When I've pointed out a Q proof to a doubter--usually when Q says something and then on the delta, anniversary of the post, Trump says the same thing, they will say "it is just a coincidence."
If you show them multiple Q proofs, they will say it is "confirmation bias"--the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
They will insist that you are finding these coincidences because you are actively looking for them, and in time, they will show up. Think of if you just buy a new red Ford Focus. Suddenly you start noticing all of the other red Ford Focuses on the road.
Here is why this theory falls flat. If the Q proofs and the incredible coincidences were simply a case of "confirmation bias," we would be finding them everywhere than just Q proofs.
Anons would be finding these coincidences in Twitter posts by Ted Cruz, Hannity, Kari Lake, or any other conservative personality. The fact is that nobody ever never finds these concidences anywhere other than Trump (80%), Scavino (10%), Military (8%), Trump Family and others close to the President's mission (2%).
Of course, these people are the intellectually lazy types that will allow the TV to do the thinking for them, so good luck getting most of them to look into it further themselves.
Edit: Note: I'm referring to social media and public comments only made by public figures. World events that match up to Q posts would be in a category of its own.
I also edited the percents after someone mentioned Scavino often posts Q proofs, which I completely forgot about.
No Name's execution.
100% over the damn target! The No Name proof was the thing that convinced me, unquestionably, irrefutably. I am still shocked by how insane that was, to have "predicted" that timing exactly. It's so astonishing there really aren't words. I like to go back every so often and just look at it again to remind myself, sometimes for no reason sometimes after reading some semi-convincing doomer bullshit, this is it, this is all real, this is the truth. Its also a good reminder of just how crazy things are behind the curtain, that something like that could happen and be completely secreted away from the public and memory holed never to be heard from again. To this day the MSM avoids discussion of Senator Mc- [(beetlejuice)] like the plague... it's not for no reason. When folks say arrests are happening, or they took someone out, this latest one with Anne Heche... I mean it's my natural instinct almost to try and poke holes in it, we've all been trained to trust and be skeptics if it sounds abnormal to our sensibilities.... But that's just it, isn't it? We really don't know what is actually common or uncommon because we've been spoonfed the media lies and sculpted into obedience all of our lives. So much of "awakening" is a process of deprogramming ourselves and unlearning what we've been taught to know and accept as an answer.
There is no possible way to justify how that could possibly have been a coincedence or a happy accident. That's how I know, beyond any other single thing. You can't doom it away like all the rest of it, you just can't.
For me the real veil lifting moment came when that senator on CNN said "x days after John McCain was *put to death" as if that's the sort of thing you'd say as a 'slip of the tongue'.
Ohio governor John Kasich
Good memory. Kudos.
I don't know what the truth is, but I'm now at the point where I disbelieve the NASA, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan narrative of what the Earth is and our place in the universe.
There may have been many "great resets" within the last 2000 years that we are purposely made unaware of.
Also did you know the only time Q said the phrase "put to death" was the day after the no name post. Then the Ohio governer said it a few weeks after that.
Proof graphic here. McStain's daughter here. And for the doubting skeptics, here it is archived on twitter to prove the timestamp isn't faked.
Anne Heche, really?? Come on she had a messed up childhood and serious issues. Her brother drove himself into a tree and she probably was drunk and in despair wanting to go the same way...
No Name's execution
aka "Dog Day"
or Delta Day amongst frens
What was the proof for that again? This could help wake people especially if you overlay his daughter on 2 separate occasions saying "they" killed him or whatever
https://greatawakening.win/p/13zzxwNdgZ/the-time-that-q-predicted-john-m/c/
It was Dog Day, or International Dog Day or something like that. I do remember "every dog has its day."
She said it twice??? do you have the link to the other, i only knew of one. And of course the Ohio Gov'nor.
Correction on my part I was thinking of the governor and her separately not her 2x.
cool cool, and here's a graphic
This needs to be used to mock the left on social media. "I see you let the TV do your thinking again".
