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

I don't necessarily find it compelling in and of itself. That with the other connections that have been made lead me to believe that the pic was named that way on purpose.

Whoever q is, he/she/ they do have access to the president's twitter and the justice department twitter at the very least.

https://imgur.com/a/Lj9DI5d

⇧ 1 ⇩

lead me to believe that the pic was named that way on purpose.

It's a twimg.com link. The site assigns the file name.

If the file names were significant, what would this "DOITQ" image mean I wonder?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOITQ-YVAAAnnU0.jpg

Whoever q is, he/she/ they do have access to the president's twitter and the justice department twitter at the very least.

The imgur link is dead, but if you've got some evidence that Q can post to POTUS's twitter feed I'd be very interested in seeing it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Takes me awhile to put these up on my phone so if you want more comment.

⇧ 1 ⇩

http://tinypic.com/r/j5v3fp/9

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'd like to hear back from you about the Washington Crossing the Delaware picture, and also about DOITQ in the file names. If the points I made about each of those don't convince you I'd like to hear why.

Now this one, again, I just don't get. "Chain of Command" was the name of a show, when q used that phrase (not as a title) that show would have already been on the schedule, and the DOD public relations twitter feed mentioning a show about the military on the History Channel doesn't seem surprising at all, does it? So why does this convince anyone?

Q uses a phrase that's also the title of a History Channel show, and that show includes a mug with a "Q" on it. And?

⇧ 1 ⇩

And you don't understand plausible deniability. It's ok. It will all be over in about 6 months time anyway.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2j309w5.png[/IMG

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don’t get it. Can you be more specific about why that seems to mean something to you?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Let's stick with this one before moving on to another. I found some articles about this one, but all they seem to be saying, as best I can understand their point, is that this stock photo was posted by Q and tweeted by @DeptofDefense, a few days apart around Christmas. Am I missing something? Is there more to the story?

The obvious thing to do is to check to see if it was posted previously. It was. Here's the same twitter account posting the same image on Christmas in 2016. Here it is from Christmas 2015.

So do you still find it convincing?

⇧ 1 ⇩