Not necessarily. Q did some say some disinformation is necessary. So the info Q shared in the drops is a blend, and not everyone is willing to do the work to determine what is/isn’t true. Most would rather let someone else (MSM, HBO, WaPo, etc.) tell them what to think about it.
For those willing to do that work, they saw the things they could nail down as fact - think the Strozk/Page texts and their implications - that elements within our own government were actively conspiring against a sitting president. And Q showed us the texts/transcripts to support it. If Q helped provide nothing more than evidence of FISA abuses, that would still be a huge bombshell.
I’d say it isn’t a matter of people “falling for something,” just a failure to nail down what parts were fact and what parts were disinfo. The Q drops are what they are, with tons of verifiable revelations, but speculation by anons didn’t nail the ultimate purpose of it, or predict the endgame.
People want Q to be an oracle of sorts, tell them the future, but that’s incorrect. I think Q was more influential in getting people to ask the right questions themselves. Q pointed people to things like overlooked articles, inconvenient facts, govt documents, that inspired those questions (and the MSM wouldn’t touch).
The MSM likes to shit on Q for being like 80% true and 20% false while they themselves are like 5% true and 95% fake. They do offer neat and tidy storylines where Q is part of the information wilderness. Any normie hatred for Q I think comes from disliking narratives that aren’t neat and tidy and wrapped up in 30 mins or less.
Not necessarily. Q did some say some disinformation is necessary. So the info Q shared in the drops is a blend, and not everyone is willing to do the work to determine what is/isn’t true. Most would rather let someone else (MSM, HBO, WaPo, etc.) tell them what to think about it.
For those willing to do that work, they saw the things they could nail down as fact - think the Strozk/Page texts and their implications - that elements within our own government were actively conspiring against a sitting president. And Q showed us the texts/transcripts to support it. If Q helped provide nothing more than evidence of FISA abuses, that would still be a huge bombshell.
I’d say it isn’t a matter of people “falling for something,” just a failure to nail down what parts were fact and what parts were disinfo. The Q drops are what they are, with tons of verifiable revelations, but speculation by anons didn’t nail the ultimate purpose of it, or predict the endgame.
People want Q to be an oracle of sorts, tell them the future, but that’s incorrect. I think Q was more influential in getting people to ask the right questions themselves. Q pointed people to things like overlooked articles, inconvenient facts, govt documents, that inspired those questions (and the MSM wouldn’t touch).
The MSM likes to shit on Q for being like 80% true and 20% false while they themselves are like 5% true and 95% fake. They do offer neat and tidy storylines where Q is part of the information wilderness. Any normie hatred for Q I think comes from disliking narratives that aren’t neat and tidy and wrapped up in 30 mins or less.