then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't completely break if a previously secure platform becomes insecure, because it can be rectified with proofs and deltas.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z" on some issue as a means to challenge Q's overall legitimacy.

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).

All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.

The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.

The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

It can't be inferred "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable. Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations that stand on their own.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

What is the ramification of us and "a greater number of people than Q supporters" being confused?

None?

Even if there were ramifications, sometimes the cabal wins a battle. The premise of Q seems to necessitate patriots not acting as millions are injured due to vaccines. How small is some confusion about Q's legitimacy on 8chan in comparison?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

There is no ramifications to my being confused. Whatever current confusion there is doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't completely break if a previously secure platform becomes insecure, because it can be rectified with proofs and deltas.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z" on some issue as a means to challenge Q's overall legitimacy.

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).

All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.

The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.

The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

It can't be inferred "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable. Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations that stand on their own.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

What is the ramification of us and "a greater number of people than Q supporters" being confused?

None?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

There is no ramifications to my being confused. Whatever current confusion there is doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't completely break if a previously secure platform becomes insecure, because it can be rectified with proofs and deltas.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z" on some issue as a means to challenge Q's overall legitimacy.

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).

All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.

The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.

The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

It can't be inferred "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable. Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations that stand on their own.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

What is the ramification of us and "a greater number of people than Q supporters" being confused?

None?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

There is no ramification to my confusion. And, our current confusion doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't completely break if a previously secure platform becomes insecure, because it can be rectified with proofs and deltas.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z" on some issue as a means to challenge Q's overall legitimacy.

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).

All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.

The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.

The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

So again, it is a logical fallacy that "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable.

Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations. An insecure platform is not a vulnerability. In fact, Q's main board on 8chan had an understood fabricated post on it for more than a year and no one blinked an eye.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

Our current confusion doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't completely break if a previously secure platform becomes insecure, because it can be rectified with proofs and deltas.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z, ergo Q isn't legitimate".

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).

All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.

The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.

The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

So again, it is a logical fallacy that "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable.

Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations. An insecure platform is not a vulnerability. In fact, Q's main board on 8chan had an understood fabricated post on it for more than a year and no one blinked an eye.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

Our current confusion doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't completely break if a previously secure platform becomes insecure, because it can be rectified with proofs and deltas.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms). For all we know, the current drama and insecurity of the 8chan platform could just be another added layer of plausible deniability.

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z, ergo Q isn't legitimate".

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).

All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.

The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.

The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

So again, it is a logical fallacy that "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable.

Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations. An insecure platform is not a vulnerability. In fact, Q's main board on 8chan had an understood fabricated post on it for more than a year and no one blinked an eye.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

Our current confusion doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't completely break if a previously secure platform becomes insecure, because it can be rectified with proofs and deltas. The only downside is anons become confused in the interim, but the ramifications of that are small and easily remedied.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms). For all we know, the current drama and insecurity of the 8chan platform could just be another added layer of plausible deniability.

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z, ergo Q isn't legitimate".

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).

All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.

The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.

The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

So again, it is a logical fallacy that "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable.

Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations. An insecure platform is not a vulnerability. In fact, Q's main board on 8chan had an understood fabricated post on it for more than a year and no one blinked an eye.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

Our current confusion doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't require a secure platform, in fact the original platform (4chan) became compromised and Q was easily able to reestablish themselves with countless proofs and deltas.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms). For all we know, the current drama and insecurity of the 8chan platform could just be another added layer of plausible deniability.

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z, ergo Q isn't legitimate".

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

Q could literally post anywhere and it would be valid if they confirmed themselves. Q's self-imposed "only on 8chan" served the purpose of stopping others from mimicking Q off-platform and saying they were Q. Logically, this doesn't mean forever (Q had to move before off of 4chan).

All it would take is a few posts anywhere with a few one-minute-prior-to-Trump delta post and Q would reestablish themselves as legitimate.

The downside of 8chan being insecure is negligible, because it is easily rectifiable.

The current batch of Q posts haven't been verified to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

So again, it is a logical fallacy that "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable.

Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations. An insecure platform is not a vulnerability. In fact, Q's main board on 8chan had an understood fabricated post on it for more than a year and no one blinked an eye.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

Our current confusion doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

Q's verification isn't by platform. Q is verified by the countless proofs and deltas they've provided. Q's model doesn't require a secure platform, in fact the original platform (4chan) became compromised and Q was easily able to reestablish themselves with countless proofs and deltas.

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms). For all we know, the current drama and insecurity of the 8chan platform could just be another added layer of plausible deniability.

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful. In other words, 8chan served its purpose.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z, ergo Q isn't legitimate".

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

That's a non-issue. The real Q can verify themselves with photos and deltas if they so desire. I will admit the current batch hasn't done so to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

So again, it is a logical fallacy that "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable.

Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations. An insecure platform is not a vulnerability. In fact, Q's main board on 8chan had an understood fabricated post on it for more than a year and no one blinked an eye.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

Our current confusion doesn't negate Q's past proofs.

then why exactly would Q trust this to 8chan, of all places?

I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.

Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?

So why did Q choose a site that could so easily be compromised?

The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability. For all we know, the drama of insecurity of the 8chan platform is just another added layer of plausible deniability.

I would define Q's premise as being military intelligence attempting to establish a backchannel to communicate with people, sidestepping any platform under cabal influence.

You can judge by the 1000s of articles written to "disprove" Q that the message has been widespread enough to be successful.

The answer I got back at the time from Q people?

Is inconsequential and meaningless. "Q people" don't have the full picture. Anons don't speak for Q.

It is a logical fallacy that "Q people couldn't explain x, y or z, ergo Q isn't legitimate".

Well, years later, here we are, with Watkins not appearing to be under control, and the 8kun security and reliability problems now causing confusion about the true, verified Q.

The full set of possibilities of what could be happening are many. Off the top of my head, and feel free to insert an "or" between each point:

• Q served its purpose, it doesn't matter at this point whether Q is delegitimized with the platform being shown as insecure, as the project is already a success and accomplished its goals.
• Q actively decided that, as we approach the end and wrapping and closing the walls on the cabal, that the Q project needs to be delegitimized so as to remove the potential cabal defense of "military intelligence violated my rights by spying on me".
• Q is back with the original posts (I personally doubt it) and recent Q posts are legit, and someone (either the cabal or some joker) thought they would invest some time casting doubt on Q's actual return.
• Q is back with non-tripcode to challenge the current posts (slightly more likely but still problematic) and will in the future continue to solidify with deltas the fact that they're the real Q.
• Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.

In any case, the problem with Q in general isn't verification. Q knows how to verify themselves. They've done so with photos in the past. All it takes is a one-minute delta between Q's post and Trump posting thereafter and the whole security and verification issue becomes a non-issue.

but for some reason was unable to maintain control of his only valid means of communicating

That's a non-issue. The real Q can verify themselves with photos and deltas if they so desire. I will admit the current batch hasn't done so to my satisfaction yet. The only ramification is I don't believe the recent Q posts ... its not the end of the world, nor does it negate all of Q's past posts.

I have a feeling this will be the preferred answer of some, but is non-falsifiable.

It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Trump and Q have at a bare minimum coordinated posts in the past. There is absolutely no way to argue against that point, full stop.

It's ok to say "I don't know". I personally don't know what is going on with the current posts yet. I have a feeling I'll know soon enough.

That fact is completely divorced from whether or not past Q posts are legitimate.

In the past, Q posted a photo of McCain saying "in the news soon", and he was pronounced dead one month later literally to the minute.

So again, it is a logical fallacy that "Q isn't legit" because some explanation of some random thing about Q seems to be non-falsifiable.

Q's legitimacy comes from literally thousands of deltas and various confirmations. An insecure platform is not a vulnerability. In fact, Q's main board on 8chan had an understood fabricated post on it for more than a year and no one blinked an eye.

Is there a different answer for my question now, or should I continue entertaining that Watkins and Q are playing a game that is confusing a greater number of people than Q supporters?

Q is strictly verified by the proofs they provide. Whether the current posts are from Q will need further verification for my own satisfaction.

Which is fine.

Our current confusion doesn't negate Q's past proofs.