>>3667504

>>3667516

>The baker last night [4647] was posting graphics that the VIPAnon pic was legit and Q had filfilled the request

again (I'm who you're talking about), I make the side by sides that lay out the infomation for "anons to formulate an opinion/theory" (to quote myself)

I have my opinion, and others do to

its for Q to confirm or deny, and anons to theorize about

>>3667504

>>3667516

>>3667540

if its the quote from Q that trips you up, this might help, took the 'request fulfilled' out

>>3667444

Q has referenced this anon 3 times

he was used to send this message (not from Q, no outside comms) from POTUS

but I know you're opinion, and you're entitled to it

>>3667781

follow the logical order of the crumbs though

POTUS then took a picture with the anon, and seemingly wrote the (( (+))) on the back of the picture, as the signifier mentioned by Q

but I understand

>>3667792

imo, its a confirmation of Q+

>>3667849

>no sauce it wasn’t faked.

do you have sauce it was faked?

I both have sauce for whether or not is was or wasn't faked

I'm just analyzing the information I have

>>3667849

>>3667861

sorry, meant I DON'T have sauce for whether or not is was or wasn't faked

>>3667884

the fuck does this have to do with beanz anon?

>>3667924

Understood and see your point

I'm waiting for confirmation/denial from Q on this

hard to imagine the (( (WWG1WGA)) and the (( (+))) are not related though, so I have my theories

>>3667691

>>3667668

not a shill, just make graphics