I'm gonna take two weeks to decide on whether I think the real Q is back, even if given 100% irrefutable evidence. There is too much tension and too much of a chance for chaos should this be some ruse.
Proofs are necessary at this stage. Any new Q posts need to prove beyond a statistical doubt that Trump's Truth posts and Q's Posts are posted synchronously, just like in the old days.
Deltas with Trump's Truths are the only thing that will convince me beyond a reasonable doubt, and a fair number of them at that.
Q posts, then Trump posts shortly after. When the time between the two shrinks, it shows they are calibrating for further proofs. This convergence of timestamps shows Q has foreknowledge of Trump's posts before he makes them, and was how Q initially showed he was legitimate way back when.
You don't have to join me in this trial of cynicism, but with all the shenanigans lately, I am erring on the side of caution.
I only ask that you don't assume I'm dooming when I try to poke holes in Q's comeback. I'm simply performing my due diligence as an autist.
Rally tonight.
Let’s see if we get some proofs.
👍
We should always have an active mind, not an open mind.
An open mind can fall for anything.
An active mind is always seeking truth.
To me, it doesn't really matter anymore if Q is/was a blackhat psyop. The only reason such people would do such a thing would be to rub our noses into it, by revealing the ugly truth of the world, and then going about making it happen anyway.
We survived the Covid lies, and we are now much wiser to future lies.
We no longer believe any mass gun shooting unless there is solid evidence of what happened (which there never is, at least for the ones the fake propaganda media pushes).
We no longer believe anything the fake propaganda media says.
We now know for a fact that elections are rigged, and it is up to us to correct that problem.
We are finally seeing the SCOTUS uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, unlike what had been going on for decades.
So many more people are awake now, and communicating with each other, that it is hard for newcomers to understand how bleak it used to be.
If the criminal cabal thought they would have some fun with a black hat Q op, they failed miserably.
Trump got those 3 justices on the SCOTUS. And Mitch McConnell, no matter what a worm he is, played a massive role in making that happen, too, including refusing to let Garland get on the court when Barry was illegally occupying the White House.
Things have changed. DRAMATICALLY.
The criminal cabal did not need to do a Q op at all. Things were going their way -- so much so, that almost nobody even on our side knew how deeply entrenced their commie useful idiots had become.
But that has all changed.
Sure, there are still a lot of clueless sheep out there, but there are so many more of us who are awake now on so many levels, that there is no turning back to those dark days.
We are taking back this country and this world, no matter what the criminals want.
Yesterday was a massive dose of hopium, and we should look for confirmation from Q, but let's not be so gloomy that we lose sight of the fact that we ARE (finally), on the path to ...
WINNING!
IMO, the "keystone" is KNOWLEDGE.
"Occult" means "hidden knowledge." It does not mean satanism, nor rituals, nor goofy symbolism. People who engage in occultism might often also engage in those other things because they are sick weirdos.
But occult is simply hidden knowledge. [They] have made the inroads they have over many years due to the ability to hide real knowledge from everyone else. That has been [their] keystone.
But now we understand that knowledge is the key. Now, knowledge of the truth gives us the advantage because we are no longer trying to figure out things in the dark.
"He who fails to learn from history is condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
But ... WHY do people fail to learn from history?
It is because they are told LIES about history, such that they are not able to draw true conclusions that would prevent them from making the same mistakes in the future.
As we gain more and more knowledge about the truth of the world, we gain the power that we were always meant to have.
Q made that happen. So, it does not matter who Q is/was, or what the purpose is/was, that was the big reveal.
Sure, let's get confirmation that THIS Q is the real deal, but let's also continue exposing the truth, with or without Q, and taking back control of what rightly belongs to US.
excellent
❤️💚 concur
Shit man, it could be 2 weeks until the next drop.
Enjoy limbo fren. 🐸
My guess Q came back cause some real fucked up shit is gonna happen, and they don't want the people who were losing faith doing something irrational.
So Q coming back give a YUGE dose of hopium, and strengthens resolve to trust the plan.
