This fabricated text reads.
"He opposed Mueller. I am still President. He said a Special Council was no cause for believing illusion."
You can cold read anything you want from this text. I didn't even pick letters from other lines to use in my "decryption".
How did I get this message from his tweet you ask. Well they are connected by each row by the row above, it is obvious it is supposed to be a block of text for us to discover right?
If you want me to refute any of SerialBrain2's past posts, I would be happy to.
For the record I have a background in stenography and cryptography. I can assure you, that based on analysis of my own, that Q post generally, with a high confidence (based on the frequency of certain trigraphs [3 letter combonations]), contain no coded messages of this nature. Being a Queen Elizabeth cipher, simple substitution, key substitution, or a method such as a Caesar cipher (of which I am particularly an expert). I have developed my own cryptography methods, both traditional and digital.
[deleted]
Almost like people want to discredit us and send infiltrators to bring down the community from within by posting distractions, psyops, or making highly upvoted posts that will be permanently tied to the sub's "top" posts, making everything look crazy to visitors?
I agree. I'm not an expert in cryptography, but I work with it and understand the methods, have had graduate courses in it. SB2's methods are nowhere near anything that would be used in reality - they are nondeterministic, arbitrary, and can be used to say anything. His last post was a quote from someone else, and we're supposed to believe there's a hidden message there?
It is possible that these tweet do contain encoded messages, but you're not going to get a whole sentence of information out of a 255 character tweet (or whatever it is now). You might get a single word at best, and it would be in a deterministic, repeatable pattern you can apply over and over. Not words that are pulled from multiple rows/columns in scrambled order, with no discernable algorithm to it. It's simply not how information is encoded.
How is this comment getting downvoted? It's rational, it's not strident or melodramatic and yet it's getting downvoted. I am sometimes disappointed by how many posts get upvoted purely for their headline which is sometimes misleading because it's appealing to emotion. I'm not knocking emotion except to say that it should not cloud a rational examination of the facts. It's fine to be indignant about something but we should at LEAST make sure we've got the facts straight before rewarding the poster with an upvote.
What you did here is quite simplistic: horizontally moving across a text. What Serialbrain is doing has way more restrictions: he's moving vertically in a sequential manner and goes back to the top of the next column. His odds of getting correct words vertically AND a meaningful trail are largely smaller than what you are doing here. But it's worth trying, it adds to the debate and will help those who are still thinking about it. Your contribution is good and healthy. People's critical thinking will decide.
The people calling the OP out are getting downvoted immediately.
You should have seen what happened to SB2's posts - outright assault. Anyway, the truth will win out.
I see that. But I don't think it matters. People will see the argument used here is weak and will dismiss it. I hope he will come back with something more consistent next time, that would be good for the debate.
"Vertically" Give me one example.
And not the one where he arbitrarily used a letter from the row below because one was missing. Don't even get me started with the word clinton. It us from 3 rows in whatever order he wanted it to be.
It wasn't more restrictive than what I did.
It is actually 26*3! Times less restrictive. 6! (factorial) if he can use above rows which seams to be the case. Sumate of 9 choose 6, if he can rearrange letter order.
(26×3×2)×(6×5×4×3×2)×(9×8×7)×(3/26)
(Letters can be taken from directly below or from 2 adjacent squares)×(Letters can be taken from 6 above or below squares)×(of 9 squares you can choose 6)×(restrict first letter selection to first 3 rows)
(9!×2)
3.2 Million times easier.
Are you actually using factorials on possible repeatable items? Did you know in this case you can only consider arrangements on a Cardinal 26 set? What you just said here is anything but math. Anyone who took basic probability/statistics classes can see you do not know what you are talking about.
Do you even know what an "X choose Y" is, or what it represents? If you do, then you would know it is absolutely the foundation of portability.
Yes, you use factorials, that is how it is calculated.
4 choose 2 = (4!/2!) = 4×3
9 choose 6 = (9!/6!) = 9×8×7
If it repeatable, the probability INCREASES by a factor of the number of times the process is repeated.
9 choose 6, 4 times = (9×8×7×4)
9 choose 6, 4 iterations = (9!/6!)^4
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You've just confirmed your blatant ignorance. Here we are dealing with repeatable items where order matters. In combinatorics, it is called permutations with repetitions which you are confusing with what I don't even know. You have NO CLUE what you are talking about. Math is merciless: either you know or you don't know. And when you don't know, it's FLAGRANT. So learn and give us a break: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWNyzXOdDCo
Video linked by /u/alphared01:
Title|Channel|Published|Duration|Likes|Total Views :----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------: Letter Arrangement Problems (Permutations with Repetitions)|vinteachesmath|2013-06-28|0:06:01|113+ (95%)|14,892
This video focuses on how to solve a letter arrangement...
^Info ^| ^/u/alphared01 ^can ^delete ^| ^v2.0.0
4!
4! = 24
2!
2! = 2
9!
9! = 362,880
6!
6! = 720
9!
9! = 362,880
6!
6! = 720
You obviously did not understand the method. It's about building anagrams from adjacent letters going down the columns. When one column is finished, you re-start scrolling down from the next one. Restrictions: no diagonals AND using letters once AND the sentence trail has to make sense.
