Debunking the claims about "40000 sealed indictments"
1 2018-08-27 by InfiniteEffect
If you’ve paid any attention to Q Anon. you’ve probably heard the claim that there’s currently an unprecedented number of sealed indictments (25.000? 40.000?? 60.000??? a million bazillion?!?!?) building up. just waiting for Trump to unleash The Storm. This obviously sounds ridiculous. but I’m not sure if anyone has actually sat down and debunked it yet — so that’s what I’m here to do!
Let’s start with the most recent version of that claim. which purports to list the number of sealed indictments that have built up in US district courts since 10/30/17 — their official count is at 45.468. Furthermore. they claim that in all of 2006. there were only 1.077 sealed indictments filed in all US district courts. Does this mean The Storm is gathering??? Before we jump to conclusions. we’d better check their work.
As it turns out. that’s not hard to do. because the Q crew has actually been keeping pretty good records. The URL listed for “backup files” leads to this Google Drive folder. which contains folders with data for each month as well as a guide to where it’s coming from. If you don’t want to download files from a random Google Drive account. here’s an imgur album containing their instruction manual. As you can see. they are using the PACER (Public Access to Electronic Court Records) database. which is open to the public (although. if you make an account yourself. you have to pay $0.10 per page for search results). PACER.gov lists individual sites for each district court; for each one. they’re running a search for reports associated with pending criminal cases filed in a given month. counting how many are associated with a sealed case (these cases are designated as “Sealed v. Sealed” instead of naming the plaintiff and defendant). and adding that number to the monthly count.
So what’s the problem? First. those search results showing up on PACER aren’t just indictments. they’re court proceedings. That certainly includes indictments. but it also includes search warrants. records of petty offenses (like speeding tickets). wiretap and pen register applications. etc. For example. here’s the search page for criminal case reports from the Colorado district court. where you can see that “case types” includes “petty offenses.” “search warrant.” and “wire tap.” (There are other options as well if you scroll — although I didn’t take a second screenshot — like “pen registers.” “magistrate judge.” and finally “criminal.”) In the Q crew's instructions for conducting these searches (linked above). they specifically mention leaving all default settings except for the date. which means their search results will include speeding tickets and search warrants and everything else.
Second. the number 45.468 comes from adding up all the sealed court proceedings that are submitted every month. It doesn’t account for proceedings that have since been unsealed and/or carried out. In other words. that number is literally meaningless. It’s always going to get higher and higher. because they’re not keeping track of the number of court proceedings that are currently sealed. they’re just adding up the new proceedings that are filed every month. So how many are still sealed? Frankly. I have no idea. because I have zero desire to go through all 50+ district court websites (most states have more than one) and count them all up.
However. I did use Colorado as a test case. According to their running list. a total of 1.087 sealed court proceedings have been filed in the Colorado district court between 10/30/17 and 7/31/18. I ran my own search for pending reports filed between 10/30/17 and today (8/7/18). limiting “case type” to “criminal” (to avoid getting results for search warrants and speeding tickets). filtered for cases flagged as “sealed.” and got… a grand total of 41 sealed criminal proceedings. In other words. of the 1.087 “sealed indictments” they’re claiming have built up in Colorado. only 41 — or 3.8% — are actually criminal proceedings that are still sealed.
So... it’s not looking too good for the Q crew so far. I think one example is sufficient for my purposes. but if you have a PACER account. and you’d like to run similar searches in other district courts. feel free to share your results!
Finally. I want to talk about how many sealed “indictments” (court proceedings) are typical. Like I mentioned earlier. the Q crew is claiming that the total number was 1.077 in 2006. based on this paper from the Federal Judicial Center called “Sealed Cases in Federal Courts”. Here’s the thing… they’re wrong. This paper was written in 2008 and published in 2009; it makes it very clear that it is examining sealed cases filed in 2006 that were still sealed as of 2008.In other words. it doesn’t count documents that were sealed in 2006 but subsequently unsealed.
Additionally. while there were indeed 1.077 criminal proceedings from 2006 that remained sealed in 2008 (p. 17). there were also 15.177 sealed magistrate judge proceedings (p. 21) and 8.121 sealed miscellaneous proceedings (p. 23) — these include search warrant applications. wiretap requests. etc. Like I discussed previously. the searches that the Q crew is conducting are not filtering those out. So. if they had been conducting the same searches as these researchers. they’d be concluding that. as of 2008. there were still 24.375 “indictments” from 2006 waiting to be unsealed.
So. final conclusion? It's bullshit. Sorry. Anyway. if any of my explanations are unclear. you have information to add. or there's anything I got wrong -- please let me know!
207 comments
1 EyeOfTheBeast 2018-08-27
Debunking is not very popular here. I appreciate you post and the work you have done.
1 DenseHole 2018-08-27
Debunking should go hand in hand with conspiracy work. People constantly accuse the government of planting conspiracies to throw people off and discredit them. So why not work in tandem to disprove the conspiracies we can to help improve the signal to noise ratio?
1 FSBYeahYouKnowMe 2018-08-27
Exactly! How do you know whats valid and what isnt if you dont let people try to poke holes in it?
Hate when people advocate for /r/ConspiracySafespace
Better known as /r/ConspiracyRight
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
This is a worn-out talking point lacking any basis in reality.
1 garyp714 2018-08-27
No one said that.
1 FSBYeahYouKnowMe 2018-08-27
Hes constantly arguing with things people arent saying to push a point nobody cares about
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
No one said it but it was heavily implied
besides. It's a conspiracy community. So who are you going to side with? The person attacking the CIA or the CIA?
1 FSBYeahYouKnowMe 2018-08-27
On what topic?
1 thatoneotherguy42 2018-08-27
Cats....
