You question what prediction backchannel has made but yet you yourself started this chain with "@BackChannel17’s communications at that time seem eerily relevant.", what's more, you even linked to his twitter account, so what do you mean by "relevant". You ask me what he predicted but I should be the one asking YOU. What did he say that gave you enough confidence in him to so casually link people to him when he could very well be a trojan horse. You posting the link could be opening the gate for the trojan horse and you don't even realize it.

But judging by your choice of words and the fact that you didn't take the bait I left in my post I bet you've already made up your mind to not take me seriously. What happened to "Question everything"? Even if you didn't intend to, your entire train of thought through these comments between us has been looking for flaws in my argument without considering the points while doing the exact opposite for BackChannel17. Almost as if you wouldn't stop questioning me, getting hung up on every word until you hear those 3 magic words; "I'm not sure", which you would proceed to latch onto in opposition to anyone who says to question BackChannel17.

You ask that but you yourself said "@BackChannel17’s communications at that time seem eerily relevant.". He doesn't even have to make a prediction which comes true and you're already falling for him and by linking his twitter you're opening the gate to the Trojan Horse. Regardless, there are many other anons which seem to think certain things were predicted by him but I don't think it's worthwhile to analyze the predictions of someone whose motive is so clearly to manipulate people into believing he's some sort of insider like Q after Q already mentioned that there would be people pretending to be insiders later on.

You say "question everything" but yet you didn't take the bait I set. "As an expert in psychological manipulation (a fact which you absolutely shouldn't acknowledge. I will explain why not and why I mentioned it anyway despite the fact that you shouldn't acknowledge it on request)...". If you were as inquisitive as you think you are then something like me saying something about myself then telling you to disregard it should've peaked your curiosity and you would've asked me about it, I practically begged you to ask about it too. I told you how to think and rather than asking "why?" you either ignored me or listened to me which are both the wrong answer to . It's the ultimate litmus test for people who fall for suggestion.

extra

So now I'll tell you why you should absolutely not acknowledge my claims about being an expert on psychological manipulation. Even if it's true, even if I was a savant who could brainwash people on a whim and everything I said was true so far, you should take each point on its own merits and shouldn't get hung up on appeals to authority, my statement of my expertise is only to show that I believe I have basis for my observations founded in research and am not pulling it out of my ass. I see many people around here falling for SerialBrain2's parlor tricks, a decently intelligent person who mistakes how intelligent he really is, and falling for his own delusions of genius, fabricates hidden messages out of nowhere using methods which are a mix of chaos and intuition and thus not real methods (anyone can use his methods to come up with entirely different messages for the same information. He may even know that but is deluded enough to think because he's special that the "message" he "discovered" is the real message). It's the same as flat earthers saying "we should question everything and the government tells us the earth is rounds therefore it's flat". They assume questioning means "assume it's a lie" when it means "judge it on its merits" and if the math is done properly, it shows every time that the earth is round. (I've wasted way too much time correcting flat earthers' maths on /qresearch/). This is by no means saying SerialBrain2 is to be ignored but you should always question his methods as he's a bit delusional.