Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

During and after the Q-posting part of the Q operation, the Q proofs were a critical tool for verifying and confirming the veracity of the Q operation and its connections with Q+ in particular. That was a clear and specific purpose. Moreover, the proofs were clear, concise and pretty obvious (imo). They served their purpose at that time by providing evidence for anyone asking: "hey, is this really legit?"

Part of the proofs were deltas - the time or period between point A and point B, such as the delta between a particular Q drop and some other event, such as POTUS making post on Twitter, etc. Especially, zero deltas or 1-minute deltas between A) when Q would post a drop and then B) POTUS would send out a particular tweet - these became important statistical evidence highlighting the legitimacy of Q and the cooperation with Potus.

These became "proofs" because they were evidence that statistically "proved" the validity of Q.

Other proofs became significant because they pointed to correlations that potentially shed light on to what the Q operation was talking about. In those cases, also, the purposes have been clear: to reveal some coherent theory or explanation of what the Plan is and or how it is unfolding. After all, some of the techniques that Q trained anons in were about taking various data points, digging deeper and then putting the pieces of the puzzle together to increase understanding or insight.

The original Q proofs had very clear and effective purposes. They were fact based, evidence based, and the context in which they arose lent confirmation to their validity.

However, today, three and a half years on from when Q halted posting (technically 1.6 years, but the main body of 3+ years of posting finished in Dec 2020), some anons, in developing their ideas about what is happening in the info war and psywar, have resorted to paying a lot of attention to "deltas" and to drawing correlations and even conclusions from those correlations, and then labelling them as proofs.

The question is, do (all) these correlations stack up as proofs? Are they evidence of something and if so, of what?

Does The Proof Go Poof?

Why are these questions important? Why is it important to examine HOW we deal with the information, and to check whether it is fact-based, evidence-based, logic-based, reason-based, emotion-based, belief-based, or bias-based, etc?

Because Q trained anons in a variety of techniques. Those techniques became powerful tools for making our way through the information war landscape, for discerning when narratives and propaganda were at work, for avoiding or mitigating the impacts of that propaganda on ourselves, and for verifying the reality behind the facade of propaganda.

But when we depart from those techniques, it is easy to slip into habits and perspectives that become vulnerable to more subtle attacks of disinformation, misinformation and mal-information. And, there is no question that the Cabal and their instruments would want to attack and undermine the truth movement, and the anons, and all the participants of the Great Awakening, and to hamper as much as possible the QUALITY of the ongoing awakening process.

We see plenty of examples of this in the snake oil (snake venom?) salesmen and clickbait merchants who have latched on to and taken great advantage of the burgeoning audience for new information and truth. People are hungry for truth, but also hungry for hope, for a sense of security, in a world that is increasingly chaotic and confusing, and in a war where even the most seasoned anons can be buffeted by black pills and exhausted by way of attrition.

The only real check we have against THAT form of attack, which seek to exploit potential vulnerabilities that anons, awakened people and searchers may have, is to apply the techniques of critical thinking, self-reflection, bias-checking and solid, hard-nosed evidence based research that Q inspired us to pursue.

"Question everything" is an important guideline in many, many cases, and THAT includes questioning our own attitudes, approaches, methods and thinking. We cannot afford to slip into patterns of believing things because they make us feel good, because they provide some false but comforting sensation ("hopium"), or because they alleviate some sense of anxiety or concern or need for a sense of security in our interpretation of things.

What's the old adage about sacrificing liberty for security? (Thank you Ben Franklin )

We can translate that adage into something about sacrificing tough, critical thinking for comfort (eke mental security).

So, we need to check ourselves.

And this leads to another question: as the movement has developed in the absence of Q posting, have we drifted from our original angle and methods? Are we on course in terms of HOW we practice our craft? Or if we have drifted off course, how?

Some might be inspired to immediately dismiss these questions. "Pooh, pooh!" They will declare. "We are anons! We don't make mistakes? We are invulnerable to the normal human foibles that drag ALL people into comfort zones unless they practice vigilance and harsh self-scrutiny!!! We are all about insight and seeing through the fog!!!! We have no blind spots at all!!!"

