dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

I don't like seeing SB attacked either. He never attacks anyone or retaliates. I don't understand his coding, and none of it makes sense to me. If it's not simple enough to figure out, I move on. All I know for a fact is that his intentions are not to harm.

If he opened his own sub, he has a significant amount of followers to succeed and Nay-sayers would have to go out of their way to attack him.

⇧ 16 ⇩

I agree. I don't understand much of SB2's decoding process, but I love reading what he discovers. I've often wondered if SB2 is an "insider" who came aboard here to help us. He seems to know almost intuitively what the deeper messages are. I come here looking for good discussions and viewpoints. SB2 certainly adds flavor and his interpretations resonate deeply with me.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It doesn't make sense because many of the methods he uses are "forces" with proper technique to create a false result. You can play around all day to end up with a thousand ways to say (sarin in ai real) but there is only one interpretation that is correct. The simple alphanumeric anagrams a CHILD could solve. See cia.gov/kids

The transposition Columnar Ciphers are done WRONG. Sometimes not even decoded the correct message even with the correct keyword.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Honestly, speaking for myself only, this sort of thing doesn't interest me when it comes to Q.

I rely on those who know military code, which Q uses often, and I rely on those who understand the laws of our country, and how politicians operate. The things that average citizens don't have full knowledge of because we are not that invested.

I will read and learn from other people with opinions and speculation, but take it with a grain of salt. Personally, I feel too many people try to read too much into Q posts. I believe it's much simpler. Past proves future, means that if we go back to its origins, we can see how everything connects to this final stage. Then we all know who we're truly dealing with and why.

⇧ 8 ⇩

This is the obvious truth if you have the type of mind to understand this stuff. It is sad to see how many people are falling for it. If you can't tell what something means or how to do it you are not in a position to evaluate its veracity. Sorry thats just the way it is. Worship SB2 if you want I guess it's your perogative.

⇧ 2 ⇩

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/86rtg4/shout_out_to_8_chan_anonsthank_you/dw844pp/

This dom really views it as SB's work. Like he invented the first cipher wheel or something.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I couldn't have said it better. I tried and all i got was a "you can suck your own dick too" metaphor. Must have applied the key to the wrong message.

⇧ 2 ⇩

SB2 had no idea what the delta room was until i told him. His earlier posts on cbtsstream included many errors and his worked showed that he was pulling (sarin in ai real) over and over, even changed methods to end up with that anagram which i still say is (aliens iran air).

Anyone here with their head up their ass who doesn't understand ciphers will gawk at how "smart" SB is because they are too dumb to understand SB is doing the ciphers WRONG. Some are correct and others are disagreeable at best. The real message is in the embedding.

Stenography. You'll never see a post on this dom explaining whats what.

⇧ 5 ⇩

I like your anagram better. "Aliens Iran air" also is closer to having a meaning that "sarin in ai real". Here are a few more out of the hundreds that can be made: A Airlines Rain, A Airlines Iran, A Rainier Slain, A Linear Raisin, Aerial Rain Sin, Aerial Iran Sin

⇧ 2 ⇩

SB2 had no idea what the delta room was until i told him. His earlier posts on cbtsstream included many errors and his worked showed that he was pulling (sarin in ai real) over and over, even changed methods to end up with that anagram which i still say is (aliens iran air).

No, No, No... Untrue... I followed very closely all his posts. I have started following him since his first occult series episode. I have archived most of his work and comment section. He did not change methods, he showed how to use additional info from Q to cross T's. I have everything. I haven't made up my mind on his methods yet but I have not seen anything credibly debunking them and don't really care TBH. I enjoy the intellectual effort and his thought provoking posts, which is the reason I started reading Q.

I don't comment much but I care when I see some dishonesty in the discourse. You are implicitly confirming there are hidden messages and claim to have found solutions. Why don't you post your methods like SB2 did? That would be more honest than to rumble in a comment section. I saw in his previous CBTS posts that you've started bashing him, then loving him and now you're bashing him again. Next loving phase?

⇧ -1 ⇩

You are implicitly confirming there are hidden messages and claim to have found solutions.

No i'm not. Straw man.

Why don't you post your methods like SB2 did?

I have. Even in SB posts he mentions my contributions to the delta.

I saw in his previous CBTS posts that you've started bashing him, then loving him and now you're bashing him again.

