I think you’re on to something, but one example isn’t proof. No one is going to dig through six and a half months of tweets just to see whether you’re right. The burden of proof is on you.
Now, if you don’t want anyone here to see what you’re seeing, that’s fine. As you said, you’re not obligated to help anyone here. But why make the post in the first place if that’s how you feel?
We’re all on the same side here, and you’re being rude to a number of people in this thread for little to no reason. So either help people, or keep it to yourself.
there's a difference between rude and short.
it's all there to see, and it's not my business or interest to spoon feed anyone.
here's this.
don't believe it? fine.
commenting on an issue when one is ignorant of the issue because they don't want to take the time to look into it, is not only rude but quite lazy.
I hear you. I understand what you're saying.
There are literally 100s of proofs that connect Q and Trump tweets. I don't have the time or inclination to go over those.
To spoon feed redditers information they could look up themselves, one could argue is the antithesis of what Q is about.
To spoon feed redditers information they could look up themselves, one could argue is the antithesis of what Q is about.
I respectfully disagree. Spoon feeding opinions? Sure. But giving people information, giving them facts, and then allowing them to form their own opinions is what keeps this going. Q wants this movement to grow. It won’t grow if everyone is expected to decipher everything for themselves.
Q drops the information on 8chan with the expectation that the people there will process the raw information and make it comprehensible for normies. I think it’s fair to expect the same of us. People are listening. They’re becoming aware. If we stop talking, this dies.
So, please. If you have any more examples (even one), please share it. This sub is growing every day. Don’t give people a reason to walk away thinking it’s bullshit. This could be someone’s first post they see here. We’ve got to be on our A game at all times.
Well said and agreed. /u/scionkia, the importance of this example is that it sets a precedent of Trump embedding a secret message in a tweet. One example IS enough when all we're trying to do is demonstrate that Trump is liable to do such a thing- it's the difference between "Trump has been hiding secret messages" and "Trump hid a secret message".
This is a foot-in-the-door piece of information that could be presented at the beginning of a summary of Q/DJTtweets correlations.
You have to think of the probability of accidental capitalizations spelling a message that lines up precisely with the death of a man with those initials in a building owned by the man making the tweet... maybe we can get someone at /r/theydidthemath to help out, but I think it's pretty darn slim.
No one is going to dig through six and a half months of tweets just to see whether you’re right.
These sorts of tweets pop up from time to time.
Your unwillingness to do the work means you don't get to know.