I haven't made up my mind about new Q. I can only be sure when Trump does a couple of 0 delta posts with this Q.
That said, purely from logical point of view:
Elon (or anyone else) cannot confirm new Q no matter what they do. All they are confirming is that they are aware of the Q drops and they can work out timestamps / gap codes etc. They are simply using Q drops as a codebook.
The only person who can confirm new Q is Trump - OR, Q posting a predictive post thats undeniable like Noname's death.
Any posts new Q makes after Trump posts something can never be used as a proof, because anyone who has read Q drops can work out a good gap code.
Any posts Trump makes at or after new Q posts are potential candidates for proof. Zero delta is the highest tier of proof in this category. Keywords repeated from the Q post are also good proofs. Proofs based on gap codes are much lower, based on basic probability.
I do agree that the new Q is allowed to keep posting, makes me think is an implicit proof that he is legit, but again, its a much lower quality proof.
All that said, its an interesting video. I am only laying out logical structure for thinking about Q proofs.
At the time, I took Q seriously as this form of proof showed that the backchannel was authorised by the Commander in Chief and that the Q team "serve at the pleasure of the President".
But given that Trump is not currently president, would a Q/Trump delta actually have the same meaning?
As long as people trust Trump it doesnt matter if he is currently the President (in options that is) or not. People didn't trust Trump because he was president, but because of what he was saying and doing.
I haven't made up my mind about new Q. I can only be sure when Trump does a couple of 0 delta posts with this Q.
That said, purely from logical point of view:
Elon (or anyone else) cannot confirm new Q no matter what they do. All they are confirming is that they are aware of the Q drops and they can work out timestamps / gap codes etc. They are simply using Q drops as a codebook.
The only person who can confirm new Q is Trump - OR, Q posting a predictive post thats undeniable like Noname's death.
Any posts new Q makes after Trump posts something can never be used as a proof, because anyone who has read Q drops can work out a good gap code.
Any posts Trump makes at or after new Q posts are potential candidates for proof. Zero delta is the highest tier of proof in this category. Keywords repeated from the Q post are also good proofs. Proofs based on gap codes are much lower, based on basic probability.
I do agree that the new Q is allowed to keep posting, makes me think is an implicit proof that he is legit, but again, its a much lower quality proof.
All that said, its an interesting video. I am only laying out logical structure for thinking about Q proofs.
In the past, Q referred to "Q/POTUS [0] DELTA".
At the time, I took Q seriously as this form of proof showed that the backchannel was authorised by the Commander in Chief and that the Q team "serve at the pleasure of the President".
But given that Trump is not currently president, would a Q/Trump delta actually have the same meaning?
As long as people trust Trump it doesnt matter if he is currently the President (in options that is) or not. People didn't trust Trump because he was president, but because of what he was saying and doing.
Good point. It would not mean the same at all.