Posts Tagged ‘Youtube’

Q Investigation Part 2: The Proofs

Sunday, March 17th, 2019

Veracity of so-called ‘Proofs’?

Faithful proponents like to say that the proofs of Qanon are so numerous and so obvious as to make it mathematically impossible for it to be anything else.  Proof of what, exactly?  The idea is that Qanon is a military intelligence operation that has formed a unique alliance with President Trump, not only to protect him from the Deep State, but also and primarily to help him destroy the treasonous elements acting within it.  There are adjuncts to this main theme, of varying degrees of credibility.  For instance, one theme floating around is that JFK Jr. faked his death, and he’s involved with Q, or even is Q.  Apart from the fact that this seems dubious at best, it’s important to note that those who believe that particular theory are not necessarily “mainstream” in the Qanon community.  Like any such phenomenon, there are those who believe some of it without drinking the whole pitcher of kool-aid, and there are those who are “all in.”  In any event, the critical portion they believe is that President Trump is directly involved, and as a way to demonstrate this, the “anons” are always coming up with new and creative ways for Trump to demonstrate the connection is real without simply saying it. This is perhaps the biggest test of the whole Qanon phenomenon: Is it real and is it all it’s been claimed to be? Let us examine evidence they offer to see if we can decide if their proofs are true. Before we can know if it’s all that’s claimed, we ought to know if it’s even plausible.

(For those confused about Qanon, a quick video primer is here by PrayingMedic, and the first article in this series is here.)

There are many videos that attempt to make the case, but I wonder if that is enough to believe the overall theory.  For instance, if Donald Trump is actually involved with Qanon, then it would not be surprising that he could arrange these “proofs.”  That doesn’t mean that Qanon is really a Defense Intelligence operation.  It would only mean that Trump is in control of it, whatever it is.  It could still simply be a purely political operation intended to maintain control and engagement of his base.  In that case, it would be a hoax of a different sort, in which the President is the hoaxer.  I’m going to focus on those “proofs” that demonstrate an actual connection to President Trump.  The question of what that connection means, and what is the nature of the relationship and the underlying motive driving it, is a separate though closely-related question.  First, let us see if there is a relationship.

One of the forms of “proofs” offered by the anons is that in various speeches and appearances, at rallies and at other events, President Trump seems to go out of his way to acknowledge the relationship, although not openly.  Trump doesn’t announce “I’m with Q,” or something along those lines. Instead, it’s pretty clear that he makes somewhat vague hand gestures that seem to be an “Air-Q,” the letter apparently drawn by his finger in the air.  Critics have reviewed these instances, and it’s not entirely clear what it is that Trump’s hand is indicating.  The most recent instance of this is from Saturday’s CPAC 2019 speech by President Trump, as he came on stage to deliver his lengthy(and mostly fantastic) address, here captured by Twitter user mcSNez17(click the play icon at the center of this image):

 


This is hardly the first time Trump has done this. He has done this repeatedly at various rallies all through last Fall, and he’s also done something else that seems extraordinary. Last Fall, during the run-up to the elections, many Q-followers began to appear at the various rallies. As I mentioned in the first part of this series,the Secret Service reportedly began prohibiting people with Qanon outerwear, particularly T-shirts, from entering the rallies, but this hasn’t stopped inventive Q-believers from creating other items with emblems of “Q” that they then place over their clothing.  This was the case with one women at the El Paso rally in February, who President Trump seemed to acknowledge, as shown in Q-post 2695. And again, Trump seemed to make a Q symbol, as this looped video contends:

A number of the various content creators on Youtube that I had listed in the first post in this series have created videos dedicated to providing “proof” that Qanon is legitimate. Here’s a sampling from “Q-tubers:”

If you watch a few of the “proofs” videos, what you’ll notice is that a frequent form of “proof” offered is by time synchronicity. The thesis is that very frequently, President Trump and Qanon appear with odd synchronicity that defies the odds of mere coincidence. Now, if the claim was that they appeared in that order, it would be easy enough to dismiss. Anybody can spot a new Trump-Tweet and immediately post something on an Internet message board.  There’s no trick to that.  Here, in these cases, what happens is that Q posts something, and then, within less than a minute, a Trump-Tweet shows up, sometimes in the same second, and on the same subject.  There are numerous examples of these incidents provided repeatedly as “proof.”

