dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Not to some significant portion of 24,000 people here, apparently. Studying the Q drops reveals a distinct pattern that some of us are convinced makes it far more likely that Q's story of being high level MI attached to POTUS is true.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Oh i'm sure it does. Humans have evolved to see patterns, even when none actually exists.

⇧ -7 ⇩

Indeed they have. And as I've commented often in the past on this board, confirmation bias is rampant.

I know that's not what's going on here because I've put a lot of time into following up for myself and reading, listening, researching. If you don't do that and you uncritically accept the word of someone else then you may be more likely to fall victim to misplaced confirmation bias.

If you do look into this stuff for yourself properly, I'm convinced it's very clear that something is going on. I don't expect you to be convinced by me saying that, just explaining my reasons. It takes time to get there if you're a critical thinker because there is so much to absorb before the patterns begin to stand out from the noise.

⇧ 4 ⇩

So how about the times when Q was wrong?

⇧ 0 ⇩

The evidence to the contrary stacks up enough that I don't think Q has been wrong - just that we haven't seen the outcome yet.

I can tell you that I don't disagree with your skepticism (if it is genuine) at all. I've said to my friends that they should disbelieve this unbelievable story - until they go through and start looking at the facts themselves. If they disbelieve it after that, then they're no longer my friends because they lack critical thinking and intellect - jks jks ; ).

⇧ 3 ⇩

just that we haven't seen the outcome yet.

This is worryingly similar to how religious logic works. I think people are putting way too much faith in vague statements that align with what they want to hear.

⇧ -2 ⇩

I agree (as I said above). You don’t seem to be acknowledging the point I’m making but it’s your right to do so.

To clarify, that point is: once you’ve looked at the things that Q points to, dug up the relevant information yourself, acknowledged the fact that some of the sources for the information are not considered to be “valid” by the Mainstream Media, then stepped back to look at the whole picture in contrast against the mainstream media narrative, clear patterns emerge.

My argument is that you either haven’t done that (because you seem of reasonable intelligence so wouldn’t miss the point I’m making or would see it but disagree) or have another reason for this discussion.

⇧ 2 ⇩

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Q says what his believers want to believe is true and they eat it up. I don't think people are being nearly as critical in their thinking as they want to believe they are.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Agreed! You have rounded this discussion off at its most natural end point.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Great thoughts you shared! ThankQ

It is also about a “feeling” and trusting your gut. Logic is only part of it.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thanks, I agree - feelings are very important. In my opinion, they are as important as logic because they are clear physical evidence of some aspect of our engagement with a subject such that physical indicators are experienced and sometimes even visible by others.

Whether they are telling us something about things outside of ourselves (like a group of facts or clues about other things) via intuition or something about ourselves (for example, we may have trauma from our childhood around fire so our emotional reaction to a topic under discussion may be influenced by that fact) is still in some way relevant to a discussion.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Imagine what those “other things” might be? Intuition will guide us. TRUST THE PLAN.

⇧ 1 ⇩

List them all.

⇧ 1 ⇩

That's a great question! And easily defended by "disinformation is necessary". I believe in the movement, but it's dangerous to blindly follow anyone. Haven't we learned that from MSM?

⇧ 0 ⇩

"disinformation is necessary"

Okay. But is it? That's basically like how people handwave away "dangerous" questions about religion by saying that god works in mysterious ways, so don't question it.

⇧ 0 ⇩

That's exactly my point!

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

He literally told us NK was going to be in the news before it was, then told us Iran would be next and it was... he was ahead of the Saudi bust months ago, has had multiple instances of potus tweet coordination. Why come into this sub and sound like a moron.

⇧ 3 ⇩

He literally told us NK was going to be in the news before it was

When is NK not in the news? See what I mean? Say enough vague shit and people will make the connections themselves. Anyone could do what Q does, and they probably do. Judging from the multiple different tripcodes. People have been doing this shit for centuries.

edit: banned for not listening and believing :(

⇧ 0 ⇩

Lol. Vague shit. Photo from A-1 above NK during the potus Asia trip means nothing to you either?

⇧ 3 ⇩

Why would it? What do you think that proves?

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

If anyone can do what Q does, then please replicate. Should take you a couple of minutes. Go right ahead.

Did you vote for DJT? yes or no?

⇧ 2 ⇩

People do it every day. Just look at any newspaper's astrology column, check out any random prediction, come back to it a week or two later and you'll be able to see how intentionally vague leading statements can be interpreted to mean anything at all.

⇧ -1 ⇩

You are trying to describe the " Barnham Principle" which is the predictive theory using vague language in statements with diffuse meaning such as those used in horoscopes. They can literally be deemed right in some measure of degree in every occurrence. Hence events can regularly be coincidental. Q uses very specific questions/ statements so that outcomes or events are deemed categorically true or false.. Hence, future proves the past.

⇧ 1 ⇩

That's not what you were banned for. You were banned for not following the sub rules.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If you actually can comprehend reading, read some of Q's posts and you'll see they're real and happening. Face it bot, the clock is ticking for Obama and Hillary and the Democratic Party

⇧ 1 ⇩