pepes like me, trying to redpill from proofs, double-check em before you show em.

I would say that to share the proofs effectively, you need to be able to also explain how it works, and how they are to be interpreted. Some are self evident, but many are not. Also, always emphasize that the proofs are created with plausible deniability and ambiguity on purpose, but cumulatively, they generate a result that is mathematically impossible to deny.

Example (in the one you cited):

Start:

12-22-2017 Q missile. missle.

6-10-2018 "FF (false flag) weather alert"

6-11-2018 Potus tweet (missing letters i and p)

6-11-2018 skunk bay weather report of missile launch

6-12-2018 2:37pm This is not a game

6-12-2018 3:09pm Event talk. ... potus tweet missing letters

The proof here is what? Back in december Q sets up the missing letter in "missile" (missle) as a marker.

Q warns that a FF may be in the making on Jun 10.

Jun 12 Potus uses missed letters as a marker indicating that indeed, a missile FF was fired.

The FF cannot be (and was not) acknowledged publicly.

Plausible deniability: Is Potus truly confirming that there was a false flag? Is he allowed to do that legally? Is it classified information? But the connection between the December drop with [missle] and the FF event reported by Q on Jun 10, then by the weather blog the next day Jun 11, then confirmed (?) by potus the next day after that Jun 12 with the same missing letter spelling (missle) from December:

Could this be a coincidence? Absolutely. Why not? On it's own, it's certainly NOT conclusive. Q posts (missle) in December, Potus posts (missle) in Jun, after an undisclosed event that the anons and Q are discussing? Maybe it's merely a coincidence.

But the point of Q proofs is not that one individual "proof" is actual proof. No, the proof is the accumulative weight of all of these little 'coincidences' which, once you have so many, are mathematically impossible to deny or simply regard as coincidences.

Perhaps "Q proof" is misleading. It suggests to the unknowledgeable that individually, they are decisive. Mostly, they are not.

Again, take the tiptop one.

Request: January 29: Can Q work "tip top" into the SOTU as a shoutout?

April 1 Easter address. tiptop

What if Tiptop was actually put into the SOTU? Proof? Yes, but far too open and direct a proof. no Plausible deniability. Would it be a good idea to do it like that? bad idea. Must be plausible deniability. So, a different PUBLIC address: Easter.

Could it be a coincidence? Sure. On its own. Why not? In Jan anons ask for tip op by the President of the United States, preferably in the SOTU. Potus says tip top & tippy top in the Easter Address on April 1. The anon picks up0 on it, posts to the board, and Q confirms within 5 minutes.

Q and the anons know what is going on. Q confirms and there is a trust relationship between Q and the anons. They consider themselves to be working together. So the anons can easily believe this is a valid confirmation, BUT they still have to apply logic, reasoning, and evidence.

Maybe it's a coincidence.

But, when you have enough of such coincidences, what do they all add up to?

In other words, the person looking at the proofs HAS TO THINK. A very key and core part of the Q operation was to get people to research, think, start thinking outside of groupthink and outside the matrix.

If you explain it like this, then you can also say "hey, maybe these are coincidences..." But if you show enough of them, the person will have to ask themselves... how likely is it that ALL these coincidences have taken place?

This is an inductive process. The questions, and the proofs are meant to induce thinking and questioning. Not doctrinal belief. Anons have to be careful NOT to become indoctrinated (which fosters unthinking belief) but to have questioning belief based on understanding, facts, logic and reasoning, backed up by an accumulation of evidence.