Thank you baker!
I don't think it's notable anon. For one, there are many facts stated as a basis for your claim but no sauce for them. But the claim itself if highly speculative, requiring us to violate known laws of physics. Not to say that our understanding of the known universe can't someday be challenged, but suggesting precognition as a credible basis of observable events is a very big claim. And big claims require big evidence. There just isn't enough provided.
>The fuck are you talking about?
This:
>IF Q WAS USING RECORDED FUTURE THAT'S HOW HE KNEW ABOUT JOHN PERRY BARLOW. ETC.
>RECORDED FUTURE
>RECORDED FUTURE
>RECORDED FUTURE
>IF
>IF
>IF
It's a big "if," a theory that defies the known laws of physics. It doesn't matter what you jumped off from to land here, it's too big a speculation to be notable.
Q has already said what we're seeing is Military planning years in the making. That's not a crystal ball or "recorded future."
>You're a dumbass.
But only one of our opinions on your speculation is reflected in notables. If agreeing with baker and anons makes me a dumbass, then I'm in good company.