While that may be true, i think it's a super slim minority for our side.
More aptly applied to the other side and the reemergence applied directly to anons. Reactivation. We are the mouthpieces of the plan. The left is going bonkers this summer and Q wants us to not only watch, but help continue to wake normies up and act as eyes and ears for those we can engage personally.
It matters not to me what anyone believes or doesn't believe. I'm only concerned of what I think, I have no control of someone else. Whatever this is, one way or another, they'll be no chaos in my house. I'm chill, comfy and waiting for the PDJT rally.😊
I’ll bet Trump does an air Q tonight!
This is really simple. All "Q" has to do is post an unusual phrase a minute or two before Trump posts the same phrase.
For some reason, Q has never done that. Yes, there have been close deltas to Trump's tweets in the past, but I could easily write a script that watched Trump's Twitter feed and made a predetermined post to 8kun within a second or two. Repeat the script until everyone's convinced.
No, the proof must come before Trump, not within the same minute, not within seconds. It has always bothered me that Q has never utilized this very simple way to prove he is who he says.
This is a wise approach. I've always been quite skeptical of deltas, on the basis that there are several factors that can influence when people post.
During Q's active time, he would often post many times a day. Trump was also an active Twitter user and would post many times a day.
Trump and Q both are likely operating within North America, and therefore are posting in roughly the same time zone. This would mean their active posting hours are likely going to line up.
Trump was known to tweet in response to news stories as he was watching them. Q was also a huge news junkie and was constantly posting stuff from the news as soon as he saw it, possibly in response to the same new story on the same channel.
So when I look at it from this perspective, it's not exactly surprising that two conservative news junkies who posted many times a day from roughly the same time zone about politics in response to breaking news stories would sometimes have posts that are pretty close to one another.
They don't need to have any real connection beyond those three in order to have a lot of potential overlap in their posting habits. Anyone who wants to share deltas with Trump just needs to be awake when he is, post many times a day, and respond to the same types of news stories that he does when they break.
In fact, I'd bet that if some diligent researcher out there collected the tweets from a sample of North American twitter users who are prolific in the political discussions, you'd find many more deltas with those accounts and Q than you'd expect.
Without doing that, it's kind of hard to establish a baseline on how many "coincidences" is too many coincidences. Which means that "how many coincidences" to convince me is probably going to be pretty high, and will probably require more connection than mere similarity in posting times.
I can appreciate what you’re saying, but I don’t think you have a full grasp of all the deltas and timestamps. They weren’t just “pretty close” to each other. Someone did the math and it goes well beyond random chance.
42:00 is when Deltas start
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LHcg3CYHLGoR/
I've responded to the video before. It doesn't really help your case on deltas.
For instance, the first proof they talk about is between post 310 and Trump's tweet three minutes later. They both mention the word "military."
Q then posts four more times within a few minutes before post 315, in which he claims credit for the delta between his post and Trump's post.
It's worth noting that Trump's tweet was talking about the Army vs Navy game, which is a big deal, usually covered by the national news. The fact that Trump said "military" at this time is unremarkable, and it would have been weird if he DIDN'T say "military" on Dec 9, 2017.
So, the timeline on this proof?
Q posts 16 different posts within the span of one hour on Dec 9th, 2017 (he posts more on that day, but this was all in one sitting).
In the middle of this post storm, Trump posts a "yay military" Tweet in response to the very well-known Army vs Navy game taking part that day.
Q (or a Q researcher) notices Trump's post and Q's post both mention the same common word within a few minutes of each other, and Q claims credit for the delta.
It's possible he's responsible. It's also possible Q is just taking advantage of the three factors I named above producing a coincidence, and a somewhat unimpressive one at that.
I've also discussed the famous tippy-top proof.
https://qanon.pub/data/proofs/01b6f3c7b899e31528bf3355bd28f666957ecd7490ec8263a2ce562602ffaeb3.jpg
A Q supporter says they want to hear the phrase "tip top", and Trump says "tippy top" in the speech shortly after. Q then claims credit in post 991.
