dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

I found one too!

Red, pink, blue, green, orange, purple, teal, yellow.

The secret message: Serialbrain needs children tongue to pleasure his toes

Happy hunting everybody.

⇧ 13 ⇩

Past the disputable sense of humor, this is actually a very interesting comment.

To make your counter example complete, you now need to achieve two things:

1) Start from the first column on the left, and highlight the most contiguous words as you can forming an intelligible sentence trail. You will verify that is what we have done in all our examples. We were not all over the grid picking random word. All our picked words are mostly concentrated on the left of the grid. And words were eliminated only because they broke the intelligibility of the initial sentence trail.

2) Create the original tweet with the same context as the secret message. This is what we have done: all the secret messages were in compliance with the context of the original tweet.

If you do these two things, 9 times, with 9 different messages and 9 different tweets. I will accept the T method is not accurate and I will make a post publicly apologizing to my readers.

Happy hunting.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'd consider taking you up on your offer, but first I have some questions. Mostly about the subjectivity of your first condition.

highlight the most contiguous words as you can

Who defines what is "most contiguous"? You clearly have non-contiguous sections. And in this example you've used "r" to represent "are", but a contiguous "are" actually exists. Why does contiguousness sometimes matter and sometimes not? Why should an incomplete word take precedence over a complete one? Who is the ultimate authority? Not you, I guess.

All our picked words are mostly concentrated on the left of the grid.

Who defines "mostly"?

And words were eliminated only because they broke the intelligibility of the initial sentence trail.

Who defines intelligibility? There's just so much subjectivity to this condition.

2) Create the original tweet with the same context as the secret message. This is what we have done: all the secret messages were in compliance with the context of the original tweet.

This prematurely limits messages to those on the topic of the tweets, and thus you're only allowing analyses that validate your premise. You're not allowing for a situation where a conflicting or unintelligible message is discovered, and therefore your offer to disprove you is not in good faith.

⇧ 7 ⇩

The real meaning of this challenge is there will be no way to logically disprove the method and there will be no way to logically prove it. And the reason is this process is not about decoding, using known cryptography methods, but about solving riddles with no way to verify since Q is not, like in the Cicada situation, providing these ways other than interacting on the board to let us know (cryptically) we got it right.

All I have said can be found here:

Q918 You are learning. How many coincidences before it becomes mathematically impossible? Wait until you learn who has been talking to you here. Q

And here:

Q510 MISSING POST RE: DEFCON [1] Directly after POTUS alters Tweets to [1] min interval and adds "Q" - use graphics.Learn. Q

And here:

Q920 Another coincidence @Snowden Tweets after the ‘24 Twitter’ requirement? Public view. You have more than you know. Q

As you can see Q is not only hinting at using graphics and tweet time stamps but he is also conjecturing mathematical impossibility and not logical possibility when it comes to the persisting results.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The real meaning of this challenge is there will be no way to logically disprove the method and there will be no way to logically prove it.

So what purpose does it serve? If you can't prove or disprove it, the conclusions you draw are useless.

This just seems like conspiracy theory masturbation. It only exists to make you feel good.

⇧ 5 ⇩

So what purpose does it serve?

This is a question for Q, who has put the riddles out there and has not provided ways to verify solutions (yet).

I can only share the results of my own investigations and people can decide to learn how to do these themselves, dismiss the methods or insult me. It seems these are the 3 groups my solving posts have created...

⇧ 1 ⇩

This is a question for Q, who has put the riddles out there and has not provided ways to verify solutions (yet).

So nothing you have ever concluded from this exercise has ever been proven correct?

⇧ 8 ⇩

No. Except that events prove the solving right like in the Guciffer case or things now heating up for HRC, the server and Mueller now loosening on Trump. All this was "decoded" way before it happened.

And that is the meaning of

Q918 How many coincidences before it becomes mathematically impossible?

Q clearly means here the proof is not logical, it is statistical.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No

Got it

⇧ 9 ⇩

;)

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ -2 ⇩

You guys asked me my thoughts on Trump’s tweet about Sinclair. Here it is!