online handle known as Q anon that has posted directed information on 4 channel and 8 channel starting October 28, 2017 to the current time frame." So they seem to have set up the parameters in a precise enough way so it's clear what is being referred to, although the presentation needs some refining if this is going to be a viral addition to the whole story. Is this guy a conscious disinformation agent, or just a kook? I dunno, maybe. Is it possible that maybe he is onto something, or that he might have been led down a disinformational path by whoever asked him to do this and/or who/whatever he targeted in his remote viewing? Quite possibly.

 

[Laura]

I agree Laura. I would not doubt that the Q phenomenon is ultimately tied to STS forces.

"Thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee"

It is important to address Q as objectively as possible and from a distance. This includes discarding preconceived notions that they are aligned with "good". At this point, Q seems too big to be ignored and it feels like a change in the perception of the public will come about because of it.

Thank you for sharing Laura.

The part in bold cannot be emphasized or repeated often enough, especially the last bit: assuming that Q represents the "good guys" - it's almost a certainty that s/he/it does not. Psy Ops by definition is about mind control/manipulation.

I would say that it is crucially important to believe nothing, to approach the study as you would approach the study of a probable psychopath: keep your distance and BELIEVE NOTHING. It is the "hope that they are good guys" which leads to wanting to believe, which leads to giving the benefit of the doubt, which leads to believing, and then they have you and a direct channel to your psychic energy.

So, like I said even earlier in the thread, and will repeat: I'd like to see some clearly laid out "predictions" or statements made by Q logged here at the time made, to be conserved for discussion if and when anything transpires that remotely appears to confirm the prediction/statement. Also, it is best to not cite or quote "true believers" without clear labeling as such so that their comments can be kept in context.

Now that I've written it, it surely does seem very much like observing a psychopath in action...

 

[Bluegazer]

Reading the extract, from the research of Dr. David Jacobs, and the amalgamation ... it seems that you can not do a whole genetic retouch and create a hybrid species if you do not install certain ideas with which the soul resonates. I quickly come a couple of things to mind, and that is to create a hybrid of something you need a catalyst. We know that viruses can be a catalyst, but in terms of the non-material part we have ideologies. I am coming to the idea that the amalgamation also has in its design a line of abductees that communicate with the ideas of the fluidity of gender, identity etc. Imagine for a moment that an individual enters an undifferentiated state, does not have a definite real personality (magnetic center) genetically makes manipulation and retouching for a new species much easier.

 

[meta-agnostic]

The current Q 'line' seems to be that Kavanaugh needed to be confirmed before FISA DECLAS could happen. There have been all these stories in the fake news about Rosenstein agreeing to secretly record Trump, and then maybe getting fired or resigning or something a couple weeks ago, as part of a plot to try and trick Trump into firing him, thereby crossing the 'Red Line' and setting off leftist riots which are planned if such an event were ever to occur (it does sound ridiculous now when typing it, but reality has been ridiculous for a while now). But Trump is of course too smart for that, and he has Secret Team Q, and he knows that the FISA application declassification will implicate Rosenstein along with pretty much all of Five Eyes, thereby forcing Rosenstein to resign, enabling the end of the Mueller probe (or is it the changing of the targets of the Mueller probe?) and eventually arrests and military tribunals with Kavanaugh's swing vote on the Supreme Court a possible necessity to make sure those go smoothly.

The Presidential Alert sent out to, but not necessarily received by, all U.S. cell phones on October 3 is part of this plan, in order to be able to inform the American populace of what is going on without the fake news spinning it, and of course Trump's twitter will eventually be shut down as all this ramps up. The alert was originally scheduled to go out on September 20. The excuse given for moving it to the backup date was because the aftermath of hurricane Florence was still a serious issue, but really it was because Kavanaugh's confirmation needed to be pretty much a done deal, as seen in this post:

2222
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 98088e No.3094453
Sep 19 2018 19:32:42 (EST)

Anonymous ID: 749576 No.3093917
Sep 19 2018 19:13:38 (EST)
>>3093270 (lb)
Was moving the date back on POTUS FEMA "Presidential Alert" significant?​

>>3093917
Due to K confirmation push.
Hand in hand.
[RR] stand down due to K conf.
Q

Messages like the one Rhythmik posted on the last page with "Are you ready to see arrests?" get posted from time to time, making it seem like the big "Storm" is right around the corner, but the drama just continues to advance a few moves at a time without anything truly earth-shattering (the North Korean turn-around being a possible exception. Maybe that actually was designed to go a different way under an HRC administration). It does seem like the messages about arrests are designed to string people along, with some dismissing the whole thing because nothing has happened as they see it. To counter-act the naysayers, more and more people have to join in anticipating a big event soon, but "The stage has to be set" first.

Back in March, it appeared that the "peaceful Iranian regime change" was supposed to occur by this November:

890
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 3d632d No.594193
Mar 8 2018 20:05:03 (EST)

Anonymous ID: dc7a36 No.594151
Mar 8 2018 20:03:02 (EST)
>>594016
>Iran next.


A tougher nut to crack, Q-Team.

I hope your negotiations with Mahmoud are going well.​

>>594151
Resolved by 11-11.
Q

Ostensibly the fall of the Iranian theocracy was to be in concert with the military parade celebration originally planned for November 11. But the military parade has been changed do to budget concerns, and it's not clear where the Iran timeline currently stands.

Q seems to have put quite a lot of stakes on a "Red Wave" in November. Apparently Republicans have to not only maintain but increase majorities not just for Trump to keep from getting impeached, or at least having his entire agenda roadblocked, but for the whole "Storm" to move forward. A FISA DECLAS before the election that causes some dominoes to fall and this Red Wave to manifest might be enough to allow this "Storm" or whatever the real agenda is to move forward into the new year.

Sorry I did not cite more specific examples from Q posts this time around. The whole thing is pretty convoluted and yes, an energy drain. Hopefully having kept track of it ends up doing some good in the long run.