After almost two years of not posting, we have a few "new" Q posts. There were a few in June and then the recent one.
These posts are without deltas that I'm aware of, meaning Trump didn't coordinate with these Q posts by posting a minute after Q's post.
These posts seem to come and go like they make no difference at all. They're an afterthought, after we've all been in the frontlines researching about Ukraine entirely on our own for months if not years, asking these basic questions like "What groups are financing Ukraine?" comes off as almost an insult.
The pacing makes little to no sense. 3 posts in June, but nothing for a year and a half prior? 3 posts in June, but nothing else through November? You would think, if there's only going to be 4 posts in almost 2 years, that they would at least have substance to them.
On the heels of the June posts there was alot of drama questioning whether the new Q posts were legitimate. From what I recall, people accused Jim Watkins of changing the salt for generating tripcodes, locking Q out. There were some posts (without tripcodes) of sequential deltas where posts were coordinated with Trump posting, and then this individual who established the deltas claimed the board was compromised and Q was locked out.
Common sense would dictate that if Q hadn't post in 2 years, the plan called for stopping all communication (perhaps something to do with laws of war). Another reason to not post at all in years is we already have everything and Q's communication with us came to an end. Why then are there 4 new posts? They don't fit.
Q is fully able to confirm themselves beyond a shadow of doubt. Their tripcode was compromised in the past, they reaffirmed themselves with sequential photos over North Korea, sequential to prior ones posted. They can confirm themselves with deltas -- it's literally the simplest thing to do in the world. Right now, Trump is confirming past Q posts like there's no tomorrow (like the recent one saying "plus" three times with a delta of a Q post with three +++ in it).
Confirmation is easy to come by and handed out like candy by Trump.
But not Q. No deltas. No confirmations. No explanation why gone so long other than "had to be this way", but then skipping many months between June and November -- why did that pause have to "be that way"? What special thing happened between June and November allowed Q to post in June but then skip 5 months to post again?
I don't believe the current Q posts from June onward are actually Q, and I won't until there's at least a delta or another proof offered.
lol. But how does this post do that?
Anyway, at this point, I really don't see the 2022 posts as much to bother with. One way or the other.
If it is a 'booster' for newbie anons, ok. If not, don't think it makes any difference.
Just my $0.02
I saw news of a 'new Q post' this morning and I yawned. Either way, the operation has moved far, far forward.
PS. The criticism of 'structure' and 'content' seems simplistic. Over 4800 Q drops. Diversity of structure and content is huge, imo.
They haven't started the astray phase of Operation Seize Q yet. They have to establish the 'new' Q's credibility first.
Yawn.
Not a problem. To imagine that any serious or significant Seize Q campaign is either underway or even viable is to imply that patriots are def. NOT in control, that Q is impotent, and that DJT team is on shakey ground.
I don't buy it.
Not gonna happen. They might attempt to create chaos, but even if they do, it will be limited in nature best. The Great Awakening is outside their reach now, and cannot be stopped or derailed.
Q post in when? No posts for 1.5 years. A few posts in Jun, (so far) one post in Nov, just a day before the midterms. At this pace, it will take them years to gain any traction.
Let's just say what it is: your objections that the board is compromised and that the recent Q drops are illegitimate are speculation at best, and at this point unprovable, just as much as the assertions that the board is 100% secure and that the drops are legitimate are speculation and, at this point, unprovable.
So we choose what we choose to believe or accept, and go from there.
If you are speculating, well, I'm all ears. But imo, anyone who speaks with absolute or purported certainty but provides no tangible proof but only argument should be treated as a zealot and cannot be taken seriously.
Yawn? What a cunt you are. I would respond to the rest of your post which is basically "no one REALLY knows so shut up" but your opening killed off any possibility of real conversation so I won't bother.
Ok. Apologies. Yawn might seem condescending. I didn't intend it that way, but anyway.
I didn't intend to block of productive conversation or discussion either. However, for me, I notice that all your comments are stated as if fact. No real indication of speculation, as far as I can see. Did I say shut up? No, you're reading into something that's not there.
I met what I perceived as your apparent firm and unshakeable conviction that your viewpoint is correct and factual with what I think are reasonable and reasoned points.
if you are offended, again, i apologize, and I would be quite open and interested to hear any speculation, reasoning and ideas about the topic .... unless they are stated as incontrovertible facts. That. well, I'd say the same: that approach closes off any real discussion.
Expressions like "I think...", "it seems to me...", "as far as I can see....", "I believe..." all admit to fallibility and an openness to discussion.
"They haven't.... They have to...." imply you actually think that is a fact.
Anyway, that's how I see it. If you want to discuss, we can. Text is often a VERY limited medium. Sometimes one has to work at establishing a common communication wavelength. Are you willing?
You're insult doesn't hurt, because I know it's certainly not true.
But I'll also speculate the true is NOT the same for you. So, why don;t we attempt to actually understand each other instead of reacting and calling each other names?
Your assessment is spot-on.
Some anons have not been able to develop discernment, so they react to everything with fearful skepticism. They bend over backwards looking for a reason to doubt. That's why we see these posts.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to entertain doubts or speculate on whether the drops are legit or not, but the exercise should also be recognized as a test of one's ability to apply Q technique: due diligence, expanded thinking, checking emotional interference at the door, evidence and empirical data foundations, etc.
I've stated this numerous times; for me the greatest Q proofs are the fruits of the Q operation:. Millions and millions of people awake to things they never even imagined 2, 3 or 5 years ago; the spirit of camaraderie and solidarity among patriots and q-aware freedom fighters worldwide, etc.
I find that folks who pin their belief purely on the technical Q proofs (deltas, etc) are missing the more a significant evidences that Q is legit. As such, they are easy targets for those who spread or inspire doubt, angst, ire, etc. These responses are EMOTIONALLY charged responses, and not in a positive direction, and that should be a red flag for those involved.
The problem is NOT doubting, or being unconvinced. (I'm unconvinced, but to me it isn't material anyway - whether the drops are legit or not doesn't affect my focus at this point.) The problem is NOT being aware of how one is responding to the new situation (drops), because... by definition... the less aware you are of your own state of reasoning, programming, reaction etc, the more open you are to manipulation.
If we are in a spiritual war (we are), then one doesn't have to watch out for so-called black hats and black hat agents. There are many, many more agents in the spiritual realms seeking to foster doubt, distrust, distraction, and to impede patriots in any way possible.
This is why the Q techniques are so important. Not just defending against black hat agents on the physical realm, but also against spiritual attacks that come in the form of inserted thoughts and feelings from unpalatable (spiritual) sources.