Open to controversial ideas? Certainly. But it comes with the caveat that those alternative theories have to be supported by evidence. Claims without evidence should get rejected. Claims based on poor quality evidence should be viewed with extreme skepticism. We see a lot of inference, hearsay, and other circumstantial or completely unverifiable "evidence" being put forward and treated as dogma.

Examples: "The moon landing was fake" posted with a link to a shady blog that doesn't offer anything other than links, ads, and a wall of text under a 4hr YouTube video by some Paytriot who spends half his time hawking product and reminding me to "smash that like button, share, subscribe, and donate to my Patreon" vs "The moon landing was fake" posted with the famous Neil Armstrong video footage and a detailed physics-based discussion about how what we see (like the flag waving in zero gravity with zero atmosphere) is not possible.

"[Insert home remedy here] cures [disease] with link to known BS sites like naturalnews.com that tells us about how some guy tried it and got better or this is what his great grandmother in the old country did vs. "Ivermectin cures COVID" with a link to a 70-study strong meticulously sourced and documented meta-analysis showing the evidence for the claim along with the quality of those studies, with each one cited to publication or pre-publication link.

And the last example is a rabbit-hole one because it's so much harder to verify:

"Adam Schiff is a pedo" posted with a "See Standard Hotel. Do your own research" vs "Adam Schiff is a pedo posted with links to images of the guy dressed as a female doll or as a baby with his arm around a little black boy and a reasonably detailed description of the allegation that he was seen at the Standard Hotel with 2 black boys, abused them, killed them, and disposed of the bodies. Here, we can't verify all of either claim. But the second has some evidence that can be put into a larger context, and instead of trying to create mystery and send people on a wild goose chase, actually points people to the answers to the question rather than wasting people's time. With some of this Q stuff, you don't have to provide everything, but you do need to provide enough to convince me that there's something there other than an FBI entrapment scheme.

Open to controversial ideas? Certainly. But it comes with the caveat that those alternative theories have to be supported by evidence. Claims without evidence should get rejected. Claims based on poor quality evidence should be viewed with extreme skepticism. We see a lot of inference, hearsay, and other circumstantial or completely unverifiable "evidence" being put forward and treated as dogma.

Examples: "The moon landing was fake" posted with a link to a shady blog that doesn't offer anything other than links, ads, and a wall of text vs "The moon landing was fake" posted with the famous Neil Armstrong video footage and a detailed physics-based discussion about how what we see (like the flag waving in zero gravity with zero atmosphere) is not possible.

"[Insert home remedy here] cures [disease] with link to known BS sites like naturalnews.com that tells us about how some guy tried it and got better vs. "Ivermectin cures COVID" with a link to a 70-study strong meticulously sourced and documented meta-analysis showing the evidence for the claim along with the quality of those studies, with each one cited to publication or pre-publication link.

And the last example is a rabbit-hole one because it's so much harder to verify:

"Adam Schiff is a pedo" posted with a "See Standard Hotel. Do your own research" vs "Adam Schiff is a pedo posted with links to images of the guy dressed as a female doll or as a baby with his arm around a little black boy and a reasonably detailed description of the allegation that he was seen at the Standard Hotel with 2 black boys, abused them, killed them, and disposed of the bodies. Here, we can't verify all of either claim. But the second has some evidence that can be put into a larger context, and instead of trying to create mystery and send people on a wild goose chase, actually points people to the answers to the question rather than wasting people's time. With some of this Q stuff, you don't have to provide everything, but you do need to provide enough to convince me that there's something there other than an FBI entrapment scheme.