It's good. Defining the Q operation is a tough job, even for some open-minded people who want to believe. Most folks over there are on our side but are simply less into spycraft and conspiratorial hidden truths. Very few people believe that HRC was arrested, and few people want to follow any source that says "we lied because disinfo is necessary."
You left out the communications with the enemy and the flipping ops, but the more complicated it gets, the harder it is to explain.
It's a good entry point. I usually use a Martin Geddes link for that, but your post is equally good. And very timely to include the "Q not posting is practically a Q proof" argument.
But in the end, the curtain needs to be pulled eventually. And when that happens, Q will be like the Antikythera Mechanism: a complicated, fascinating historical artefact that's no longer necessary. (Assuming that mechanism wasn't invented for comms, of course.)
Am I playing with fire that could further divide, or did I lay out a good enough case?
There are always those who will not get it, but this was a great effort and it will bear fruit.
It's good. Defining the Q operation is a tough job, even for some open-minded people who want to believe. Most folks over there are on our side but are simply less into spycraft and conspiratorial hidden truths. Very few people believe that HRC was arrested, and few people want to follow any source that says "we lied because disinfo is necessary."
You left out the communications with the enemy and the flipping ops, but the more complicated it gets, the harder it is to explain.
It's a good entry point. I usually use a Martin Geddes link for that, but your post is equally good. And very timely to include the "Q not posting is practically a Q proof" argument.
But in the end, the curtain needs to be pulled eventually. And when that happens, Q will be like the Antikythera Mechanism: a complicated, fascinating historical artefact that's no longer necessary. (Assuming that mechanism wasn't invented for comms, of course.)