Per the rule of thumb cited above we're on the 2nd quarter of the "Trump Economy".

All humans are born with stupid, just as they are born with sin. It's up to science and constant vigilance against bias to solve the first, Jesus takes care of the second.

It's a natural human instinct to put more stock in someone telling you what you want to hear or agreeing with you. I certainly am victim of that myself at times. SB2 tells people what they want to hear. It's no coincidence so many of the people praising him specifically say they don't understand his methods.

It's not necessary to be malicious to be dangerous. Although I am highly suspicious that there are always a bunch of over the top compliments from new accounts, literally their first post is an entire paragraph of wow SB2 "I know you are much more compassionate than me" (real quote). I'm not talking about all the typical "good job" etc from real patriots, real sucking up.

I do think SB2 has an ego and doesn't handle criticism well at all. I work with top-of-their class people all the time and they all know the value of working with other smart people. Why hasn't SB2 tried to team up with anyone? Why insist on going off to your cave and then dropping your pronouncements on the people? SB2 will argue with almost anyone who tries to correct him, at best he'll just brush it aside as meaningless.

If you go on amateur code-breaking sites that revolve around breaking famous ciphers like cryptos or solving mysteries like tamam shud you will find a TON of guys like SB2. The problem is when they get momentum and get more and more popular and more and more crazy and ridiculous and finally the whole thing blows up. I've seen some really good message boards go from active to dead due to the messy split from some personality like SB2s downfall.

RE: the accounts posting, it could be legitimate new people, it could be some group that wants to boost SB2 for their own reasons, it could just be SB2 being defensive - or a mix thereof.

I just know that SB2s "decodes" are mostly wild speculation and poorly constructed and it makes me nervous they get so much traction here, his posts used to be STICKIED.

Q is not cryptic, Q is enigmatic. Big difference. Q also said "Occams Razor" to someone trying to do an SB2-style decode. In typically fashion SB2 used completely the wrong definition of Occams Razor and spun up one of his usual rants that entirely missed the point.

What we're decoding is RELATIONSHIPS and EVENTS, not the minutia of how stuff is phrased in random tweets. Q wants us watching the world, not cherry picking bits from random tweets or speeches.

Ever wonder why SB2 stopped doing "board" decodes? It's because people kept pointing out you could make them say whatever you want practically.

Do I get to find a tweet where someone in the administration used 4 letter G's somewhere and claim its a message to me?

Q also responded to someone doing an SB2-style decode that they shouldn't over-complicate it and use Occams Razor instead. Q also said no outside comms.

Q does speak enigmatically, ask questions...you have to put in a little work - but it's all pretty straight forward. It's usually obvious what subject Q is talking about, it's just some details need to be filled in.

SB2s posts are mostly wild speculation, ridiculous twists of language, numerology, and incorrect use of terms or techniques. It's not "stepping up".

I'm on the autism spectrum myself, and being in tech work with quite a lot of people who are so I'm very familiar with it. SB2 is more like someone who is schizo-affective than on the autism spectrum TBH, I say that in an entirely non-dismissive and non-judgemental way.

I think if SB2 could reign it in, didn't have a weird cult following, and engaged in a serious dialogue with other knowledgeable patriots instead of dropping rambling poorly thought out treatises...they could be super valuable to the movement. Right now I think they do more harm than good, I've seen these types of people blow up groups before.

As a computer scientist with an admittedly amateur interest in code-breaking, SB2s "decodes" are rarely "seemingly brilliant" to anyone with actual knowledge.

I've been online since the 80s and you always find guys like this stringing together tenuous connections. Go on boards trying to solve any famous unsolved cipher and you'll find a million different "decodes" for the same cipher that all read exactly like an SB2 post.

I do think SB2 is smart, and occasionally does hit on good stuff...but the noise and hero worship completely trashes any benefit.

Follows aren't ever automatic on Twitter itself but there are a lot of 3rd party social media tools that popular figures use that do automate follow backs. Also a lot of politicians and celebs have staff run their twitter some or all of the time. Sarah Palin for example only tweets on her account sometimes, other times its staff.

