Wait, run that by me, again? WHAT percent of the United States have been fully vaccinated? THERE'S THAT MAGIC NUMBER, AGAIN 👿
(media.greatawakening.win)
Get Thee Behind Me, *SATAN*
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
Yeah and 77.3, 76.4, 75.5, 74.6, 73.7, 72.8, and 71.9 also added up to 17 and 79.1 will do so soon. SO WHAT.
You do you fren. if it does nothing for, you move on. Always some Dick that's gotta stir the pot for no reason. Just ignore "how many coincidences" if you like. For the rest of us it's a reminder that they're in control.
It has nothing to do with "coincidences". The number has been counting up for at least a year now. It's literally just math that it would eventually read 78.2%. No one went in and made it say that hoping an anon would see it, it read that because after a year or more of counting up from 0% it finally reached that number.
You simply don't understand how 17 works and when/where/how it can be applied as evidence of Q. If anyone here is new it's you.
Finally, this is a truth-seeking community, don't be surprised when people call you out for drawing connections where none exist. It's not "stirring the pot", it's the whole reason the website exists; truth. If you don't want your comments cross-examined and debated against if someone feels you're not totally correct then this isn't the place for you.
P.S. I just scrolled up before posting and some guy's comment read "17 hours ago". Trump himself must have put it there for me to personally find!
So you know beyond a shadow of a doubt it wasn't put there? Statistics are always correct and true? It's your info that you put together?
"You simply don't understand how 17 works and when/where/how it can be applied as evidence of Q."
Want to enlighten us with the specific places this can and can not be used.
I recall something about too many coincidences. Perhaps we should just toss that one out. Or were there specific rules on when that can and can't be used also. Why don't you enlighten us inn that one as well. I eagerly await your vast knowledge on these subjects!
Frankly, yes.
The statistic doesn't have to be real. No one is putting these numbers there though, least of all Q. It's all done by computers on an update schedule. Every however long the site pulls the most recent statistics from its source and presents that as its data. The sources are listed as "Local state agencies, local media, Oxford Coronavirus Government Response Tracker, Our World in Data, The World Bank, Reuters research". This is where the information comes from and they certainly don't have white hats in there perpetuating the Coof nonsense. Let's say white hats did want to use this site to push a 17. They most certainly wouldn't have done it the way you think they have. Instead of simply manipulating one of the sources to put out a correct number that comes right after the number it should, they'd likely just turn the number to a 17 so it goes from 78.1% to 17% and leave it like that until the website realizes and fixes it. THAT sends a message, not whatever you think they've done here.
You weren't on the site looking at these numbers claiming they mean something before when they read any manner of number other than 66.6 or something that adds up to 17. But suddenly when it does add up to 17 it's some big thing that is somehow evidence of Q. Then a week or two from now it'll be back to not reading anything relevant and you'll go back to not caring and will forget about it again.
It's not a coincidence. It's math. When you start at 0.0% and start counting up you reach 66.6% and 78.2%. This data wasn't just published with these 666 and 17 numbers, it counted up to that over a year or two long period. Military intelligence didn't set up this site just so they could eventually put some hidden 17s in there hoping anons would see them two years down the line. And what would actually be a coincidence is if military intelligence decided to infiltrate the site and implant the number coincidentally right on the same day it was about to hit that number naturally after, again, a year or two of operation. So we can conclude they didn't do that either as it would be too big a coincidence to be a reasonable conclusion.
You people always try to play the "oh NOW there are rules" card. No, you rube, there were always rules, just because you ignored or didn't learn them doesn't change that. When the thing has nothing to do with anything related to Q or Trump it's not a "proof". Particularly when it comes to numbers that appear all the time everywhere meaning if you're looking for a specific one you'll find it eventually (especially when you can just stare at one site for 2 years waiting for the right number to appear and pretend it means something). "Too many coincidences" doesn't mean that if jerry shits himself 17 times in one day that it's evidence to add to the pile that Q exists, it means that when Trump decides to say 17 multiple times in a tweet it's not as innocent or random as it appears. It means when things Q SAID were going to happen, happen, it isn't just random luck every single time. It doesn't mean go find any instance of "17" and claim it's related. It's called discernment. Learn it.
Every researcher/anon worth their salt here realizes that there's a difference between Trump tweeting something or a delta with a Q post, and going to a restaurant and ending up as order #17 or seeing a neon sign that reads 1776 with the 7 and 6 lights dead. Those are actually just coincidences. If when Q said "how many coincidences before it's mathematically impossible" you thought they meant anything other than stuff RELATED to Q (Trump tweets, deltas on things Q posted, etc.) then that's your own fault. Q certainly didn't say, nor imply that that was the case. Q simply asked how many times they have to predict the future before it's not a coincidence anymore.
Now, there is potential for comms in media but that only applies when we're talking about published articles or pages (e.g. short headline that mentions 17 twice and body that mentions 17 exponentially more times than any other number plus maybe it's an article related to a topic from a Q post from that day. Even then, articles can be hit or miss. Hard to know for sure without a good delta). Not sites that constantly update their data to reflect current (fake or not) values, which incidentally read 66.6 or 78.2 that day/week.
Besides, if it was white hats why put a 17 right next to a 666, instead of changing the 666? Not a great look, is it? Yet another reason this tinfoil hat, "it's related, man!", shit makes no sense.