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:
Back in the earlier days, I asked a question I had struggled with regarding Q’s credibility.
If Q represented a highly-sophisticated, detailed Plan, and part of that Plan is to wake people up through the Q drops, then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?
I know that some users here see that site as a haven of geniuses whose autism is apparently a superpower, which is not exactly how I remember my time there.
But even beyond that, it’s a chan site. The security it provides is somewhat superficial and sufficient mostly for tricking people into thinking they’re anonymous. It was never that hard to create or manipulate a chan site.
So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised? Do these digital supersoldiers lack the funding or expertise to anonymously start and manage their own secure site?
The answer I got back at the time from Q people?
“Q DID start his own site, or at least take it over. 8kun is controlled by Q. Watkins is controlled by Q. You’re a fucking idiot if you think Q would entrust his drops to a site outside of White Hat control.”
Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.
Which is something that, two years ago, Q people assured me is impossible.
So, from this point in time, I have to examine the following possibilities:
Q is legitimate, but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating with his followers (“no outside comms”), due to a very foreseeable issue with Watkins owning the boards and manipulating them.
Q is legitimate, and “You are watching a movie with actors. Disinformation is necessary. Watkins is under control and you are being fooled by optics designed to cause the Deep State to expend yet more and more ammo.” I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.
Q is legitimate, but didn’t honestly put much effort into the “communication with anons” because, since NCSWIC, Q drops are ultimately not that important. The Plan doesn’t require your participation or understanding, so Q didn’t care much that Watkins could potentially lock him out or impersonate him.
Q is not legitimate, because a legitimate military or intelligence operation would not entrust such an important component to the Plan to an outside source like Watkins if such a Plan actually existed. This would mean Q either is a 8kun admin manipulating things like time zones to create deltas, or just a random channer who had a enough lucky coincidences to fertilize years of confirmation bias.
Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't completely break if a previously secure platform becomes insecure, because it can be rectified with proofs and deltas.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.
You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.
Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.
It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z" on some issue as a means to challenge Q's overall legitimacy.
The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:
In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.
Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).
All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.
The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.
The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.
It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.
That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.
In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.
It can't be inferred "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable. Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations that stand on their own.
What is the ramification of us and "a greater number of people than Q supporters" being confused?
None?
Even if there were ramifications, sometimes the cabal wins a battle. The premise of Q seems to necessitate patriots not acting as millions are injured due to vaccines. How small is some confusion about Q's legitimacy on 8chan in comparison?
Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.
Which is fine.
There is no ramifications to my being confused. Whatever current confusion there is doesn't negate Q's past proofs.
You talk about Q proofs but totally ignore the proof of Pamphlet being caught red handed in a livestream which conveniently is no longer on the internet.
Am I supposed to pretend to know who the fuck pamphlet is?
Rhetorical question.
Pamphlet anon =coleman rogers who was the q board owner on 8 chan. He did a livestream where he forgot to turn off his screen which showed him logged in as Q, He also fucked up a 2nd time when he identified a Q post that didn't have a trip code. Its the drop about a bike rack. Very soon after he publicly gave up ownership of the board. There must be people on here who remember that debacle. It was a good few years ago though.