Anonymous ID: 97c1cc June 27, 2022, 6:58 a.m. No.16535793   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>16535709

So, the same site that had a Q TC post show up after the Salt rotation which is mathematically impossibleโ€ฆ

And has code that allows a TC to be faked if they wanted to should be trusted to not have additional fuckery set up for Q's private board?

I don't think so.

 

Q Verification Process Already Established By Q

That's the only thing that can settle it at this point.

Even moar fuckery questions now than when he verified all those times before.

Total no brainer that would shut the shills and doubting anons up for good about it.

Anonymous ID: 97c1cc June 27, 2022, 7:33 a.m. No.16536100   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>16535887

>>16535925

>Since sauce is important here's the OG 2019 Twitter thread

 

https://twitter.com/fr_brennan/status/1180089499491061760

 

It has since been corroborated by others since the latest developments.

Even if hurr durr it's Freddy saying that applies it's still open source code proof regardless.

And the proven possibilty it can occur creates enough reasonable doubt that Q Verification is totally needed now.

Real Q would have done it anyway as past drops clearly show.

Now it must be done.

Anonymous ID: 97c1cc June 27, 2022, 7:58 a.m. No.16536271   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6299

>>16536228

>I will change my tune once Q isn't F&G.

Astute and same here.

If Q+ / Q really did turn the drop process back on then they would certainly want to have ironclad verification that they did.

Otherwise, why go to the trouble to verify before and setup multiple ways to avoid a compd situation developing later?