1 lordfartsquad 2018-08-27
I'll side with Trump on that one, I'm allergic to cats so I need a wrinkly bald one with fake hair
1 FSBYeahYouKnowMe 2018-08-27
I'd have to hear the arguments. I have my own convictions on that topic
1 SQUID_FUCKER 2018-08-27
I'll side with the evidence.
1 degustibus 2018-08-27
You did some good work there, thanks.
One thing jumped out as odd, how many states would seal speeding tickets?
My recollection was things were sealed to protect ongoing investigations or perhaps protect confidential information ;sex abuse victims, undercover cops etc.).
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
If I dug through my inbox, I could find dozens of examples.
1 garyp714 2018-08-27
Shrug. I'm sure you could.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
Pick one.
1 garyp714 2018-08-27
Aw, okay, you win. take care.
1 aetheradept 2018-08-27
Even though you are correct In theory. Many debunking claims are bullshit to discredit something. Most people wont actually go through the work of verifying the information, on either end. It's very hard to figure out which conspiracies are true or not.
Websites like snoops and metabunk are completly full of shit too. Not only are they political, but they lie at times as well.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
r/qproofsdebunked
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2018-08-27
In my opinion theories should never be accepted at face value despite hopes they're true. They should be tested, discussed, and evaluated.
1 TimeTravelingDog 2018-08-27
Debunking was EXACTLY what this sub was about before the election. It's fucking sad. Conspiracy should be about being skeptical of EVERYTHING, fact checking, digging for information yourself, not being spoonfed hot-take-titles.
1 Adamarama 2018-08-27
Debunking should be the most popular here!
1 hippy_barf_day 2018-08-27
Exactly, it makes theories even stronger, or it can destroy the trash. If we're interested in the truth we should poke and prod it as much as we can.
1 SapphireReserveCard 2018-08-27
Found the r/politics poster. Can't handle it when the roles are reversed. Feed me your down votes. Bring me to the top of controversial!
1 EyeOfTheBeast 2018-08-27
This post is about politics. And I had come to believe the story being paraded around about sealed indictments was 99% fabrication.
This is the kind of conspiracy, deliberate misinformation, that is not allowed to be discussed in r/politics and rightly so.
Do you not believe the two huge conspiracies now playing out in our nation?
Conspiracy theory #1.
The Republican presidential campaign may have included conspiring with Russia to steal the 2016 Election.
Conspiracy theory #2.
There is a deep state operation to remove a legally and legitimately elected President.
It doesn't matter which side you are on, it is conspiracy and political.
1 WeAreTheResistance 2018-08-27
You did a great job explaining this. Not sure why you're being downvoted for it. I'd never seen any debunking of this claim before this, thank you. My immediate thought when I saw this 45k number was that there's no possible way that many people from the swamp were going to jail.
What I'm interested in (as someone who does not have a PACER account, maybe you might know) is how long do these sealed indictments usually stay sealed?
1 therealAce 2018-08-27
He's being downvoted because this sub has 180'd. This used to be a sub to talk conspiracy theories, and now it's a sub to push conspiracy narratives with just enough fringe talking points to give it an ounce of credibility. Everything is politicized and it's quite clear that this sub tries to push a certain agenda, regardless of how many people debunk or disprove whatever post reaches the top of the sub.
Anyone remember Las Vegas? That is a real conspiracy theory and the main reason I came here in the first place. No one. Not a soul speaks about Vegas around here anymore.
1 badbackjack 2018-08-27
My big letdown on that was Ed Opperman actually pulling the "I live here - I know these people! There is no conspiracy! Nothing to see here!" bit. Very surprising. And yeah. Normally one would expect to see more about Vegas here.
To be honest with you though, I never really thought of one of the consequences of the presence of the trumptrolls and sharebluers being an absolute silencing of some genuine conspiracies. Something to think about.
1 paulie_purr 2018-08-27
I vote for this post to be stickied. Why? I've heard the claim transcend those strickly devoted to Q, now being mentioned by friends of mine with a general interest in conspiracies/holders of hope that things are changing for the better.
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
I also enjoyed this analysis....
However, I do not find the two concepts to be mutually exclusive...
Do you not view actions/events/things in this world changing or "trending" towards a positive direction?
1 Imsomniland 2018-08-27
Not OP but how is that connected to Q's flaws?
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
Great question. I asked the same thing.
How are the two mutually exclusive of one another?
1 Imsomniland 2018-08-27
Oh I got it. You're one of those Q fans who likes to come off as smug and mysterious. You got me! I'm impressed. Well done.
1 FSBYeahYouKnowMe 2018-08-27
They think its what smart people do
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
HIGH-larious.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
So according to this Q conspiracy theory. Everything that happens ever. Whether it's good bad or neutral. Is connected to q? And is more proof that he exists?
it sounds like you're just trying to connect the dots to prove himself. Instead of looking at the facts
it's like people who try to prove the Illuminati by saying that they found a random triangle in the background of a movie
The two things are completely mutually exclusive. The world could be doing great and that doesn't mean that Q is real.
The fact that I have to explain that is actually very sad sad. Because most people in this thread can recognize that
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
I feel like you did not understand my question...
I agree with your most recent statement "the world could be doing great and that doesn't mean that Q is real."
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
As for the remainder of what appears to be your vitriol filled reply...
Right, wrong, or indifferent..."Q-anon" is a thing.
Could be a Disneyworld styled fantasy of conspiracy theorists?...Could have varyinh levels of legitimacy?...Could be an outright LARP?
Still a thing.
As a former resident & participant in the application of Gov't in the District of Columbia...I can say this...
I have never seen more common, everyday, middle 'Merica style citizens actively engaged in political related biz...folks commonly know the names of the individuals involved in what is clearly go'n to be a monumental shift in the way business is done in 'Merica.