Hmmm….

The Proof Of The Pudding

The inspiration for this post is the now current (Sticky at time of drafting) posting that is titled:

6 YEAR Q PROOF. To the exact day. Do you believe in coincidences?

I could point out how the Subject Title is merely a COPY/PASTE of the tweet that the OP is inspired to share with the board, and that there is sadly no level of analysis, or even hint of WHO stated this. That last part if unfortunate, in my opinion, because I am FAR more likely to give some credence to a post by a GAW member who has drawn their own conclusions than to some anon on the X who is NOT on GAW. Essentially, the OP merely offers the X post as its own headline. But let's put that aside.

Here's the post: https://greatawakening.win/p/17siXJK6yd/6-year-q-proof-to-the-exact-day-/c/

And here is the Tweet that the post is reproducing: https://twitter.com/EDranir/status/1775591029766262886

For me, however, the first question that arises is:

if this is a "Q proof" what is the purpose of the proof? What does it reveal?

Is it simply a proof that "the Pan is still operational and things are going our way"? Is it a proof that "Q definitely has Operation Looking Glass and the Q drops are predictions and records of future events that Q knew WOULD happen 5 years, 6 years earlier?" Or what? What is it a proof of? "That there are no coincidences?"

What is the practical EFFECT of this so-called proof?

Anyway, let's turn the soil on the X post and see what comes up.

6 YEAR PROOF. To the exact day. With a date mirror. How? Do you believe in coincidences?

H/T @ELMAGAIN for finding this first.

"The 6 year Proof"

The 'proof' draws these correlations:

• 7.4 magnitude earthquake <> Q Drop 1067 date of April 7, 2018 (7.4, 4.7)

• Date of X post by Insider Paper April 2, 2024 <> A day of the week referenced in Q drop 1120 - Tuesday and Q drop 1067 Tuesday (April 2, 2024 = Tuesday, Q drops both reference "Tuesday")

• Name of road on street sign "Chongqing Rd" with name in Q drop 1120 and in Q drop 1067 (chongqing, chongqing, chongqing)

• Date of Q drop 995 April 3, 2018 that includes content "Future Proves Past. Several today" + [1 day] * [A]pril. MOAB

The stated conclusion = 6 Year Proof

The Proof Of the Pudding is In The Eating

Personally, I have a few issues with this so-called Proof, none the least being thge question I have: "What does it actually prove?"

Chongqing

Chongqing was a significant data point during the drops drops 1067, 1120, 2516. I recall there being photos of, and allusion to activities of, specific persons in that city at that time. But it is also in other drops: 2517, 2516, posted in November 2018.

Q 1118 references chongqing indirectly, as an anon references the article Q linked in Q 1117, about China embracing foreign cars.

Q 1117 references Q 1116, in which Q writes: "Thank you Xi. Good Start. China/CQ cancel."

In this series of Q drops, Q talks about Chongqing, about cars, about imports, about Xi, and China.

10767, "China Chongqing Tuesday" This post was on Saturday April 7, 2018. The next Tuesday was April 10, when X gave a significant speech

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-04/10/c_137099839.htm

One highlight was increasing imports and lowering tarrifs for vehicles.

Chinese President Xi Jinping said Tuesday China will significantly lower the import tariffs for vehicles and reduce import tariffs for some other products this year.

Does it make sense that the Q drops were about Xi, POTUS's ongoing successful engagements with China, re: changing the trade dynamic (a BIG feature of the Trump administration #1)? Yes. That Xi's speech on April 10 indicated a "start"? Yes.

So what kind of connection might it have with an earthquake in April this year?

The photo presented in the X tweet in the OP is Chongqing rd, in the district of Hualien City in Taiwan.

But the Chingqing referenced in the Q drops appears to be the Chongqing district (Chongqing City) in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing).

We can see some correlation between the photo here (on X) and the Q drops 1067 and 1120. That's because it's the same name. But just like in cities and countries all over the world, places in two different nations can share the same name. (Compare "Birmingham" (city) in the UK with "Birmingham Rd" elsewhere).

