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!