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 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.