Rod Rosenstein is becoming as synonymous as some pop culture icons...in the past, most folks couldn't name an Attorney General...let alone Deputy.
Hell, I have worked for DC agencies...where folks who work there cannot even identify the leadership element of that same agency.
Right, wrong, or indifferent. "Q-Anon" is a thing.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
I don't see that at all though. I see people who are already in the conspiracy Community looking into conspiracies. Like the Titanic or hidden planets
Knowing the names of politicians doesn't mean anything if what they talk about is stupid. No Robert Miller is not secretly working with Trump to investigate Hillary. That's ridiculous.
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
Interest'n...
An informed taxpaying populace...knowledgeable in the activities of their own government...actively engaged as if it's their favorite reality TV show...this is not a "positive" thing??
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Not when what they're actively engaged in is searching for secret pedophile base camps in homeless shelters in Arizona
for being convinced that they should never do anything because someone else will take care of it
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
Who is "they"? What quantity is "they"?
In your scenario...do all "Time" magazine subscribers search for secret pedo camps in AZ?
Every belief system or philosophical understanding, has extremists...just say'n...
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
Also look outside the "conspiracy community"...again...right, wrong, or indifferent..."Q-Anon" made Top 25 of Time magazine...
I could be mistaken...but I would venture to guess somewhere in the ballpark of zero Time magazine subscribers are here posting on this forum...
Further, many of those individuals who read Time magazine suddenly have to question their own personal worldview...and before too long Uranium One, or Clinton Foundation fraud, or a list of other topics are suddenly on that Time magazine subscribers mind...
In summary..."Q-anon" it's a "thing"...regardless if it's a Disney fairytale or a LARP...I don't see it as anything short of a net "positive".
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Or the time magazine readers are like "who is q?"
So they google it then theyre like
"Oh those crazy Trump supporters believe this random internet troll?"
Because most people arent gullible
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
Not certain where gullibility plays a role here...although you do seem very fixated on "real" versus "fake"...despite that not be'n a tenet of the conversation here...
Sure, some "Time" clearly will have googled "Q-Anon" and discharge the thought...
But others will look further into the elements of real world actual events commented on by "Q-Anon" ...
Those folks will find themselves evaluating data...such as today's news of Clinton e-mail investigation ignored 98% of e-mails...amd suddenly that news is taken under greater scrutiny...
1 mynamesyow19 2018-08-27
If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, given him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, topheavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. - Bradbury
1 paulie_purr 2018-08-27
Some things are, other things are regressing. The larger point may be that there's been a clear push to assign anything positive to the presidency of Donald Trump (which is why the "message" of Q tends to read like campaign material). This isn't really different than what occurs among fans of any politician in power, but the Trump movement has its own conspiracy theory factory component.
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
Sure.
But how is that any different than the standard day to day biz of conspiracy theory?
For example..."the Illuminati"...I can generally determine folks world views very easily...based upon the groups of both positive/negative attributes an individual applies to "the Illuminati"...
Whether some folks are attributing positive & negative events towards a specific group...it does not seem to negate those events.
Lets anal-yze the NVIUM "sex cult".
Mainstream media refuses to say "child sex trafficking" despite criminal charges of the cult leaders. Why? Why not report actual charges of cult leaders?
On that same note. Does Bronfman & Salzman connections to Team Clinton bode favorably to POTUS Trump plans/initiative?
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
The media could easily be covering for sex traffickers. Obama could easily have committed crimes. And Hillary could easily be working to overthrow the president. None of those things mean that a guy talking about it on 4chan is real real
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
Again. I never once said it did.
I am merely attempting to have a conversation in regards to topics in the real world...yes, I recognize that "Q-anon" has commented on the NVIUM cult...
But "Q-anon" commenting on the subject or not...the leaders of the cult are under indictment for "child sex trafficking"...thoughts on media not commenting on on the actual contents of public records?
The leaders of NVIUM are inextricably linked to Team Clinton, Clinton Global Initiative, etc...not certain if "Q-anon" has highlighted the activities of Bronfman or Salzman...but regardless...in the real world of actual events the connections/activities of these individuals are no different...even if "Q-anon" commented on Salzman or Bronfman.
Thoughts on Salzman and/or Bronfman...relative to CGI, Libya, or Team Clinton generally?
1 mynamesyow19 2018-08-27
On the same note does it look like Donnies in any hurry to lock his old dinner buddy Hill up? His own people are pleading guilty left and right and Hill dogs just drinking marga Rita's and doing shake weights while the Left could care less about her and the Right are determined to weekend at Bernie her corpse around the airwaves every weekend to cover up their weekly scandal's and indictments.
1 OperationGCD 2018-08-27
Well played, sir. I laughed out loud at the Weekend at Bernie's ref...
1 rodental 2018-08-27
Great analysis.
1 Nick11288 2018-08-27
Thanks for posting this here. It's nice to have some actual fact-checking on claims - critical thinking and double-checking claims should be a cornerstone practice of the conspiracy theory community.
1 drsloth1138 2018-08-27
This is a great post, thanks OP.
1 turtlew0rk 2018-08-27
I've tried pointing out the impossible logistics of arresting and trying 45k people at the same time, but it was upon deaf ears.
1 Wet-Goat 2018-08-27
Judging from some comments I've from adamant believers I imagine they think it would be done in the style of The Great Terror.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
it's funny that the people who keep going on about Trump about being a dictator and hating Obama for being a dictator want to use the military to unconstitutionally jail all their political opponents to the tune of 45000 people
1 Wet-Goat 2018-08-27
What they really need is the Paedofinder general.
1 pinkmaybebabycrazy 2018-08-27
I posted that exact link a while back. Didn't find too many people who appreciated it, haha.
1 Wet-Goat 2018-08-27
Monkey dust has always been contentious, people don't like to look in the mirror.
