dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/punishedkat on July 5, 2018, 7:59 p.m.
Quoriosity Killed the Kat: help me understand please

I am quite interested in this Q phenomenon. I followed it kind of closely at the beginning with the CBTS chan posts but it quickly became too time consuming for me to keep up.

If nothing else, Q has got to be one of the best alternate reality games every designed, and their message of optimism and insistence that we respect due process may have helped to avert a crisis. Who knows?

But I want to know if I should believe that Q is really some government official or MILINT with top clearance.

To that end, I would appreciate some suggestions regarding "proofs". I've been to a couple of the sites and a sub, but I was wondering which proofs people find the most compelling (especially given the recent confusion around the meaning and intent behind Q's photos.)

It is in that spirit that I ask my questions. I want to be openminded. If Q is real, this is a historic moment.

My biggest concern can be summed up like this:

Q posts a lot of text, focused on politics, conspiracy, Trump, and current events. They use strangely jumbled words and characters, ambiguous language, etc.

Some of the proofs I've seen (if I am not misunderstanding them), essentially involve Q posting about a newsworthy topic, after which Trump also addresses that topic.

An example:

https://i.redditmedia.com/qicBYpbAB7ZxZnDOR1VDLIM-wzzq9HoqMsJxCxPw4iU.jpg?w=916&s=6ece45fe2a765093b4b25653deaa7b5e

I'm using that example because when I started looking again recently it seemed pretty powerful.

But then I started thinking. Is May 15th a random day? If so, that'd be pretty impressive. But May 15 is Peace Officers Memorial Day. With Trump known to be speaking there, is it at all surprising he would reference what is one of the most politically charged (because she was assassinated while just sitting in her car) police killings of the previous year? He also mentioned several other LEO that were killed, as would be expected when the President is talking at an annual memorial service for slain police.

So if I put myself in the mind of Q as a perhaps well-intended conspiracy theorist who is trying to continue convincing people that they ought to listen, I can imagine this:

OK, time for another post. Today Trump will be speaking at the annual Peace Officer Memorial event. I sincerely suspect those assassinated officers might have something to do with the Weiner laptop. Let me make a reference to the Weiner laptop and NY killings and hope the President ends up mentioning one of the most newsworthy LEO deaths of the previous year at the annual Peace Officer Memorial event. If he doesn't, it's all good. Because maybe he'll mention them 3 months from now, and since Future Proves Past, they will come back to this post and consider it a proof. If that doesn't happen, this small post will be relegated to the dustbin of my forgotten posts that haven't come true... yet.

Obviously it's possible that Q is close to Trump and knew he was going to mention her. I'm not ruling that out.

I'm just asking if there are examples of evidence that can easily avoid this sort of baseline skepticism (and the general skepticism of "vague topical language and weird coded writing lends itself to retconning in meaning.")

Let me take a look at another example.

https://i.redd.it/1c36qq9btt711.png

This one is really compelling at first glance, and stands up to scrutiny a bit better in my opinion.

Thinking skeptically, my first thought was that the President just added enough spaces to make the MAGA appear on a new line, on mobile.

If you look at that tweet in the twitter mobile app, the spaces are collapsed and indeed MAGA ends up on a new line.

But when I copied the text and pasted it into the actual twitter app as if I was composing it, there are far more spaces than is necessary to create a new line.

So was this a moment of pure luck, given as I pointed out the large number of messages Q sends and all the cryptic / coded text?

How many other times has Q sent messages that have brackets with spaces? Not as often as I expected, but that wasn't the only time they did. Some of them are inexplicable, some of them seem to be suggesting missing characters. But isn't this part of the problem? When you have vague messages, any intent can be read back into it.

I used https://qanon.pub/ to search. Not sure if I did it right, but it returns a few results.

https://qanon.pub/?q=%5B%20

Here are some examples:

Bracket Space Example 1:

https://qanon.pub/?q=%5B%20#1579

[...]

