>>15678879

>@digitalmedieval

Examined their analysis.

BIGGEST SHORTCOMING:

==they pre-selected the group to analyze

and then said "Ron W is the one most like Q."==

I would expect this to be true. Look at Q and look at Ron - both highly analytical. Unusually so. When done as a comparison with less analytical individuals, Ron will "win."

preprint_Cafiero-Camps_20220219.pdf

ALSO:

The authors only cited TWO articles not published by 'experts' in their field - both HIT PIECES by MSM, including the infamous Jana Winter article that is absolutely DISPROVEN - dug on it in early September 2020.

Jana Winter. 2019. FBI document warns conspiracy theories are a new domestic terrorism threat. Yahoo News 1 (2019). https:'//'news.yahoo.com/fbi- documents-conspiracy-theories-terrorism-160000507.html

Brandy Zadrozny and Ben Collins. 2018. Iwho is behind the Qanon conspiracy? We’ve traced it to three people. NBC News (Aug. 2018). https: '//'www.nbcncws.com/tcch/tcch-news/how- three-conspiracy-theorists- took-q-sparkcd-qanon-n900531

>>15678879

>>15678901

Analysts of Q posts compared a preselected small sample and decided Ron was most likely to be Q

This kind of study is EXTREMELY limited in scope. Not the basis for concluding "Ron Watkins is Q."

>>15678879 anon finds out who did the study

>>15678901, >>15678908 anon analyzes results

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ON FLAWED STUDY SHOWING "RON W IS Q"

>>15678322 pb

>>15678310 pb

The purpose is not to conclude anything, merely to throw shade on CodeMonkey. The libtards will take it as definitive proof

>>15678479 pb

>>15678322 pb

You are right.

But the first step (for me, at least) is to get the goods on what they did and look for holes. There are plenty here.

The next is to figure out how to turn their attack against them - get your own experts and how how flawed it is.

Not likely to "win" - but only have to cast doubt to put a monkey wrench in their strategy.

>>15678516 pb

>>15678479 pb

Find ways to show their computer models are no better than the initial models used for hurricanes (the colored spaghetti of possible tracks in all directions)

Look into these proclaimed "experts" and who and what organizations are connected to them

Find the funding source, Open Society Foundation or DNC directly exposes the whole thing as politically motivated hit piece

>>15678930

idk about dif q's, really don't

but am fairly sure that whatever these researchers did, it was strongly biased in favor of results that would point to Ron - easy to do, just pick certain analyses (or repost only the results of certain analyses) and talk about correlation/association rather than causation. Which is the only thing they can do with this kind of analysis.

>>15678962

the idea that there are insiders that would disclose info on the chans - that makes sense

telling the dif between real insiders (a handful)) and larps (99%) is the challenge