I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
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.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, I’ve discussed before how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. It’s certainly not impossible, and not even unreasonable.
I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides Trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan, if deltas are really that powerfully evidential. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
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.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, I’ve discussed before how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. It’s certainly not impossible, and not even unreasonable.
I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides Trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan, if deltas are really that powerfully evidential. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
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.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, I’ve discussed before how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. It’s certainly not impossible, and not even unreasonable.
I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides Trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan, if deltas are really that powerfully evidential. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
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.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, I’ve discussed before how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. It’s certainly not impossible, and not even unreasonable.
I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides Trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan, if deltas are really that powerfully evidential. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
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.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, I’ve discussed before how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. It’s certainly not impossible, and not even unreasonable.
I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides Trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
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.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, I’ve discussed before how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. It’s certainly not impossible, and not even unreasonable.
I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
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.
I’ve discussed my problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, my linked post above explains how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldiers had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
Also, plausible deniability is used to separate a person from the consequences of their actions, and is usually used in reference to legal culpability. If Q is doing this by the book, and the end result is a court system that is clean of corruption, then Q really has no consequences to worry about, if NCSWIC.
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.
I’ve discussed by problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, my linked post above explains how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldier shad to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
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.
I’ve discussed by problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, my linked post above explains how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify, which makes it challenging proof to use.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldier shad to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
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.
I’ve discussed by problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, it seems Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, my linked post above explains how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t fully agree with how it was handled.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldier shad to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site? And these are the guys fighting an enemy that can apparently launch FBI-funded mass murder through random delinquents without leaving a trace?
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.
I’ve discussed by problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, my linked post above explains how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.
I apologize if I miss anything; I’m doing this on mobile and am trying to hit the main points.
I hear you're from reddit. Give me a good reason why all discussion of Q was completely banned from there.
No, because I had nothing to do with the decision and didn’t agree with it.
My account is currently banned from about half of Reddit’s communities due to my participation in r/GreatAwakening.
Whatever that explanation is, is the reason why 8chan was needed. Right?
No. 8chan predated the Reddit ban on Q stuff by several years.
The premise of Q necessitates plausible deniability (which can be found with 8chan in a way that cannot be found with other platforms).
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for why a team of digital supersoldier had to rely on Jim Watkins and a fairly basic Chan site for “plausible deniability.” Really? That’s the limit of their technological capability?
They don’t have the ability to set up a site and maintain their own anonymity without someone else’s basic chan site?
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.
I’ve discussed by problems with using deltas to establish a connection between two prolific users of social media in response to political stories: Trump and Q. Having similar posting habits from similar time zones means that they’re both news junkies who post immediately about stuff they see on television, which would make deltas FAR less rare than people here assume.
I address two deltas specifically here in detail to demonstrate what I mean. Honestly, Q tends to take credit for specific proofs only after it appears to have come true, never before.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXkm0awP/x/c/4OZqi9ZJhP5
It is a logical fallacy that "if anons can't explain a particular situation, it negates literally 1000s of other proof data points".
It would be.
The problem is that every single falsifiable proof that I have examined in detail (like the two above) do not appear to be the strong evidence you believe. I have not seen a single slam dunk prediction from Q that makes me believe the “1,000’s” of other data points aren’t also potentially flawed.
From my own perspective, I’m being asked to assume that despite the proofs I’ve actually examined having problems, the other “1,000’s” I haven’t are definitely trustworthy, and therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am wrong.
It takes a long time to dissect a Q proof enough to convince you guys that it might not be proof. I wish I could get paid to look at Q proofs all day, but I don’t, and so until I see at least a few proofs that don’t just seem to be two news junkies posting from the same time zone, proofs are going to remain proof only for those who want to believe that Q’s Plan is real anyway.
I have no reason to reject Q. I lose nothing if he’s right. My evaluation of his evidence is subjected to nothing but justifiable skepticism over extraordinary claims.
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.
Eh, that’s not necessarily true. The only people who support the notion of Q’s legitimacy are Q’s supporters, by definition. If there is an argument to be made proving Q, I would expect to find it among the people who call themselves Q Researchers.