You are singing to the choir.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAcJjpp3/using-41020-djt-for-q-proofs-is-/
Again, there are only 4958 Q posts. So 1/4958 to get 1 detail right. Odds drop the more details match until it becomes absurd to call it coincidence. When you have multiple posts with several details matched it becomes ridiculous to compare it to a "horoscope" as they try to do.
Coincidently. I dont believe in coincidences
You left out Scavino.
It was a tweet by Scavino that really sold me. I saw it in "realtime" for myself. (not in a compilation) It was a video of a fighter jet passing overhead; looped 17 times. Like for what other reason would someone tweet that?
https://qagg.news/?q=how+many+coincidences
Yeah, but Scavino needs to be named. I see far more Q proofs from him than I do Trump.
Sure, but we're splitting hairs here.
you're 100% right. I'll make an edit.
There are no coincidences.
I have made multiple redditors' heads spin by just bringing up the NONAME death date time matching with the Q drop.
There's hundreds of these "coincidences" at this point. Each one, taken individually, can be written off as coincidental. Take a handful of them and it's mathematically improbable. Take them all, and I'll bet my left and right nut that something is going on in the background, out of public view.
Add up every one and it becomes impossible to say Q isn’t real.
I have doubting friends who accuse me of apophenia.
This happens with a lot of long time Republicans I try and redpill.
I have a friend in AR who's wife is probably going to run. She's a huge fundraiser for the GOP.
I guess there's a group of Q supporters trying to run out all the RINOs and he and she aren't taking it well at all.
He and she believe in the GOP no matter what and are convinced Q and the anons are bad.
I tried to lay out exactly why we need to rid the party of hacks who betray us and if you're not a 45 supporter, you don't belong in the GOP. Pointed our several proofs and tried to explain how Q works. I literally got nowhere. To them Q is a psyop and the GOP must survive at all costs, even if it included RINOs.
Thus is what we are up against.
I agree with you to a point. There's a line between discernment and outright confirmation bias. It's a fuzzy, blurry line and it's on all of us to try to see its location.
I have no doubts about the validity of Q. But I've seen plenty of tweets, posts and truths that I would absolutely categorize as confirmation bias.
In regards to finding proofs outside of certain sources, people simply aren't looking for them.
There's no simple formula. We have to analyze each individual instance and use our critical thinking and discernment.
What you say would be true IF people were looking at those sources you mention. I’m not sure they are. Part of confirmation bias is only looking at the sources you deem worthy. I see a lot of that around here.
Ian not arguing that you’re wrong, by the way. Just that your argument can be strengthened further. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
yes that was my first thought. Nobody's looking at time stamps for ted cruz and reading the linking posts etc. Maybe we should? xD
I agree with what you've explained. Thanks for posting it.
My question is a bit different. When I share a Q proof, the reply is, "What does that prove? That Trump can read the Q drops and then post something that goes along with them? Anyone can do that."
It's a fair point that underscores the word "proof" . What are we proving with a q proof? I always thought that a Q proof meant that Q had predicted the future. Maybe I was/am wrong about that. It seems that a Q proof has come to mean that Trump values the Q movement. That's a good thing, but it is far short of a predictive proof.
When things occur and those things align with a Q drop--and just any drop, but a specific delta-- that's more along the lines of, "Whoa... Q nailed it!". Those don't seem as common.
I think it would be good to clarify what we all mean by " Q proof", and there could be varying degrees of it.
Q proofs demonstrate that Trump is working with the military intelligence apparatus that is taking down the Deep State.
Multiple year deltas show that there is a plan in place and it's being played out over a number of years. It's letting us and the cabal know who's in control.
I think that many of the Q proofs are just markers that can be pointed at to document when something went down. Others are to point us toward Truths and keep the hotheads from going hot
Annual deltas are not proof's necessarily. Just an FYI, as I think you'll find them hard to redpill with. "date fagging" is an advanced future proves past anon topic. :)
That said, there are a ton of proofs. Anyone that is honest with themselves cannot deny the connection of Q and Trump when you go through the actual proofs.
https://qproofs.com/q-proofs
I never hear anyone use Tip Top Tippy Top until DJT "coincidentally" used it on Easter. That was my "ah ha" moment...
https://youtu.be/WhoHq4noVp4
“Be careful who you follow”
Not sure I understand, I know Trump uses and has used "Tip Top" but that isn't the same as "Tip Top Tippy Top"
There are people who do suffer from it. We have all seen some doozey of a stretch proofs come accross from time to time. But, its kinda hard to have any sort of confirmation bias when there is nothing to seek, as it hasnt happened yet. Future prooves past.
