ok, i'm not letting go of this.

something is VERY FUCKY with the scott adams/jack posobiec/kieth schlechter Q narrative. i watch scott all the time, he's an interesting view point.

1) he never really mentioned Q until the day after he met POTUS.

2) said Q was "fake", issued a puzzle: JP KS SA

3) today, revealed that "you don't know our sources, and we cannot tell you what we know" after outlining all the reasons to not accept Q as real

4) introduced paradox of legality to argument:

IF Q is real, the government would have shut it down.

but the converse is also true, because it's a crime to falsely represent the president.

5) POSOBIEC was watching his stream today, and adams shouted out to him because he wasn't sure how to pronounce his name!

-indicates they haven't met/spoken

-indicates they are tied together somehow through source.

-common element is Q discussion.

pic related

>>2524177

and that's what i get for not flattening my image.

here's the full screen grab.

>>2524206

No, that's not what he says.

he went through ALL of his arguments against it, and then tried to bring it back around to 'Q' merch at rallies watering down the brand.

they revised the message when they felt that initial pushback, and i don't know what it means.

>>2524293

yeah - i don't get it.

IF scott is a white hat (and potus met with him before he started talking about Q, so i think this is a distinct possibility) then this feels like an "oh no, the anons have too much momentum" or we dug something up which hurts the plan.

but fuck that because that's what happens. stick and move, Q, stick and move. I've always thought that if I could find something, or figure something out, then so could a black hat - just like open source debugging - let us find the weakpoints so they can harden their package.

>>2524227

makes sense.

he does walk back the "fake" claim

and he starts and ends with "i think the people who follow Q are very smart and i have a lot of respect for them."

to which i say, no you don't, PERSUADER.