Anonymous ID: 136620 April 11, 2020, 9:56 a.m. No.8759101   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9117 >>9122 >>9127 >>9132 >>9143 >>9203 >>9213 >>9320 >>9359 >>9582

ATTENTION:

 

last year, Q made multiple posts that allured to the idea that him and trump posting within the same minute (where q posts first) is statistically impossible (see: https://qanon.pub/?q=statistically). this is something fairly easy for anons to check to themselves. the delta 0s were some of the most repeated proofs that people were using to show the link between trump and q. so since no one was actually doing the math i took it upon myself to check.

 

during the time i wrote the script to check the stats, i was excited to actually have legit proof that q and trump were linked.. hoping i would see some sort of statistical anomaly. i was planning on using it to wake up my friends. but guess what, i literally proved myself wrong. and i also proved q wrong.

 

as you can see from the graphic, there is literally no statistical significance to the delta 0's at all. they blend in perfectly with all other deltas. its what naturally would happen with two people posting a decent amount every day. in fact, it would be a statistical anomaly if there was NO delta 0 posts….

 

SO… my question is this… why would a TOP LEVEL CLEARANCE military intelligence officer be wrong about statistical significance when they claim to be so precise? it doesn't make sense…

 

im not posting this to be like "ha told u guys!" because i personally have been following Q even since i found this. i appreciate the info they bring. BUT, i am highly dubious they are who they say they are, and i think you should be too.

 

think for yourself.

 

this was done on MARCH 4, 2019…. right around the time q was using words like "statistically impossible". i truly wanted there to be a significance. but there is not.

 

do what you want with this. idc. discern all info for urself. and be careful who and what ur putting your faith in.

 

ive attached all the data i used along with the python script to create the graph (i know its a horribly inefficient algorithm but i dont give a fuck.. it does what i want). i got the raw data using other python scripts (one that utilized twitter api and one that scraped a q post aggregate site).

 

https://pastebin.com/ZwzqYAzV - q posts

https://pastebin.com/02Ri0mB4 - trump tweets

https://pastebin.com/Sftymxdi - combined

https://pastebin.com/R6H82YcB - python script to generate graph

 

god bless

 

clarification:

x-axis = each delta minute starting at 0 and going to 120

y-axis = number of times q and trump posted within that delta minute (where q posted first and then trump within 60 seconds.)

Anonymous ID: 136620 April 11, 2020, 10:01 a.m. No.8759144   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9169

>>8759122

the reason i am including so many deltas is to show u that delta 0 is no different statistically. it requires no coordination to hit that delta. it would happen anyway. it blends in with all other deltas.

Anonymous ID: 136620 April 11, 2020, 10:25 a.m. No.8759333   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9369 >>9378

>>8759235

the point is that whether or not Q "meant to do it" or not. IT WOULD OF HAPPENED ANYWAY. THATS WHAT THE STATS SAY. its like rolling dice and being like im gonna land a 6. and then just rolling till u hit a six and be like LOOK I DID IT.

Anonymous ID: 136620 April 11, 2020, 10:44 a.m. No.8759489   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9532

>>8759359

ok retard. ignore data directly in front of ur face and believe in a fairy tale. jfc… making fun of greta for believing in a climate change which is fake while u sit here believing Q is legit military and connected directly to trump. oh the irony.

Anonymous ID: 136620 April 11, 2020, 11:34 a.m. No.8759816   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>8759582

>Your chance of posting 1 minute before trump is 1 in 60 or 1.67% chance

 

ummmmm. trump posted over 3000 times within the time frame i looked at. statistically speaking, u just proved how easy it would be to hit that delta many times randomly.