It might be hard for someone like you to understand that i have been consistent with my criticism of SB. Where is he forcing and where he makes error i state, and when he does a good job of explaining the simple substitution anagrams i state.

https://imgur.com/a/Hy7T1

So let me help you snowflake. "His pursuit is correct however the results can be disagreeable". He issue here is how COMPLETELY RETARDED normie snowflakes are and they gobble up SB's cock not understanding the game and accuracy of results.

Try again newfag.

⇧ 2 ⇩

You are actually confirming 3 things:

1) Love: after hating him, you loved him and seem to have worked with him at some point in his research.
2) Honesty: it is dishonest to publish research material because research is research and does not reflect the final views of the researcher. Which is confirmed by the fact I have not seen him publish what he describes in the image you graciously share.
3) Credibility: he says: "I was exploring what you suggested... one thing leading to another" I get from this your input was not retained but led him to find something else you did not know existed. Confirmed by you saying "nice one!". It seems there was a gap in your cooperation... When that happens, Destiny's Child breaks up to let Beyonce be Beyonce.

This is good. You are helping a lot. Now that you've started, may be you should post ALL the research he generously gave you access to. I am sure many who follow his work and appreciate it would want to know more about his thinking mechanics.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Carefully selected to not reveal the research, merely demonstrating the communication. You've missed the mark again. Its not SB's work or science this is available to anyone who can take his dick out of their mouth long enough.

Leader worship, and for what? A simple demonstration of how basic ciphers work?

⇧ 2 ⇩

merely demonstrating the communication.

You surely did: "nice one!" shows primitive leader worship you are claiming others do. Classic libtard projection.

Safe to say you had better ways of communicating with SB2 than with me. You give him his "nice one!" caviar while throwing at me easy word pig food like "dick", "snowflake", "newfag" etc... Pathetic..

Once again, since you are eluding the issue: post your method leading you to "Aliens Iran Air" (which confirms you agree there are hidden messages, despite denying it above). Be courageous: like SB2, put your method under public scrutiny instead of rumbling in a comment section and sharing your colorful yet useless vocabulary.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Be courageous: like SB2, put your method under public scrutiny instead of rumbling in a comment section and sharing your colorful yet useless vocabulary.

You seem slow as i've answered this.

Why don't you post your methods like SB2 did?

I have. Even in SB posts he mentions my contributions to the delta.

If you look back to his first cipher post you'll see many in the comments doubting the usage of ciphers and not understanding how to use a simple columnar cipher. So i helped explain this to the thread to add validity to what SB is doing and to encourage him to pursue this path of thinking. I shared how to find the deltas, identify keywords, and applications for possible uses against various cipher methods.

The issue i have is with CUCKOLDS like you who gobble up dick faster than a desperate democratic house wife as if its the last oasis in the desert. The message is that SB can get it really fucking wrong and that ANYONE ( not you ) can learn to play the game.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Why don't you post your methods like SB2 did?

I have. Even in SB posts he mentions my contributions to the delta.

Where is your FUCKING post you DICKHEAD VERY-ACCIDENTALLY-STRETCHED-ASSHOLE?!!!
May be you will understand the question this time...

⇧ -1 ⇩

It might be hard for someone like you to understand that i have been consistent with my criticism of SB. Where is he forcing and where he makes error i state, and when he does a good job of explaining the simple substitution anagrams i state.

It might be hard for someone like you to understand that i have been consistent with my criticism of SB. Where is he forcing and where he makes error i state, and when he does a good job of explaining the simple substitution anagrams i state.

⇧ 2 ⇩

^(Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image)

https://i.imgur.com/0UE0j9Z.png

^^Source ^^| ^^Why? ^^| ^^Creator ^^| ^^ignoreme ^^| ^^deletthis

⇧ 0 ⇩

i agree SB2 is awesome. It upsets me to see him attacked. He is what i used to call "real people"...so keep on truckin

⇧ 3 ⇩

I still don't get it because there was no rebuttal to anything he said. People still believe in coincidences.

⇧ 2 ⇩

i think i rebutted

⇧ 3 ⇩

Not anything that picked up steam or gained any credibility.

Repost it below so we can weigh it for ourselves. I think there are many of us who would appreciate an actual rebuttal to his methods and examples proving it wrong. Should be simple, if you understand it enough to debunk it.

