I ask for a lot of sources on here and usually don't get anything but abuse in response. While it's true that complex research topics can't be boiled down to a single link, too many folks here present theories and research as though they are provable conclusions. And of course the constant numerological posts trying to tie Q posts in the past to modern occurrences are no better than reinterpreting Nostradamus.

I'll say it right here and right now: The world is full of coincidences, all the time, including many that are shocking or seem impossible but are meaningless. Yes, sometimes you may connect the dots and find a hidden piece of information. Other times, your own confirmation bias will see the pattern whether it exists or not, and then you present it to your friends who don't have the same biases and they look at you like you're nuts.

When someone does post a list of peer-reviewed studies or reputable eyewitness accounts or published and verified documentation, I'm willing to listen. When you start trying to tell me that Q predicted all this, look there's the number 17 and there's the number 33 and here's a 2-year plus 4-month delta if you reverse the time and hash the image filename...you lose me.