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.
Okay, I'll admit I'm a 1 foot in the Q rabbit hole, and 1 foot outside it...
But that is a very abnormal hand motion, very much so... One might even say, deliberate....
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.