You're right, but in terms of getting normies to understand is where it gets tricky because of having to explain the connections between the post dates, time stamps and all.
IMO the tippy top proof was the easiest to get normies to grasp that there was more going on, for contrast.
How hard is it for someone to understand that a message predicted no name would be in the headlines and exactly 30 days later, to the very minute, no name's death was announced by his family, and the time of that announcement was actually reported in the news? It's a very simple fact.
You would think so, but you say Q predicted his death 30 days to the minute, they say "proof" and then either get lost in the understanding of the formatting and the timestamps.
I totally agree that it SHOULD be the case though.
You're right, but in terms of getting normies to understand is where it gets tricky because of having to explain the connections between the post dates, time stamps and all.
IMO the tippy top proof was the easiest to get normies to grasp that there was more going on, for contrast.
How hard is it for someone to understand that a message predicted no name would be in the headlines and exactly 30 days later, to the very minute, no name's death was announced by his family, and the time of that announcement was actually reported in the news? It's a very simple fact.
You would think so, but you say Q predicted his death 30 days to the minute, they say "proof" and then either get lost in the understanding of the formatting and the timestamps.
I totally agree that it SHOULD be the case though.