So is there a real connection here? In both Q1067 and Q 2516, Q specifically references China and the city of Chongqing in China (mainland). Not Taiwan.

Dates

The 'proof' here cites a correlation between the X post by "Insider Paper" (aka date April 2, 2024) and post 1067, but the actual earthquake event happened in Taiwan on April 3. It only appears as April 2 because the person using the X account is on the other side of the date line from Taiwan. The earthquake in question happened on April 3.

https://apnews.com/article/taiwan-earthquake-explainer-hualien-8c3de7d63c964ae460424aa7e52581a2

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — Taiwan was struck Wednesday by its most powerful earthquake in a quarter of a century. At least nine people were killed and hundreds injured, buildings and highways damaged and dozens of workers at quarries stranded.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/3/strongest-earthquake-25-years-kills-nine-injures-o/

Nine people are dead and more than 1,000 reported injured in Taiwan after the island nation was rocked by the strongest earthquake in a quarter-century Wednesday.

For someone using X in a different location, the date is April 3

So the connection between "Tuesday" and the chongqing rd photo aka Hualien City Earthquake, which happened on Wednesday, and posted by Insider Paper, is a false positive.

So, what is the proof?

There is no correlation between April 2 (Tuesday) and the Huelin city earthquake April 3 (Wednesday). (X shows date of viewer, not of actual incident)

There is no correlation between Chongqing in the Q drops and the road in Hualien Taiwan except that they share the same name. There is also a road of that name in Taipei, and possibly elsewhere.

"chongqing is a romanization of the Chinese word 重庆 (Simplified Chinese) aka 重慶 Traditional Chinese meaning literally "Double Celebration".

Is there a correlation between an earthquake of 7.4 on the Richter scale and a q drop posted on April 4, 2018? A numerical correlation, but is it meaningful?

Is there a correlation between Drop 995 with "future proves past, several today" "1 day" and "[A]pril MOAB." and the city and country of Hualien in Eastern Taiwan where the earthquake happened? Actually, both events (the drop and the earthquake) took place on the same day, BUT 995 does not reference Taiwan, Chongqing or China in any way. So is there are connection? If so, is it strong? Weak?

Also, the "proof" references "[1 day]" in Q995, I assume alluding to the 1 day difference between the earthquake in Eastern Taiwan and the drop itself Q995. But that's a false positive, because the earthquake did NOT take place on April 2, but April 3, Taiwan time.

To me, the correlations are tenuous at best. But the real kicker is this: What on earth does this 'proof' prove?

There is PLENTY of context in the Q drops themselves that give the actual drops significance : the relation between CCP China and the US, between POTUS and XI, between the trade imbalance that the globalists had been using to destroy America and which Trump reversed in cooperation with Xi. "Thank you Xi. Good Start".

If this is a Q proof, what does it prove? Does it prove that Q KNEW there would be an earthquake on April 3, 2024? How? The connection between drop 995 and the Hualien earthquake is tenuous at the very best. And the content of the Q drop could reasonably be stretched out to connect with dozens if not hundreds of other events over the years.

Does it prove that Q or Q operatives made the earthquake? In order to prove what? Only to prove the Q operation? Why would an earthquake be triggered in Taiwan? To disrupt the Semi-conductor industry? To spark a CCP Chinese invasion?

It's valid that anons try to draw connections, but those connections need to be tested and then critically reviewed, and pushed and pulled and tested again. They need to have some rational or reasonable purpose. Otherwise, we just become that guy. Drawing connections and getting excited, but less than careful about applying the very skills and techniques that Q trained and inspired us in.

And if we allow ourselves to be moved along by being less than self-critical, we do a disservice to our mission and increase the potential for bad actors to inject disinformation and misinformation into the truth sphere. To me, this is the real threat. We have learned to see through many of the enemy's lies, but have we learned to critique ourselves? For me, that a question.

Just Human talks about this danger in the recent episode of Defected. Worth a listen, for about 10, minutes. The link is time-stamped up, if you are interested.

https://rumble.com/v4ml6ok-defected-ep.-65-900-pm-et-.html?start=6686 (1:51:26)

Of especial note is what he says at 1:55:20.