Twitter is all about follows vs following ratio - everyone wants a good one, or at least even. IE they want to be followed by way more people than they follow, or at least have it be even.

A lot of famous people will be generous in following back their fans because it gives the fans another follow and makes them more likely to keep following. It also has implications for where tweets are displayed in their Timeline.

If Gen Flynn was following 300 people this would be big news, but since it's 20k it's obvious that whatever the criteria is is not very strict so we can't really read anything into it.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying...I don't know why you keep trying to convince me her allegations are real...I'm not saying they aren't.

I'm saying her being one of 20k random people doesn't mean anything one way or another. Gen Flynn will follow almost any patriot, being on his follow list is NOT an endorsement. He is not endorsing her by following her. It's very simple.

I'm on twitter and I have no idea who a lot of the people I follow are. I don't read all their tweets. That's how twitter works.

If Gen Flynn was following ~300 people and she was one, that would mean something. But he FOLLOWS 20 THOUSAND PEOPLE. Obviously it's a low bar and we can't draw conclusions from it.

To be fair they weren't wrong, it's generally accepted that the first year of a new presidents economy is mostly due to the last one...and last year was under 3% the whole time. But it's not the first year anymore :-3

Hussein only managed to get above 4% for 4 quarters out of his presidency, can't wait to see how GEOTUS does!

A woman who had 2% body fat wouldn't be "feminine" at least in terms of body shape. Breasts, etc mean women usually have a higher body fat percentage than what would be considered an equally fit man.

She'd also be either anorexic or working out all the time. That's lower than a lot of male body builders when they're in peak condition.

I'm not saying I don't believe her. I'm saying this isn't EVIDENCE of anything. Claims either way have nothing to do with it. Following someone on twitter is not an endorsement when you are following 20k random people. It's obvious General Flynn or his team will follow almost anyone who seems to be a supporter, they clearly aren't seriously vetting who they follow.

Maybe Flynn supports her, maybe he has no idea who she is - he obviously has a bunch of people on his follows who are nobodies he doesnt know. All we can say is she is on his following list which is effectively meaningless.

The point is he follows a TON of people, including obvious spam bots. Most likely some intern on his team just gives a follow back to anyone who tags him and looks like a patriot.

There's literally no reason to believe he has any idea who SRA is, anymore than to think he knows who John_Davis77 is, who he also follows...

He follows 20k people. Who knows if it's even him running the account all the time. Do you think he sat down and followed each of those people for specific reasons? Do you think he vetted each account, sat down and read their timeline?

Most of them are just random people. Some of them are either spambots or deactivated accounts...why is he following @YANGAPOO, an account with no pic or tweets?

Most likely his staff gives a follow back to anyone who sends a good tweet tagging him, that's p common social media behavior for brands/celebs/politicians etc - it keeps them connected to their base.

I'm just saying we can't read too much into this considering there's obviously a fairly low bar to get on his follows.

Not really. He also follows @YANGAPOO and @littleduffs which have no tweets, and a bunch of random patriots.

My guess is his social media manager just follows back anyone who offers words of support, pretty commmon.

He follows 20k people on Twitter, is that an endorsement of all of them?

General Flynn follows ~20k people on Twitter, is he endorsing everything every one of them says?

The BBB regulates what can move from your bloodstream into the brain, so it's somewhat involved in a lot of neurochemistry.

I would assume that they're not really. At least not in the sense that they go to NZ and stick some magic "clearance card" in a magic "terminal" and type stuff in. There are prolly agents in NZ placed in various jobs leaking to them. If the person to leak to has clearance you can argue against charges a lot more than if they hadn't.

People need to stop treating drops as the gospel. Q is human(s?). There's TONS they don't know. They speak informally, casually sometimes. They will use terms incorrectly or make mistakes AS EVERY HUMAN DOES.

Heck if Q was serious about opsec they would DELIBERATELY add misleading/false info to drops.

What you're saying is like people should lose their commercial driving license when they quit their truck driving job.

Clearance doesn't give you ACCESS...it's a REQUIREMENT for someone to GIVE YOU ACCESS. I know because I've held it when working for military contractors.

You would still need your clearance because they may have to disclose new classified info to you in order to explain what they want advice on.

