I’m saying exactly the same thing that you guys are saying. I’m just saying that I reached a different conclusion using those methods. There is nothing remotely trollish about that. In fact, that is exactly how the scientific peer review process works.
I don’t have a definite conclusion where the photos came from. But that means I cannot prove that they must have come from a high-level intelligence agent on AF1 with Trump.
That’s all I’m really interested in. If I can’t prove Q’s credentials, then I’m logically obligated to try to do that BEFORE accepting any evidence or worldview he tries to persuade me is real.
So far, I have been unable to prove that Q isn’t an internet troll. And I have tried.
Maybe those photos are from Q, and Q is who he claims to be. But I can’t adopt a new worldview and have faith in any plan until I can prove it’s literally impossible for Q to be trolling everyone.
That’s all I’m really talking about in this thread. I am aware that most believers don’t have a smoking gun proof for Q, but rather believe that Q is proven through a lot of little things that seem impossible to be a coincidence. That is harder to discuss in single threads.
As I pointed out, you haven’t even understood the point of the Q window proofs. You are trying to be polite, I do believe, but your air of superiority is undermined by your confusion.
It’s hard to win with you guys. You rightfully ban anyone who comes here to call you morons, but when someone is polite, you assume they’re being smarmy and disingenuous.
I believe I am right about my worldview with the same passion that you do. One of us is wrong. We both see the other person as probably the one who is getting tricked.
I’m not exactly sure what I can do to tell you that I think you’re incorrect or jumping to conclusions without sounding like I have a better idea of the truth, because that is what we’re both doing.
But I am not going to call you an idiot while I do it. Disagreement doesn’t require me to do that.
I’m saying exactly the same thing that you guys are saying. I’m just saying that I reached a different conclusion using those methods. There is nothing remotely trollish about that. In fact, that is exactly how the scientific peer review process works.
I don’t know how you read that in my post.
I don’t have a definite conclusion where the photos came from. But that means I cannot prove that they must have come from a high-level intelligence agent on AF1 with Trump.
That’s all I’m really interested in. If I can’t prove Q’s credentials, then I’m logically obligated to try to do that BEFORE accepting any evidence or worldview he tries to persuade me is real.
So far, I have been unable to prove that Q isn’t an internet troll. And I have tried.
Maybe those photos are from Q, and Q is who he claims to be. But I can’t adopt a new worldview and have faith in any plan until I can prove it’s literally impossible for Q to be trolling everyone.
That’s all I’m really talking about in this thread. I am aware that most believers don’t have a smoking gun proof for Q, but rather believe that Q is proven through a lot of little things that seem impossible to be a coincidence. That is harder to discuss in single threads.
As I pointed out, you haven’t even understood the point of the Q window proofs. You are trying to be polite, I do believe, but your air of superiority is undermined by your confusion.
It’s hard to win with you guys. You rightfully ban anyone who comes here to call you morons, but when someone is polite, you assume they’re being smarmy and disingenuous.
I believe I am right about my worldview with the same passion that you do. One of us is wrong. We both see the other person as probably the one who is getting tricked.
I’m not exactly sure what I can do to tell you that I think you’re incorrect or jumping to conclusions without sounding like I have a better idea of the truth, because that is what we’re both doing.
But I am not going to call you an idiot while I do it. Disagreement doesn’t require me to do that.