1 aetheradept 2018-08-27
Well to be fair, its suppose to be pedophiles, in which case, I agree they should all be shot. If it somehow was true, and it was just for political reasons, many people would call them out.
See this is one of the biggest problems of having a world wide, AI driven, spy network. If someone gets control of that, they have an almost ungodly amount of power to destroy their enemies, without doing anything.
Then again, if it is true that pediphile networks run the government and shit, then it would be a great thing to literally gas them. People who fuck kids are not human beings in my book.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
I don't agree. We have a legal system for that
And a pedophile rhat has committed no crime should not be shot on the street
U cant ignore the Constitution and execute ppl u disagree with
that's slippery slope and you should know about that my now now
1 pilonidalcystonurlip 2018-08-27
They should be gased/executed without trial?
1 aetheradept 2018-08-27
Of course they should be proven guilty. They have the right to a trial. Then if they are pedophiles. They should be shot. I'm not advocating taking someone's right to trial, but if Americans are colluding, to undermine the United states, they should be charged with treason, and if the are pedos then shooting them is a little too nice. I would torture them. We should make an example if people like that, not feed them, and let them watch tv for 25 years.
If the owners of the media, and tech companies are truly conspiring to undermine the U.S government, then they should all be tried for treason. Treason also Carrys the death penelty.
If you dont think the government should torture the pedos, let the families of their victims have them to do it, or throw them in a hole.
Make no mistake, if it is true, there will be blood.
1 Sn00tyfr00t 2018-08-27
Yes. The spy state is insidious and is run mostly behind the scenes through MIC/tech partnerships and Govt agencies mostly in secret.
If Qanon is correct and evil people are being brought to justice, martial law may need to be implemented and trials of traitors will be conducted by military tribunal. Thats all part of "The Plan"
The potential for abuse and overreach is high.
If opposition is wiped out, who or what remains to prevent the victors from being even more oppressive and vindictive against opponents and critics, e.g. dictatorship?
I would like to believe that everything will be fine, but critical thinking is always a necessity
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
Why are you trying to convince me with bald ad hominem attacks?
If Q is bullshit, you should be throwing out facts and reasoning to get people back to their senses. But you're not. You're just insulting people, which tells me you only care about discredit Q, not about the truth.
If you're not interested in the truth, then I'm not interested in your opinion.
1 Wet-Goat 2018-08-27
Wait, who are you?
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
I notice the vote bots just arrived, too.
1 Wet-Goat 2018-08-27
No seriously I think you replied to the wrong comment, I haven't said anything about you.
1 sppratam 2018-08-27
beep boop, there are dozens of us.
1 sammythemc 2018-08-27
Have you actually tried this? Their faulty reasoning is usually buried under hours and hours of crowd-sourced arguments from people who desperately want it to be true.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
Yeah. I have access to information you don't have access to, but even what's publicly available easily demonstrates Q is not "fake," but provably an insider with inside information. The only question you should be asking is their intentions, not their authenticity.
How many times does Trump have to confirm this on his twitter?
1 Slanthropology101 2018-08-27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Some quick reading on this moment in history.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
Yeah, it's definitely not 45,000 sealed indictments. That was just a data point people seized on. But there isn't sufficient evidence to dismiss the claim that there is an elevated number of sealed indictments.
In fact, using OP's own estimation of 3.8% of sealed items being criminal indictments, we would have over 1700 indictments, which is a substantial increase from earlier years.
1 PattyMcShady 2018-08-27
Is it? What’s the natural variability of that number from year to year? Making that claim based off one data point in 2006 is faulty. Not to mention the massive uncertainty in that 1700 number
1 turtlew0rk 2018-08-27
How do we know they arent from the Mueller investigation?
1 rrtangent 2018-08-27
I think their line is something along the lines of "not the Mueller investigation you're thinking of ;)." Unless they're in one of their "damn Robert Mueller!" moods.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
We don't. But I would be amazed if he had evidence for thousands of sealed indictments when there isn't a shred of evidence that he has found anyone who did anything improper with Russia.
1 turtlew0rk 2018-08-27
Hey I agree, but evidence doesnt seem to mean shit.
1 TruthDontChange 2018-08-27
Those who want to believe don't let little things like logistical impossibility or factual improbability change their minds. They would much rather believe the unsupported assertions of some random blogger, than listen to actual facts.
1 oasisflower 2018-08-27
The number of indictments is not indicative of the number of people.
1 TheWolfSuitKing 2018-08-27
Yeah I got banned from great awakening for pointing that out...
1 IMA_Catholic 2018-08-27
Nice work. Thanks for posting!
1 Sea_crimes 2018-08-27
Thanks for the effortpost. Well done.
1 f_k_a_g_n 2018-08-27
Original:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/comments/95gc0f/debunking_the_claims_about_40000_sealed/
1 AutoModerator 2018-08-27
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 HerMileHighness 2018-08-27
Good eye!
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
From the
And best of all this isn't debunking some random bogus proof like "tippy top." this is debunking something that Q has claimed is a fundamental part of the plan to take down the Deep State.
If the Qult cared at all about logic and evidence this would be utterly devastating.
Well done!
1 HerMileHighness 2018-08-27
We aren't talking about the content of your post but the fact that it is copy / paste from a two-week old post in Qult_Headquarters under a different name which also suddenly got some action today. It all seems a bit odd to me.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
I know.
It was a good post and I figured I'd repost it.
I didn't add that part because i wanted to minimize the chance of it not catching on
1 ALLINQSIVE 2018-08-27
Ironic
1 lottapoppa 2018-08-27
I'm going to dig, tonight, in since OP posted some speculation. I didn't take the 45k as a rolling number existing unsealed but ALL related to the single focus of the "deep-state". Meaning we already know there's thousands of pedo arrests, I assumed many were for that, then like any investigation it leads to more.