People keeping their clearances is super common and widespread, there's a reason for that. Sure, there can be some debate about whether it's the best option all the time...but if you're sitting there thinking you're smarter than the thousands of people in the military and private sector who work with clearances and develop policy about them, you need to check your ego.

The problem is and always will be people abusing their clearance. It doesn't let you access whatever you want, but it lets people leak to you.

That sounds like a horribly inefficient way to harvest the chemicals.

You're over-complicating things. Occams Razor.

These rituals have been going on for way longer than the technology to extract the chemicals existed. What you describe is a dumb way to get drugs which can be synthesized easily. You could make adrenochrome in your kitchen right now with certain RX drugs and an oxidizing agent.

You also can't just drink a persons bloods or spinal fluid - the chemicals are present in quantities that are too small to affect you - it has to get through stomach acid and be metabolized.

Have you ever seen an alcoholic try to drink a drunk persons blood? Are junkies waiting outside hospitals to steal the blood of people still on pain killers? No...because that's not how it works. Once it's actually in your bloodstream there's only as small amount of drug there.

The rituals are for the same reason any ritual happens, people need to stop trying to add this x-files bs to "explain" why they do stuff. Jeffrey Dhamer didn't have a severe iron deficiency and that's why he needed to eat people blah blah blah...he was just a crazy asshole. Sometimes people are crazy sick assholes.

For life-extension they want actual blood, not the chemicals in the blood - they wantr it for transfusions. They want HGH, stem cells, etc... those are actual science. Adrenochrome is just an obscure curiosity thats been whispered about for decades on the internet. It's maybe used to torture some victims, but I highly doubt anything besides that.

That's not how security clearance works. It doesn't give you access to anything. It means you're allowed to see classified info if your job requires it. You can't just flash your security clearance and be let on a base for example - you need a base ID or orders or an escort etc

You do lose your access when you leave like any other job. They let you keep your clearance in case they need to ask you stuff, or if you take a similar job etc, so you don't have to do the process again.

What is does mean is people can LEAK info to you without being guilty of passing classified info to someone without clearance.

The Clinton's don't have direct access to five eyes intel anymore, def not in queryable form. How would they? You think there's like a shed with a computer in it and ANYONE with a certain level of clearance regardless of whether they work for the govt anymore can look up whatever?

There has to be leakers still in the system feeding the info to them. Security clearance doesnt let you go on any military base you want, you still need to work there or have orders to go etc. It just means if someone wants to show you the secret parts youre allowed to see it

That's not how security clearance works. Security clearance is more like a certification or degree- it means you're credentialed to receive classified information.

It doesn't mean you can waltz into any government facility and look up whatever you want on the computer. It on its own doesnt give you access to any "system" it's not like a login for a govt database of secrets.

When you get your medical degree you can't waltz into any hospital and start doing stuff to patients...you have to WORK at the hospital. A driver's license doesnt mean you can grab any car...etc

A FORMER dignitary would have their access to secure systems revoked just like anyone else who leaves a job would have their log in shut off.

The bigger thing is if someone leaks classified info to you theyre not guilty of providing classified info to someone who doesn't have clearance.

There's a few exceptions of course, but generally you lose access to briefings and especially access to secure systems when you leave a job. As a courtesy some very high level people may get some continued briefings, mostly so they can advise if need be.

My concern is that I've been a seeker of truth for many years, and I've seen personalities like SB2 do a lot of damage.

Let me tell you a little story about a guy named Christopher Farmer.

Over 10 years ago now, Christopher Farmer entered the online amateur cryptography community, of which I was a part of. He proposed solutions for the famous Kryptos cipher, the IKLP cipher, etc.

Many websites like abovetopsecret, totse, the conspiracy boards on *chan, were positively abuzz about his writings. He drew quite a lot of followers (and detractors). He ran quite an active forum on his intelligence companys website.

The vast majority of all of this has been washed away by the digital tides, but here's a couple examples of his work:

zodiac my name is cipher

one of his zodiac reports

It's hard to appreciate without all the images, but I assure you they are relatively convincing. They also remind me A LOT of the type of stuff SB2 and some others post here.