This would be a HUGE proof of Q's connection to Trump under ONE or BOTH of two conditions:
Q took credit for making this specific connection happen BEFORE Trump said the phrase, and therefore guaranteed taking action on one of the hundreds of requests he got before every Trump speech.
Trump was not known to use the phrase "tip top" or "tippy top" before this speech, and therefore, there is no other explanation than it being a signal and a response to the Q supporter.
Unfortunately, neither of these things are true. Q only took credit for this delta AFTER it had occurred, which means it's possible he watched the speech, and then scanned through the requests to see if anything matched up. If it did, he claimed credit. I can't rule that out, because Q didn't specify that he would be accommodating ANY request, let alone that specific one.
The second point required some digging on my part. Had Trump ever used such a weird phrase as "tippy top" before in a speech? Was this a part of Trump's usual vocabulary?
As it turns out, yes. The speech that Q took credit for was in 2018.
However, this other video was uploaded in 2016. And in this video, Trump makes a REALLY big deal about using the word "tippy top."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYy-WMuyiU&t=6080s&ab_channel=DonaldTrumpLiveSpeeches%26Rallies
And this was two years before any request for the weird phrase. So, clearly, this was already a part of Trump's lexicon, not just a random out-of-place word that showed up in 2018 for the first time. Predicting that it would occur in a Trump speech is as unusual as predicting the word "malarky" in a Biden speech.
So, once again, the mere connection between these two things is pretty soft. It seems absolutely possible that Q just took credit for this after it happened and let people believe that this wasn't something Trump had said before.
We can make all sorts of excuses why Q would not confirm these connections before they actually happen, in order to make the proof actually convincing, but the fact that he only takes credit for connections after they occur means that any skeptic can simply say Q is a grifter who relies on confirmation bias to make coincidences look like "Q meant for that to happen, because he said so after it happened."
And I think if Q was serious about his philosophy, he would wholeheartedly agree with me about this analysis, and would have a very good explanation as to why I should give him the benefit of the doubt when he could, but never does, confirm a delta connection PRIOR to it actually happening. Because that's not unreasonable critical thinking.
I don’t know. Nitpicking one or two examples is fine, but we’re really talking about the totality of all the deltas. Your argument works for a few, heck I’ll give you half of deltas are pure coincidence, but the rest?
I firmly believe skepticism is the best default approach, but the problem comes down to all of the proofs combined over a period of 4 years.
To be clear, these were not nitpicked examples. The 310 proof was the first one from the provided video, and the tippy top proof was the first video in a provided list of linked proofs.
https://greatawakening.win/p/142B0wDBGj/x/c/4OUhvkKISno
Neither of them was chosen because they were bad proofs; they were the first proofs offered from two different lists.
And it’s not just these two. I have not yet found a falsifiable Q proof I’ve closely examined that has not had these same types of problems.
Which means that when you say there’s a totality of proof that lends weight to the weaker ones, I can’t say that I have seen evidence of that yet. To believe that there is such a mountain of proof, I would need to see at least a few unambiguous, slam-dunk proofs that had no obvious, simpler explanations, and I haven’t yet.
I’ve tried to find those proofs that are concrete and impossible to deny, just to establish that common ground. But given the gravity of Q’s claims, he deserves every ounce of skepticism and not a single benefit of the doubt. I have no problem holding his “proof” to a very high standard, and if he is serious about his philosophy, he would wholeheartedly support this standard in researching the truth about this movement.
Luckily for me, Q is posting again. We can just do this in real time again.
If there isn’t a proof in that entire video that seems reasonable to you, especially when they’re all pieces of the same idea, then I don’t really know what to say. I see it as more of a puzzle I guess. No individual piece has much meaning or significance, but when you put enough of them together the bigger picture becomes clear.
For me it really comes down to “how many coincidences before it’s mathematically impossible?” After over 4,000 posts, there’s too much that needs to be dismissed for your argument to make sense to me.