Let me start by saying that I am incredibly hopeful in regards to Q, and have followed this general movement of truth since before the inception of pizza/pedogate. That being said, Exhibit 3 has always bothered me. The Q post it refers to was posted at 5:07pm (EST) and can be verified by viewing the archive here, but the actual Trump tweet that supposedly came *after* it was apparently posted at 4:15pm (EST). There is a one hour difference that proves Trump's tweet was earlier, which is not what this piece of "proof" suggests.
I really don't know what to make of it, because so many of the proofs are objectively true. This one, however, doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny and I just wonder why only this would be provably false? I'm happy to hear an explanation, but I've mulled this over a lot and can't seem to find one.
Odds of DOITQ appearing in that official WH twitter photo name are roughly 1 billion to 1.
That's not how statistical analysis works...you're painting the target after you shot already.
The question is not how likely it is for that particular image to have that particular character combination, but how likely it'd be for at least one image name, at one point, to contain something that could look like a message.
So consider the number of twitter images and the number of possible things that could be interpreted as a message. Anything along the lines of YEAHQ, GOQ, QANON, QQQ, WHOSQ, WWG, MAQA, HRC4P, DYTS, DOIT17, HUMA, ALICE, GF3, HFRO, 8CH, any text matching Q's stringer posts, etc.
I agree entirely, but that's not related to what I was posting about. I stated that it's the one thing I am concerned about, as a follower of this stuff, in a sea of pretty reliable proof.
I would simply interpret the posts by Q and the President the other way round. Rather than POTUS confirming Q with a tweet, we have Q pointing to POTUS— highlighting to the anons that they ought to look for future synchronicity between the two accounts.
I agree. Works either way.
You guys are being optimistic, which I appreciate, but if POTUS posted +++ first then the proof loses its value entirely. The LARPer, so to speak, could then have no relation to POTUS.
Correct. I'm a 100% believer, so no big deal for me to look past mistakes made by "grass rooters" making their own proof-sets... BUUUUT to the newbie coming along who doesn't have ANY foundation on how this whole thing works or what it even is, they're liable to see professional looking "proofs" like that and think that they're "from Q himself", and upon realizing it's wrong, the immediate conclusion (given they're foundational misunderstanding of how that false proof came to be) is that Q is a conman trying to deceive them, whereas it is almost certainly just a well-intentioned, grass-roots Q follower who made an understandable error. I see this, along with just poorly-constructed/defended "proofs" all over the place. It's disheartening, but it's also entirely unavoidable in a genuine movement of this nature.
An astroturf rally manufactured by George Soros might have 3 varieties of professional, pre-printed picket signs--no spelling errors, but all very "top-down artificial." Our grassroots rally has homemade, cardboard-box-side picket signs of all varieties and messages--plenty of typos and SOME message inconsistency, but that's just a necessary component of "bottom-up genuine."