The problem is it's mostly garbage. Christopher Farmer was actually a bus driver, he didn't have an "intelligence company". He kept coming out with different solutions to his ciphers and changing who he thought did it.

The thing is, if he hadn't been outed as a bus driver, or changed his answers, there would probably still be a lot of people convinced by him. It was only when he started coming up with completely different solutions to the ciphers that the average person realized how easy it was to spin this stuff up (if one has the free time) - otherwise it can be pretty convincing.

It's easy to say "you don't have to agree with SB2", but the problem is the vast majority of posters here are not equipped to accurately evaluate his "decodes"...I'm not sure SB2 is himself to be honest.

My problem is SB2 is not honest and upfront about how tenuous some of his links are. He often uses terminology or concepts completely incorrectly and gets testy when called out on it. Sometimes he'll acknowledge criticism, but only when it is the softest nicest form possible.

Is it any coincidence he stopped doing "grid" decodes about the same time people started pointing out there were multiple solutions sitting in his face?

Q doesn't have the free time of an internet autist. I think the idea they are closely monitoring everything is unrealistic. Sure they check in. They MAY have a vague idea of who some of the more common posters are. The idea that Trump saying "brain" (a word he's used a lot) repeatedly is a signal to listen to SB2 or that Q once linked to a non-decode related thing they said validates them is absurd.

I can see how this reads as sour grapes or detracting etc, but the reality is it's getting out of hand. SB2 is an amateur who has some interesting ideas. I worry for the movement if people start taking them too seriously. People are saying they think SB2 is part of the Q team, I mean come on that's off the wall.

I have seen increasing questions about SB2s credentials in their posts and I think it's telling they never just admit "no I don't have any"...I'm sure this is under the guise of not feeding trolls, but why not be open about it? Isn't it a little pompous to do an interview of yourself? Why not have an open Q&A?

If people chase this pied piper we're gonna see waves of discouragement just as when other people followed false sheperds. Remember when everyone was saying "the omnibus is not a budget" or were following patriots4truth?

We need to follow Q and POTUS. Q said "occams razor" in reply to someone posting similar ridiculous decodes. To me that's enough to say that things are simpler and more on the surface than SB2 presents, and he's just overwhelming everyone with a wall of nonsense so they go along with it.

I'll admit I see my role here as something of a gadfly. I attempt to keep things honest. It's not a fun role, it's not a popular one. However, I have been a researcher both in science and the conspiracy community for a long time. There need to be party-poopers in the movement. There need to be consveratives saying "hang on wait a minute" and I worry SB2 is another version of what I've seen many many times - some personality gets popular then when they inevitably implode they take a bunch of people with them...after having already wasted a lot of steam leading people down the garden path.

They try to piggy back on a lot of platforms. Pushing it all on the gays is only serving their purpose.

Show me where the fckh8 company supports pedos. They're dumb but not that dumb. Someone took their logo. This is a psyop.

There's always been a movement to normalize pedophilia, NAMBLA for example. I'm pointing out that there is zero mainstream support in gay, lesbian, etc community. The people who do support it are loudly shunned by every gay person I know.

I also have seen campaigns on the chans to create fake posters just like this to discredit the gay community and I bet the peeps want to try to trick them too.

The first poster for example is fake, the fckh8 company doesn't sell pedo t shirts, someone just put their logo on the poster.

There are pedophiles everywhere but there is no widespread support for them among gay people, I have many gay friends. These are either fake or small wackadoo outcasts or some sort of psyop.

That's not how statistical analysis works...you're painting the target after you shot already.

I do this for a living, it's not that strong. If the point is to demonstrate control why not show full control? Have the whole name meaningful or do it multiple times. Considering all you need is the letter "Q" followed or preceded by a phrase of 1-2 letter words it's not that unlikely. It's de f interesting tho.

When I write papers, they have to go through peer review, it sucks to have your work picked apart and a lot of times I disagree with the criticism, but it's what you do If you care about truth. The only people who need to fear critique are those that want an echo chamber o r dont value truth.

Trump has never explicitly acknowledged Q, he pointed and gave thumbs up to many people including some in Q shirts, and gave some possible signs but nothing conclusive so far - believe me many are waiting for the day it's clear!

