Within the drops themselves, they refer to themselves only as Q or Q group. Anon would be a reader.Q is Q. The media mixes them up on purpose to equate Q with anything and everything that anons post or say.
C_A started the "Qanon" hoax in order to have the ability to tie "Q" to the [bad] actions of anons, whether real or federal fakes.
As a bonus stroke of pure genius, commissioning thousands of MSM hitpiece articles using the fake "Qanon" moniker was a cunning way to spoil web searches for real info on Q. All anyone would get is the staged "Qanon" garbage. Most would assume that's all there is and, since the articles all agree in lockstep, would conclude that it all must be true. Anons alone know to conclude when 10,000 articles agree that they must be faked.
I was only questioning whether the "Q Group" mentioned by CNN was the same as the Q team on the chans. It's still not entirely clear.
Within the drops themselves, they refer to themselves only as Q or Q group. Anon would be a reader.Q is Q. The media mixes them up on purpose to equate Q with anything and everything that anons post or say.
Right. "There is Q and there are anons."
C_A started the "Qanon" hoax in order to have the ability to tie "Q" to the [bad] actions of anons, whether real or federal fakes.
As a bonus stroke of pure genius, commissioning thousands of MSM hitpiece articles using the fake "Qanon" moniker was a cunning way to spoil web searches for real info on Q. All anyone would get is the staged "Qanon" garbage. Most would assume that's all there is and, since the articles all agree in lockstep, would conclude that it all must be true. Anons alone know to conclude when 10,000 articles agree that they must be faked.
I was only questioning whether the "Q Group" mentioned by CNN was the same as the Q team on the chans. It's still not entirely clear.