My only concern with some of the "Q proofs" is that it you look for something to validate something, you will be able to find plenty of supporting "data". The man-made global warming people do it all the time. This "confirmation bias" happens in all sorts of things, like when you buy a new car, you will then notice that make and model ALL OVER THE PLACE :)
How many coincidences before it's scientifically impossible? It's very clear to me that the Q team works very closely with Trump, and he went to great lengths to ensure that is clear, while maintaining plausible deniability.
You are right; most of that global warming crap has been exposed to be very carefully picked data trends from very specific times, ignoring the rest of the data (i.e. manipulation) ... simply taking a step back and viewing the full data clearly debunks it, which is relevant here too.
Your concern is well founded, and we should always keep our eyes open ... which is why I find it very good that this community is very critical when accepting confirmations/proofs (to defend against exactly that).
However, there is a tremendous amount of signaling going on by both sides, so capturing information and discussing it on these forums often helps others find relations or previously ignored signals. People often seem to confuse data gathering with blind acceptance.
Please watch the video I linked. There should be a part where they do the math (several times, with different approaches) of exactly what you are saying, and the result is so tremendously unlikely, it punches past the line of "scientific impossibility".
Many of Q's early posts focused on confirmation and "teaching coms", i.e. how they were going to communicate (e.g. maps, or mapping events in the news/tweets to posts graphically for others to learn/critique). Many early maps were wrong (if you read the raw posts on 8kun [warning: it's a jungle out there, and is often very .... spicy]), and Q or other Anons often correct the author and push in the needed direction.
Also, not every Q post is meant to be a confirmation. Most are informative, or a way for those up top to speak to the Digital Army in plausibly deniable code (think like a novel with the pages in random order; some things have happened, others haven't, yet others are bound to be repeated). Q was very clear on the confirmations "Who posted first?" (Always Q). Also make sure to watch the zero-delta segment. That part really convinced me that someone on the Q team (could be Scavino?) is physically close to Trump almost every day (I forget the usual time period, but the video should also cover that).
I apologize in advance if any of the stuff I referenced are not in that video, as I've done quite a bit of research on this topic (as I was originally quite sceptical, just like you) and the data are all starting to run together in my head. Ping me if anything is missing and I'll look back through some of my other bookmarks for you.
In my opinion, Q was not about predicting the future; the Q operation was run to counter the MSM/CIA project Mockingbird, to create confusion that exposes the Globalists (tilting battlefields in SpecOps' favor), and to ensure many Patriots did not give up, or take matters into their own hands violently. (Again, just my personal opinion. I dont have any special source)
And if that doesn't convince you, more power to you: the Q movement is very clear about Thinking For Yourself. Even if you disagree with me (/us), at least you have accomplished this and are now awake and searching :) Congrats and enjoy the show.
I admit that most of the "Q proofs" are hard to dismiss as coincidence, but many seem to EASILY be dismissed as coincidence. I would rather they pull the ones that seem too likely to be coincidence, even if it is just coincidence that they appear to be coincidence :)
Here, let me give you a fren-ly helping shove to get you all-in: https://greatawakening.win/p/11S0gMiK4i/ultimate-q-proofs--uploaded-on-m/c/
See you on the other side :)
My only concern with some of the "Q proofs" is that it you look for something to validate something, you will be able to find plenty of supporting "data". The man-made global warming people do it all the time. This "confirmation bias" happens in all sorts of things, like when you buy a new car, you will then notice that make and model ALL OVER THE PLACE :)
How many coincidences before it's scientifically impossible? It's very clear to me that the Q team works very closely with Trump, and he went to great lengths to ensure that is clear, while maintaining plausible deniability.
You are right; most of that global warming crap has been exposed to be very carefully picked data trends from very specific times, ignoring the rest of the data (i.e. manipulation) ... simply taking a step back and viewing the full data clearly debunks it, which is relevant here too.
Your concern is well founded, and we should always keep our eyes open ... which is why I find it very good that this community is very critical when accepting confirmations/proofs (to defend against exactly that).
However, there is a tremendous amount of signaling going on by both sides, so capturing information and discussing it on these forums often helps others find relations or previously ignored signals. People often seem to confuse data gathering with blind acceptance.
Please watch the video I linked. There should be a part where they do the math (several times, with different approaches) of exactly what you are saying, and the result is so tremendously unlikely, it punches past the line of "scientific impossibility".
Many of Q's early posts focused on confirmation and "teaching coms", i.e. how they were going to communicate (e.g. maps, or mapping events in the news/tweets to posts graphically for others to learn/critique). Many early maps were wrong (if you read the raw posts on 8kun [warning: it's a jungle out there, and is often very .... spicy]), and Q or other Anons often correct the author and push in the needed direction.
Also, not every Q post is meant to be a confirmation. Most are informative, or a way for those up top to speak to the Digital Army in plausibly deniable code (think like a novel with the pages in random order; some things have happened, others haven't, yet others are bound to be repeated). Q was very clear on the confirmations "Who posted first?" (Always Q). Also make sure to watch the zero-delta segment. That part really convinced me that someone on the Q team (could be Scavino?) is physically close to Trump almost every day (I forget the usual time period, but the video should also cover that).
I apologize in advance if any of the stuff I referenced are not in that video, as I've done quite a bit of research on this topic (as I was originally quite sceptical, just like you) and the data are all starting to run together in my head. Ping me if anything is missing and I'll look back through some of my other bookmarks for you.
In my opinion, Q was not about predicting the future; the Q operation was run to counter the MSM/CIA project Mockingbird, to create confusion that exposes the Globalists (tilting battlefields in SpecOps' favor), and to ensure many Patriots did not give up, or take matters into their own hands violently. (Again, just my personal opinion. I dont have any special source)
And if that doesn't convince you, more power to you: the Q movement is very clear about Thinking For Yourself. Even if you disagree with me (/us), at least you have accomplished this and are now awake and searching :) Congrats and enjoy the show.
I admit that most of the "Q proofs" are hard to dismiss as coincidence, but many seem to EASILY be dismissed as coincidence. I would rather they pull the ones that seem too likely to be coincidence, even if it is just coincidence that they appear to be coincidence :)
I appreciate what you said! Thank you for that well thought out explanation!
Weeee!