I've asked a few times if there's any research to compare unsealed and their relationships, but like OP said they didn't want to dig into that.
I'll update the posts with what I find
1 MM_mm12 2018-08-27
Yes Please, Thanks So much.
Much Love and Peace!
1 BiologicalPuppet 2018-08-27
Good catch. I wish these "re-posters" would at least put a one-sentence disclaimer at the top stating that the work isn't their own (it could be an alt, I suppose, but still). Seems pretty disingenuous.
1 nolivesmatterCthulhu 2018-08-27
Why is this political bullshit here?
1 FSBYeahYouKnowMe 2018-08-27
Heard of Q anon?
1 Cube-Knoxxx 2018-08-27
Bitch politics and conspiracy go hand and hand.
1 PutinLikesPenis 2018-08-27
Because it is about the qanon conspiracy
1 Known_dissident 2018-08-27
Noooo!!!! You're killing my dreams! First we don't get our pound of hillary and now this?!?!
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Looks like if you want things to happen you're going to have to lobby for them them
1 Weareone2 2018-08-27
This whole Q thing is weird. Didn’t believe in him. Then I did. Now I don’t. It’s a damn good psyop/LARP/random person stringing people along.
I don’t have anything to add other than they’re not violent. I’ve been GA for a while. Most of the people are just seemingly against the Clinton machine and want justice. I say that because it’s misconstrued and again plays into Good vs. Bad.....sadly it isn’t that black and white.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
They are violent though. One guy already parked his armored car on the Hoover Dam filled with rifles. Another guy held himself up in a homeless encampment in Arizona with rifles
1 Weareone2 2018-08-27
You could make that argument about individuals in any movement. The collective is not violent, tho.
1 hippy_barf_day 2018-08-27
their language is though.
1 Weareone2 2018-08-27
I disagree. I’ve read through countless posts and their “analysis.” Majority and pretty much most of them are just people researching a psyop/LARP/some guy in Detroit.
1 hippy_barf_day 2018-08-27
they're talking about revolt and even if it's not violent, their vitriol is off the charts.
1 Weareone2 2018-08-27
Well I have yet to see an open call for revolt. But I’ll keep my eyes peeled - I’m on that sub quite a bit. Normally it’s just conjecture about 8chan and some weird posts.
1 hippy_barf_day 2018-08-27
Does "burn her at the stake" count as violent language? I was just over there, picked the top post and scrolled for less than a minute.
1 Vandamage001 2018-08-27
Where did ur statistical analysis go? 2 of the 40000 in GA is not quite enough to label these people violent. Irresponsible of you to claim this. I was on board with your analysis till you made this comment..
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
I'm not using it as statistics in that way. I'm saying it's already happened. And it resembles pzzagate
Its only a matter of time before someone gets hurt. And the difference between a violence supporter of this movement and a violence supporter of a normal movement is this one's based on a lie
it shouldn't even exist
by your argument no movement can be labeled as violence because the majority of most movements are not violent
I'm simply arguing that when you say just because they're not violent but they're not bad it's just not true
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
Spell better and don't push two agendas at once. It's too obvious now that you're pushing an agenda that has no basis in facts, and is based purely on political partisanship.
Next time, don't mention:
-Trump -Pizzagate -"Right wingers"
or any of the other political points you want to make. It's a dead giveaway that you're pushing an agenda rather than trying to contribute to the discussion.
We all know the same people own both political parties. Pretend you're one of us on all but one issue if you want to blend in.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Sometimes subs have an auto filter for pizzagate
If ur beat comeback is attacking spelling then i won
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
What?
1 Vandamage001 2018-08-27
If that’s all ur saying then no one should be able to believe in anything that isn’t proven because “ it’s only a matter of time till someone gets hurt.”
1 mrsnakers 2018-08-27
And using your logic, anti-trumpers shoot up Madden tournaments.
Also, the homeless camp guy was a opportunist not connected to the Q movement and only became interested in it after Q followers started following him.
1 Captian_Cocksmith 2018-08-27
Examples of violence usually involve violence ya dipshit.
1 IanPhlegming 2018-08-27
OK. You over played your hand. Better to have not answered this then to answer it in such a way. Thanks, though.
1 str8uphemi 2018-08-27
the same guy said Hillary and Podesta would be in jail too and here we sit. Q's as bad as religion, just gives something for idiots to cling to.
1 fuckswithboats 2018-08-27
Assange is free.
Remember the chess board???
1 hippy_barf_day 2018-08-27
is this from a q drop or something?
1 fuckswithboats 2018-08-27
Yeah back when it first started.
I think early November he claimed JA is free like a bird or some shit.
Around the same time, Julian tweeted a pic of a chess board (some famous move) and another of him wearing ecuadorian soccer jersey. This was seen as confirmation.
1 falsescorpion 2018-08-27
Good work OP. I stopped believing any of this when the number of sealed indictments got over 5,000 (I mean, seriously?) but it's good to see someone putting in the spadework to debunk it properly.
1 piles_of_SSRIs 2018-08-27
Lol people actually believed this?
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
r/greatawakening
1 bootnuts 2018-08-27
I’m assuming there’s a lot of t_d crossover. I cant believe people buy this garbage.
1 Spartan1117 2018-08-27
Its literally become a cult about donald trump being the saviour of the world
1 _TyrellWellick 2018-08-27
Its sad because it would have been nice for new curious people join the Conspiracy community, but greatawakening members will believe, literally, anything
1 talixansoldier 2018-08-27
Where the Q people at?
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Suspiciously silent
1 Green_Lives_Matter 2018-08-27
No. Someone already called you out for your sloppy presentation and you resorted to name calling.
You and your post should get banned. You clearly have no interest in discussing facts.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Ur response strikes me as eerily similar to someone who just had his religion criticized
I already told you that I'm waiting for the original Op to respond
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Maybe if u discussed facts instead of complaining
But this is well researched.