I am not certain that this a valid methodology, for a few good reasons. Time synchronization is something that organizations spend an incredible amount of time and money to maintain.  For instance, in my own workplace, it’s important that client computers and servers are synchronized to the same time source and that time correction adjustments are done every few minutes.  Otherwise, what happens is that the servers and clients may experience some time difference creep.  In many organizations where time is critical, the time is actually synchronized from a GPS time-clock source.  On the roof of the building is an antenna designed to receive signal from orbiting GPS satellites.  Time is critical in the world of GPS because as Einstein taught us, time is a fourth dimension in addition to the three spatial dimensions with which we’re acquainted, so one of the things very important to fixing a location is time.  Many systems simply require time synchronization across machines for the sake of correct collation of records.

When you have very large systems, employing many database servers, with replication and high availability and so on, spread across large geographical distances, time synchronization is especially critical. One would have to imagine that sites like Twitter maintain a number of server farms spread out all over the country. In order to keep them all synchronized, they’d need to rely on something like GPS-based time clocks. Masterclock and Spectracom would be two examples of GPS Network Clock vendors. These are widely used in many industries. The basic idea is to have a singular time reference for every computer, switch, router, and firewall, along with other devices on your network. All of the devices check their time and adjust in tiny increments to keep all the devices within a very tight tolerance, generally for a common source.  GPS makes an excellent common source.

This all leads to the question of the difficulty in faking a small change in time from one event to another. Imagine that President Trump’s tweets are posted on the same server as Q‘s posts. It would be difficult to fake the order in which that happened. Here, however, we have two separate servers, and again, if they were in the same farm, it would be somewhat more difficult for a user to fake this time-wise sequencing, because all of the servers are likely to be synchronized to the same source. On the other hand, if a given server was looking at a different source, or was applying a different time correction, it would be simple to accomplish, even if the ultimate time source for both servers was the same GPS network clock.  I can imagine a scenario in which a user monitors an RSS feed from Twitter for @RealDonaldTrump and has a message ready to go on 8ch.net. Upon seeing the Trump-Tweet, they submit the message to 8ch.net, and if the system time on the 8ch.net server is running, let’s say, thirty seconds behind Twitter’s time, it will appear as though the 8ch.net post came first. In fact, if I had the 8ch.net server’s time running behind Twitter’s by some reliable amount, I could always make it appear that my latest Q-post came just before the President’s tweets. Somebody has recently pointed to the uncanny ability of the Krassenstein brothers(@Krassenstein and @EdKrassen) to appear at or near the top of the list of replies to Trump-Tweets with their venomous hatred for the president. I suspect they have a feed of Trump-Tweets that constantly updates, giving them the ability to respond in a very timely way, or they’ve got an inside track at Twitter.

One e-mailer asked me bluntly, so let me state the answer here: It is possible to fake time-synchronization, so I do not place any stock in the whole line of alleged “Q-proofs” that rely on the synchronicity of Q-posts and Trump-Tweets as evidence of coordination and involvement of President Trump. There would be ways to more accurately demonstrate this. One might be to create feeds of both @realDonaldTrump and of Q-posts happening separately, perhaps different frames in the same browser window, so that one could monitor in something approximating real-time as messages/tweets are posted.

If it could be categorically established that Q‘s posts reliably precede the President’s tweets, that would still only tell you that somebody with access to the President was putting up Q-posts at the same time the President is Tweeting. If one had access to @POTUS, it would be easy enough to observe when he was tweeting, and all of this assumes President Trump does all of his own tweeting.  Let me simply conclude the examination of this class of “proofs” by saying that I am not convinced of its validity. Let some enterprising “Anon” build the interface to simultaneously monitor a feed from both that cannot be manipulated, and I’ll give this another look.  On the other hand, the problem is that even if President Trump knows and is aware of Qanon, and coordinates with Qanon, the question remains: Why?  To what end?

