It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MegaAnon says Q is Assange and she has been Larped

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
What is meganon


Much like a lesser-anon with more power, but not as powerful as a deminon.

I thought the same thing a few days ago. Kept seeing the name appear, links to reddit/4chan archives of their posts. I honestly haven't looked into it a lot. Confuses me. So much that I wonder how many others are equally as confused but rather than admit it, embrace the info as legit, and link anything that can fit together.

Just a feeling. Seems a lot of nebulous statements, things half said mixed with certain true facts, and a whole lot of attitude and confidence. Wonder if it's all a mentalism being played out to a crowd of eager hopefuls... dunno. But it's something to read.

It'd be easier with cliff notes.




posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Ghostsinthefog

Troofer Sideshow Television


Man, DON'T get people started using Troofer again. I'd forgotten all about that.

What have you done???????




posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I'm..... confused. There have been multiple threads pop up about Q, ANON, QANON, all that other related stuff..... And I have no idea what any of it means.

Who are these people? What are they saying, and why should I care? More importantly, why should anyone believe them?

Can someone please give me some cliff-notes so I can have an elementary understanding of what's going on with all this?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
I'm..... confused. There have been multiple threads pop up about Q, ANON, QANON, all that other related stuff..... And I have no idea what any of it means.

Who are these people? What are they saying, and why should I care? More importantly, why should anyone believe them?

Can someone please give me some cliff-notes so I can have an elementary understanding of what's going on with all this?


First my apologies to all for not keeping up, I have been ill.

Cliff notes. MegaAnon has been consistantly posting on 4 chan and giving info that has for the most part been true since May 2016. Only think I found that didn't/hasn't happened was Flynn back in by Christmas. To her credit she has many hard core 4 chan folks who have great respect for her. Personally I believe her to be a contracted computer analyst but no proof...just my latest thought.

Q person showed up on 4chan in late Oct. She thought first posts consistant with insider info til his info became so coded and showed a pic via plane over NK and insisted Q was mulitple sources and shouldn't be believed. Lots of drama in between but recently has some clearing out and mega believe Q is Assange saying she was the one larped.

There are many tweeter accounts for those who follow this. Unfortunately some go off the rails posting things that are true with no verification. Many poster different truths for different things. Check twitter Qanon.

I can not give legitimacy to Q but am beginning to consider it with some reservation.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   
eh
edit on 15-1-2018 by fiverx313 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

Thank you very much, it all makes a little bit of sense now, going back and looking at previous posts.



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Personally (and I know exactly squat about 4Chan), from the little bit that I've tried to understand, I think FBI-Anon is the real deal. Most of this madness over on 4Chan started after FBI-Anon posted a series of posts about a year ago. Meganon and Q were never mentioned (not by FBI-Anon nor anyone else). So, what I think happened is, ... FBI-Anon's posts got some pretty good traction due to a pretty solid air of credibility, and other's jumped in and started imitating FBI-Anon's cryptic style.

One of the interesting things about FBI-Anon (and I wish I could find this again) was they explained the "why" and the "how" of why they were saying some of the things they did, and how it all worked. And, as it turned out, they were absolutely correct...and I know this from real world dealings on similar issues. Only somebody who really works in that kind of a world would know those things, and FBI-anon did. They said just enough stuff that was off the wall and crazy to polarize a lot of people, and this threw people off (intentionally). It was all aimed at maintaining their own (FBI-anon's) anonymity and shielding their identity. If you stripped off all that "noise" and read the rest of what they were saying at face value it was shockingly accurate.

I personally don't think FBI-anon is actually FBI, I think they work somewhere else in the government (and are very well placed / connected to say the things they do) , but it's not how most think (or where). I'm not going to share my theory of where I think they work for two reasons; one because I believe I'm correct, and two because if I am correct then it might actually compromise their ability to post again in the future (even if I did it here).

So, in summary, I think Q and meganon, along with all the other "anon"s, are all just posers trying to gain the same notoriety that FBI-anon first did. FBI-anon posted a lot of stuff (like reams of stuff) and a lot of it is still coming true, almost EXACTLY as predicted, and almost without exception.

