Here one of his last ones, clearly seems to point this out between the lines, first row
My posts from this channel don’t need to be attributed back to me.
Feel free to take the ideas and use them as your own.
A powerful idea should be able to stand on its own without needing to attach a name to improve the “credibility” of the idea.
Well, Codemonkey is Ron Watkins. Circumstantial evidence points to Ron taking over the Q account in 2018, so it makes sense that Codemonkey sounds like Q.
Just watch the HBO doc, it's too much to explain. The board here is biased against it, but I thought the journalist did a good job in exploring the PEOPLE involved, not just regurgitated information you see in other videos.
The journalist conviently forgot about the evidence leading back to Trump, since that wasn’t the desired outcome. I was surprised he even mentioned it though, probably redpilled some people along the way.
He's probably been paid to do it. He's overdoing the socratic thing it feels forced.
Here one of his last ones, clearly seems to point this out between the lines, first row
My posts from this channel don’t need to be attributed back to me. Feel free to take the ideas and use them as your own. A powerful idea should be able to stand on its own without needing to attach a name to improve the “credibility” of the idea.
Just read it and yeah it does sound like it.
Link? Or where to find his writing. Tia
https://t.me/CodeMonkeyZ
This is verified him
?
He is not Q. I would bet my limbs. He may think he is Q and trying to act accordingly. Absolutely zero chance.
Well, Codemonkey is Ron Watkins. Circumstantial evidence points to Ron taking over the Q account in 2018, so it makes sense that Codemonkey sounds like Q.
Evidence?
There is no evidence that supports that assertion.
Fair point, circumstantial evidence is more accurate.
The "evidence" is flimsy at best.
If Ron is supposedly Q, how the hell does that explain the proofs? The deltas? Hell how he was able to post right at the same time Trump was?
I don't think ron is Q but helps him. Anyone with the database access can just set the timestamps to make it as exact as you want.
Just watch the HBO doc, it's too much to explain. The board here is biased against it, but I thought the journalist did a good job in exploring the PEOPLE involved, not just regurgitated information you see in other videos.
The journalist conviently forgot about the evidence leading back to Trump, since that wasn’t the desired outcome. I was surprised he even mentioned it though, probably redpilled some people along the way.
I haven't seen this evidence. Is this coming from the HBO doc?
Yes
I watched 1.5 episodes of that.....and what a sack of shit it was. Couldn't continue
I found the last few episodes to be the most enlightening, but to each their own.