Another form of “proofs” is for Anons to post requests for President Trump to work certain key words into speeches.  Last year, the request was made by an Anon for the President to place “Tip Top” into the State of the Union address.  While that never occurred, strangely, in the Easter Egg Roll speech, here’s President Trump. Listen closely, and notice his emphasis:

That’s a little more convincing, but it’s still not the first or only time Trump has used the term “tip top.”  Still, his emphasis in this case is a little more convincing, as he seems to call attention to it by repeating and extending to “Tippy Top.” I think to fully convince me of this class of “proofs,” it would take Donald Trump to utter a word never mouthed by any President before, perhaps something coined in more obscure circles. For instance, if “Anons” suggested that the President call his antagonists in the Deep State “Ameriphobes,” and the president actually did so, apart from splitting a gut laughing and cheering, I would surely believe in the connection between our President and Qanon.

One can go through all the alleged proofs offered, but to what end? Some of them certainly seem convincing, while others are less than conclusive. One must wonder that even if Trump is involved, how seriously ought we to take some of what Q promises?  After all, some of the things Q seems to forecast are somewhat vague, open to interpretation, and frequently imprecise.  Also, as I mentioned in my first article on this topic, Trump has been known to do some play-acting before.  Could the whole Q phenomenon simply be a Political/Psychological operation by President Trump?  This is the more difficult thing to determine, because even if Trump is “in on it” with Qanon, or even directly behind Qanon, maybe it’s all nonsense with which to manipulate his supporters.  One would hate to think that could be true, because if it were true, and subsequently discovered, it would certainly wreck any chance he had at re-election.

I’m quite willing at this point to consider that Qanon is involve with Trump.  The real proof of the legitimacy of Qanon will come in the results.  Will the things Q forecasts come to pass?  Will there be justice for the Obama/Clinton conspirators? Will the swamp be defeated and drained of its terrible power? What exactly is Q projecting, anyway?  In the third part of the series, we will examine that last question. Is Qanon really telling us anything worth knowing, or is it just a load of generalized guessing based perhaps on inside information?  Some say that we stand now on the precipice, and that the answer is due in the coming week(s.)  Justice is coming, they say, and operatives of the Deep State are about to get their just due.

We are now in the Ides of March. Andrew Weissmann is out. Mueller’s report could come any day. Will we see a draining of the swamp, or is President Trump going to be defeated by the legion of DC-based Ameriphobes? Soon, I believe all of these questions will be answered.

See also: How Donald Trump Can Save the World(or at least the Internet)

Advertisements

The Next School Shooter

Thursday, February 15th, 2018

parkland_florida_shooting_ft

It’s coming.  You know it, and I know it.  Every rational person knows it.  Somewhere in our nation, one or more people are preparing to go on a shooting rampage, and one of them may intend your child as a target.  That shooter-in-waiting is already armed, already possesses the means to carry out the intended attack.  It’s too late to talk about banning guns, bullets, gas masks or backpacks.  The thug is already primed, and all that is now needed is for the fuse to be lit.  Perhaps the death of a relative will be the trigger. Maybe it will be something in our highly polarized political environment that will ignite this rampage.  There’s no way to know where the shooter will appear, but there’s no doubt that the shooter is waiting, and while we bicker about banning guns or ammunition or anything else, and while we talk about “mental health issues,” we are failing our children in a sickeningly fundamental way:  We’ve shirked our first responsibility as parents to defend our children by leaving them defenseless in the face of monsters.  We cannot pretend that we can intercept these shooters by banning their implements, and we must face the fact that the only way to protect our children is to rise in their defense.

