The "predictions" I see are often so loose, that you really need to stretch things out to call them actual predictions.
People match the number of the post to the time a tweet is posted and call it proof, when time zones are going to be different for everyone. But sometimes they match the number of the post to the date of the tweet. Sometimes, still, they match the number of the post with all the numbers in the date of the post added together.
And even beyond that, the posts I see as proofs are ones where something like that cargo ship got stuck in the canal halting shipping for a while and everyone said "look this Q post said watch the water 4 years ago that must be this!" Except 3 years ago it must be this other thing when it rained a whole lot. Or wait next year a boat is gonna crash into a bridge it's because of that.
The proofs are when it's convenient. They're not actual proofs. If I pulled up a random Q post you wouldn't be able to tell me what it ever predicted, even though in some corner of the internet it was story of the hour when a political scandal happened involving flowers and it was "predicted" by Q because there was an [F] in the post and the time it was posted was the same time on the clock in the stock image the NYT article used.
The "predictions" I see are often so loose, that you really need to stretch things out to call them actual predictions.
People match the number of the post to the time a tweet is posted and call it proof, when time zones are going to be different for everyone. But sometimes they match the number of the post to the date of the tweet. Sometimes, still, they match the number of the post with all the numbers in the date of the post added together.
And even beyond that, the posts I see as proofs are ones where something like that cargo ship got stuck in the canal halting shipping for a while and everyone said "look this Q post said watch the water 4 years ago that must be this!" Except 3 years ago it must be this other thing when it rained a whole lot. Or wait next year a boat is gonna crash into a bridge it's because of that.
The proofs are when it's convenient. They're not actual proofs. If I pulled up a random Q post you wouldn't be able to tell me what it ever predicted, even though in some corner of the internet it was story of the hour when a political scandal happened involving flowers and it was "predicted" by Q because there was an [F] in the post and the time it was posted was the same time on the clock in the stock image the NYT article used.
Exactly. And they don't.