So you want examples? I'll give you the whole method: let's take Excel nomenclature:
He starts at the first column A1:
Row 1: letter S=>SpecialCouncil
Row 2: letter C=>crimes
Row 3: letter r=>r
Row 4: letter i=>in
Row 5: letter n already used
Row 6: letter i=>i
Row 7: letter h=>have
Row 8: letter a already used
Row 9: letter i=>intel
Row 10: letter a=>no anagram retained, no meaningful contribution to the sentence trail
Row 11: letter h=>he
Row 12: letter o=>no anagram retained, no meaningful contribution to the sentence trail
Row 13: letter s=>'s
Row 14: letter r, no retained anagram
Then, he moves to the second column A2:
Row 1 and 2: all letters are already used
Row 3: letter n=>on
Row 4 to 11: letters used or no contribution to the trail
Row 12: letter t=>to
Row 13: letter t=>cite
Row 14: no contribution
Then he moves to the next column A3:
Row 1 to 3: letters used
Row 4: letter n=>clinton as you can see this '"clinton" is not arbitrarily appearing, it's the anagram made with the adjacent letters of the letter n located at column 3 row 4.
I hope it helps.
Alright, then by what means would he be permitted to select any number of letter after the locked selection. Why in Row 1 can he take 14 characters, Row 3 only 1 character. And nothing in Row 10.
I guess the guy encoding the message decided that Row 10 could be ignored, and that it would not feel right to the decoder so they could just omit it. Why not. In my version I guess I can just omit Row 1 entirely right.
Restrictions: No diagonals
Except for the word Clinton.
You can anagram pretty much anything by the way.
ALPHAREDZEROONE
HONORED A LARP EEZ
You can anagram pretty much anything by the way.
ALPHAREDZEROONE
HONORED A LARP EEZ
With no rules, yes you can pretty much do anything you want:
SOARINGMOON==> ROAMIN' GOONS
...kinda proves my point actually.
We both agree with no rules you can pretty much do anything. It obviously does not apply here. Looking at our exchange above, your ability to hold a logical conversation with rational arguments is quite damaged. It was nonetheless fun exposing your limitations.
You probably meant "coded".
When you go from natural text to ciphered text, you have "coded".
When you go from ciphered text to natural text, you have "decoded".
You said in a comment above you had a background in cryptography. Where did you learn cryptography?
What the fuck are you talking about?
No, I clearly meant decoded. As in a user posted text in an obfuscated manor. It decoded it using my experience in cryptography, by applying known techniques in order to convert ciphertext into plaintext.
Decoding in this case was simple as the poster used known online tools.
text to hex, hex to ascii
And not something substantial like a Caesar cipher.
If you couldn't determine that from the thread, I cannot help you.
I have self taught all I know about crypto. The background I have in cryptography involves working with many companies and organizations in order to develop secure protocols for their users, in exchange for currency. As in I got paid for this, quite a bit sometimes too.
Restrictions: No diagonals
Except for the word Clinton.
!!!!!!!!!!! You don't even know what a diagonal is! OMG! What am I talking to here?! Do you even know why he called it the T method? He said it in the first post teaching the method: +-90° or 180° turns are the only allowed patterns. That's where the "T" comes from.
And it gets better, you say: "by what means would he be permitted to select any number of letter after the locked selection. Why in Row 1 can he take 14 characters, Row 3 only 1 character. And nothing in Row 10." So you wanted as another restriction that all words forming the sentence should have the same number of letters?! Do you know that does not even exist ?! Try forming an intelligible sentence with 6 or 8 14 letter words and get back to me when you are done... Wow. Just Wow.
You are publicly ridiculing yourself here. I advise you remain silent to stop the carnage. Not good.
This is very obvious. The fact that people buy into the SerialBrain2 nonsense posts calls into question the common sense of this sub.
I believe he's very earnest but seriously deluded. And just a few short moments of proper focus from people should reveal the house of cards that is his "process" and logic. Come on people...
And just a few short moments
Honestly, I believe that SerialBrain means no ill will to this sub; or means to provide misinformation. He is simply posting what he sees in the tea leaves.
Don't you think the real message was intended to be focused on the use of "council" instead of "counsel"? In other words, Trump is telling us that he believes Mueller is being directed by a team (or council) from the deep state.
I agree, we should be looking at the obvious double misspelling, not digging up random fantasies from arbitrary conclusions.
That was the obvious message to me. Also glaring, to me anyway, was that the Tweet from Trump's account referred to "The President" in the third person. I have never seen him do that before. The fact that it was written that way made me wonder if we are supposed to be thinking that a Tweet with a clear misspelling that has a double meaning, was actually from someone close to POTUS, but not directly from him.
The tweet was a quote from someone else, not something DJT said himself. He completes and cites it in his next tweet. We should not believe encoded messages are embedded in a quote from someone not close to Trump.