When you deliver your child to the school in the morning, or watch them load onto the school bus, you’ve effectively discharged your responsibility; everything the school does with your child is a matter of the authority with which you vested them when you placed the school in loco parentis.  You’ve effectively given the school temporary custody, presumably for the purposes of education.  At the same time, our federal government has so thoroughly nationalized our schools that we have largely prohibited the faculty and administration of our schools from participating in the defense of our children.  Except for licensed law enforcement officers, there’s nobody who can legally possess a gun on our schools’ grounds.  When it is suggested that we ought to increase security at our schools, and that the faculty and administration of our schools ought to be included in that defense, it is said that teachers cannot be armed because they cannot be trusted to refrain from a shooting rampage of their own should a child or children get out of hand.  In essence, we are told that teachers are a psychologically unbalanced lot, not to be trusted with guns.

This notion is always baffling to me, particularly when uttered by actual parents of minor children.  Are we to understand that teachers and coaches and principals may not be entrusted with a firearm, but that they are to be trusted to act in loco parentis? We trust them to shape the minds of our children, but we cannot trust them to defend our kids?  If an actual parent believes this, then there are only two rational options: 1.) Immediately withdraw your children from that dangerous school, or 2.) Reconsider your qualifications as a suitable parent for your children.  It is self-evident that if a teacher or administrator is insufficiently trustworthy to possess and carry a firearm, they have no business whatever acting in place of me with respect to my child(ren.)   If I can’t trust somebody with a gun, I certainly won’t trust them to instruct or oversee my kid(s.)

Bear all of this in mind when presented with the litany of excuses as to why we can’t or mustn’t arm non-police officers in our schools.  Remember that the thug is already out there, waiting for the timer to go off, or otherwise be “triggered” on his way.  The shooter is already armed.  The shooter already has ammunition.  You can ban guns and think you’ll discover him by psychological intervention, but you’re only kidding yourself, or permitting yourself to be misled.  The only place you can approximately guarantee the safety of your child(ren) is at home, but even there, it’s not guaranteed.  That said, you are in a position to defend your child(ren) in a way that is not possible in a conventional school environment.

It’s impossible to stress this point too thoroughly.  We must defend our children, but it must be an active defense, rather than an exercise in apprehension of villains and recovery of bodies.  Our teachers, administrators, coaches, and security must be armed and able to repel attackers.  They must be trained.  If we have teachers who cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should not be trusted with our children.  That next school shooter is out there.  It’s not possible to stop the shooter by banning anything.  The shooter is likely already armed.  The question parents must answer is this:  If you know the shooter is out there, though you can’t know his location, identity, or motive in advance, how do you defend your children?  Why are you sending your children to be safeguarded by people who are unable and/or unwilling to protect them?  Why are you putting your children in the midst of people with whom you would would not trust a gun?  The answer is an active defense.  It must be.

There will always be killers among us.  We can’t stop them all, and we can’t always intervene before they’re able to inflict casualties, but the only way we might is to present an unambiguous, active defensive curtain around our children, with trained, rational adults empowered to provide that defense.  Everything else is political cowardice.  It’s time, with all the evidence before us, for parents to insist that there be an active defense, or to withdraw their children from these schools.  What do you have that you value more?  On which political issue are your efforts better spent?  It’s simple: We must insist that our schools be empowered to mount an active defense against violent assailants.  If you sincerely wish to protect your children from the next school shooter, it’s too late to talk about bans.  That shooter is already armed, perhaps casing the target, or merely awaiting a psychological trigger; your child(ren.)  Only an active defense offers any hope.

 

Editor’s Note: It’s despicable that while the Parkland Florida shooter was preparing to commit his crime, the FBI, which had been notified of a youtuber of the same name threatening to be a professional school shooter, did only a cursory investigation, apparently too busy chasing phantom “Trump-Russian Collusion,” as directed by their senior leadership in Washington DC.  If only the FBI field agents had been able to conduct a more thorough investigation, perhaps the outcome would have been different.