And on the front page
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2018-08-27
That should be the decision of the mods. Report the post(s) and let them decide.
1 jeromebettis 2018-08-27
Kys
1 murphoto 2018-08-27
I'm one of them. But here I am checking facts and getting good info on r/conspiracy. We're not kooks. Yes some are deeply into the belief system of Q. I am doing exactly what Q has said many times. "Enjoying the show". I have no idea how it is all going to end, but I have never seen a movement like this and wish it to be true, but stable enough to jump off the train if/when the time comes. You be you... I'll be me. Cool?
1 no_muslim 2018-08-27
Q has made many predictions that didn't come to pass.
Do you have an explanation for this?
1 ArTiyme 2018-08-27
You haven't seen a movement like this? Every single doomsday cult has all the exact same shit. Planet X, the 2012 shit, all of it are exactly the same. The ONLY difference is that you guys ignore every false prediction and move onto the next one.
1 murphoto 2018-08-27
This one appears different because the "cult leader" Q seems to be aligned closely with a sitting president. Trump has not spoken of this Q fellow. If he has no knowledge of Q, he should have distanced himself by now. This alone makes this something I have never seen before. I do keep a tally of correct predictions and incorrect predictions and yes you are right, many are incorrect. But some are spot on correct, to the point of beyond coincidence or luck.
I am wise enough to know that this may be the same old shit, but this one is still interesting to me. Don't worry, I'll be fine. I haven't drank the Kool-Aid, just enjoying the show.
1 ArTiyme 2018-08-27
No, he doesn't "appear" that way anymore than it "appeared" the world ended in 2012.
Yes, you have. A liar lying with a bunch of people forming a cult around them. Remember when Q photoshopped picture of being in AF1? Why would someone close to Trump do that? Why would an honest person do that?
Really? Give me your best one.
1 murphoto 2018-08-27
Ok Sparky...have a nice day.
1 PutinLikesPenis 2018-08-27
Great post. It always seemed to me that the Q stuff was just a pro trump/republican psyop.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
You didn't "debunk" anything. In order to debunk it, you would need to demonstrate what percentage of the sealed items represent unique criminal cases.
Your proof isn't sufficient because you didn't examine your sample of sealed items, you simply did a keyword search on a different database and assumed that if any of those sealed items were sealed cases they must have shown up in the keyword search.
Frankly, you're using a very strange way of testing these. You take a number from one website, then compare it to the number of cases that remained sealed a year later, and claim that this represents the number of sealed items that represent unique sealed indictments. That's simply ridiculous. You need to measure the number of indictments that are unsealed in a year, not the remaining sealed items from year one to year two.
Even if we assume your 3.8% number, we get 1710 sealed indictments, which is nearly double the normal annual number.
Finally, you're aggressive and perfectly happy to win people over to your side with rhetoric rather than insisting on sticking to the facts. You're not as bad as some of the blatant anti-Q shills, but you're certainly not posting a dispassionate examination of the evidence that would not lead me to question what your real intentions are.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Ah a qultist finally arrives
(And only after this was posted in tmor 🤔)
Ill refer to original op:
1 Green_Lives_Matter 2018-08-27
Name calling instead of presenting a rational fact based reply does not lend itself to your credibility.
In fact now I’m more skeptical of your real motives here.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Uhuh
I dont have the facts since i didnt do the search
But why is "qultist" bad?
Its accurate. He believes in q. And its by definition a cult.
cult
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
1 Green_Lives_Matter 2018-08-27
Name calling and shill accusations are a rule violation
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Uhuh. Qultist isnt "name calling"
Anymore than "trumper" or "trumpster"
1 Vandamage001 2018-08-27
Where did you copy / paste your post from?
1 mrsnakers 2018-08-27
TMoR
1 DrButtLicker69 2018-08-27
You’re worried about name calling? You post to a sub that regularly accuses real, innocent people of being pedophiles while hiding behind a anonymous user name on reddit.
1 Sn00tyfr00t 2018-08-27
I liked your post although it is self admittedly not your OC, and that's fine.
It is a little absurd to think the sealed indictments have been building up all this time and not being prosecuted.
The increase of arrests for child trafficking and prn would suggest otherwise.
It is important to question and think for ourselves. Thanks for posting.
That being said, I disagree with your statement "Q is a cult" especially based on your definition.
Im my experience the group known as Q have been teaching those who would listen how to understand the communications of both white and black hats, given direction for further digging, and even a bit of hope for those losing hope under the constant assault of negative media.
Are there some that feel that Q is worthy of veneration and worship? There are extreme examples in every group of course. Some people inevitably take it too far, particularly new arrivals with new found fervor and only a partial understanding of whats really going on.
YMMV
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
https://conspiracypsychology.com/2018/04/15/internet-prophecy-cults-101-qanon-and-his-predecessors/
1 Some-Random-Chick 2018-08-27
A logical post below the threshold... I’d tell you you’re wasting your time but I’m sure you already knew that.
1 Xaviermgk 2018-08-27
Then why don't you talk about real cults that do rituals like the Masons and OTO? Mighty interesting.
You seem awfully FRIGTHENED by a group of people that don't have to leave home.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Lmao yep u got it
Were all TERRIFIED of a bunch of neckbeards investigating what shape the earth REALLY is
Seriously. Plz dont go investigating the lizard people. Were TERRIFIED of what u might find
Ur about to topple the world with ur horoscopes from 4chan
Any day
And what happens if u find out that Hillary eats babies?
Or that EVERYONE is in on it except u and some people on 4chan?
Theres gonns be 350 million sealed indictments soon. All of amwroca is gonna be in prison
1 mrsnakers 2018-08-27
Oh c'mon, you're so blandly a TMoR user. Using their language on r/conspiracy and getting upvoted. What a sham.
