I’ve been talking with the Q community since the 8chan days. I probably have more time around this than a lot of current GAW users. And I look at every piece of evidence that comes through, as far as I am able.
I don’t like the idea of making a giant thread with me tearing down Q, because that’s not really why I hang out here. I am just trying to see how we both look at the same piece of evidence and come to different conclusion.
I personally haven’t yet been able to prove Q is anything other than one of many trolls back in the 4chan days who claimed to be an anonymous insider. I don’t think that the “coincidences” are infinitesimally unlikely. I think that you guys are just interpreting anything that might seem related to a vague prophecy as being confirmed (confirmation bias).
How many different times have people here said, “watch the water” in response to a random news story involving water? Charles Flynn, the hospital ships off Cali, the Evergiven, flooding, and even the Texas ice storm.
And when none of those actually turned out to be anything productive for Q, it gets memory-holed until someone find that particular interpretation of “watch the water” useful again.
That’s why I’m trying to focus mostly on the smoking gun for Q. Because people have claimed a LOT of proof for non-falsifiable entities like Q or God by citing what they interpret to be a string of unlikely coincidences, rather than them seeing and interpreting non-events according to a worldview that is based on faith.
And downvoting doesn’t bother me. I have a thick-enough skin to handle disapproval. :)
I personally haven’t yet been able to prove Q is anything other than one of many trolls back in the 4chan days who claimed to be an anonymous insider. I don’t think that the “coincidences” are infinitesimally unlikely.
A proof is absolute, and I don't think anyone has one for any all-encompassing hypothesis about Q.
And when none of those actually turned out to be anything productive for Q, it gets memory-holed until someone find that particular interpretation of “watch the water” useful again.
That's what research means, though I fully see how that fuels into confirmation bias. I had a good chuckle at how far fetched some were myself. But entertaining various hypotheses without accepting them is part of all good research and thinking.
On the contrary, you seem to be exerting confirmation bias yourself by latching onto the discarded hypotheses.
This is my suspicion and my hope is to see to which extent that is true (or false). I can only do this by getting as much unprompted information out of you as possible though, hence my request for a thread. I could just start bombarding you with instances of evidence that I find the most compelling once put together, but that would end up with a double-slit type bias, e.g. one where I'd influence you directly. This in turn would render my "experiment" and any data from it unworkable.
As such, if you ever do feel like you have the time to do this I would appreciate a heads up so I can follow more closely.
And downvoting doesn’t bother me. I have a thick-enough skin to handle disapproval. :)
If nothing else, at least you're not the obnoxious type that is so prevalent on all sides of the aisle right now.
I hope you'll find a way to inspire others around you to become similarly capable of more civil and open-minded inquiry and discussion.
God is not falsifiable, which is why God is outside of science. I can’t prove that a being that is omniscient and all powerful and undetectable exists. But I also can’t prove that such a being doesn’t exist, because by definition, God cannot be detected.
Whenever I present an argument, I tell people how to beat me and defeat my argument, because my arguments are falsifiable.
Harming my belief in evolutionary theory means finding a fossil that shows an anatomical structure harmful to its own species but beneficial for another species. That would be a serious problem for evolution, and if you can find such a fossil, you will have falsified my argument.
Likewise, if you can show me a Q post that could not possibly have been written by anyone other than a high level intelligence agent in the Trump administration, then my beliefs about Q will suffer a major hit. I am telling you how to beat me.
Can anyone here offer a similar strategy for falsifying Q? Is there any piece of evidence that you would have no choice but to accept harms your worldview about Q?
The answer is usually no, because Q, in my opinion, is a nonfalsifiable belief. He can’t be wrong. He can’t be disproven. “Future proves past.” His prophecies can apply anywhere in time to any number of events and may be encoded. I can’t even verify his identity and see if he would have access to the info he claims.
That’s the rub. My claims are falsifiable. I am offering the blueprints on how to beat me and prove me wrong. On the other hand, all I can do is wait for Q’s plan to either happen or not happen, because if NCSWIC, then literally the only way to falsify Q is to wait until you guys get bored of waiting.
God is not falsifiable, which is why God is outside of science.
I wish more people would realize this simple fact about science and God.
Whenever I present an argument, I tell people how to beat me and defeat my argument, because my arguments are falsifiable.
That's what I've attempted to do with my initial response to you. Surely there are more hypotheses, but those, I believe, covered most of the basic angles.
Harming my belief in evolutionary theory means finding a fossil that shows an anatomical structure harmful to its own species but beneficial for another species. That would be a serious problem for evolution, and if you can find such a fossil, you will have falsified my argument.