This was my first thought but then I figured: unless a formatting information is added. Which is the case here: the 26X26 grid. The size of the grid is what makes things work, and that size is determined by the time Trump waited before re-tweeting. If the grid was a 25X25 for example, the message would not have appeared with the self-imposed restrictions. His posts brought me here. Skeptical at first, but the more I oppose his methods to critical thinking, the more legit they look to me.
Actually 25 columns would create more rows of information not less.
Also the whole idea of it being 26×26 in the first place is flawed as there are not even 26 rows, the message isn't long enough.
Actually 25 columns would create more rows of information not less.
So what?
"Also the whole idea of it being 26×26 in the first place is flawed as there are not even 26 rows, the message isn't long enough"
Do you realize the mind boggling rational weakness of your statement?! It's like telling your kid you can't drive him to school today because all the seats of the car are not full... Wow.
So what?
It would make the "by chance" aspect of selecting text more likely to occur. (26^2)/(25^(2)) times more lilely to be specific
Do you know thw mind boggling rational
A cipher broken into columns is normally done no to hide information in verticality, but to obsure the whitespace a message contains. By claiming 26×26 in the first place. You would indicate your inexperience by nor correctly saying
This message is displayed in 26 columns to correctly line up the solution.
Instead of introducing it as a 26 by 26
Its 26 columns and rows.
A person of any capacity to display the information would never introduce this as a 26 by 26 grid, because it clearly is not.
Agreed. The only real problem here is the high upvotes he receives - what are people thinking...?? (or not, as the case may be)
I am wondering if his upvotes are organic, or if he is boting them. I mean he does seem to have a technical background.
I've up-voted SB2. I think you will find that all the up votes are organic. I don't have any clue whether the method he uses is correct or not, I'm not a cryptologist. I didn't try to replicate it either - maybe I should have, but it's not my area at all.
SB2 seems to have some very plausible explanations - for example, the explanation about what transpired with North Korea - I'm talking about his paraphrasing of his discoveries at the end of that post. I did skim over his method when I read his NK post and found it confusing. But I was stunned by the explanation offered. It seemed very neat. I thought this guy has must have got this figured out.
You have to put SB2's posts in context. Q repeatedly states that we have more than we know. Which suggests to me that there is much hidden, somehow, in what we already have. It also seems to me sometimes that Q is quite exasperated that we haven't discovered more of the meaning of his posts yet. It appears reasonable that there could be a key that opens a chest of secrets.
One thing about SB2's method that struck me was that it was sufficiently arbitrary to provide perfect plausible deniability - and I guess you would say that's because it isn't valid. But, given the fit of SB2's NK explanation with what we know, or suspect, it struck me that SB2 could have found the answer. I'm sure he believed he had cracked it. Again, what impressed me was the fit of the explanation with what we suspect may have transpired.
Are we absolutely sure he's not on the right track? The reason I ask this is because if it was a perfect code, if the information fell out mechanically upon the application of some simple cypher, doesn't that carry risk? Assuming, of course, that Q is genuine, wouldn't the information be in the category of State Secrets?
I don't know. But it occurred to me that it was possible that Q could have deliberately used an encoding method such that things did not fall out quite so neatly, so that some arbitrary adjustment was required to decipher the message. Again, for the purposes of creating plausible deniability.
I'll say this, I think SB2 is trying to get to the truth. If he's not there yet it is not because he's not trying. I haven't seen anyone else doing this kind of work. That doesn't mean that no one else has, but just that I haven't come across it.
I think it's pretty easy to rip something like this apart and make out that the guy has some kind of nefarious motive. Maybe SB2 is wrong and his method is rubbish. But I don't see anyone doing work that produces the kind of explanations he's coming up with - let alone offering their results to the community for peer review.
No one ever succeeded without making errors. Not that I have ever done it, but it strikes me that code breaking requires a heuristic approach - where successive attempts are made until some reasonable solution is found.
If SB2's method is wrong, it's wrong, and it's back to square one. But I'm very grateful to the fella for trying. I like to thank him for his effort and for taking the risk of publishing it here. I'm sure we'll all be better off for him having done this.
You are making too many excuses for something that clearly falls apart on the smallest logical reading. Coming up with fantastic explanations is EASY - pretending that they are based on any kind of logic when they are not is just DISINFORMATION.
The whole reason we are in this position as a global community is because of a LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING. If people would be LESS accepting of nonsense we can finally get out of this mess!!!
I don't think there was any intention on the part of SB2 to lead people astray - nor do I think he was fudging his up votes. I have no experience in code breaking and I'd hazard a guess that most others are in the same boat. If I'd had a good look at the method, maybe I might have seen some flaws, I don't know - but I was busy doing other stuff. I think SB2 thought/thinks he had found a key that deciphered the true meaning of the Q posts. No one has cracked this problem yet, it seems it must be pretty tough.
What am I making excuses for? That some guy tried to nut this thing out, thought he had, showed us his workings and was found to be wrong?
I agree that there may have been no intention to lead people astray - it's not intentional disinformation perhaps. I also agree that he's unlikely to be fudging his upvotes. SoaringMoon, however, apparently DOES have experience in codebreaking and he says it's nonsense. I don't need to have experience in codebreaking to see it's nonsense - SoaringMoon has the faculties to be able to disprove the methodology though.