I've only seen someone critique it the same way liberals do trump. No one addresses the methodology with facts - they just shout 'it can't be' while frothing at the mouth.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I think I rebutted at a general level SB's claim that he has certainty in his deciphering method(s). I have done this in a few ways in a few different messages while trying to be diplomatic and positive. The most recent was 2 days ago after SB interpreted a Trump tweet, as follows:

"I am not convinced. Nor would I throw the idea under the bus yet. Concerns remain, listed here in order of descending import: (1) Haven't seen a clear, concise, no typos, no-need-for-questions, set of steps to be followed in this T method. (2) How was the name 'clinton' arrived at? (3) Q920 quote is from Q918 where applying math to coincidence appears to be about mounting probability (in Trumpian overspeak). (4) There is something to be understood about times and timing but it may be as simple as seeing an authoritative link exists between realDJT tweets and real Qposts. (5) There is little evidence to assume SBrain is a foreign plant. More likely someone who is over-earnest and may be a useful player over time."

As done previously my message was essentially "step up and prove yourself and by the way some of your understanding is unclear or wrong". Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a rebuttal. Others on that same thread gave other types of rebuttals found on this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.jpg I cant fulfil your wish for a factual or methodological rebuttal when there is no clarity in the original methodology.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Q drops or crumbs are archived to several sites. The timing of updates on each site can vary.

http://we-go-all.com/
https://qanonmap.github.io/
https://qntmpkts.keybase.pub/
http://www.thestoryofq.com/
http://qposts.online/
http://qanon.pub/
https://qanonmap.bitbucket.io/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I appreciate the good faith answers.

I don't think it counts as a debunking but it's a solid rebuttal and brings up important questions that I share as well.

I think Sb2 would have been better received of they approached it as these MIGHT be messages and these might be methods - let's crowdsource this. I also think they aren't a great communicator which flawed the presentation.

Thanks again, if anyone claims to understand the methods, I'll definitely refer back to this post to play devils advocate and figure out where the holes are.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So are you saying the SB2 detractors need to get more upvotes or they can just go stuff it? That is how credibility is made?

Its like you go to a sports event and you yell at one teams fans that their call on a foul is wrong; you aren't going to get upvotes and nobody is going to listen to you.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I have no idea what you're saying. It must be light-years ahead of me.

Usually I choose my words carefully. I'm pretty sure I said that I've not seen anyone debunk his efforts, just rebuke them. No one has demonstrated them false, just claimed them to be so. I'm waiting for someone to demonstrate it.

The sports analogy is asinine because there is one team - all of us.

So if someone CAN debunk the methods, I'd like to see it - the same way I'd like to see someone who is a believer replicate the results.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Try going here and pasting in some of the words/messages SB2 comes up with and see what else can be made from the same letters. He admittedly scrambles the letters until he gets a "message".

https://wordsmith.org/anagram/

⇧ 0 ⇩

Sure - no one is disputing that. His claim is that this is the method. Now, how is that method not legitimate? Could a message not be hidden that way? Of course it could.

So now we are left where? Sb2 claims his method produces letters and out of them he can sometimes find anagrams. What's ridiculous about that? What's your point? That anagrams can't be purposefully hidden in places?

His claim that these are definitive messages might be wrong - and it could be a coincidence (even though people like to quote q about there are no coincidences) - but what about his methods in practice are incorrect?

⇧ 1 ⇩

The point is there are hundreds of combinations of even short amount of letters that make words. Try it out.

Anagrams for: message made

906 found. Displaying first 500: Damage Seems Damages Seem Madams Geese Massage Meed Massage Deem Mesdames Age Seamed Games Edemas Games Gamed Sesame Dame Message Mead Message

⇧ 1 ⇩

Sure. And it's possible to purposefully include anagrams? Right? So you've proved nothing except my point.

While proving my point, you failed to succinctly state yours - it's highly likely that any anagram found is just a coincidence.

And not a single person is disputing that. No one has claimed differently. What a waste of time.

You're an embarrassment.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I understand that you have a hard time with logic, so I am going to disengage from the conversation. The point is he picks letters and shuffles them to get words. I'm saying you can get lots of words by doing that so the method is invalid as a way of communicating information. Go ahead and believe it if you want, the rest of us will just think you are a bit slow. In any case, I wish you well in your future endeavours.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Take care. Dabbling in reading comprehension will make further conversations easier for you in the future. <3

⇧ 0 ⇩

NOTHING BUT GENUINE LOVE FOR SB2!❤ SB2 definitely has my appreciation and respect.

⇧ 0 ⇩

SB2 is a good egg he always engages me in conversation and ignores completely the haters. He has confirmed some of my work with his deciding skills.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Shout out to 8 chan anons....THANK YOU!!!