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.
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.