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!
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!