I believe Anons fundamentally misunderstand the value of Juan and Nino's conversations.

It isn't about verifying information, or proving something 'correct' or 'incorrect', its about GAME THEORY, and learning how to analyze the moves and counter moves available to the Deep State and the Cabal on the great board of chess we are witnessing play out throughout the world.

There is no right or wrong in a game of chess, there are only possibilities for the next move. The only ultimatum in a game of chess is when a check mate has occurred. Before the checkmate, it is a delicate dance of moves and counter moves. The Cabal may take a Rook, the Q team may take a Bishop, on and on the game will go; piece after piece being removed until only a few are left.

Juan presents possible moves on the chess board. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because a move is available to a master chess player, doesn't mean that move will be taken immediately, or even at all. Sometimes an available move is not taken in favor of a more favorable move. Sometimes the Game Theory demands that a player deliberately not act on a favorable move in order to gain an advantage at a later point in the game.

Anons have this notion that people like Juan should be held up to Godlike standards, and that their predictions must come true, or else they are larpers, or con artists. Anons need to shoulder the burden of analysis in these matters. In the same breath Anons ridicule Juan for not giving them clear answers, and then lambast him when the moves and counter moves he theorized about haven't come to pass.

For a more in depth discussion on Game Theory, see my post titled:

“Do emotions affect critical thinking?,” — “Do not let personal desires take over,” — “Emotions cloud judgement,” — “Emotions cloud logic,” “Events > Dates,” — “Logical thinking and strategy should always be applied,” "Game theory," — “Moves and countermoves,” — “Future proves past.”

I believe Anons fundamentally misunderstand the value of Juan and Nino's conversations.

It isn't about verifying information, or proving something 'correct' or 'incorrect', its about GAME THEORY, and learning how to analyze the moves and counter moves available to the Deep State and the Cabal on the great board of chess we are witnessing play out throughout the world.

There is no right or wrong in a game of chess, there are only possibilities for the next move. The only ultimatum in a game of chess is when a check mate has occurred. Before the checkmate, it is a delicate dance of moves and counter moves. The Cabal may take a Rook, the Q team may take a Bishop, on and on the game will go; piece after piece being removed until only a few are left.

Juan presents possible moves on the chess board. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because a move is available to a master chess player, doesn't mean that move will be taken immediately, or even at all. Sometimes an available move is not taken in favor of a more favorable move. Sometimes the Game Theory demands that a player deliberately not act on a favorable move in order to gain an advantage at a later point in the game.

Anons have this notion that people like Juan should be held up to Godlike standards, and that their predictions must come true, or else they are larpers, or con artists. Anons need to shoulder the burden of analysis in these matters. In the same breath Anons ridicule Juan for not giving them clear answers, and then lambast him when the moves and counter moves he theorized about haven't come to pass.