I could be wrong, but that's my .02 on the whole thing.

edit...And just so you don't think I am being equally 'cryptic' about FBI-anon's identity, here's why I wrote what I did... FBI-Anon said a few things which they probably thought were innocuous enough, and it wasn't even the point of what they were saying but rather an aside. It had to do with the form some of the information they were posting about came in. There's only about .0000000001% of the population who would have known that tiny little fact. To most it was seemingly insignificant, but it was just that one tiny little detail which spoke volumes about not only who they were, but what they did and how they had access to the things they were saying. And that was when all the pieces of the puzzle came together and it all made sense.
edit on 1/17/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I recall reading FBIAnon and his/her posts have been archived and reposted other places many times.
As for MegaAnon, she like FBIAnon has become very respected and has a large following since she began posting in May last year. She only posted on 4 chan but now has her posts archived and updated regularly on redditt. I also think I have figured out in what capacity she works but will not mention in case it is correct. She did say she doesn't work for an alphabet agency.

PM me if you want a link to her posts and maybe you could give some insight that most of us don't have.

As for QAnon and her claim that at least in part, it is Assange, I have no clue. Do know that Assange had not posted on his personal twitter since Dec 31 and began posting again just a couple days ago. Is that a coincidence? Don't know. Only know she claims to have been with a team that removed him from the Embassy in Oct 2016. She has said she doesn't know if he returned but that he went to someplace warm.



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

I've read some of meganon's stuff since I first read FBI-anon's postings. There are some key differences.

The first is a similarity actually (which is a 'difference' when you consider it). Meganon uses a writing style almost exactly like FBI-anon...and it goes directly back to the 'why' and 'how' that FBI-anon posted. However, that style wasn't adopted by meganon until AFTER FBI-anon started posting. Now though, her modus operandi is virtually identical to FBI-anon (almost like she's trying to "be" FBI-anon). One glaring difference between the two is, meganon is clearly absolutely bent on proving herself legit/right (to extremes). It's an ego thing or something. FBI-anon, on the other hand, was exactly the opposite...they didn't care whether people believed them or not. To them (he / she), just getting the information out there was the important part. That, in and of itself, lends credit to FBI-anon and away from meganon.

The second big difference (huge actually) is that FBI-anon didn't show up on 4Chan to gain a following, but it happened almost instantly, and it was organic. Meganon had been on 4Chan for a while beforehand with limited following. Then, after the original FBI-anon dropped all their bomb load on 4Chan they pretty much vanished (or were imitated into obscurity). That's when meganon really turned on the gas and started being just like FBI-anon.

Lastly, the third and biggest difference in credibility between the two is meganon rarely ever says anything concrete or identifiable. Virtually everything she says she could easily make excuses for if it was wrong. FBI-anon said specific things, identified specific events and even timeframes which where nearly dead on. Most of what meganon throws out there (with the exception of the Assange allegations) are pretty natural conclusions and/or obvious outcomes to events already in motion. FBI-anon predicted things which hadn't started yet, hadn't been exposed yet, and then they did start and winded up going down exactly as predicted. The most stunning revelation from FBI-anon which is unfolding just now was the whole Russia-gate thing and who were the real perpetrators behind it.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Hmm. I have seen no post from her prior to May 2017. FBI Anon posted July 2016, Oct 2016 and again April 2017 with an AMA. I haven't read his last 2 posts but will take a look then go back and compare. Have seen no similarities in writing style then haven't read all FBI posts and have read megas. She uses very salty language and does give general time frames. And yes, the info on Assange which is unverifiable but will likely be eventually...or not.

That said, her last post (my OP) I stated it sounded egotistical esp considering her insistence on being right. She confirmed the original rant but has not posted in 4 days which is unusual. Think I will withhold judgement for the moment until I go thru the FBI posts I missed. I do know everyone consider FBIAnon the 'gold standard'.

Thanks for your evaluation. I am a lone person with no experience (except life) but damn if I don't want to make sure I am paying attention.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join