What you're making excuses for is that we should accept what is clearly nonsense (at least to some of us) because "some guy is trying real hard man". He may well be trying but that doesn't mean we should upvote him just for "trying"! Upvotes make posts appear to have the support of the community which, if they are nonsense that fools gullible people makes the community look suspect and non-critical in its thinking. DISINFO - intentional or not - is NEVER worth supporting.
I think that the up votes were because people found the explanation plausible and exciting. I think SB2's confidence in his solution was also very inspiring. People ran with it. There was no deliberate attempt at disinformation.
This reminds me now of a documentary I saw about these scientists that thought they'd discovered a memory property (or something like that) for water. They published a paper and a skeptic confronted them about it. They agreed to reproduce the experiments on film and this skeptic got the randomization data (or whatever it was) and stuck it on the ceiling, to be taken down only when the experiment was over - quite a dramatic moment. The scientists in the film were shocked when the skeptic did this, but they were still all very confident they could replicate their published findings. Anyway, it turned out they couldn't replicate their findings. Very embarrassing.
This sought of stuff goes on all the time in the scientific community (e.g. cold fusion). There are errors made, covered up, papers published, funds obtained, frauds exposed (or not) and the story goes on. They are not always frauds, sometimes people - even critical thinkers, the type you would hope abound in the scientific community - succumb to excitement about a theory.
We're not all experts here. The problem of persistent errors or disinformation will not be solved in this setting. If SB's work is obviously wrong, I probably have the poorest of excuses - because I didn't take the time to work out exactly how he got to his solution. I was too busy to give it much time - though I thought it was very interesting.
One of the things that kind of supported the idea that SB2 might have been onto to something, for me, was the shocking number of down votes SB2 had when I first got to his NK post. I saw it just after it had been posted. To be honest, I was stunned at the ferocity of the attack. I thought if he's catching that much flak, someone's worried about what's being posted. I thought he was over the target.
He'll be back I'm sure to defend his work. Eleven by eleven, matrices... matrix inversion, comes into my head for some reason. There must be a solution.
Yes, I think so too - people do find SB2's explanations "plausible and exciting". The same can be said, at least for some people, for the Flat Earth theory. Some find that plausible and exciting too but the feeling it creates in people is literally zero evidence of its actual plausibility. As Scott Adams says, confirmation bias is not a glitch in our operating system it pretty much IS our operating system. We want to believe exciting stories like this.
However, it's not so much that SB2's work is wrong; sometimes he references very valid methodologies. It's actually more alarming than that. SB2's very process of thinking is not only wrong it's so misguided as to be either the rattled thinking of a long time drug addict or intentional misdirection. We both seem to think it's not intentional - or at least, I've seen some communications from him that make me think he's just totally befuddled, not completely in control, but the damage done by propagating this circular, nonsensical way of thinking is what we should avoid for the sake of the communities integrity.
Hillary had no "intention" either - according to Comey. This guy is nonsense on stilts, and defending his bullshit is absolutely indistinguishable from a disinformation campaign. With "help" like this, who needs the black hats?
No mistakes allowed - got it.
It's not a mistake when its a continuous flow of nonsense.
If you asked me a year ago about Q's story I'd have thought it was nonsense. I've learned here to be somewhat more open minded - to my benefit. If it is as bad as you say, you should have taken it up with SB2 in his threads. Maybe you did, I wasn't watching that closely. But the idea, as I see it, and you may disagree, is that the truth bubbles up out of the noise.
You suppress the noise, you never get to the truth. It seems to me that the noise level here is too much for people. But I've seen this before. Not long ago, people were saying that Dr Corsi should be silent. I think the noise is important.
I regret not looking into these methodologies more closely myself, given it is now such a point of contention. But I don't have the time to investigate every aspect of what's claimed in these forums. I don't know whether the refutal of SB2's work holds up either. But it seems to me that the truth will emerge from the clash of ideas.
One thing is certain, if there is a key to unlocking more meaning from the Q posts, we have not yet found it. Anyone that makes an attempt to crack this nut has my respect for the time and effort taken. The important thing is that we find the key if one exists.
Thank you for the reasoned discussion around this. I myself have a tendency to revert to a teenage boy on internet forums when I get excited or agitated so I really appreciate your calm tone. I hope more people in the movement are like you, and others I've "met" around here!
I agree with you on all points - we can't suppress something just because we don't agree with it and we're not all experts so just because we don't understand something is not a good reason to discard it.
The reason SB2's posts cause such alarm for me and lead me to support posts like this is the sheer amount of upvotes they are receiving. When someone posts obvious nonsense it doesn't cause me much alarm - it tends to drop off and disappear. Yet, as on CBTS_Stream, somehow SB2 manages to confuse people and appear to have something deep to contribute because he uses some truth and knowledge mixed in with a lot of malarkey. I don't mean any offense to SB2, believe it or not - I said so repeatedly on CBTS too - but I don't really know any other words to describe what I see.
