>>4412185

Could this be related (somehow) to the MSM meme that videos can be easily faked (apparent battleground preparation to discredit a genuine video of prominent cabal members doing treasonous or evil actions)?

Both have the concept of "don't believe what you see, it may have been faked". But why would Q play into this MSM meme, when it could boomerang into the public not taking video evidence seriously?

Does Q want the MSM to double down on "videos can be faked" for some reason? Does Q have a counter that would (pardon the turn of phrase) trump that?

>>4412332

The concern isn't that we want what Q says to be true, but that it's easy for normies to look at one datapoint where Q says something "fake" and (with confirmation bias) dismiss everything else Q says that sounds incredible.

One thing I liked about Meganon is that she was a straight shooter, whatever she said was an unvarnished impression of what she believed to be true. I know Q is trolling and baiting the MSM in fancy ways, but it does twist my way of thinking into a pretzel sometimes. And I'm not supposed to be a pretzel.

>>4412268

This comes from the "Q = Alice" Q post (which bothered me at the time, since I was reasonably certain that HRC was not posting as Q)

I don't think the idea was that any planning went into the Q subway tunnel being near that Alice statue. I take that as just a random fact going into this year.

But it's entirely possible Q meant to leave a crumb saying that location is important by taking advantage of the random fact of the Q subway tunnel running under the Alice statue; "Q = Alice" came after the fact, as a way to point (in a future proves past kind of way) towards that location.

>>4412584

Hey, I suddenly realized why this kind of "future proves past" crumb sounds so familiar!

Relates to NP complete problems

There are math/compsci problems where it's very time consuming to find an answer, but if you're presented with a possible answer it's very fast and cheap to verify that it's accurate

Look at "Q = Alice" in that light, as a perfect example of a "future proves past" crumb

If you start with what Q wrote, it would be nearly impossible to come across the info that the Q subway tunnel runs under an Alice sculpture; so IF that was Q's meaning, it would have been essentially impossible for any anon at that moment in time to discover an answer

But in retrospect, when our attention is drawn to that location, the coincidence leaps out at us, it's easy to spot

(verifying an answer is fast and cheap, finding an answer is nearly impossible)

A lot of Q may be like that. Impossible to understand at the time, snaps into focus later.

Wouldn't it be easier for Q to just write what he wants to prove later and post a MD5 hash, so Q can later reveal the proof that Q knew all along? But this is kind of fun.