Q also told us disinfo was necessary. I don't know what to believe anymore because, if you haven't noticed, things in the world are FUCKING CRAZY.
There was a laundry list of evidence to suggest that whoever was posting on Truth as @Q was at the very least a special case. Deltas, getting retweeted by Kash?
Don't act like everyone who fell for this was an idiot because the stuff wouldn't have got stickied if everyone thought it was fake.
Q focused anons onto a topic to flood normie land with info about, keeping us ahead of the news cycle so when happenings happened anon had done their homework.
I'm ok with "fake"q taking the lead if they can perform that role as well as all other Q posters have.
It doesnt mean everyone who fell for it are idiots, it just means they are craving hopium and clinging to something that was intended to be fun out of desperation
Q did say that disinfo was necessary. But how could that be in relation to "no outside comms"? If we are to believe that no outside comms is disinfo, then our trust of Q would dissolve; all we have is the tripcode from 8kun. That's the only thing we have to identify a post as truly being Q. They ONLY thing that would make me think @q was Q would be a post, with his tripcode on 8kun, saying that "yes, that is me on Truth. blah blah blah"
Heres one of my other comments in this thread:
a lot of hints; @q was made before Trump's and Nunes' account were created, and it was created on a 3 yr delta related to truth social
several ReTruths of @q's posts by Nunes and Kash Patel
again: not proven to be Q, but we speculate that it is. the only problem is "no outside comms", so until we get some sort of proof via 8kun with the trip, theres no way to confirm
even if Trump said "Yes, that account is Q" I would still firmly believe it to be disinformation and unproven
Q also told us disinfo was necessary. I don't know what to believe anymore because, if you haven't noticed, things in the world are FUCKING CRAZY.
There was a laundry list of evidence to suggest that whoever was posting on Truth as @Q was at the very least a special case. Deltas, getting retweeted by Kash?
Don't act like everyone who fell for this was an idiot because the stuff wouldn't have got stickied if everyone thought it was fake.
It isn't who Q is for me as much as what Q did.
Q focused anons onto a topic to flood normie land with info about, keeping us ahead of the news cycle so when happenings happened anon had done their homework.
I'm ok with "fake"q taking the lead if they can perform that role as well as all other Q posters have.
Am I wrong?
All I know is everyone discussing and dissecting that video felt like old times.
I sometimes get the feeling many here came into the fold after Q stopped posting.
It's wild to see things develop in real time when Q drops. Focused attention gets fast results. Anons are amazing when they work together.
It doesnt mean everyone who fell for it are idiots, it just means they are craving hopium and clinging to something that was intended to be fun out of desperation
Q did say that disinfo was necessary. But how could that be in relation to "no outside comms"? If we are to believe that no outside comms is disinfo, then our trust of Q would dissolve; all we have is the tripcode from 8kun. That's the only thing we have to identify a post as truly being Q. They ONLY thing that would make me think @q was Q would be a post, with his tripcode on 8kun, saying that "yes, that is me on Truth. blah blah blah"
Heres one of my other comments in this thread:
a lot of hints; @q was made before Trump's and Nunes' account were created, and it was created on a 3 yr delta related to truth social
several ReTruths of @q's posts by Nunes and Kash Patel
again: not proven to be Q, but we speculate that it is. the only problem is "no outside comms", so until we get some sort of proof via 8kun with the trip, theres no way to confirm
even if Trump said "Yes, that account is Q" I would still firmly believe it to be disinformation and unproven
@q isn't Q until Q says @q is Q. It's just that simple.