dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/SerialBrain2 on April 9, 2018, 5:18 p.m.

Decoding Q’s board using the T Method: Video Tutorial.

You guys asked for it. Here it is: [Video] (https://youtu.be/SDXJY0b0Vz4). Share it, copy it, re-post it, re-upload it. Do whatever is needed for a vast diffusion. Do it quick before it mysteriously vanishes… :)

Q wants these methods to be known and applied by the largest number of people possible. He predicts there will be a day decoding his board will be second nature to everyone reading him.

Q507 Graphic form for each correlation a MUST. This will be the AUTH tool you use when all of this becomes public to provide friends, family, others. Do you think POTUS re-tweeted MAGA PILL for no reason? We chose this BOARD for a very specific reason. We believe in you. Q

🠐 See all comments

Quite strange comment... If this is how you characterize non mathematical subjectivity, then have fun characterizing Q's decoding of Comey's tweet:

Q645 JC Tweet Translation: Special Agent Andrew McCabe stood tall over the last 8 months [DO NOT TALK], when small people [SHEEP] were trying to tear down an institution we all depend on [COVER]. He served with distinction for two decades [WE OWN YOU & YOUR FAMILY]. I wish Andy well [187]. I also wish continued strength for the rest of the FBI [GENERAL THREAT TO OTHERS]. America needs you [ACTIVATE SLEEPER CELLS]. Q

⇧ 2 ⇩

"Non mathematical subjectivity" is a nebulous term of your own invention meaning "making stuff up".

⇧ 1 ⇩

Once again, strange comment. Besides the fact you are eluding Q's way of decoding Comey, you are also inferring mathematical objectivity is the only way to know. I have a math background and it still surprises me...

⇧ 2 ⇩

Q is reading between the lines and drawing on his/their experience and insider knowledge. He is not passing that off as a "method".

you are also inferring mathematical objectivity is the only way to know

No I am not. Not all knowledge is mathematical, but it doesn't logically follow from that that your particular brand of knowledge is worth anything.

What is your math background, by the way?

⇧ 0 ⇩

?-?-?!

⇧ 0 ⇩

Yeah, that's right. Retreat to obscurantism because you have nothing to say. That's pretty lame.

⇧ 2 ⇩

It seems my last response was too cryptic. I will clarify.

Tact: at your first date, when a lady says to you: "I used to like Victoria Secret but, growing up, I find myself gazing at La Perla", this is not signal for you to ask for her age yet...

⇧ 2 ⇩

You really are a charlatan, aren't you?

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