How many coincidences before it becomes mathematically impossible?...
How did Q Predict Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium 3 years ago, TO THE DAY?...
How many coincidences before it becomes mathematically impossible?...
This is highly impossible — unless the plans were prepared many, MANY years ago!...
FUTURE PROVES PAST...
I can see how it would be if you're already inclined to believe that Q connects to things in strange ways. Deltas have never been convincing to me. If Q had only posted ten times, perhaps, but not for thousands of posts. And certainly not for an indefinite number of annual anniversaries forever. A year ago, did this delta mean anything? Two years? Will it next year? Or are we just sticking with this delta because we happened to find a connection in this one this year?
Now, if you can correlate that number into something very specific going on today with the symposium, I can be open to using the word "compelling" for this. But it's got to be something more direct than doing Magic Math on it, because randomly assigning mathematical processes to it until you get something vaguely interesting is possible with literally any number and any event.
I think if you watch deltas every single day as some of us do, you can answer your own question.
The problem with those proofs is already they are never 100% reliable,rather alone look like "coincidences". But how many coincidences shall happen before it is mathematically "impossible" ? That's the problem with Q. "Coincidences" happen so many times (and such kind of it) it simply couldn't be only pareidolia...
Those coincidences alone work such way that in the same time assure plausible deniability for every part too. What purpose it have ?
In case of those Q post: 08/10/18 is release date. Lindel starts talking about packets: 08/10/21. 3 years delta.
And explaining the rest for you ? Well,the problem is we are already stupid enough to probably not decode all the communication available. Frustrating and other people would be angry for me after I say that - but it is the dire truth that we recognise probably only tip of the iceberg. So GA purpose maybe is what it is,but majority of us have problem with explaining things happening even to ourselves...
Lets take space force photos months ago. While there were already interesting things indicating there might be possible steganography or some message at the end we NOT achieved wanted results then. Q mentioning pixelknot app was not the indicator alone, we used also this method: https://ia.binghamton.edu/publication/FridrichPDF/f5.pdf and result suggested it is possible there was something. Also there were strange 'typos" in exif. We were too stupid however,no progress. So at the end we were unable to get the message (or at least I gave up,I have no contact with those team anymore,maybe they are still trying - or gave up too ?) Simply if there was something it is level of autist anons and bakers from 4chan and 8kun not level of average people here. You can of course laugh at us because of that... But something is happening clearly. Sometimes we know and sometimes we have too no fucking clue.
Honestly: The lame lead the blind.Or something like that. ¯|(ツ)/¯
But are the people from reddit forum you moderate different ? Mostly they have no clue what we even are doing here and almost have claims like they would know all about us,when they know so much like Jon Snow knew...
So for deltas and the idea that enough coincidences can be mathematically proven to be impossible... that's not true in an open system. Which real life typically is.
I've explained before how this works. Imagine flipping a coin 100 times, and getting heads 98 times. How do we know that's improbable? Well, because we know how many times we should have failed. We can define each trial discretely, we know and are tracking the fail conditions, etc.
You can't do that with random coincidences or deltas pushed into the real world. Here's why:
Imagine instead, you walk around the city for a week and pick up only quarters made in the 70's. After a week, you've found 100 of them.
You say, "That seems like a LOT, doesn't it? 100 quarters all from the same decade?"
Well, no. Because there was no fail condition. You don't know how many such quarters should have been found. You weren't keeping track of how many times you didn't find a quarter from the 70's, because that wasn't of interest to you. You were only interested in success conditions, which meant you were only looking for and tracking the quarters that met your conditions. Everything else is ignored.
Have you checked how many deltas that Q has with Obama? Q and Neil deGrasse Tyson? Q and Nicki Minaj? Have you correlated whether Donald Trump has ever used the same hand sign as Hillary Clinton? Ever check to see if the first letter from each word of Mike Flynn's speech can be rearranged to spell out something from the Satanic Bible?
That would be silly to look for those associations, right? But that's equally important data, because it may turn out that when someone posts as much and as vaguely as Q, you can find associations between him and pretty much anyone, IF you look for it.
