>>2094352

you know what works as proof?

nothing.

instead, share the fruits of your labor. show the actual results of digging, research. found corruption? show that, and then back in to how Q inspired the dig.

that works, anons.

BO

ebot is asking you a question.

@2094495

and that seems weird.

>>2094508

right - and i've found far greater success impressing people with weird esoteric finds, and stating "does it matter how i found this if it's true?" and then backing into a Q proof.

it really works.

>>2094413

i picked an arbitrary city, chadds ford PA, and it gave me five locations. none were an actual Frank's Franks. one address was a "franks designs" or something, one was near a day care, one was in a building with no name.

might just be all businesses with the word "Frank" in them somehow.

seems odd and very rabbit-holey. dig if you wanna, but i don't think this will bear any real fruit. (but seriously, knock yourself out with it, prove me wrong)

>>2094732

any odds on whether or not someone posted this without his consent, or that he posted this under duress?

>>2094866

again - i'm sure that there are some legitimate "frank's franks" on the list.

but not all of them are, and likely, most are not even close.

pick some small town in the middle of nowhere, and dig each of the handful of addresses, and you'll likely get nothing.

like i said - knock yourself out with it, but it's meaningless to me without more context.

>>2094962

IF the plan is to be trusted

AND the proofs are important

AND in my experience, the proofs don't work in the wild

THEN they must be important for some other reason.

I think.