So how would you debunk this? You just gonna brush it off as coincidence that he used the exact words of the Q post with a time stamp matching up exactly with the post that Q quoted? If only one of those connections was present id be skeptical too but two direct connections is very hard to brush off.
Q uses whatever works to show the proof. This one is simple but undeniable.
So how would you debunk this? You just gonna brush it off as coincidence that he used the exact words of the Q post with a time stamp matching up exactly with the post that Q quoted? If only one of those connections was present id be skeptical too but two direct connections is very hard to brush off.
Learn to read the COMMS.
If there wasn't plausible deniability to the COMMS then far more people would pick up on the subtleties.