dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

>>16802000

>>16801968 lb

>>16801995 lb

so 38 post baker that talks to a namefagging shill as if it was an anon, same baker that just does not want the question to be raised if Q´s old trip is actually used by Q, that baker now says I am a "concernfag", bc clearly, wanting to know if Q drops are legit, is just totally bad.

and, an "anon" replies with new ID and first post.

well, might seem legit, as if an anon did lurk all the time, did nit post anything but felt the stong need to weight in on that and let lurkers know how bad an anon is that dares to ask a legit question.

could also seem like a not much convincing shill tactic and IP hop.

anons will think for themselves anyway.

>>16802004

so you agree that the posts made with Q´s old tripcode that has not been used for 2 years do not include any kind of proof.

why? don´t you think Q would have had in mind that anons might want to know if it´s legit, especially after so much fuckery with boards and tripcodes in the past?

>you act as if most anons aren't reasonable enough recognize this

I do not act, but I state that the almost 200 UIDs in this bread seem to not care at all. that is why I strongly doubt it´s actual anons. (also bc of the shilly replies, e.g. the one shill that does not even know what shtting the bread is but just needed to let me know I ask a forbidden question.

fact: I raised the question some days ago and got banned very quickly.

fact: BO seems to not care and rather wants it to appear in a way that it´s legit Q, when this is not clear.

fact: baker does not know shit and seems to be a new shill that doesn´t even know that replying to namefagging shills is not something anons do. he also seems to not know that bakers are supposed to bake, and not post all the time.

>it's not like the new posts incited violence or something anons are against

do you remember the times when there were many namefags who tried to kind of build a trustworthy person here, that then later coult be used to spread shill info?

do you remember the posts from a namefag (rather small shill team) that claimed to be a doctor, right when corona started? why was that done? why do people namefag on a board for anons, where it´s not about name or title but about opinion? do you not realize that the same exact thing namefags tried to do (but failed big time) could easily be done just using the old Q trip after a while waiting and making sure no more Q drops are made?

why would anons, when in doubt, rather take it as "ok, well, might be Q, better say to the world it´s Q."?

don´t you see any problem with autists and researchers sending the message to the world, that without any kind of proof, anons would just blindly follow a name?

you seriously cannot see how certain persons coult use that to make Q and anons appear stupid? or to later spread bs as "most credible Q"?

>proofs are important

>careful who you follow

>trip compromised

>board compromised

>think for yourselves

you member those drops?

does it fit what bakers and BO and BVs are doing right now?

>>16802066

in the past Q made sure there was overwhelming proof.

even after there was a ton of proof, Q continuously gave more proof, like deltas with Trump tweets and such, or also bigger proof.

Q made many posts stating how boards and tripcodes have been compromised. Q called out board admin.

and now, after 2 years of no posts, BO is just baking new drops being made with an old trip as "legit Q", when there is not proof whatsoever.

do you really think Q would not have felt the need to give proof? why not do a couple of 0 deltas with Trump tweets?

again, without proof, and when looking at how triggered shills reacted lb, I am strongly doubting that the tripcode is actually used by Q.

this anon askes BO to bake it in a way this is obvious. e.g. a global saying that at this point in time it´s just not sure yet if Q is Q or if just someone is using the tripcode to kind of namefag and spead bs.

but then again, this anon got banned a couple of days ago after raising this legit question that basically any anon has when seeing Q dropped again after such a long time. and bans can only be done by BO and BVs.

Anonymous ID: d6fca9 July 25, 2022, 3:48 a.m. No.16802110 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2120

>>16802000

>>16802066

>>16802087

and the "proof" by Jim, is obviously not any kind of proof. it´s a pic, a pic that shows no relevant info and can easily be faked.

>>16581551 pb

>Here is a snippet from the log. Q logged in to do this. It should be enough. It won't be enough for the boardshitters. They are just sowing doubt.

why would it be enough to show that the trip was used? it´s obvious the trip was used. what is not obvious is who used it and why Q did not give any proof when posting after such a long time and having given so much proof in the past.

>So, you are at maximum evidence. Any other evidence must come from Q himself.

that pic is not even close to evidence, obviously not "maximum evidence".

if it´s baked like this, it not only gives potential opportunity to spread fake info with Q´s name (given no proofs follow, but so far there are none.),

it also let´s the world know that anons are stupid and with that it undermines all the proof of the past, bc now obviously "anons" just don´t care and blindly follow an anonymous BO who suggests that it´s all totally legit and asking questions would be concernfagging.

that is not how anons want to appear.

that is how shills want to make anons look like.

>>16802092

a brazillian of proof after 4.

>>16802093

the baker that very humble did 30+ posts as baker?

the baker that replied to a namefagging shill as if it was an anon?

the baker that got triggered by my question?

that baker?

and well, it´s about masonry. that is why Q posted on that, that is why there is symbolism everywhere, that is why political parliaments and such buildings are made to look like mason temples.