In order for this to be a proof, you have to use statistics. Obviously how convincing this would have to do with how many Q drops per day on average, and how many Trump posts per day on average.
But then you'd have to take into account strategies that Q could use if Q were a larp. For example, Q could wait until Q+ was doing a tweetstorm and then try to anticipate a good time to make a drop. If you miss, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't count against you. I.E. the above analysis only counts Q drops that right before Trump tweets.
So I think that this proof is pretty useless for convincing normies.
I think the 30-day delta to the minute on No Name's death announcement is a much better proof. I worked out the probabilities of that once and it was nigh impossible to be a coincidence.
This proof is probably one of the easiest to follow and most convincing to normies. There is much more context to the data that is not included in the explanation because it would end up being too complicated, but it clears most concerns about the proof. A simple way to analyze this would be the following. Look at a set of Twitter accounts that have a similar number of tweets as Q has posts. Check to see how many times the Twitter accounts have 0-delta posts. I have a feeling you won't find many or any that are close to 9 0-delta posts.
Edit: This should be doable by using the awesome-twitter-data dataset.
The delta proofs were extremely convincing to me when presented in the Ultimate Q Proofs video. It's still on youtube if you're interested. The video made it clear that delta proofs were NOT occurring during tweet storms by the president. He also showed how Q used markers to indicate that a delta proof was incoming. It wasn't just strictly about the timing of the tweets, there were other factors. They are 100% proof to me. Undeniable!
Did you apply the same logic to this proof? How many times did Q post about NN? How many times did he post about other people? How many times did a post about someone line up with their death? Why 30 days?
Q said 'No Name back in the News'. There was no news about No Name at the time.
I worked out all the probabilities, and decided that it was a best Q proof by a longshot because it is a stand-alone. It did not depend on unlikely things 'stacking'.
The thing about that proof is that it was down to the *minute. And it wasn't like there was a flurry of No Name news items. There was just the death notice.
Did all the other things he said about NN correlate to anything? Like when he said "No name absent. End near?"
Anyway, let's say he did know the time of his death to the minute. What does that prove? That he can see the future? That he can tell people what date to give as his time of death?
No, there were no major stories about his health at the time that Q make the drop, nor in the next 30 days.
The next NN drop: Every dog has its day. That was the hint that would be in 30 days, near National Dog Day.
Anyway, let's say he did know the time of his death to the minute. What does that prove? That he can see the future? That he can tell people what date to give as his time of death?
A military tribunal trial, the defendant gets 1 and only 1 appeal, and it can't go over 30 days. I assume they can enforce the sentence immediately after the 30 days are up.
Your suggestion that this is substandard as a Q proof is absurd.
Understand that my criticism of the Q proof is not that the math is wrong.
My criticism is that the detail involved in the calculations becomes very complicated with many many variables that have to be accounted for and explained.
It is not a useful proof for convincing normies, because you need to know all these details about how often POTUS tweets, how often the drops come, etc etc.
In order for this to be a proof, you have to use statistics. Obviously how convincing this would have to do with how many Q drops per day on average, and how many Trump posts per day on average.
But then you'd have to take into account strategies that Q could use if Q were a larp. For example, Q could wait until Q+ was doing a tweetstorm and then try to anticipate a good time to make a drop. If you miss, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't count against you. I.E. the above analysis only counts Q drops that right before Trump tweets.
So I think that this proof is pretty useless for convincing normies.
I think the 30-day delta to the minute on No Name's death announcement is a much better proof. I worked out the probabilities of that once and it was nigh impossible to be a coincidence.
This proof is probably one of the easiest to follow and most convincing to normies. There is much more context to the data that is not included in the explanation because it would end up being too complicated, but it clears most concerns about the proof. A simple way to analyze this would be the following. Look at a set of Twitter accounts that have a similar number of tweets as Q has posts. Check to see how many times the Twitter accounts have 0-delta posts. I have a feeling you won't find many or any that are close to 9 0-delta posts.
Edit: This should be doable by using the awesome-twitter-data dataset.
The delta proofs were extremely convincing to me when presented in the Ultimate Q Proofs video. It's still on youtube if you're interested. The video made it clear that delta proofs were NOT occurring during tweet storms by the president. He also showed how Q used markers to indicate that a delta proof was incoming. It wasn't just strictly about the timing of the tweets, there were other factors. They are 100% proof to me. Undeniable!
Did you apply the same logic to this proof? How many times did Q post about NN? How many times did he post about other people? How many times did a post about someone line up with their death? Why 30 days?
Absolutely.
Q said 'No Name back in the News'. There was no news about No Name at the time.
I worked out all the probabilities, and decided that it was a best Q proof by a longshot because it is a stand-alone. It did not depend on unlikely things 'stacking'.
The thing about that proof is that it was down to the *minute. And it wasn't like there was a flurry of No Name news items. There was just the death notice.
There was no news about his brain cancer?
Did all the other things he said about NN correlate to anything? Like when he said "No name absent. End near?"
Anyway, let's say he did know the time of his death to the minute. What does that prove? That he can see the future? That he can tell people what date to give as his time of death?
No, there were no major stories about his health at the time that Q make the drop, nor in the next 30 days.
The next NN drop: Every dog has its day. That was the hint that would be in 30 days, near National Dog Day.
A military tribunal trial, the defendant gets 1 and only 1 appeal, and it can't go over 30 days. I assume they can enforce the sentence immediately after the 30 days are up.
You are wasting your time.
Understand that my criticism of the Q proof is not that the math is wrong.
My criticism is that the detail involved in the calculations becomes very complicated with many many variables that have to be accounted for and explained.
It is not a useful proof for convincing normies, because you need to know all these details about how often POTUS tweets, how often the drops come, etc etc.