Anons, perhaps I am somewhat naive..but here me out:
Q team operates via plausible deniability.
I think that if you don't GET that, then you should maybe lurk moar or think this out.
No doubt there are all sorts of reasons for that, and I can only fully speculate on what they REALLY know and what dangers they really face and so on, but I think many anons who have "been around" get that "plausible deniability" is a BIG part of the game for anyone dropping comms.
OK... lb a supposed WH insider posted a pic:
>>11910779 (lb)
MANY anons replied with ideas and baker put it in notables:
>>11910954 (lb)
THEN someone mocked baker for including that:
>>11910975 (lb)
And baker removed it:
>>11911032 (lb)
BAD CALL. (I think) (but to err is human...)
NOTABLES ARE NOT ENDORSEMENTS.
Maybe a shill or larper or troller is playing a game. Or maybe that was a genuine insider drop. Since MANY anons had angles on that, I think I think that is a topic for ongoing discussion and should be included in notables.
Again I repeat: the seeming fact that there is REAL EVIDENCE of a post being a larp/troll/whatever does NOT discount it as an actual insider drop. It is merely counterevidence, and actual insiders may rely on this plausible deniability.
Evidence is not the same thing as definitive proof. Damn! How many times does Rudy need to point this out?! Not a lawfag but look up the word epistemology.