>>21953787

Q PROOFS: FAKE OR REAL?

Since last spring, we've had a poster who seems to be an oldfag baker off the rez, came back to find board changed. Attacks Jim and threatens to take down board admins. Big on Q "proofs" that don't really point anywhere that makes sense. Often links Q posts to military posts when baking (CAP). Switches IPs but uses the same styles. Gets deleted when he spams or posts become too threatening.

see ID af61ca in this bread: https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/21936462.html#q21936659

Main reason for this post are his "Q decodes". Decodes are always hard for baker because they are time consuming. How to tell if really notable? Anon recently caught one of them (CAP) at end of bread, involving a "proof" showing that imminent board overthrow is part of the Plan. Alerted baker, was removed.

The best Q proofs are usually simpler, easily described and receive multiple NOMS. If that's not case, probably NOT NOTABLE.

Some guidelines: >>21895233

When is a "Q proof" notable?

Originally these were posts that could be used to plausibly demonstrate a relationship between Q and Q+ (PDJT). Relied upon time stamps to show Q+ posting at the same time or immediately after after Q.

One anon has been linking numbers in Q posts to numbers in recent news releases from Trump, the military or other significant figures (Scavino etc). Many of these use fragmented info (like parts of longer number strings) to demonstrate a relationship that's unclear. There's no description of the relationship or why it matters.

NOTABLE Q proofs tend to be

• simple / elegant

• easily described in one sentence: "X is related to Y - which shows Z"

• NOMMED, often by multiple anons