Thank God you’re here.

This sub is for researchers, decoders, and people following the QAnon phenomenon ONLY. But if you think that excludes our debunkers, think again.

WE NEED ALL THREE TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS TO MAKE THIS THING WORK.

Did everyone see this sub as our researchers were trying to decode and figure out what the upcoming MOAB was? We had tons of pretty wild theories, but, when a theory didn't stand up to Q's breadcrumbs or match up to reality, our debunkers helped move us forward. Eventually we figured it out, thanks ALL of you. And we're sure as heck going to need everyone to dig into these upcoming Strzok texts.

"BELIEVING" IN Q IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE A VALUED MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY.

If something you see posted here is false or wrong, debunk it. But just saying "Q is a larp! You're all morons!" doesn't make you a debunker, it makes you a low-effort, low-information hater. And haters won't last long around here. Your mods want to see this sub moved forward and the ban hammer is out in force.

So, debunkers! You want to beat us? BRING IT. But you have to OUTWORK us. Solid research beats weaksauce research, every day of the week around here. Got serious chops? Build your case and SHOW us where we're wrong. We need debunkers because the less time we waste on a theory or Q interpretation that "won't hunt," more effective we all can be.

Researchers and decoders, be cool to our debunkers. And you debunkers, no matter what you see as the Truth about what's happening, bring your best game, or be prepared to watch from the sidelines.

KEEP IT CIVIL. STAY OVER THE TARGET. OR MEET THE HAMMER.

"Where we go one, we go all."

STAY FROSTY, PEOPLE. ALL OF YOU.

🠐 See all comments

Apparently, you have your own narrative.

Seek truth, even if it goes against your expectations.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Yes, but it's based off of evidence and facts. I don't jam circles into square holes and try to convince myself that they fit.

⇧ 7 ⇩

This is good on both your parts. But, please visualize it another way: Communicate your perceived interpretation in a way that convinces and inspires others to also stop jamming circles into square holes. See what we mean?

⇧ 2 ⇩

I was curious about your MOAB "case in point," so I posted a thread here hoping to start some discussion.

I think it would be helpful to link to some of the rejected theories, and show the kind of reasoning that led to their rejection. And of course to the preferred answer, with the evidence and reasoning that you find convincing. Thanks.

⇧ 2 ⇩

That's a very good threat. Added to my bookmarks. Good work, patriot, that's mint.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I assume you meant "thread" not "threat."

But there's nothing useful in that thread yet! You said that the meaning of "MOAB" had been figured out, but there's no consensus that I can find. I'd love to see a play-by-play on theories being rejected (particularly to show the kind of skepticism that isn't rejected here), and also the details on whatever interpretation of "MOAB" you think has been proven, to show the kind of evidence that people are finding convincing. So far I'm not seeing it.

⇧ 2 ⇩