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.
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.