I actually do agree with the fact that the indictments are not individuals as you mentioned. But your testing methods are flawed and do not come to any conclusions other than "they do not represent individuals" the end. But you are using your own agenda of pushing seemingly similar examinations as factual evidence of a complete debunk, which is mightily conspiratorial of you, ironically.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
The proof is that most of them aren't even indictment. And the ones that are are much less than what they're claiming. Meanwhile previous years are much more than what they're claiming. Plus there's no evidence that those indictments are for anybody that you hate. For all you know the indictments are for Trump's people because Mueller and the doj are planning on arresting all of Trumps Associates Associates
1 mrsnakers 2018-08-27
The proof only supplies a single, simple conclusion - which is "we don't know what we're looking at".
​
You can just say that, you know?
​
There's no reason to call everyone in here conspiratard flat earthers while also painting a picture of people interested in Q a full blown doomsday cult members.
​
It's really quite telling about your motives here, regardless of you deleting your comments.
1 Xaviermgk 2018-08-27
Nice....I didn't even get to see the removed comment. Also notice the double words at the end of their comments. Pretty odd.
And I'm sure they are going to arrest "all of Trumps Associates". Trump is obviously making all these EOs so that it's easier for them to arrest all the people that helped him get into office. Makes perfect sense.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
Hey u/JamesColesPardon
u/Raptor-Facts tells me shes been banned and cant reply to this. She says shes never posted in this sub before.
Shes also op
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2018-08-27
I would assume they were banned at some point in the past for posting to TMOR, based on their post history. I tried going back a few months in the mod log but couldn't find it.
1 xolotl-tlaloc 2018-08-27
don't be a dickhole
debunk this:
1 Etoiles_mortant 2018-08-27
Allow me to do it instead of him.
What is the annual number of sealed indictment?
1 LisaMack37 2018-08-27
That’s debunking?? and the clueless, uneducated masses agree! you will all find the truth very soon! PS: do not simply listen to what others spew as truth, do the research for yourselves and you will find the facts
1 whatwhatdb 2018-08-27
I'm not sure I totally understand what you are saying. Let me state what I understand, and then you can speak to it.
The 45K document says that there are 1087 sealed indictments in Colorado. First, that number isn't the number of sealed indictments, it is the number of sealed 'proceedings'... which includes indictments. I believe indictments are contained in the case type 'criminal'.
The person that wrote the OP text searched only for case type 'criminal', and found 41 sealed.
This means there would be a maximum of 41 sealed indictments, and not 1087 like the 45k document said.
Does this sound correct?
The real issue is whether or not the amount of sealed proceedings is larger this year than in other years, correct? If so, we should be able to search year by year and compare them, correct?
Here are my results from searching the last three years of all sealed 'proceedings' in Colorado:
10/30/2017 - 7/31/2018: 1065
10/30/2016 - 7/31/2017: 1199
10/30/2015 - 7/31/2016: 836
As you can see, there is nothing unique about this year... in fact, the previous year had MORE sealed proceedings. Doesn't this debunk the claim that something unique is happening this year?
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
This is where I disagree. There is no reason to assume that all of the criminal cases would show up under a keyword search like that. And you're also comparing a state to federal, when they are going to have very different rates of sealed indictments. Federal tends to go after more people who are subjected to sealed indictments (flight risks, etc.)
1 whatwhatdb 2018-08-27
Well, it wasn't really a keyword search, it was a search of all cases that had been flagged as 'criminal' in the system (as opposed to magistrate judge, search warrant, etc.). I believe indictments would fall under that category.
But let's just toss out the issue of indictments, since there may be some discrepancy/difficulty in determining how many there are. Let's just consider sealed 'proceedings', since that is what the 45K document involves.
The question is whether or not the number of sealed documents this year is dramatically higher than other years. There is ZERO proof of that, at this time.
The study from 2009 where they first made the comparison is basically worthless. Praying medic referenced a person who said that that study was in no way comprehensive. And we dont even need it, because we can run historical searches in PACER using the exact criteria that the Q team is using to get their numbers.
So far there have only been partial analyses, like mine above. Mine shows a decrease over last year in the state of Colorado. Another person ran 15 districts (of 95 total) and observed a 35% increase between 2016 and 2017.
(It should be noted that we would expect many sealed cases to become unsealed in the first year or so after they are filed. This would influence the data for the most recent years, causing it to look higher than previous year comparisons. In other words, after 2 or 3 years, the difference between 2016 and 2017 will decrease, as sealed cases go to trial and become unsealed.)
Bottom line: Until someone does a year by year search of all 95 districts, there is ZERO proof that the number of sealed proceedings this year is unique.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
And the results?
1 whatwhatdb 2018-08-27
The results I'm aware of are the examples I gave you. I did the entire state of Colorado, and found a decrease this year. Another guy looked at 15 districts and found a slight increase.
No one has done more to my knowledge. I would search all districts, but it gets expensive, and I've already spent $75 researching it.
The problem really started when the Q team used the 2009 study as the basis of their comparison. Perhaps they didn't understand it fully when they used it, because as I pointed out, even one of Praying Medics references said it wasn't a valid source to use as a comparison.
Since the 2009 study isn't a valid comparison, and since that was the only proof they cited that this year was unusual, it means the claim is no longer true.
1 brittleknight 2018-08-27
Q is a joke without a punchline
1 hippy_barf_day 2018-08-27
i think the punchline is civil war
1 wile_e_chicken 2018-08-27
FOURTY BRAZILLIAN NEXT MONDAY SHOWTIME!!!أحد عشر11one
1 A_solo_tripper 2018-08-27
I was suspicious about that 42k sealed indictment number as well.
