So I did some thinking on it, and again, it's tough to come up with an answer to this. I also don't believe in flat earth, so asking me to come up with evidence I find compelling about flat earth isn't easy, because I am utterly unconvinced of flat earth, and I am utterly unconvinced of Q.

I brought up the Georgia video, because I think it's helpful for understanding how I approach evidence. For many people here, it's considered a "smoking gun" for election fraud.

I don't see it that way, because when I watch the video, I don't see proof of fraud.

The video has no sound, so I can't hear any proof that the observers were asked to leave. I can see someone take a case out of under the table, but can't tell whether it's an uncertified container or not. I can see people scan a piece of paper more than once, but I can't verify it's a ballot, nor can I verify that scanning a ballot more than once would count the vote more than once.

The fact is that when I watch the video, I can't see anything other than people counting ballots. I can't rule out that they're committing fraud, but nothing in the video proves it.

The strength of this "smoking gun" in Q world can't come from the video, because I watched the video and saw no direct proof of fraud.

However, I watched it with the sound off, because there was no audio from the video directly.

When I turned the sound on, I heard a disembodied voice narrating to me that the counters told the observer to leave, and then pulled out secret ballots and scanned them multiple times to commit fraud.

And with the voice running, that is certainly more convincing proof. But the voice doesn't get to tell me what's happening on a video without audio. I am not going to trust someone to interpret this for me. And therefore, when I watch it without the sound, the narrative evaporates, and I'm left watching a boring security film of people counting ballots.

This is frustrating to Q people, because I'm evaluating the evidence on its own, when Q people assure me the only way to see the proof of Q is to put it all together. Maybe the video doesn't look bad on its own, but if you consider this, and this, and this, and also this Q post which matches up perfectly as a delta, then fraud is obvious.

But that's not the way I approach evidence, because that's bringing assumptions and implication into objective analysis.

Because if I assume that this video is MORE LIKELY to show fraud because, say, it matches up with a delta, but the delta is in reality a coincidence, then I'm considering this video to be evidence based on a faulty assumption. And then the next thing I evaluate, I'll do so with the Georgia video as evidence, based on the faulty delta, and collect even more nonsense evidence, which itself is based off of faulty assumptions.

It's assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions, and if any of those individual assumptions is proven wrong, you can remain confident that even if one assumption was wrong, your other assumptions haven't been addressed yet, because there are a fucking million pieces of evidence you consider part of Q world.

In essence, the Q theory has become so nebulous and decentralized that literally ALL of your evidence can be faulty, but as long as you haven't figured that out about, say, a delta, then every piece of faulty evidence that is "supported" by that delta is falsely supported and adds strength to further faulty evidence.

So I get why things like deltas appear convincing, and why firehosing nonbelievers with the "micro-evidence" is appealing. I get why people who already believe the election was stolen or that Trump is in charge or that celebrities are eating children would accept things like deltas or vague prophecies or weird mathematical coincidences as just more and more and more proof.

But I can't really think that way.

So I did some thinking on it, and again, it's tough to come up with an answer to this. I also don't believe in flat earth, so asking me to come up with evidence I find compelling about flat earth isn't easy, because I am utterly unconvinced of flat earth, and I am utterly unconvinced of Q.

I brought up the Georgia video, because I think it's helpful for understanding how I approach evidence. For many people here, it's considered a "smoking gun" for election fraud.

I don't see it that way, because when I watch the video, I don't see proof of fraud.

The video has no sound, so I can't hear any proof that the observers were asked to leave. I can see someone take a case out of under the table, but can't tell whether it's an uncertified container or not. I can see people scan a piece of paper more than once, but I can't verify it's a ballot, nor can I verify that scanning a ballot more than once would count the vote more than once.

The fact is that when I watch the video, I can't see anything other than people counting ballots. I can't rule out that they're committing fraud, but nothing in the video proves it.

The strength of this "smoking gun" in Q world can't come from the video, because I watched the video and saw no direct proof of fraud.

However, I watched it with the sound off, because there was no audio from the video directly.

When I turned the sound on, I heard a disembodied voice narrating to me that the counters told the observer to leave, and then pulled out secret ballots and scanned them multiple times to commit fraud.

And with the voice running, that is certainly more convincing proof. But the voice doesn't get to tell me what's happening on a video without audio. I am not going to trust someone to interpret this for me. And therefore, when I watch it without the sound, the narrative evaporates, and I'm left watching a boring security film of people counting ballots.

This is frustrating to Q people, because I'm evaluating the evidence on its own, when Q people assure me the only way to see the proof of Q is to put it all together. Maybe the video doesn't look bad on its own, but if you consider this, and this, and this, and also this Q post which matches up perfectly as a delta, then fraud is obvious.

But that's not the way I approach evidence, because that's bringing assumptions and implication into objective analysis.

Because if I assume that this video is MORE LIKELY to show fraud because, say, it matches up with a delta, but the delta is in reality a coincidence, then I'm considering this video to be evidence based on a faulty assumption. And then the next thing I evaluate, I'll do so with the Georgia video as evidence, based on the faulty delta, and collect even more nonsense evidence, which itself is based off of faulty assumptions.

That's why I can't really buy into this "web of evidence" stuff and focus on the smoking guns. Because destroying any part of the web as faulty doesn't destroy the theory itself.

In essence, the Q theory has become so nebulous and decentralized that literally ALL of your evidence can be faulty, but as long as you haven't figured that out about, say, a delta, then every piece of faulty evidence that is "supported" by that delta is falsely supported and adds strength to further faulty evidence.

So I get why things like deltas appear convincing, and why firehosing nonbelievers with the "micro-evidence" is appealing. I get why people who already believe the election was stolen or that Trump is in charge or that celebrities are eating children would accept things like deltas or vague prophecies or weird mathematical coincidences as just more and more and more proof.

But I can't really think that way.