Shit pedes...Get in here!!!! The Q Confirmation we have been Lđź‘€king for?
(media.greatawakening.win)
C O N F I R M A T I O N
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (153)
sorted by:
How is this a Q proof?
Didn’t Trump misspell “stocks” on his TS post the other day? He posted “socks” then I think later on he fixed it to “stocks”.
"look to (t)ruth social, C before D"
Interesting; Peloci “tweet” before Durham unsealing indictments? Pelosi steps down before Durham unseals indictments?
3&4 pretty convincing evidence.
Yeah no point obsessing over it now. Just gotta see what happens.
THIS is the proof I’ve been waiting for. There’s no way this is a coincidence. You should make a post about just this and all for a sticky. MODS!
What has February got to do with anything?
February is the accounts join date (when truth social opened to the public), and June 30th is the date of the one and only post which just wrote "confirmed" by said account, only to be retruthed by Q+ (POTUS) as anons were requesting confirmation.
Really gives the impression that the account was made by the operation specifically for the purpose of giving a solid validation with enough plausible deniability to avoid breaking national security laws.
That link no longer works. Hmm
Got it now. And another question, how does this guy get 1.4K followers with no posts and is only following 32 people?
OP here. Really? Mebbe it is; Mebbe it isn’t. Why would GEOTUS choose this rather “deplorable looking and worded” comment to re-Truth an opinion over what the sham J6 committee is trying to accomplish — Look here! Don’t look there, from an account, as Archive Anon stated, was opened 2/21/2022 with first Truth posted yesterday with one word - confirmation. https://ibb.co/8NmGG1Z
Other than that, his only other “Truths” were 4 rather benign comments to other Truths within the last day. This dude has 1.5k followers which likely came in the last 24 hours; how could you have that many followers prior to posting anything?
The original comment that @seqfranco was responding to was regarding Trump’s interview with Rob Finnerty on June 30, 2022:
https://rumble.com/v1ak9z5-former-president-donald-trump-interview-with-rob-finnerty-wake-up-america.html
So if we know one thing about GEOTUS’s comms, we know that EVERY one of them has a purpose. So why choose a “deplorable-looking” account whose has only one original post (Confirmation) And that in the last 24 hours? Certainly there are a plethora of posts or truths that could have been referenced that made these points more eloquently. That at a time When the Q Community is struggling to confirm whether the communication channel has been opened again?
One thing Q has constantly reminded us is that there are no coincidences. Pretty low odds that this is a random coincidence while coinciding with a one-Truther account (Confirmation) and coinciding with Q’s return(?) and coinciding with the community’s struggle to CONFIRM whether Q is back or not. In my humble opinion, Vanishingly low odds.
Thx, op. "Confirmation" is Qurious for a new acct, not to mention not any followers prior to a single post?
Thank you're on to sumpin
[Edited for context, stoopid spellchk]
I was trying to say, prob had no followers before Trump re-truthed him, and those followers likely were acquired in the last 24 hours.
Yes, it only shows 137 in the screenshot above. Probably did have very few followers before his retruth.
Yeah I understood what you said, makes sense. Fishy at best?
If I had too, I'd bet it's related to comms
So what do you want to do now? What does this change?
Yeah, I read through that and was about to post the same thing. So OP, show your work, step by step. How does this "prove" anything? Please.
Trying to avoid doing YOUR work by asking OP to do it for you?
Any of us who post need to provide lucid, coherent items, not stupid puzzles.
Sorry buddy, gonna have to learn how to use your brain just like the rest of us. It's not too difficult. Keep in mind you are owed nothing.
Sir or Ma'am, whichever the case may be, the post "proves" nothing. So what was that you were saying about "using your brain"?