If youve been reading Q since Oct 2017, you know what I mean
Edit to clarify--what I mean is there is a Q way of speaking and this lacks it.
Ok eg this stood out immediately: Use your logic
Tell me why this is not Q like
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (253)
sorted by:
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, I’ve discussed before how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. It’s certainly not impossible, and not even unreasonable.
I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides Trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan, if deltas are really that powerfully evidential. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
You're assuming that military intelligence is so dumb they wouldn't have predicted the heavy-handed censorship, or a plan that was fallible if cabal-owned media predictably wouldn't cooperate.
There are two questions wound up in that statement, why the need for plausible deniability and why Jim Watkins.
What is the opposite of plausible deniability? Full disclosure? Imagine that, in WW2, the allies not only didn't secure their communications, but instead broadcast their every move to the enemy and what a disaster it would have been.
Regarding on Jim Watkins, Q doesn't "rely on him". Not at all. Military intelligence have devised a way to send us messages that are confirmed based on proofs provided. It's a robust system that can withstand bad actors inserting themselves in channels of communication.
Wouldn't it be silly to think that the plan to save the world would boil down to the performance of one individual? Q could reconfirm themselves anywhere on any platform they desire with a couple deltas or other significant proof.
Q drop 1706
https://qalerts.app/?n=1706
Jul 25, 2018 7:28:35 PM EDT
https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1033509124619681792
“Senator John Sidney McCain III died at 4:28pm on August 25, 2018. With the Senator when he passed were his wife Cindy and their family. At his death, he had served the United States of America faithfully for sixty years.”
Account for time zone. Exactly, to the minute.
Take for instance the generic clouds post you're talking about.
The proof isn't designed to prove that Q was real, or even that they were actually taken over North Korea.
The proof is that the photos are, in fact, sequential and taken from the same camera, by the same person, in the same plane.
That's all that proof was designed for. To confirm the continuity of Q through a trip code change, and that the old poster is the same as the new poster.
If HRC had predicted McCain would be in the news, and one month later he was pronounced dead, to the minute, you wouldn't consider him the latest Arkancide victim?
Other people haven't made the claim to be a backchannel for military intelligence.
I get your point, that Q is using methods of what fortune-tellers do, predicting vague things in a way they are certain to be confirmed, if enough predictions are made.
But there are too many coincidences that are too exact.
To be honest, I'm surprised you asked me about the "to the minute" with McCain. It sounded like you had never heard that before. If you haven't looked into that particular proof, it makes me wonder how many others you haven't fully checked out (being one of the most famous).
And do you still feel that way when you realize the time on the death certificate to the time of Q's posts are exactly one month, to the minute?
What fascinates me most is your complete certainty. I'm an odds kind-of-guy. Everything has varying levels of certainty. Like I don't think Q has came back, but I allow for the possibility they might be with further verification.
I might put that opinion at 75% certainty that the new Q isn't real, or rather uncertainty. Some things are unknowable.
I put Q's existence, as stated by Q, at 100% certainty of being "real", 95% of being a benevolent psyop, 90% that it's military intelligence operating as they state themselves to be.
But that remaining uncertainty has me prepping to take care of my family just in case military intelligence doesn't send the bad guys to Gitmo.
You being 100% certain that the Q and McCain are merely a coincidence, or 100% ruling out that Q is real ... doesn't appeal to me as being very wise based on what I've seen. There are too many coincidences.
Another random coincidence off the top of my head, there being a Q stocking in a whitehouse photo.
You can argue that Q may or may not be military intelligence. You cannot argue that Q coordinates with Trump and the whitehouse. There's no disputing that, only the implications of what Trump and Q coordinating means.
McCain died at 4:28PM MST. Arizona is in Mountain Standard Time.
Q's post was 7:28PM EDT, per your screenshot. 6:28PM CST, per my source, which is the same time.
4:28PM MST = 6:28PM EDT. Not 7:28PM EDT, when Q posted.
Not to the minute. They were one month, and one hour apart. It's stretching badly to call this a delta at this point.
Especially since Q's only prediction was "McCain would be in the news." No duh.
The answer is yes, I did know this already. I was hoping the questions I asked would encourage you to double-check your research on this. As I said, I have yet to see a single proof that didn't have these kinds of problems.
Given that, would you like me to respond to the rest of your post, or would you like to address this first?