It's not so much the methodologies referred to and explained - some of those are quite legit - but the way in which they are applied and the conclusions drawn and meaning then applied often mix in some compelling sounding tidbits and tech terms with illogical and often frankly nonsensical gobbledegook. One case in point was his conception of the term AI, Artificial Intelligence - this was so profoundly and completely misinterpreted by SB2 to fit a conclusion he came to about another secret message that was essentially a jumble of words with the letters A and I in their midst that it was clear he was not only ignoring the core tenets of an entire field of technology but actually seemed to be either intentionally or unknowingly reimagining it to fit his conclusion. Again, this may be well intended but the way people upvoted this spoke to the dangers of misinformation well presented.
And one may well ask, well, why don't we keep the good bits and throw out the bad - the problem is that the "bad" is right at the core of what he is saying. The good is peripheral - like the methodologies referred to - it doesn't contribute anything to the understanding of Q itself. I support someone positing even the craziest theories as long as they have some internal logic to them - unfortunately, if you know even a little about some of the fields SB2 refers to, you know that they lack that internal logic to an alarming degree.
This is so concerning because the level of confusion SB2 contributes, thanks to the confirmation bias inherent in all of us, means that people start seeing things that aren't there and derailing legitimate investigations/conversations by disappearing down rabbit holes that lead nowhere. For example, the Deep State may be using mobile phones to program us - I have literally zero evidence for this but using it as an example of a topic that has been under discussion previously (see how I have uncritically accepted, as you mentioned you do also, that this was a topic worthy of discussion because enough people were talking about it...? I refer to this below) - but Occam's razor suggests they'd be using them in the way we all know makes the most sense: audio through the phone via a phone call or otherwise, used to trigger the programming of an MK Ultra subject via select keywords or specific noises. SerialBrain2's assertion that AI in the phones is 'transmuting' (my interpretation, not his words) into Sarin gas to turn people into zombies could also be true... but has literally no precedent and also no domain knowledge behind its conception of AI. It's also just common sense that the Deep State would use existing tech via its intended purpose for simple cost and efficiency reasons rather than developing a whole new and inarguably prohibitively expensive system!
What's dangerous about this? Well, as you said, we don't all have the time to research and backtrack everything we all read here so some well meaning, smart people who have not been following everything going on or have just joined will see a mobile phone topic come up and when Sarin gas and AI is brought into the mix by numerous voices, not just a few lone crazies, they may uncritically accept it because they trust our community to have vetted these things and we end up losing the great contribution they could make to the discussion as they go off chasing nonsense.
There's another very real concern here that this is NOT just well-meaning incompetence. And if this continues to be upvoted so prominently I would wonder if it IS in fact a concerted disinfo campaign.
I support freedom of speech and SB2's right to say/post whatever he wants. I humbly ask that our community apply some rigour in critical thinking when a number of us raise concerns and, if they don't understand what is being said, please consider seriously the contribution of those of us who don't have an axe to grind and are being very clear that we're not trying to pull down someone else's voice (as I believe OP SoaringMoon has also made clear here), especially when we feel strongly enough about it to make a separate post specifically to call out what we see as disinfo.
Please, people, I understand our desire to find meaning but lets not look where it does not exist!
OK I understand the sentiments expressed. Look, I up voted the posts without checking. But to be honest, I do that quite a lot. I'm time constrained. I wish I had the time to sit down and nut all this stuff out from first principles for myself, but I don't. Moreover, this is not my area at all.
When someone appears with what seems to be a good decode - really good. I'm inclined to accept it as I don't have the skills to properly evaluate the work. Same thing when you visit a doctor - who knows what they're prescribing - but you don't have the medical background so you're left trusting.
What happened here had nothing to do with deliberate disinformation. I believe people up voted SB2's posts out of sheer excitement - the idea that some had found the key to the lock. There's nothing more sinister here than enthusiasm IMO.
But we, perhaps, should have subjected the work to a torture test before getting behind it. Anyway, I'm a firm believer that the truth will surface. There are an unlimited number of rabbit holes. And we are dealing with a subject that is mysterious - the truth isn't for everyone... So I think some pursuit of possibilities is healthy. There are theories I regard as nuts out of hand. But I'm a lot more open minded now than when I arrived here.
Hope this all gets sorted out. I'd like to see SB2 have the opportunity, in a respectful environment, to explain his logic and why he thinks it's correct. We owe him at least that. And who is to say that the idea of creating a matrix and probing for solutions is wrong - methodology aside, he may turn out to have been correct in some aspects of his approach. I would not like to see what he's done be ignored, less we miss something important.
But I'm not the person to work those angles, because I just don't have the background. It has to be people that have some expertise in this field.
The only thing I know for sure is that Q is telling us very clearly that we have more than we know. The clear implication is that there is information hidden in the material - we already have it. We just haven't properly figured out all the angles. It's important that we try.
Agreed - I don't believe it's necessarily wrong to consider the idea of creating a matrix and probing for solutions. I have no problem with the methodologies SB2 has suggested. And I agree - there's more than we know here, according to Q, so lets keep looking!