I don't think that "self-harm" would necessarily invalidate evolution if you think of it slightly differently. Things are certainly evolving, in the sense of change. Going from a human perspective, which animals have analogues for, we evolve in a direction that we find, for whatever reasons, desirable. Our behaviors today often aren't extremely beneficial (e.g. current physical and mental health and all sorts of other problems), but I don't see any significant threat to our continued existence as a species. Especially with fusion being only a few decades into the future.
I would guess that "survival of the fittest" should be more of a "just somehow didn't die". In that sense, evolution is precisely what anyone can observe full-time in any area of human or animal life, on any timescale and in any environment (including science, arts, music, crafts, etc, which I believe are fundamentally the same process applied to different "objects").
Is there any piece of evidence that you would have no choice but to accept harms your worldview about Q?
Obviously one could always make the argument that tHe PlAn FaiLeD, but in my view the hard time limit on validating Q is the 2024 election - and that's being extremely generous. If we see high level arrests by then it was certainly real. If we don't then at best the plan failed, which makes the larp hypothesis significantly more likely than not.
Other than that, the only hard falsification would be for Q to come out and prove that it was all a larp. But HBO certainly hasn't done that.
That said, we had zero evidence that particles exist and could help us transform reality. The only reason we found out was because people went and looked really hard. If they cut it short by just going "well, the assertion that tiny magic particles exist is unfalsifiable because there's no way we could see something so small" we wouldn't have a lot of what we have today.
Which still has me curious as to what precisely you have done to research Q and what you have seen so far.
What would you say the most potentially compelling pieces of evidence are?
Coming up with a unified theory as to why I believe Q is wrong is as difficult as coming up with a unified theory as to why I don’t believe the sun is actually a telepathic alien fetus turning us all gay.
I could spend time compiling all the reasons why I don’t believe something is true, but you’re asking me to disprove literally everything you take as evidence, because if I miss anything, then it means (from your perspective) that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
That is an exhausting way to exist. So I typically prefer just watching the evidence come through here, evaluating it, and decide whether there’s a more parsimonious explanation. To date, there always has been, as far as I can tell.
Fact is, when I have tried to have that “pin you into a corner” debunking debate with Q believers, it’s result in me being told that Q is a time traveler or a computer than can see the future and that any prophecy can apply to multiple events in multiple timelines.
And I just don’t really have a way to work with that. It’s non-falsifiable.
I am happy to provide thoughts on stuff I know about and offer a skeptical look at stuff, but when the evidence of Q is “millions of little things that seem like nothing alone but add up to the Truth”, that is an extremely tall bar for me to surpass in order to “prove” Q wrong.
Like I said, time is doing the heavy lifting here. There is no chance I can disprove Q before Q disproves himself over time.
I’ve been talking with the Q community since the 8chan days. I probably have more time around this than a lot of current GAW users. And I look at every piece of evidence that comes through, as far as I am able.
I don’t like the idea of making a giant thread with me tearing down Q, because that’s not really why I hang out here. I am just trying to see how we both look at the same piece of evidence and come to different conclusion.
I personally haven’t yet been able to prove Q is anything other than one of many trolls back in the 4chan days who claimed to be an anonymous insider. I don’t think that the “coincidences” are infinitesimally unlikely. I think that you guys are just interpreting anything that might seem related to a vague prophecy as being confirmed (confirmation bias).
How many different times have people here said, “watch the water” in response to a random news story involving water? Charles Flynn, the hospital ships off Cali, the Evergiven, flooding, and even the Texas ice storm.
And when none of those actually turned out to be anything productive for Q, it gets memory-holed until someone find that particular interpretation of “watch the water” useful again.
That’s why I’m trying to focus mostly on the smoking gun for Q. Because people have claimed a LOT of proof for non-falsifiable entities like Q or God by citing what they interpret to be a string of unlikely coincidences, rather than them seeing and interpreting non-events according to a worldview that is based on faith.
And downvoting doesn’t bother me. I have a thick-enough skin to handle disapproval. :)
A proof is absolute, and I don't think anyone has one for any all-encompassing hypothesis about Q.
That's what research means, though I fully see how that fuels into confirmation bias. I had a good chuckle at how far fetched some were myself. But entertaining various hypotheses without accepting them is part of all good research and thinking.
On the contrary, you seem to be exerting confirmation bias yourself by latching onto the discarded hypotheses.
This is my suspicion and my hope is to see to which extent that is true (or false). I can only do this by getting as much unprompted information out of you as possible though, hence my request for a thread. I could just start bombarding you with instances of evidence that I find the most compelling once put together, but that would end up with a double-slit type bias, e.g. one where I'd influence you directly. This in turn would render my "experiment" and any data from it unworkable.
As such, if you ever do feel like you have the time to do this I would appreciate a heads up so I can follow more closely.
