So what it seems like you’re asking for is either the most compelling piece of microscopic proof which on its own would mean nothing anyway
I am asking for instances of evidence, e.g. microscopic proofs as you call them.
Based on which you choose it could help illuminate why you're tilted the way you are.
An overall statistical proof always consists of multiple smaller estimators. The quality of those hence heavily influences the quality of your "overall estimator" (or "proof").
Okay, we can probably talk about the Georgia “ballots from suitcases” video if you’d like
I am not sure how that would relate to Q in any capacity. Unless I missed something, neither Georgia, nor suitcases of ballots, were in any way part of the Q drops.
So I did some thinking on it, and again, it's tough to come up with an answer to this. I also don't believe in flat earth, so asking me to come up with evidence I find compelling about flat earth isn't easy, because I am utterly unconvinced of flat earth, and I am utterly unconvinced of Q.
I brought up the Georgia video, because I think it's helpful for understanding how I approach evidence. For many people here, it's considered a "smoking gun" for election fraud.
I don't see it that way, because when I watch the video, I don't see proof of fraud.
The video has no sound, so I can't hear any proof that the observers were asked to leave. I can see someone take a case out of under the table, but can't tell whether it's an uncertified container or not. I can see people scan a piece of paper more than once, but I can't verify it's a ballot, nor can I verify that scanning a ballot more than once would count the vote more than once.
The fact is that when I watch the video, I can't see anything other than people counting ballots. I can't rule out that they're committing fraud, but nothing in the video proves it.
The strength of this "smoking gun" in Q world can't come from the video, because I watched the video and saw no direct proof of fraud.
However, I watched it with the sound off, because there was no audio from the video directly.
When I turned the sound on, I heard a disembodied voice narrating to me that the counters told the observer to leave, and then pulled out secret ballots and scanned them multiple times to commit fraud.
And with the voice running, that is certainly more convincing proof. But the voice doesn't get to tell me what's happening on a video without audio. I am not going to trust someone to interpret this for me. And therefore, when I watch it without the sound, the narrative evaporates, and I'm left watching a boring security film of people counting ballots.
This is frustrating to Q people, because I'm evaluating the evidence on its own, when Q people assure me the only way to see the proof of Q is to put it all together. Maybe the video doesn't look bad on its own, but if you consider this, and this, and this, and also this Q post which matches up perfectly as a delta, then fraud is obvious.
But that's not the way I approach evidence, because that's bringing assumptions and implication into objective analysis.
Because if I assume that this video is MORE LIKELY to show fraud because, say, it matches up with a delta, but the delta is in reality a coincidence, then I'm considering this video to be evidence based on a faulty assumption. And then the next thing I evaluate, I'll do so with the Georgia video as evidence, based on the faulty delta, and collect even more nonsense evidence, which itself is based off of faulty assumptions.
It's assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions, and if any of those individual assumptions is proven wrong, you can remain confident that even if one assumption was wrong, your other assumptions haven't been addressed yet, because there are a fucking million pieces of evidence you consider part of Q world.
In essence, the Q theory has become so nebulous and decentralized that literally ALL of your evidence can be faulty, but as long as you haven't figured that out about, say, a delta, then every piece of faulty evidence that is "supported" by that delta is falsely supported and adds strength to further faulty evidence.
So I get why things like deltas appear convincing, and why firehosing nonbelievers with the "micro-evidence" is appealing. I get why people who already believe the election was stolen or that Trump is in charge or that celebrities are eating children would accept things like deltas or vague prophecies or weird mathematical coincidences as just more and more and more proof.
I brought up the Georgia video, because I think it's helpful for understanding how I approach evidence. For many people here, it's considered a "smoking gun" for election fraud.
The video has no sound, so I can't hear any proof that the observers were asked to leave. I can see someone take a case out of under the table, but can't tell whether it's an uncertified container or not. I can see people scan a piece of paper more than once, but I can't verify it's a ballot, nor can I verify that scanning a ballot more than once would count the vote more than once.
I mean there are videos with sound and fairly explicit chatter, but let's ignore those for the sake of argument.
I agree that the soundless ones prove nothing by themselves. However, in every single scientific study, in every single mathematical proof, in every single court case, you compile a series of pieces of evidence which, by themselves, often are entirely uncompelling. It doesn't become proof until you stitch the pieces together, which you can only do once you have reached a critical mass of individual pieces of evidence that will have varying quality (in terms of how compelling they are individually).
By the argument that you seek to make, all of science would be bullshit. Because it can quite literally be disregarded as a series of coincidences. Which they are, statistical patterns. Only once you compile enough of them do you start seeing a glimpse of the underlying mechanisms and can even begin forming a hypothesis for which you then compile evidence that will eventually lead to more or less accurate predictions in further tuning processes.
All this considered, that is precisely why I ask you for what you consider the most individually compelling pieces of evidence.
The fact that you bring up something that is completely and entirely unrelated to Q implies to me that you haven't looked at this with anywhere near as much objectivity as you indicate you very well know you should have before coming to any conclusions.
