NY Times article on identity of Q - The Great Awakening

The problems with their analysis are painfully obvious, however. They only consider six "suspects", and they basically pick the ones out of the six that seem most similar.

They don't take into account Trump, Scavino, Flynn, Watnick, and others that are equally or more plausibly involved. They don't take into account the photos Q takes or the close relationship the Q posts have to POTUS' activities. The wide breadth of info Q relays to us strongly indicates some level of team effort. Instead they focus on the board operators--who certainly have the power to monkey with the drops--but would rapidly be found out.

I think it's worth linguistically analyzing the posts and seeing how Q team's motivations, style, and priorities shifted over time and in response to events and the public's capacity.

Academia continues to disappoint.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 0 ▼

– GizzardPuke 0 points 1 year ago +1 / -1

"The problems with their analysis are painfully obvious, however. They only consider six "suspects", and they basically pick the ones out of the six that seem most similar."

Kek !

permalink parent save report block reply

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q