Not a doubter, but the time between deltas has always confused me. Is there a magic number for the delta? Or is it just when the dates match the comments?
And if the year delta changes, is there any significance to the difference?
Just trying to understand how deltas are applied and deciphered. Not questioning out of doubt, but because I'm fairly dumb to it.
Q is game theory.
I'm sure we all can agree on that.
We can connect timestamps, miss spellings etc.
Deltas are the easiest to confirm. Leave yourself enough time for a delta to take place, and bring the info out when it coincides with that time.
It's why the plan is several years long.
I think in the earlier part of the drops, we were meant to dig find "dual meanings" match time stamps etc. When this breaks out on the surface, we are well versed and ready to decode, but deltas will be the most basic connection for those who haven't followed like we have.
We are not the norm. As large as we think we are, the unaware normies still outnumber us. They're slowly waking up. We're there to help along the way, and answer their questions when the plan is front and center.
I get it, Anons we're trained not to read answers but to find them. Q spent a lot of time training Anons to search for answers. No intentions to educate anybody but those willing to seek the answers to those questions always posted. The narrative was never fed, but truth resonates loudly. It's why I am on here. I put more trust in this sites info than any other site.
This reminds me of the Bible Code stuff. Gematria etc - the hidden messages in the underlying text. People have analyzed other works of literature expecting to find similar things, but they found a big fat goose egg. And all the while there are probably thousands of hidden messages in the Bible, indicating they were placed there by intelligence, not random chance.
I agree.and this is why I think it's important to at least be familiar with the section of the Bible referred to as the Q-Source; it could be some type of code embedded by Jesus...
http://earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html
u/Cat_anon : Some may be confirmation bias,some DEFINITELY are NOT.
If two or more easy "coincidences" are noticed at once there is no coincidence.
https://greatawakening.win/p/142BT1xVgs/q-post---313obama-tweet-da/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAh4yJBy/two-trump-truths-with-missing-r-/c/
This looks good and quite valid Q proof. No matter are Q claims truth or lie to cheat us, such coincidences would be very,very hard.
There are however also "proofs" and "researches" that are not so good and suck. Sorry I not remember where it was,but once I saw some anons cherrypiced some random numbers for some tweet month or more ago.
Not to doom But i have heard a good argument against... please prove wrong..
Trump has caught on to his following with Q and anons putting together these deltas and is now making these deltas happen by checking the q posts ahead of his posts then including a line from one matching up to the day that he posts.
Its a fairly reasonable explanation. Even if he is doing this still could mean several things, the sheer momentum of this movement is enough, without all the extravagant hidden plans anyway. It would all be a good disinformation campaign to keep them digging where there is nothing too.
That is possible, but if that is the case, Trump has been doing this since almost the very beginning of Q.
If Trump was just winking at some posts that he had no part of creating, then he has gone through extraordinary to do so. Even the Call Sign of Air Force One was Q0.
Who's looking for Ted Cruz deltas?
*"Here is why this theory falls flat. If the Q proofs and the incredible coincidences were simply a case of "confirmation bias," we would be finding them everywhere than just Q proofs.
Anons would be finding these coincidences in Twitter posts by Ted Cruz, Hannity, Kari Lake, or any other conservative personality"*
To be fair, is that because there aren't any after people have compared an equal amount of tweets or is that because people are, in fact, looking for connections from Scavino, from people close to Trump etc. specifically to confirm their "bias"? I'm not making any point about Q, just think we have to be intellectually honest about our arguments and how we refute criticism. We should be our greatest critic and every proof should be criticized and doubted until we are absolutely sure it does classify as a proof.