You can grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. You can admit that you got got and move on with your life. What can stop what is coming? The answer is nothing.
(media.greatawakening.win)
🤡 CLOWN WORLD 🤡
You are welcome to explain stuff any way you’d like. I try not to shame people for assuming I don’t know stuff unless they do it after I tell them I know stuff. Because sometimes I don’t know stuff and would rather have people err on the side of more complete information.
I am skeptical of deltas specifically because it looks like confirmation bias manifest. Taking two people who post a lot who you want to be connected will inevitably lead to connections being found.
I am curious, for instance, whether there are deltas between Trump Jr and Hillary Clinton, or Crissy Teigan and Rudy, or Patton Oswalt and Lin Wood, or any other delta correlation that you would rather consider a coincidence.
Because those same correlations likely exist in a million different combinations that you don’t see because you consider them stupid connections to make and don’t bother looking. And you consider the Q-Trump deltas important to your theory, so those connections must not be coincidences.
But I’m happy to take a closer look at this when I’m not relying exclusively on my phone for an internet connection.
Not my comment thread but I have to chime in.
Man, you clearly have a decent head on your shoulders and your mind is open. Truth be told, much of the delta and timestamp stuff that gets posted here is nonsense. There is often confirmation bias at play in those posts.
But that kind of ‘proof’ is not what convinced most of us that Q is more than a larp. I view that stuff as bored anons doing a little cheerleading. It’s peripheral to the pattern of bigger ‘coincidences’ that we find so compelling.
It's not about one or two coincidences. Math exists to determine the odds of a coincidence or three or ten, but not as many as we have here. It literally defies mathematics to believe that we still operate within the boundaries of simple (or even not simple) chance. We are in certainty territory.
This is actually something I love talking about and want to talk about it at length, but I am just done typing tonight.
But when it comes up again, I want to ask about how you’re defining your failure states. You can only run statistical analyses like that on falsifiable variables, so variables with a win and fail condition.
Identifying a bunch of coincidences would be mathematically significant if you determined that there were significantly too few failures within those “trials.”
But I am not convinced you guys are measuring these coincidences as successes and failures and finding mathematical significances. Rather, you’re generalizing your wins by identifying multiple wins for a single variable (such as “watch the water” being zealously applied to everything) and not keeping track of your failures.
Without knowing how many times you could have failed, you can’t possible know whether your successes are above average. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be done.
In other words, I can flip a coin a hundred times and say that getting 99 heads is not a coincidence.
But I can’t walk randomly around the city for a week and say that I found 99 coins heads-up in the street and that’s impossible. I’m not measuring the number of heads-up coins I found against anything. I’m just saying it’s really weird that I found so many. No math can be done on this.
Like I said, this is probably my last post tonight, but I am interested in your thoughts if it comes up again.