CanuQ anon here.

Offering support and submitting for Patriot scrutiny an interpretation of the recurrent stylistic motifs noted in Q’s messages.

Summary, in ascending level of speculation, about Q conveying information through multiple channels via both (i) message content and (ii) structure:

(a) The chans have unique, intracultural symbols and niche traditions for marking/indicating what is significant for anons.

(b) Q has adopted, repurposed and deployed these same “significance markers”, in both deliberate (i) visual symbolism and (ii) literary structure, to capture or direct anons’ attention.

(c) Over time, it is evident that there is a consistent, repeated and reinforced textual motif or pattern in Q’s writing pointing to the concepts of ITERATION/RECURSION.

(d) More controversially, if applied to Q, form follows function. The persistent allusions to iteration/recursion are numerous and effortful, so presumably are not decorative, but meaningful. Hypothesized purpose: anon-initiated decryption/signals translation (“choice to know will be yours” – Q1735,1854 & 1879)

TL;DR: Q is Alice (Q74) and, potentially, anons are “Bob” – a “key” player (Q3). “Bob” [PLACEHOLDER] has a habit of causing a BLOCKADE. Anons, potentially, we are the blockade continuing to hold up the plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob

1:5

>>6175508

(A) Chans’ traditional symbolism for significance: “echo”, “coincidence”, “noticing”, ((())), dubs, trips, etc.

(B) Q’s allusion to the chans’ symbolism in visual form: bell, ring, alarm, volume, batter’s box, Red Bull symbol, pause, waves, signal, bunker, mirror, reflect, March Madness – i.e. [[[brackets]]], etc. Hints to a visual component/presentation of information: map, optics, pattern, structure, layers, projection, enjoy the show, paint the picture, SEE something/say something, “many are thinking from one point of view”, etc.

Anons can even note that real world events have reflected the ((())) / chan patterns: Trump wants to EXPAND Arlington cemetery (solution strategy for nested parentheses in mathematics); he recently tweets: (at the) @TheMasters – (at(at the) the); Ivanka recently tweets “doubling” – dubs; photo is signed (((+))); planes have been documented flying aerial routes that look like )); etc.

If the WH is flashing chan “gang” signs, is the media (modern scribes/Pharisees) being baited to wonder if any good thing can come from /chan/zareth?

2:5

>>6175536

(C) Visual, symbolic repetition (intratextual echoes) for Q then carry over into frequent literary repetition (“repeats are necessary”; “flow of information vital”) of key sentences or phrases: “see something, say something”; “disinformation is real / distractions (intended as instruction - etymology: “to pull apart”) are necessary”, “expand your thinking”, “think logically”, “game theory” etc. The question “why is this relevant” is repeated – exactingly, word-for-word – in roughly 70+ drops.

Thematic elements also cluster together, for example “they want you DIVIDED / TOGETHER we are strong” and the concept that local/global levels structurally mirror each other (small/BIG; crumb/bread). Less emphasized new images – loop, pyramid, nest etc. – are introduced that expand the basic ((())) symbolism. Hanoi comes into focus in multiple drops.

(D) Taken together, the above repetition and imagery creates pieces of a metapuzzle that can be solved with the unifying theme of iteration/recursion: iterative process (strategy, loop); iterative/recursive games (game theory); iterative/recursive logic (think logically); Tower of Hanoi (“educational” puzzle with iterative/recursive solutions); recursive algorithm (solve via divide/reassemble); iterative mathematical solution (expanding nested paretheses), etc.

3:5

>>6175548

(E) At this point, what is suggested next is purely speculative. This anon has no background in programming, computers, cryptography, mathematics, haQing or any related discipline, so what is presented might be laughable Q fanfiction, unmoored from reality…

Returning to the observation that the question “why is this relevant” occurs in 70+ drops, an anon can note that the term “this” has an undefined, ambiguous referent. Q’s method of using surrounding context (“situational awareness”) to decipher the meaning of “this” has precedent in computer programming:

“this, self, and Me are keywords used in some computer programming languages to refer to the object, class, or other entity of which the currently running code is a part. The entity referred to by these keywords thus depends on the execution context (such as which object is having its method called). Different programming languages use these keywords in slightly different ways. In languages where a keyword like "this" is mandatory, the keyword is the only way to access data and methods stored in the current object. Where optional, they can disambiguate variables and functions with the same name”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_(computer_programming)

This technique appears linked to the concept of anonymous recursion:

“In computer science, anonymous recursion is recursion which does not explicitly call a function by name. This can be done either explicitly, by using a higher-order function – passing in a function as an argument and calling it – or implicitly, via reflection features which allow one to access certain functions depending on the current context, especially "the current function" or sometimes "the calling function of the current function".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_recursion

4:5

>>6175560

Moreover, there might be a potential method (currently in use?) whereby Q can help us learn knowledge – because we “know” it - without violating legal standards or codes on disseminating classified material:

“In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof or zero-knowledge protocol is a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that they know a value x, without conveying any information apart from the fact that they know the value x. The essence of zero-knowledge proofs is that it is trivial to prove that one possesses knowledge of certain information by simply revealing it; the challenge is to prove such possession without revealing the information itself or any additional information.[1]

If proving a statement requires that the prover possess some secret information, then the verifier will not be able to prove the statement to anyone else without possessing the secret information. The statement being proved must include the assertion that the prover has such knowledge, but not the knowledge itself. Otherwise, the statement would not be proved in zero-knowledge because it provides the verifier with additional information about the statement by the end of the protocol. A zero-knowledge proof of knowledge is a special case when the statement consists only of the fact that the prover possesses the secret information.

Interactive zero-knowledge proofs require interaction between the individual (or computer system) proving their knowledge and the individual validating the proof. [1]

A protocol implementing zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge must necessarily require interactive input from the verifier. This interactive input is usually in the form of one or more challenges such that the responses from the prover will convince the verifier if and only if the statement is true, i.e., if the prover does possess the claimed knowledge. If this were not the case, the verifier could record the execution of the protocol and replay it to convince someone else that they possess the secret information. The new party's acceptance is either justified since the replayer does possess the information (which implies that the protocol leaked information, and thus, is not proved in zero-knowledge), or the acceptance is spurious, i.e., was accepted from someone who does not actually possess the information”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

Q’s drops and images are sprinkled with undeciphered data strings (example from Q63: 4920-a 293883 zAj-1 0020192). The hypothesis proposed is either ludicrous or testable: taking into account the concepts of recursion/iteration and the possibility of cryptography, has Q been patiently hinting and nudging anons to build a “Bob” (Windtalkers 2.0) so that we can “open the door” and communicate peer-to-peer with Alice (Q)? Crazy? And yet….”the choice to know will be yours”.

Suggest consideration of this possibility. If Anons are the blockade then PANIC (Go language) in DC / comms fail / device fail / security test fail…etc. are wake up calls for Anons.

Bombs away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe

Clock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_(cryptography)

Godspeed, Patriots!

5:5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3JYa16GUyE