I could very similarly use some flat earth and lizard retards in other Q discussing forums as an example to entirely discredit Q with the exact same arguments that you have made. But we both know that such would be highly disingenuous and anything but objective or rigorous.
I am asking for instances of evidence, e.g. microscopic proofs as you call them.
Based on which you choose it could help illuminate why you're tilted the way you are.
An overall statistical proof always consists of multiple smaller estimators. The quality of those hence heavily influences the quality of your "overall estimator" (or "proof").
I am not sure how that would relate to Q in any capacity. Unless I missed something, neither Georgia, nor suitcases of ballots, were in any way part of the Q drops.
Let me think on it.
So I did some thinking on it, and again, it's tough to come up with an answer to this. I also don't believe in flat earth, so asking me to come up with evidence I find compelling about flat earth isn't easy, because I am utterly unconvinced of flat earth, and I am utterly unconvinced of Q.
I brought up the Georgia video, because I think it's helpful for understanding how I approach evidence. For many people here, it's considered a "smoking gun" for election fraud.
I don't see it that way, because when I watch the video, I don't see proof of fraud.
The video has no sound, so I can't hear any proof that the observers were asked to leave. I can see someone take a case out of under the table, but can't tell whether it's an uncertified container or not. I can see people scan a piece of paper more than once, but I can't verify it's a ballot, nor can I verify that scanning a ballot more than once would count the vote more than once.
The fact is that when I watch the video, I can't see anything other than people counting ballots. I can't rule out that they're committing fraud, but nothing in the video proves it.
The strength of this "smoking gun" in Q world can't come from the video, because I watched the video and saw no direct proof of fraud.
However, I watched it with the sound off, because there was no audio from the video directly.
When I turned the sound on, I heard a disembodied voice narrating to me that the counters told the observer to leave, and then pulled out secret ballots and scanned them multiple times to commit fraud.
And with the voice running, that is certainly more convincing proof. But the voice doesn't get to tell me what's happening on a video without audio. I am not going to trust someone to interpret this for me. And therefore, when I watch it without the sound, the narrative evaporates, and I'm left watching a boring security film of people counting ballots.
This is frustrating to Q people, because I'm evaluating the evidence on its own, when Q people assure me the only way to see the proof of Q is to put it all together. Maybe the video doesn't look bad on its own, but if you consider this, and this, and this, and also this Q post which matches up perfectly as a delta, then fraud is obvious.
But that's not the way I approach evidence, because that's bringing assumptions and implication into objective analysis.
Because if I assume that this video is MORE LIKELY to show fraud because, say, it matches up with a delta, but the delta is in reality a coincidence, then I'm considering this video to be evidence based on a faulty assumption. And then the next thing I evaluate, I'll do so with the Georgia video as evidence, based on the faulty delta, and collect even more nonsense evidence, which itself is based off of faulty assumptions.
It's assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions, and if any of those individual assumptions is proven wrong, you can remain confident that even if one assumption was wrong, your other assumptions haven't been addressed yet, because there are a fucking million pieces of evidence you consider part of Q world.
In essence, the Q theory has become so nebulous and decentralized that literally ALL of your evidence can be faulty, but as long as you haven't figured that out about, say, a delta, then every piece of faulty evidence that is "supported" by that delta is falsely supported and adds strength to further faulty evidence.
So I get why things like deltas appear convincing, and why firehosing nonbelievers with the "micro-evidence" is appealing. I get why people who already believe the election was stolen or that Trump is in charge or that celebrities are eating children would accept things like deltas or vague prophecies or weird mathematical coincidences as just more and more and more proof.
But I can't really think that way.
I mean there are videos with sound and fairly explicit chatter, but let's ignore those for the sake of argument.
I agree that the soundless ones prove nothing by themselves. However, in every single scientific study, in every single mathematical proof, in every single court case, you compile a series of pieces of evidence which, by themselves, often are entirely uncompelling. It doesn't become proof until you stitch the pieces together, which you can only do once you have reached a critical mass of individual pieces of evidence that will have varying quality (in terms of how compelling they are individually).
By the argument that you seek to make, all of science would be bullshit. Because it can quite literally be disregarded as a series of coincidences. Which they are, statistical patterns. Only once you compile enough of them do you start seeing a glimpse of the underlying mechanisms and can even begin forming a hypothesis for which you then compile evidence that will eventually lead to more or less accurate predictions in further tuning processes.
All this considered, that is precisely why I ask you for what you consider the most individually compelling pieces of evidence.
The fact that you bring up something that is completely and entirely unrelated to Q implies to me that you haven't looked at this with anywhere near as much objectivity as you indicate you very well know you should have before coming to any conclusions.
I could very similarly use some flat earth and lizard retards in other Q discussing forums as an example to entirely discredit Q with the exact same arguments that you have made. But we both know that such would be highly disingenuous and anything but objective or rigorous.