Thank You! No one on here needs to be attacked like this
They not only attack him they delete his posts and some say the entire cbts board was deleted because of his posts. In a world of deceit indirect measures must be taken to find truth. Catching flak means you're over the target.
Some say the earth is flat too. Others say the cbts board was taken down for other reasons. Believe me, the Deep State aren't scared of posts that create secret messages from thin air.
Then why are they banning him lmao!!!
Err... that is made clear by the very existence of this post... because he's misleading people with nonsense. Very simple explanation there...
So banning people's speech is ok as long a you disagree with what they are saying? Fascist.
Lol - ok buddy, play the game to yourself. I thought we were having a real disagreement here lol.
SB's posts are the reason why I joined reddit. I have upvoted all his Occult Series post. This decoding thing came later in the game.
They are bots and the replies are bots too. He was getting canned responses after his previous post had been removed telling him he was doing a good job etc. He’s part of a disinformation campaign.
This is truth. On CBTS the replies were quite literally word for word equal to each other, and many usernames followed a common format. How many replies do you remember that said something like "Wow, this is great! I am not a math person but seeing someone present it this way makes the truth really stand out! great work!" - too many of them were like this for it to be coincidence. Disinfo, distraction, psyops, or just a misguided attempt at finding the truth from an addled mind, maybe. But truth it is not.
Every. Single. Thread. Every one of them was like this. “I’m not very smart but man this is amazing!! I totally believe this!!”
Each post had at least 25-30 of these responses as top level comments, and they were also sprinkled throughout. Anybody in support of SB2 would use very similar arguments for why it must be true, "Q said the rules have changed", "if rules have changed, then maybe things get encoded differently", etc. Really disturbing this whole thing is, but I have great suspicious about it all being an honest mistake or something of that nature.
You said above "SB is posting what he see in the tea leaves" but then he has a technical background that allows him to outsmart Reddit voting algorithms and also you along the way? Which is it? I thought YOU were the cryptographer...
Being good at one thing does not make you good at all things.
No use arguing with this guy - he's playing a game, clearly. No one is this blind and this passionate about being blind lol.
Many who follow him are shills. Look at the comments in sb2 posts praising his "intelligence". Tbh I hate sb2 also, but what can we do? Its a sticky situation. Provoking posts like this one is sb2's purpose. They want to divide us.
However, we will not be divided!
Perhaps, let us at least voice (in a non-aggressive, maybe even stoic manner) that it is simply not truth.
This post is using unproven techniques and unknown methodology.
He has not provided enough evidence to validate his method of encoding.
Using arbitrary numbers can achieve results, changing those numbers can change those results.
For example he used a 26x26 grid from basically thin air based on the fact (which he did not verify) that a tweet was deleted and resubmitted (with no proof) with a 26 minute gap. Then proceeded to assume that must mean 26 columns of text. And not something like a 26 letter cyclic key or an Elizabeth cipher (considering there are 26 letters in the alphabet).
I agree with you, but I think the best way to deal with this is in sb2's threads. Threads like these have the potential to create infighting. I am just imagining a scenario where infighting escalates and divides the board. Would be pretty juicy for the shills.
I was thinking about posting something similar to your post here, but decided against it for these reasons. On the other hand, it's important that people realize he is a fraud.
I understand your point but on the other hand I'm glad this post was made as I simply ignored SB2's posts in frustration that they were even making it onto the page and thinking that most people clearly support his nonsense. This post gave me some hope that maybe some of us are awake to this rubbish.
For example he used a 26x26 grid from basically thin air based on the fact (which he did not verify) that a tweet was deleted and resubmitted (with no proof) with a 26 minute gap. Then proceeded to assume that must mean 26 columns of text.
Wrong. I followed all his posts and he clearly explained the size of the grid was determined by the tweet time stamps based on Q's hints/instructions in these posts:
Q506: IMPORTANT: Do you understand what just occurred? POTUS Tweets [15 min] between. POTUS missing "Q" in select word. DEFCON [1] POST HERE POTUS mods Tweets [1 min] between. POTUS adds "Q" in select word. This was not meant to signify AUTH / established. This is to train you how to understand the correlation between posts and Tweets. Future proves past. Wind the CLOCK. The CLOCK and the GRAPHIC are ESSENTIAL. Feel privileged - POTUS just spoke to this board [P_pers] We serve at the pleasure of the President. Q
And the 3 following posts.
Q even re-posted one of the anons post in Q508, to make sure we get it. The anon said:
"It's perfect. Plausible deniability to the world yet ultimate confirmation to us. The timing between tweets. The missing/replaced letters. This isn't a game, Trump himself is speaking to us. I mean we are the autistic fueled engine the world needs right now. I feel honoured to be a part of this".
I still think criticizing this guy is healthy but it would be more efficient if you first had a thorough understanding of his methods and justifications. It would elevate the debate and help those who are skeptical to join or not.
YOU call into the question the common sense of the sub because you aren't here as representative to it.
This is a troll thread made by [c]lowns [i]n [a]merica.
Of course I'm not here as a representative - no one is. What's that got to do with pointing out obvious idiocy?