1 Predator1117 2018-08-27
Careful if you try to point out flaws in their "logic" they will ban you. I got banned for recreating Q proofs showing them to be easily faked.
1 Captian_Cocksmith 2018-08-27
I tried to understand this Q stuff but gave up. I'll just sit back and watch.
1 mynamesyow19 2018-08-27
3 words dog: Truth ain't Truth.
1 RusticRock 2018-08-27
its great posts like these that are driving me further away from the Q conspiracy, although I still find it intriguing, Im not seeing any results that "the plan" is coming together
​
as I said in a previous statement, Q has made some specific statements that lead one to believe hes the real deal, but hes also all talk and no action, this tells me that Q is most likely a politician
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
r/qproofsdebunked
1 eikogray1111 2018-08-27
Thank you so much for doing this! I questioned them about how Trump is linked to pedo crimes with Epstein when they posted Epstein’s island pics. They attacked me and banned me for asking about it as well as his other atrocities. They are stupid.
1 FurryPhilosifer 2018-08-27
Dissent will not be tolerated.
Literally. It's in the rules of their sub. No questioning allowed.
1 LeaveWuTangAlone 2018-08-27
Great post! I’ve worked in a law office for the past five years and know all too well what it means to look through court filings. Each system for each state is very different, and some of the search platforms are verrrry particular and sensitive, whereas others are very easy to navigate and narrow down. This is some great work. Thank you!
1 marxistlizardperson 2018-08-27
Thank you
1 Carl_Solomon 2018-08-27
Is your comma key missing or something?
1 SHITBONFIRE 2018-08-27
you admitted to not wanting to do the work necessary to do a full debunk. a partial ain't a
1 Jrmullin 2018-08-27
Shits about to hit the fan don't give up.
1 rigorousintuition 2018-08-27
Well investigated.
Are 1087 sealed indictments unusual?
Considering the (apparenty) crackdown on human traffickers in the apst couple of years - does anyone know (i guess) the average amount of sealed indictments that are lodged with the court each year?
If it were even 100 politicians it would still be a big deal IMO. The Q community are notorious for making assumptions and bolting with them.
1 moonnii 2018-08-27
Great Post! Thank you
1 Jabba_The_Huck 2018-08-27
45K is just the beginning!
Trump is going to sweep in and clear out government of all corruption and illegal behavior!
Trump dictated those 45K all by himself - which is why he is up at 1am Tweeting!
The storm is going to flush the liberal dirt away!
Trump is going to fix everything. People WILL pay for their betrayal and treason in defying the President of the United States of America!
1 PutinLikesPenis 2018-08-27
T_d is leaking again
1 voodoodahl 2018-08-27
I'm not going to name and shame simply because I'd likely be banned but there is a segment of the conspiracy community that has no interest in truth. They're mostly here to dress up political smears as conspiracy theories.
1 bardwick 2018-08-27
I don't really follow, so question, are these Q posts or anon posts on 8chan?
1 eikogray1111 2018-08-27
Exactly and that’s the problem. They want to approach things with logic but they don’t even look at the possibility that they are being played as well. If Q is actually Trump he could be using this to appeal to the moderate people since he already has the backing of his base through racism, sexism, and homophobia.
1 IcyPaleontologist 2018-08-27
To be fair racism and sexism is exactly why people hate him
racist hate him because he's white. Sexist hate him because he's a man.
the left never wanted a white man is president again. They either wanted another black person or a woman
And the fact that they got neither is the real reason that they hate
the fact that Hillary still has people advocating for her is all the proof you need. She likes to keep her racist and sexist base un informed and uneducated
1 eikogray1111 2018-08-27
Go ahead and believe that. For your information, I didn’t want Hillary as president. I am also not against a white man as president if he deserves it. You are incredibly misinformed.
1 IcyPaleontologist 2018-08-27
No. The only reason anyone could hate him is because hes white
you're incredibly misinformed. But that's because you watch fake news. It's designed to manipulate the uneducated uninformed people into supporting things against their own interests
1 eikogray1111 2018-08-27
I’m white so I don’t understand why you keep insisting I hate this man because he is white. I hate him because of his character and his actions. I don’t watch fake news, I do research. So keep arguing, it’s not going to change my opinion or anyone else’s. I hope this has ruined some of your day.
1 Playaguy 2018-08-27
I read this a month ago. At least give credit to where you found it.
1 Imsomniland 2018-08-27
Oh I got it. You're one of those Q fans who likes to come off as smug and mysterious. You got me! I'm impressed. Well done.
1 InfiniteEffect 2018-08-27
So according to this Q conspiracy theory. Everything that happens ever. Whether it's good bad or neutral. Is connected to q? And is more proof that he exists?
it sounds like you're just trying to connect the dots to prove himself. Instead of looking at the facts
it's like people who try to prove the Illuminati by saying that they found a random triangle in the background of a movie
The two things are completely mutually exclusive. The world could be doing great and that doesn't mean that Q is real.
The fact that I have to explain that is actually very sad sad. Because most people in this thread can recognize that
1 FSBYeahYouKnowMe 2018-08-27
Hes constantly arguing with things people arent saying to push a point nobody cares about
1 lordfartsquad 2018-08-27
I'll side with Trump on that one, I'm allergic to cats so I need a wrinkly bald one with fake hair
1 no_muslim 2018-08-27
Q has made many predictions that didn't come to pass.
Do you have an explanation for this?
1 FSBYeahYouKnowMe 2018-08-27
I'd have to hear the arguments. I have my own convictions on that topic
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-08-27
If I dug through my inbox, I could find dozens of examples.
1 ArTiyme 2018-08-27
You haven't seen a movement like this? Every single doomsday cult has all the exact same shit. Planet X, the 2012 shit, all of it are exactly the same. The ONLY difference is that you guys ignore every false prediction and move onto the next one.