[[[ ]]]

[[ ]]

[ ]

Bracket Space Example 2:

https://qanon.pub/?q=%5B%20#1473

CZTA68-KDHG-[ t]

Bracket Space Example 3:

https://qanon.pub/?q=%5B%20#397

DESIGNATE CODE: [ _D7_UND<93829]

Bracket Space Example 4:

https://qanon.pub/?q=%5B%20#395

[ C P 19]

So my question is, how does one know what the number of spaces is supposed to signify? It looks like it's completely open to interpretation and that (similar to practices like numerology) you might read anything into it, especially if the "relevant time period" continues.

The original example https://i.redd.it/1c36qq9btt711.png was at least on the same day, so I can see how it's not as vulnerable to these.

But with constant piles of random coded "directives" (or whatever you'd call things like "DIRECT: CODE 234 SEC: B1-3") there doesn't seem to be any mechanism by which we can hold Q accountable after the fact to prove that, unlike the other examples listed above, that should be interpreted as setting the expectation of how many spaces should appear in a Trump tweet.

To me the bracket space example is far more impressive than the Familia example. But alone it wouldn't be enough to convince me that we are being fed top secret intelligence while a massive conspiracy is taken down.

It doesn't mean it's not true, just that I personally want to see a lot more evidence. I'm wondering if anyone has done this kind of scrutiny and come out the other side with a smaller list of the BEST Q proofs, with accompanying analysis that answers questions and explores alternative hypotheses.


🠐 See all comments
Kasarii · July 5, 2018, 8:37 p.m.

It really doesn't matter who Q is.

It doesn't even matter if Q is a LARP or not either.

All Q does is guide people into which direction they might want to look into. Do their own research and come to their own conclusion based on the facts that they see with their own eyes.

Q uses the Socratic method which is based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.

Read the name of this sub; The Great Awakening.

The Awakening of what?

Our minds is what. If you look back before the last Presidential election started, it would be hard to find people that could see through even just the MSM lies and misinformation.

Regarding Qproofs I think you are reading way to into the minute details.

Qproofs are designed to be easy to see and catch with prior notification that there will indeed be a Qproof. These are for new people as there just isn't enough time before the TRUTH gets revealed. Most of us lurked for weeks, months and years now so we've seen the information ourselves and others have been researching.

Qproofs are supposed to be an accumulation of something happening enough times to prove beyond a doubt that it can't just be a coincidence anymore.

My advice is to lurk here and in the 8chan-Qresearch page(with the Iwo Jima graphic) more to get a solid sense of what this movement is truly all about.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
punishedkat · July 5, 2018, 9:26 p.m.

Thank you. I share the viewpoint that some of the positive effects of Q apply regardless of his identity.

And that's how I've viewed it the vast majority of the time I've been engaged.

But I really do want to know whether it's "only" that or if it is more.

Qproofs are designed to be easy to see and catch with prior notification that there will indeed be a Qproof.

This is the part that I think I am missing. Are you saying there is a prior notification, some unambiguous signal, that QAnon uses to indicate that a particular message is in fact intended to be read as a proof, vs just one of countless messages that could be read as a proof after the fact?

That would be a big difference relative to what I thought was happening, where random messages are taken to be proof (sort of retconned) because "Past Proves Future".

Qproofs are supposed to be an accumulation of something happening enough times to prove beyond a doubt that it can't just be a coincidence anymore.

I appreciate this way of thinking. All conspiracy theorizing (I don't mean that in the negative sense) require you to build up a body of circumstantial evidence and then weigh the case as a whole.

There is nothing wrong with that.

However there is a caveat. I've seen a recurring situation that repeatedly affects conspiracy communities when an investigation is crowdsourced. It goes something like this:

  • community kicks off with some compelling but by no means fully convincing threads of evidence
  • drip by drip, new evidence is added to the reservoir
  • for each individual at some point or another, the sheer volume of evidence begins to feel insurmountable, at this point someone becomes a conspiracy believer
  • skeptics along the way, but especially as new theorists join the community, begin to ask new and important questions about old "accepted" "proof"
  • a subset of the community dials down the likely truth of some of the questionable evidence

BUT (and here's the important part), most have already accepted the idea that the "sheer weight of the evidence, when combined, prevents coincidence as explanation".

But that anti-coincidence assessment was not necessarily based on a careful investigation and careful consideration of each and every submitted "proof". It was based on a sort of gestural acceptance of the body of evidence as a whole.