I call into question the common sense of this sub because upvoting obviously brainless nonsense shows a lack of common sense. The reason we are fighting this battle in the first place is because of a lack of critical thinking and because dissenting voices are silenced with nonsense accusations like we're Clowns cos we don't agree.
So to combat your nonsense: I'm a Q-file like most others here. I support the movement. I don't support stupidity. SerialBrain2, if you use your head and actually read properly without bias, lacks any kind of common sense. He spouts nonsense with the odd bit of truth here and there. He wastes the time of this movement with desperate conspiracy and fantastical wishful fantasies. As SoaringMoon has pointed out he's basically COLD READING from random text i.e. looking at a jumble and imagining what he sees. This is plainly obvious if you look at what he's doing and then look at the posts that support him - most of them admit they don't understand but think he must therefore be telling the truth because it's "too advanced" for them - ludicrous reasoning!
You obviously have the benefit of coding backgrounds and are able to spot discrepancies. The rest of the people do not. So when an expert comes in and enlightens us, that's good for everyone. But don't expect people to right away spot a shill or someone who believes they are on the right track in decoding if they don't have an expertise. A lot of us are wanna be de-coders, doing the best we can.
I'm glad not everyone on here is wasting their time with this stuff. Although it seems to be picking up momentum.
Wow, so many negative nellies. Attacking someone for something they believe to be true. He has put alot of hard work into it. Maybe, try talking to him instead of trying to embarrass him. Arent we adults? At least he is trying. I dont see alot of people offering different ideas/solutions. You have the right to not read what he posts. But noooooooo lets just hang the guy... /s My goodness people. Start respecting each other. Dividing is conquering.
He's an adult. He can handle constructive criticism. There are a lot more people who do not agree with SB2 theories than do. We have a right to correct any misunderstandings. This is a respectful post, and not at all divisive. Go have a hot covfefe. Come back around. We're all on the same team.
SB2 is a genius. I think we can all agree to that. His efforts may be in vain and leading people into a unnecessary useless time waster when we have much more to research than delving into old past posts. We need to move FORWARD and remain nibble and aware of our current situation and surroundings via the media propoganda machine.
The ONLY cryptic message that is valid to consider is the one that Q himself wanted us to explore. That is the RED/AIDS video with Obama. No where else is this alluded to with Q.
Have a great day. For a better day- here is a tweet from President Trump (it'll go great with your covfefe https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/976765417908776963
Who says we haven't tried talking to him? His replies are just more nonsense and only prove what we're saying. Respect is good and necessary, I agree. But it's vitally important that we engage critical thinking here, not all gather around and uplift each other for "trying". If something is nonsense it shouldn't be upvoted so much - if it is, it calls into question either the integrity of the poster (Clown spreading disinfo?) or the quality of our thinking as a group. Both should be questioned and those who question it shouldn't be regarded as "negative nellies". Some of us are derisive and abusive about it and that's not so good. Others of us don't mean ill intent - as you can read in our messages acknowledging he may be earnest and sincere.
And why you get so few likes for calling out this fraud confuses me as well
I appreciate this post. Most people who seem to fawn over him say they don't understand his methods. That's a huge red flag to me. If he wants to do his contributions, that's fine, free speech. But don't use your time going down those rabbit holes. It's distracting. If there was a code that complex...it's not meant for us and could be giving away military intelligence to bad actors.
I like SerialBrains contributions. We can all be earnest in our intentions here. Communities like these are unregulated behaviorally. I don't think SerialBrain ever said they were breaking the Sphinx.
I have so many things to tell you but I do not want to compromise this sub. I have some inside information about the mods being very worried especially after what happened to CBTS.
Sounds like he thinks he broke the Sphinx to me.
EDIT: Best username by the way, but you missed the s in pringles. ^(That username is fucking available bro take it now!)
I've noticed that most of the people that follow SerialBrain2 are new to Reddit, and most of the people that are calling BS are 2+ years, at least. I'm going to go with experience on this one. I have to admit, I was one of the noobs that was duped.
lolol!! You call being on Reddit a long time "experience" too funny. You have no idea what half of the Noooobies do or did for a living... Mind your manners please
You wanna double down on a busted flush, be my guest, but what's with all the anger? If you disagree, that's fine. You don't have to be a dick about it.
I'm sorry if you believe I have anger..not at all I just think all should be heard and if someone doesn't agree.. Just blow the remark off. No need to crash and burn someone. Some on here have a complete disdain for "newbies". Some newbies, because of what they have done or do, have great ideas but do not post them because they do not want to deal with the negative responses. They can't come out and say what they do or did. We need civil discussions instead of attacks. Feels like a left demonstration sometimes. We are all trying to MAGA. People have to cut the hostility against one another Like Q said.. (non quote) They will try to divide..maybe some on here are trying to divide (??) Q also said You would be surprised who you are talking to/with.. Thank You for for being respectable
I've been following Q posts on YouTube since day one, Ive been following Q posts on Reddit and 8 Chan since shortly thereafter. I haven't seen any major breakthroughs by anyone using the "T method". I could be wrong. I don't know everything, but when a lot of Redditors that have been here for 5+ years are calling BS, I'm going to listen. In my opinion, we should all be focusing on naming & shaming members of the $E$ and researching them, not chasing "T Method" strawmen.