But you aren't. You're ONLY looking for associations that would make sense to you, which is between Q and Trump, or Q and Lindell. Because you've accepted that Q must be part of this plan, and therefore must be associating with other people you consider part of the plan. And therefore must have associations.
That circle? That's confirmation bias.
And that's why it's simply not true that you can track a bunch of different associations and coincidences and do any sort of mathematical work on them. It's not a closed mathematical system. You don't have fail conditions in order to measure a probability. You don't have anything except the data that YOU have chosen to include, and you've only chosen to include data that indicates an association exists.
This is hard to wrap your head around at first, but once it clicks, it clicks. That single saying by Q is probably more damaging to the concept of critical thinking than anything else he's said, because he has encouraged you to actively seek confirmation biases and act like an impossible math equation justifies it.
That's my opinion, at least.
However it is generally working in those area. And if there would be pure randomness it still shouldn't. Peaks of order in random environment happen but are unusual. Therefore despite it isn't proof of Q being all real it is absolute proof of relation between Q posts and associated persons activity.
Exactly and it SHOULD normally fail in case of Trump,Lindell and so on. Therefore if it isn't usually failing there is relation to Trump.Lindell and so on. Of course it isn't still proving Q,but it is proving strong link.And that are not only one proved links.
Were you reading what I wrote ? So in short: Clues are still not the system. And most of anons not understand it, I guess wouldn't agree/believe in explanation.
This is physical "equation" NOT mathematical one. Quantum one. Common sense derivative of: dE*dt=1/2ħ (instead of counting all results you can count or find kind of limes from all result - it is such thing achieved experimentally.)
So you are correct and also not correct. What is "objective reality" and does it really exist ? Schrodinger cat is the answer as he is both alive and not,what has nothing with "common sense" or "critical thinking".
So here's an example: Watch the Water.
What does that mean? Who knows?
Just off the top of my head, "watch the water" has been murmured in relation to Charles Flynn, the Evergiven, the hospital ships off the coast, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, tweets from the Navy, flooding in Europe, and even the Texas ice storm, where someone here suggested it might refer to frozen water.
All Q gave us was the prediction that somewhere on the 70% of this planet that is water, something will happen, at some point in the future. Or, maybe in a sink or a bathtub. Or maybe it needs to be decoded more esoterically.
"Watch the water" means whatever is convenient. And when that doesn't pan out with a Deep State arrest, it gets memory holed.
But it still counts as a potential Q prediction, and is kept in your back pocket.
"Watch the water" predictions make up a pretty good chunk of what used to get discussed around here, and it still comes up whenever literally anything wet shows up in the news.
Each time it's cited, it feels like a victory. Maybe the Evergiven will eventually pan out. Maybe Charles Flynn will lead the military to reinstate Trump. Maybe maybe maybe.
And when I point out how you guys are just shotgunning this prediction at everything, the response I've gotten was that Q talks in multiple timelines, and that it can apply to multiple events. Because Q apparently doesn't talk in linear time.
Now, can you even imagine exactly what kind of an equation would be necessary to do math on this? We already have a single input with multiple unconfirmed outputs, which mathematically makes this a non-function equation, which already pretty much kills our ability to do any real statistical math with it. Beyond that, we have to take into account the possibility that we can twist this to not even mean water, not even mean watch, maybe it's all letter-substituted and is code for something else...
That's a non-falsifiable assertion.
I've watched Q stuff for a long time, and the only popular sayings of his are non-falsifiable. The ones that ARE falsifiable haven't panned out (like his first). Those are the only ones we can actually take data on, because there was a fail condition on whether or not Clinton would be indicted.
There is no fail condition on "watch the water."
Also, quantum equations are math. Literal college students do equations with quanta. It's not really as unreachable and unknowable as you're crediting it. Things that exist beyond math are generally considered religious, because even logical and philosophical arguments are often translated into mathematical expressions. Religion requires faith, and faith can exist safely beyond the reach of math.