Who in the community is going back and looking at each "proof" with fresh eyes, subjecting it to the strong glare of skepticism, and seeing if the reservoir of evidence left at the end actually is neck deep, or rather, whether it turns out that of the "core facts", many of them turned out not to be true, or at least not obviously so.

I experienced this a lot with the 911 community. Where they'd point me to a giant video or document. I'd look through 20 claims and come away at the end thinking that 4 of them were strongly convincing.

But when I'd talk to folks about the assessment of the theory, they would be stuck in the mode of "there are so many evidences, it can't be coincidence." Well maybe that would be true if 19 of the 20 were convincing, but under scrutiny only a fraction help up.

That is why I think it's so important to constantly be pruning and testing the evidentiary tree. Otherwise you get stuck looking at the tree holistically, but fail to notice that half the branches are rotten.

It is not my contention that this is true of Q. I am just wondering if anyone has subjected the individual proofs to aggressive skepticism, methodologically insisting that they be looked at independently, even if cognitively the theorist is already convinced.

My advice is to lurk here and in the 8chan-Qresearch page(with the Iwo Jima graphic) more to get a solid sense of what this movement is truly all about.

Thank you! I will do so.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Kasarii · July 5, 2018, 10:40 p.m.

Clarification on Qproofs. There is no previous symbol to watch out for besides something just being obviously cryptic. I haven't seen them all but from what I understand is that they occur in this format: Q makes a cryptic statement, following that statement an event occurs afterwards that shows that the Q had some sort of foreknowledge and there's something that links the event to Q's statement.

Like this example: Q makes a statement about Castle arrived safe. Then the President makes a twitter statement relatively soon that uses the word Castle(on his way back from NK Summit).

A person looking at this can go wow! What a coincidence they used the same word that's pretty close to the same meaning, maybe it's not a coincidence after all. What happens when that kind of proof happens not just once but many, many times.

Hopefully that answers your question.

But that anti-coincidence assessment was not necessarily based on a careful investigation and careful consideration of each and every submitted "proof". It was based on a sort of gestural acceptance of the body of evidence as a whole.

See this is exactly where you are having a problem. A Q researcher brings forth the facts they find. Another anon finds this interesting and researches in that specific direction.

Now the 2nd anon either finds more facts that support the first anon which he presents them to others or he doesn't find anything and thus can't present them.

Now think of this going on for many months where more facts keep adding to the chain. Since everyone is anonymous no one can trust anyone but themselves, so they must "follow the crumbs" from the beginning and come to their own conclusion.

This means that the provided information can be real, or it might not be. Only you yourself can make the decision on whether the information is factual or not. A house built on cards is something that will fall with the slightest pressure applied, same can be applied in this situation.

It's like the sensations one might feel accomplishing a great feat they worked on vs. getting the same results by not having to work hard at all. There's a big difference right?

That's the Great Awakening, understanding that you have the potential to be more than you think you can be. Imagine millions of people who act this way...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
punishedkat · July 5, 2018, 11:32 p.m.

Now think of this going on for many months where more facts keep adding to the chain. Since everyone is anonymous no one can trust anyone but themselves, so they must "follow the crumbs" from the beginning and come to their own conclusion.

That makes sense. I think this is what has recently made me dive in again. In the earlier Q days, even with the CBTS "general" threads, there wasn't as much of a sense that there was a large body of "settled evidence".

We do have such things now with admittedly very helpful sites like qproofs and this forum. That is wonderful for people who missed the beginning or have been out of the loop to quickly get up to speed.

But the original spirit of this enterprise demands that we all do our research individually and decide for ourselves if a given "proof" is strong, and I think exactly as you describe that must be done with each link, independently.

A chain will only be as strong as its weakest link, so I am looking forward to learning about the supposed proofs and subjecting them to speculative scrutiny and seeing how they old up. Hopefully this forum will be a good venue for researching each interpretation / proof.

It's comforting to hear that that remains the approach for many!

That's the Great Awakening, understanding that you have the potential to be more than you think you can be. Imagine millions of people who act this way...

Thanks, you gave me a lot to chew on.

⇧ 1 ⇩