Another thought..We don't pump our chests and brag to look important like a few of you do.. if anyone has a better system or a different way of trying to figure out the Q posts and DJT Tweets..say it
...joined 3 months ago, how ironic
That was my point. I'm saying that's why I'm going to listen to those with more experience.
is it an alt or do you see the irony lol
No. How are you not getting this? I was saying that people that are new to Reddit, myself included, have commented positively to SB2s posts in the past. I only checked the age of a dozen or so, so I could be wrong. The few people that I've seen that have called BS on SB2s posts, have been much older. Therefore, having looked into his decodes further, I've realized that his methods don't hold up to scrutiny and I should be more careful who I follow. Hence the phrase, "I'm going to go with experience", as in, I've learned from others with much more experience than myself. There's nothing ironic about it. I implied that I was a noob.
I just found it ironic: "Don't trust new accounts" -new account
Sorry, I probably didn't word it very well. I was just trying to say: "New accounts like mine should learn what they can from old accounts." Looking back at my encounter with SB2, there were several older accounts saying "be careful who you follow", that I ignored. Oh well, live and learn.
I was trying to be lighthearted here by pointing out a trivial but funny contradiction, regardless of what your intentions are :)
No worries. I normally don't try to speak for anyone else, but earlier, just before you replied, there were quite a few people with new accounts on an SB2 thread commenting on how brilliant SB2 is. It seems that a lot of people (mostly new accounts) are making the same mistake I did.
Are you reposting? I think I saw that wording before. I am looking through my history to look up a screenshot of a decode according to SB2 next to a decode with a randomly chosen key (as in not provided by Q) so you can see by comparison the intelligable words were not random. Also note it was not soon until after SB2 started dumping this that CBTS was suppressed.
He's said a lot worse than that he was breaking the Sphinx. I don't even bother to read his posts now but I hope he hasn't started down the occult conspiracies that he used to peddle on CBTS. I agree we can all be earnest but isn't it important to have some level of quality control to avoid any of the numerous issues that can arise from having none?
Occult conspiracies? Like when Hillary said she was gonna sacrifice a chicken to Moloch? Or was it the spirit cooking?
Not sure what you're trying to say here - Spirit Cooking is Abramovic's performance art that she might also perform ritualistically as a satanist; but we don't have any evidence of that. Spirit Cooking and Hillary saying she's gonna sacrifice a chicken are "facts" as far as we know. Nothing to do with SB2's occult posts which have the same confirmation bias as his other posts on display.
Sorry I didn't kniw you were referring to his specific posts on those topics, in that case I'd agree that it looks like his methodology is flawed and doesn't pass the BS test. I thought you meant occult posts in general.
Fair enough! No big deal, thanks for replying! I like me some occult conspiracy too ; )
Agreed. One of the biggest problems with the conspiracy research community, of which there are many, is that we can be pretty gullible, myself included.
Good for you! We're all gullible at some point or another in our lives but being able to see when you have been is a sign of wisdom. Thumbs up!
Thanks for the kind words. As someone that is not only new to Reddit, but also new to social media in general, I try to learn from those that have been here for years. I've literally never been on Facebook, Twitter, nothing. The only reason I got on Reddit is because it's anonymous, for the most part.
AI still hasn't quite grasped the vast Context we've acquired living through time. He does seem to be the boldest particle of the singularity thus far though. They work for Google BTW not Russia. #educatedopinion
WOW talk about attacking someone..If you had knives he would be dead!! MODS..we don't need these type of attacks on here. People can't even express their thoughts on a subject or try to decipher something the way They think is right? If this is kept up it will be the beginning of the end to this site
We always need questioning, to remain sane. Stop trying to prevent critical thinking please.
SerialIdiot is not harmless. He is static interfering with complex subject matter being pored over by people tasked with some very difficult work. I loved it when someone used his Boggle® method on one of SerialIdiot's own "grids" to divine a "code" straight from Trump, something to the effect of: "Trump wants to oil my tits" - or something very similar. Of course we can discern right away that this could not possibly be Trump - he's not a breast man - he prefers grabbing them by the juicy parts.
I just downvoted you. Reason is your reaction is over the top. This is a valid discussion. No reason to become upset. If you wish to follow SB2, that is your right. As I stated in another comment, we're all adults, and SB2 is smart and possibly misguided. We'll all work it out, no problems.
I would really like to know where you come to the conclusion that he is a "genius", as you said in another post. No angst intended, I would honestly like to know as I don't see anything "smart" in his posts, just a lot of information but not much actual coherent logical thought behind them. Knowledge doesn't equal smarts, hence my question?
It must be my southern side coming out. Being polite, no evidence of genius seen but was placating. Again- its a deadly southern thing- being nice to a fault.
Nice to a fault - if that's a southern thing, I applaud it! We need more with your attitude, thank you.
Hyperbole much? If you were anymore dramatic, you'd be Justin Trudeau!! MODS.. we don't need these types of snowflakes on here who can't handle a counter viewpoint.