Lurker here. flame me maybe. Not into, and havent followed religiously hardcore fringe conspiracy theories for quite some time but.....reading several correlative Q posts over a year and twatter habits. It appears to me based on content and substance L Wood is Q. is this OLD news? I havent found any connection stating otherwise. If this is widely known forgive the ignorance of ultimate awakened internet supremacy of known knowledge but this appears quite obvious. If this is not widely known. Thoughts? correlative light to dark and occasional christian references amongst the undeniable content of intended thought provocation questioning each and and every time appears obvious to me
Comments (40)
sorted by:
There’s more anecdotal evidence to suggest Scavino is Q, which I don’t believe either...
But you admit yourself that you haven’t followed Q since the beginning but if you had you would not have come to the conclusion you have.... I would suggest you go back to Q from early 2018 maybe a bit before and you will get a clearer idea as to why Wood cannot be Q or part of the Q team....
Wood comes across like a Q follower not Q himself....
WWG1WGA
I did do this on a historical post matter. Correlation was not as evident so far more could be at play and certainly not ruling that out. My observations as a expert on correlation was 1 year worth of patterning compared to relevant alternative signature platforms. Albeit it could simply be a alternate ego platforming persona equivalency related to a well known established rhetoric. thank you for the input
Expert on correlation but doesn't read all the data. Ok.
agreed
Less than 10 people know who Q is, and for his and the team's safety, I hope it stays that way. It's not Lin, nor E, nor CodeMonkey.
Nope Q had a close relationship and many times was in the same place as Trump including on air force 1. Lin Wood likely just reads Q like everyone else.
Thank God for Q or we would have been in the dark and there could have been a bloody civil war in the streets now. I don't think it's anybody's business who Q is.
Barron, who traveled through time, is Q.
Post #48 and post #60 tells who Q is.
Q is a group of people. Some even think its an AI running on a Quantum Computer.
But whoever posts as Q is from military background I believe.
Thank God for Q or we would be in the dark and there would have been a bloody civil war in the streets now. I don’t think it’s anybody’s business who Q is.
Lin Wood is not Q. Q is 15+Trump+???
absolutely plausible. the Nuts and bolts aspect seems to me this is a part or intricate aspect, therefore seeking answers or known quantitative knowledge of this in theory or confirmable knowledge aspect
Q said "no outside comms" so l wood being Q, cant be
thought virtue. so perhaps contributor or fringe correlation in input but very well likely a group cohesive correlation swapping contributions solely untraceable to one source or individual. This makes sense to me
last 12 months of contribution posts dont correlate. Maybe a elected group of fore-front publishers rotating out? based on a group think tank thought pool?
this is what I am trying to understand. No front, no object reality or alternative aspect to any of this. Just free and fair correspondence and truth exchange
if there are known sources I am intrigued to see any and all in relation to this topic.
I have been unable to find any real sources verifiable to this particular topic hence my driving questing and ascertainions of conceptual correlation. This seems very relevant to open discussion and knowledge sharing giving the stakes and content of this subject matter. On a level that is of exponential importance based on truth "bombs" and info sharing in the last few weeks
Absolutely, far reaching research. I dont pose a question on a site i lurk on. What i dont do i throw the entire easter basket into a fringe channel conspiracy thesis to conclude certainty. All to attributed to the current state of "knowledge" projected and regurgitated on the internet these days on fan boi perspectiveology. lol but it was interseting to preruse. but simple reaffirms to me why the inequivacle question of responsibility through bomb shell solace is all entirely unknown by so many. I have done extensive "research" but all within lays the underlying internet perspective regurgitated here. interesting none the less no more substantiated than as expected.
Thanks, more epeen repository deposition but non the less intrigueing
No
What if at the rally tomorrow, Trump answers the Q?