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.
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.
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.