If this is just a Q fan club, then yes, Q may be objectively right or wrong without your participation in the Plan having any meaning whatsoever, to our correct. In that case, Q is non-falsifiable, just like a religion.
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.
Researchers never, ever, ever, talk in absolutes, ever. :)
Seriously, though, my linked post above explains how easily Q and Trump can cross streams without requiring coordination. I can and have argued against this full-stop declaration, and I would strongly encourage you to keep an open mind on EVERY possibility. I’m pretty sure Q would agree, even if it means he ends up being proven wrong.
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.
Entirely possible, but also not falsifiable or testable. If you are wrong about Q and the Plan, what gives it away under this theory? How would you ever know if you were wrong if you’re just sitting around waiting for Q to show his hand while the world continues to spin?
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".
Nah, that doesn’t jive with the notion that Q constantly pushed about this being done legally and perfectly. If Q has to rely on evidence they collected that could even superficially be struck down as having been collected illegally, then Q’s Plan is a lot more haphazard than makes sense.
Q never came back. Watkins (either through greed or under duress) is posting as Q for nefarious reasons.
May I add another possibility?
The original Q is back, but because of these new circumstances, you’re looking at him with a newly skeptical perspective and seeing him for who he actually always was.
That also seems to be a possibility worth discussing.
They've done so with photos in the past.
Would you mind telling me which photo specifically is the most proof-worthy? Many of them are Bigfoot-level blurry or of generic clouds. Possible proof, but almost impossible to verify.
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.
Okay, so let’s dissect this for a second.
When Q posted that McCain would be “in the news soon,” let’s see how amazing that prediction was.
McCain was a former POTUS candidate who was a known Republican opponent of Trump, was openly dying of brain cancer, and had single-handledly shot down Trump’s healthcare reform attempt.
And I’m supposed to be mystified that the most famous Republican at the time besides trump was predicted to be “in the news soon”?
He was in the news every day. We all knew he was dying. Nobody would have bet money against Q on that.
Also, down to the minute? Minute of what? McCain’s death? The announcement of McCain’s death? In what time zone? Through what media?
And why should I assume the extremely obvious, unremarkable prediction of “McCain being in the news” means something more from Q than someone else? Did anybody else anywhere on the internet make a prediction that McCain would “be in the news” that day? That hour? That minute?
Did you check? Or are you only looking for the confirmation in Q posts? Why aren’t you looking for deltas in HRC’s posts? Why not in Jim Gaffigan’s?
If they have deltas, that would therefore mean they’re also part of the Plan. But people are only looking at Q.
Q asks you an important question in post 3689:
How many coincidences [use of coincidences essential not to violate NAT SEC?] before mathematically impossible?
Good question, Q. To establish whether your deltas are mathematical coincidence or not, we would need to look at the posts of a large sample of political posters with similar posting habits and living in a similar time zone as Trump and other Americans. We need to ensure we all agree it’s impossible for these people to be “part of the Plan.”
Then we carefully analyze ALL of those posts for deltas.
Then we establish an average “accidental delta” rate. These are the deltas that happen just because two people post a lot at the same time about the same stuff. We have to make sure that we are giving our sample the same assumptions that Q gets in interpreting potential significant deltas (allowing months and years to pass, considering misspelling significant, etc).
That’s how many coincidences ARE mathematically possible. THAT is our baseline. We did it!
Now that we’ve done that research, we can measure Q’s deltas. How many, specifically?
Then, we take that result and measure it against the range of delta scores we got from our baseline.
THAT is how we can answer Q’s question.
It’s just going to take Q-levels of research into a couple of hundred political Twitter accounts. A dissection of tens of thousands of random posts that you know aren’t connected, as your control group.
This would be a big project, but would actually allow you to answer Q’s challenge mathematically, rather than just pointing to a pile of deltas and assuming it’s more than can happen by coincidence.
I’d definitely be interested in seeing such an analysis. It’s going to take a while, but if Q doesn’t really need you guys to understand what’s going on in order for the Plan to succeed, then it would be an excellent use of research time, in terms of proving a falsifiable claim.