After googling AZ time and NY time, there's a 3 hour difference. (NY 10:23pm, AZ 7:23pm), are you arguing there was daylight savings at the time or some such?
And sure, respond to all the points.
I do not claim that McCain being in the news is anything special. The focus of this particular data point, that swims in a sea of other confirming data points, is the delta.
Again with the odds. I didn't even realize until I just looked it up now that Arizona has two different timezones. Even if McCain died in a part of the state that was in the different timezone, I see the odds are more likely that it was an attempted delta that failed due to human fallibility of an individual not knowing the intricacies of AZ's timezone situation.
I need to check into this some more when I have some time. It seems there may be some conflicting information regarding EDT, and I’ve gotten different results on different calculators with the same conversion. I will check back in tomorrow after I’ve looked, but you’re free to beat me to it.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
Difference between EST and MST is 2 hours.
Daylight savings starts March 13 and ends November 6.
During daylight savings, east coast loses 1 hour.
Arizona doesn't follow daylight savings, so the time there remains exactly the same during daylight savings.
McCain died August 24, 2018 which is during when the rest of the nation uses daylight savings, while Arizona does not.
That would make it officially recognized as a 3 hour time difference when McCain died in August?
Because east coast would have rolled their clock back an additional hour when Arizona would not ... at least part of Arizona.
Cornville, where McCain died, appears to be in this area https://www.timetemperature.com/tzus/time_zone.shtml marked as "Mountain Time Zone No DST Observed".
Interesting. I don’t want you to feel like I’m dodging if this is correct and I don’t immediately capitulate on Q’s prophecy, because whether it’s off by an hour or not, I’m still not exactly certain what narrative I’m supposed to believe as a result. That Q knew to the minute when an elected official would die of apparently natural causes?
There aren’t a whole lot of non-villains that would have foreknowledge of something like that, so I’m curious what the next step is. It’s not exactly a strong proof, but what do you want me to believe it’s proof of?
But I definitely want to look into this time zone thing, because your argument doesn’t look wrong on its face, and I want to see if it pans out when I have access to something less mobile.
I believe McCain was cut a deal, to give testimony against the cabal. His incentive for cooperating is to maintain his legacy as a legit senator, but still given the death sentence by a military tribunal.
A date was chosen for his execution, and he was given a certain period of time to play it off as cancer.
McCain wore a medical boot that famously switched legs. Anons speculated it was an ankle monitor, preventing him from escaping.
There's probably no "next step" in his story. I don't think his participation with the cabal will ever be fully revealed in public, as per the deal.
I think you could be right about the time zone situation, or at least convincing enough that I will defer to you on it for now. Interesting catch.
Which leaves us where I said, that the evidence you have is that Q suggested McCain would be “in the news” when he was in the news every single day. And that vague prediction was one month, apparently to the minute, before McCain’s death, which you consider to be highly suspicious.
Your suggestion is that the most reasonable explanation for this connection is that Q is responsible for, or at least knowledgeable about, McCain’s secret execution, in lieu of his death being from his publicly known brain cancer and being 81 years old.
That seems like an incredible extrapolation to me. I understand (though disagree) that you believe there is a great weight of evidence in deltas that supports this, but your explanation for Q’s involvement still leaves me scratching my head.
Why did McCain get a deal? Didn’t Q usually capitalize “NO DEALS”? The Great Awakening is happening by trying and executing people for their crimes in secret?
Instead of revealing it?
I’m trying to reconcile a world in which Q is trying to “awaken” people to the truth about how evil people like McCain and Clinton apparently are, but then carrying out the justice secretly, DELIBERATELY covering up the real cause of death, and ensuring the only people who believe the truth sound like crazy people to the outside world by matching up deltas.
Everything about that strategy screams that Q is someone trying to protect the legacy of the Cabal that he’s executing and ensuring that the truth, if it ever leaks out, is attributed to the wild conspiracy theories of that QAnon guy.
I don’t even believe the notion of Q being a “black hat” (since I haven’t even been convinced of the Cabal that Q and Trump blame for their problems), but that narrative seems like a Bad Guy narrative to me.
Zeitreise, if you're going to insist on invading every single one of my conversations with your cohorts, please at least take the time to read the conversation fully before responding.
I was referring to a point made by u/magavoices, quoted below.
You are absolutely correct that it is impossible to effectively censor information that has no central source. That is definitely a power of the Q movement.