dChan
Anonymous ID: 7e69d6 Dec. 2, 2022, 7:41 a.m. No.17863720   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3730

>>17863710

>Exactly.

>- TC not changed in 3 years - not OG Q's style of opsec and much moar easily crackable now

>- Q's very stale TC didn't change after the 06/2022 Salt Rotation incident - technically not possible unless…

>- It was hardcoded or CM did something in the code which was NOT comm'd via the board

>- Also not OG Q like compared to prev onboard public comms between the 2

>- Totally not the same style of drops OG used - definitely not the same author

>- At the very least would be a diff <10 composing them if even really them in the first place

>Doubtfags are legit in questioning and only a mathematically impossible to deny verification process can prove them wrong.

>OG Q never had an issue before with removing any and all doubts of legitimacy.

>Very very dasting that it's suddenly a no can do in 2022 after a long absence.

The first thing Q did was delete the B post in /projectdcoms

Your argument is invalid, unless of course it's Jim himself

Anonymous ID: 7e69d6 Dec. 2, 2022, 7:51 a.m. No.17863749   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>17863730

>As of now that's moar likely than it being real Q.

Well at any rate, I'm enjoying the movie

And I know God wins

So let's see what happens

 

>>17863603

>>17863739

I find it a little odd that only some of those lines are included in your analysis anon…

But I could second that