If nothing else, at least you're not the obnoxious type that is so prevalent on all sides of the aisle right now.
I hope you'll find a way to inspire others around you to become similarly capable of more civil and open-minded inquiry and discussion.
Honestly, it comes down to nonfalsifiability.
God is not falsifiable, which is why God is outside of science. I can’t prove that a being that is omniscient and all powerful and undetectable exists. But I also can’t prove that such a being doesn’t exist, because by definition, God cannot be detected.
Whenever I present an argument, I tell people how to beat me and defeat my argument, because my arguments are falsifiable.
Harming my belief in evolutionary theory means finding a fossil that shows an anatomical structure harmful to its own species but beneficial for another species. That would be a serious problem for evolution, and if you can find such a fossil, you will have falsified my argument.
Likewise, if you can show me a Q post that could not possibly have been written by anyone other than a high level intelligence agent in the Trump administration, then my beliefs about Q will suffer a major hit. I am telling you how to beat me.
Can anyone here offer a similar strategy for falsifying Q? Is there any piece of evidence that you would have no choice but to accept harms your worldview about Q?
The answer is usually no, because Q, in my opinion, is a nonfalsifiable belief. He can’t be wrong. He can’t be disproven. “Future proves past.” His prophecies can apply anywhere in time to any number of events and may be encoded. I can’t even verify his identity and see if he would have access to the info he claims.
That’s the rub. My claims are falsifiable. I am offering the blueprints on how to beat me and prove me wrong. On the other hand, all I can do is wait for Q’s plan to either happen or not happen, because if NCSWIC, then literally the only way to falsify Q is to wait until you guys get bored of waiting.
I wish more people would realize this simple fact about science and God.
That's what I've attempted to do with my initial response to you. Surely there are more hypotheses, but those, I believe, covered most of the basic angles.
I don't think that "self-harm" would necessarily invalidate evolution if you think of it slightly differently. Things are certainly evolving, in the sense of change. Going from a human perspective, which animals have analogues for, we evolve in a direction that we find, for whatever reasons, desirable. Our behaviors today often aren't extremely beneficial (e.g. current physical and mental health and all sorts of other problems), but I don't see any significant threat to our continued existence as a species. Especially with fusion being only a few decades into the future.
I would guess that "survival of the fittest" should be more of a "just somehow didn't die". In that sense, evolution is precisely what anyone can observe full-time in any area of human or animal life, on any timescale and in any environment (including science, arts, music, crafts, etc, which I believe are fundamentally the same process applied to different "objects").
Obviously one could always make the argument that tHe PlAn FaiLeD, but in my view the hard time limit on validating Q is the 2024 election - and that's being extremely generous. If we see high level arrests by then it was certainly real. If we don't then at best the plan failed, which makes the larp hypothesis significantly more likely than not.
Other than that, the only hard falsification would be for Q to come out and prove that it was all a larp. But HBO certainly hasn't done that.
That said, we had zero evidence that particles exist and could help us transform reality. The only reason we found out was because people went and looked really hard. If they cut it short by just going "well, the assertion that tiny magic particles exist is unfalsifiable because there's no way we could see something so small" we wouldn't have a lot of what we have today.
Which still has me curious as to what precisely you have done to research Q and what you have seen so far.
What would you say the most potentially compelling pieces of evidence are?
Coming up with a unified theory as to why I believe Q is wrong is as difficult as coming up with a unified theory as to why I don’t believe the sun is actually a telepathic alien fetus turning us all gay.
I could spend time compiling all the reasons why I don’t believe something is true, but you’re asking me to disprove literally everything you take as evidence, because if I miss anything, then it means (from your perspective) that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
That is an exhausting way to exist. So I typically prefer just watching the evidence come through here, evaluating it, and decide whether there’s a more parsimonious explanation. To date, there always has been, as far as I can tell.
Fact is, when I have tried to have that “pin you into a corner” debunking debate with Q believers, it’s result in me being told that Q is a time traveler or a computer than can see the future and that any prophecy can apply to multiple events in multiple timelines.
And I just don’t really have a way to work with that. It’s non-falsifiable.
I am happy to provide thoughts on stuff I know about and offer a skeptical look at stuff, but when the evidence of Q is “millions of little things that seem like nothing alone but add up to the Truth”, that is an extremely tall bar for me to surpass in order to “prove” Q wrong.
Like I said, time is doing the heavy lifting here. There is no chance I can disprove Q before Q disproves himself over time.
it's cool that you hang out here. thanks for being open to discussion
I always hang out with people I disagree with.
Nothing to be learned from people who agree with me.
everyone needs to be like this.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0VDTyLB6jqj7/ here's a great q proof video, starts at around 7 mins