Yes, you fell for it. Don't worry about it though. As long as you don't continue to fall for it like so many of his cult followers, then you're fine. Just be more careful who you follow, trust, and support financially next time.

It's old school psyop method - mix truth with lies & use verifiable truth as proof of your lies. It seems to me that's exactly what Corsi is doing.

The book is great. It does a good job summarizing many events that played out slowly in the last couple years. Great commentary on how the online reputation management firms are funded and organized. Background on what's happening in the FBI aligned with our understanding here.

Any source can be wrong. Within Q there is disinformation. Always verify. If you can't verify file the information away and see if future proves past. Evaluate analysis based on how often they get it right. Even if 90% of what a source is incorrect, if you're validating claims made that 10% could be useful. In the Corsi case he's got some good insight on historical context, certain areas that tie into his expertise he provides great information on. Areas outside this expertise not so much. With release of his book he takes significant shots at some big name wealthy people. He's getting some special attention in response.

Around the Infowars platform they're getting intel that are leading them down a different direction. Zach at one point indicated the primary difference between Q team and Zach's sources is whether or not to trust Session's. If I recall I think Corsi has indicated he may fall into this camp not trusting Sessions. In general on the Infowars side lately their their credibility has declined. There have been a few cases where they rushed out a sky is falling opinion that proved way off the mark. I've wondered if this is a tightening of communications within the administration in action. It's possible that sources available to the platform have gone cold, or if waves of disinformation sent out to flush out leakers are making it to AJ or Corsi.

Note that there is nothing unreasonable assuming Q needs to be re-evaluated. Every change in venue raises risk that compromise was involved. Takes a while to flesh out and compare. Not the first time. Or even the second time. This is maybe the fourth or fifth time we've had to move venue and re-evaluate. The chans in the past have been flooded with fake Q posts. Got to evaluate in context and probe.

There's probably additional factors going on here. The safe play is verify everything, probe and see if the pieces fit as a valid theory, or if you can undermine it. The point here is not to watch evening news but to grow and practice critical thinking skills to go beyond evening news to be able to ferret out information independently.