I am not a flat earther, but I do believe in their view that we cannot go into space. That being said, is there another way this Q post could be understood? Could it be disinformation ("disinfo is necessary")? Could it be worded in a way so to appear as legitimizing the moon landings, in order to prevent the Q movement being seen as too crazy, yet leave room in semantics for plausible deniability in the future?

For example… what if it could be read like this?

>False, [that] moon landings are real.

>>10491953

Did you read:

<"I am not a flat earther…"

>>10491979

You're the one fixating on it. We both know the earth isn't flat. My question is involving the ability to travel to the moon. So, do you have any insights into the wording / reasoning of Q's post? Or are you the one getting slippery?

I'll try a different question. Do any of the posts which Q speaks about 'disinformation' suggest Q would intentionally give disinformation (to protect the mission, etc)?