>>6437950 >>6437971 >>6438015 >>6438032
Critical thinking would entail going a step further than "for reasons I didn't bother finding out". At least a step further.
It may be expedient to rely on hunches or gut instnct (and experience) to detect likely deadend routes and to turn time and energy on what may appear to be more promising routes.
Making base assumptions is also an expediency. But also a method or tactic in investigations that can mislead one away from promsing routes.
For example, the assumption that a particular analysis was based on "wrong geographical identification". The one with attention to the wake of the boat includes the caveat that the Port of Long Beach is not in the frame. What it is based on the premise that image is not a random snapshot but crafted with meaning within its frame. This produced the question: what is the meaning of the orientation displayed by Q with that image?
The use of the watch images, in that analysis, was not the basis for the anlysis. It was a tool used as a tool presented by Q in a series of posts. Critical thinking applied to this particular use of such a tool might well question the application. Like using a hammer as if everything is a nail. However, that analysis did not make that misapplication.
Instead the relevance of past Q posts that referred to Long Beach Port, yes LBP, was pulled into the analysis. Once again, such a bundling of crumbs is reasonable and is derived from within the overall structure of Q posts, first to latest.
Another example is the assumption that there is no connection between the geography displayed within the frame of the image in Q 3313 and the Standard Hotel. It may be difficult to discern, however, the distant horizon is in frame. And before one reaches the mountains of the interior, at the far edges of what is visible in frame, there is downtown LA. The mention of Long Beach Port in the same Q post as The Standard Hotel makes a connection, of some sort, to the reasoned analysis that might, in the end, prove inconclusive or unconvincing.
The question then is not if there is a connection but what to make of the connection that, at minimum, is implied in the Q communications across posts. That goes back to the question of why, or the meaning of, Q bringing attention to The Standard Hotel. Trafficking routes are a deadend, presumptively? Not in terms of reasoned analysis, but possible in terms of gut instincts.
Such instincts are not to be dismissed out of hand but are to be weighed carefully and tested. How tested if not by bothering to engage in digging and fact-finding? It is a bit like prospecting for precious metals in the field; sometimes hunches pay-off and sometimes the dig is abandoned for another prospect. One cannot do it all so one picks and chooses where and how long and how to start and how to stop and move to something else.
Anons who see those particular analyses on LBP.PNG as promising are not to be discouraged. To the contrary. Anons whose instincts pull them away from those routes or toward other seemingly more promising routes are not to be disocuraged. Instincts matter in both instances. Instinct and reasoning matters. Good detective work does not throw out either but depends on the occassional flash of insight or the stumbling upon insights through old-fashioned hard slogging into the details using tools available.
Basic principle: trust your instincts but verify, verify, verify. Apply that to the analyses of otehrs as well as to one's own take on crumbs. Take emotion out of that part of the assessment and think logically.
Godspeed Anons.
All Anons.
WWG1WGA