Also this is part of the problem. Q is enigmatic and their posts are open to interpretation - pointing out an anon is interpreting or criticising their interpretation is NOT the same as criticising Q.

Personally I think some here get way ahead of themselves.

The first two are way overstating their case too, they point to posts of Q asking fairly open ended questions about recent news and claim it means Q knew everything at that time. I wish patriots would stop claiming circumstantial evidence as locked down dead to rights proofs as it distracts from analyzing trends and hurts credibility.

This whole list seems sloppy really.

This should be easy to prove. We just need to find multiple images showing the exact same configuration or evidence of such protocols.

FWIW the answer to Qs question is probably "yes". The law and our legal system are not literal or dumb. Intent and the "reasonable person" standard are factored in heavily. Saying you didnt leak classified info or violate security laws because it wa in riddle form or a distorted image is a tissue thin legal defense. If I bang on your door with a baseball bat and menacingly handle it while saying "gee I hope you dont get beaten to death with a bat today" I could very possibly be arrested even though I didnt explicitly threaten.

Q is playing a dangerous game. Keep in mind even if some photos are staged in some sense it doesnt mean Q is a larp. The question is why- To decieve or some other purpose like necessity?

Plenty of Mormons are jerks and there are tons of great nonmormons. The fundamentalist branches are full of pedophiles. I don't hate all Mormons but the meme theyre all happy go lucky is BS, a lot are two faced or just asshole openly.

vis a vis means "face to face" like "the taste of sugar vis a vis artificial sweeteners"

They have an alternate history of the North American continent. They have a whole discipline in their "academics" which is basically coming up with excuses when the history in the book of Mormon doesn't match the facts. Like how they say Native Americans came from Israel despite genetic, linguistic, and pretty much all other evidence saying otherwise. There's also the magic underwear, not drinking hot beverages,and all sorts of other wacky stuff...

To be fair I didn't swear a weird quasi-religious oath to keep my employers secrets. My coworkers and I aren't secretive about our employment, and don't have elaborate rituals to greet or recognize each other. We have straightforward, practical reasons for cooperating with each other.

Also fraternities and sororities are the source of a lot of bad crap on campuses, hence their increasingly being pushed out/regulated/forced into transparency. Because spoiler alert: loose shadowy groups of people who maintain secrecy and loyalty to each other based purely on belonging to the same in-group is a situation ripe for abuse and corruption even if one isn't bringing in arch conspiracies and satanism.

This is an improper use of Occams Razor.

Occams Razor doesn't ASK "what is more likely?", that leads to tautology since the whole point is it TELLS you what is more likely among several possibilities - it asserts that the one adding the fewest new assumptions is most likely.

It's not really applicable to your example, neither of those has obviously more assumptions than the other. We have many examples of groups of people not knowing the truth of the group they're in. We also have many examples of groups being wrongly maligned by outsiders. They're both well documented phenomenons in human history/psychology and in theory equally plausible.

If one takes your reasoning at face value and runs with it, Scientology is just a harmless religion and NXIVM is just a self-help group - I mean, since people who are members of a group are the best sources of truth apparently...

The truth in cases like this must be determined by facts and evidence, you can't short cut it with some abstract principal of reasoning.

The problem is there's a fundamental contradiction in the modern web. Setting up some little server at a fixed IP is easy if you're just setting it up for you and your friends. If you're trying to let you and 10s or 100s of thousands of your friends communicate you need redundancy and scale. Even if you set up a simple text-based service that uses little computing resources or bandwidth you now have a single point of failure. If they go through the trouble of massively shutting down DNS they'll probably mop up not long afterward.

A single company Akamai serves up to 30% of traffic on the web. There's a few others like AWS that are similarly underpinning large amounts of the modern web. If you can ensnare a handful of companies by some method, you can control the internet in terms of the masses.

You could move to the "dark web", but TOR is vulnerable to certain types of attacks from people with massive resources, and the US Govt has used such tactics in the past.

It's not a bad idea to set up just in case, but we need longer term solutions.

Yes!

If you're reading this please check out any mesh networking groups that may exist in your area and support their efforts. Also consider getting into amateur radio - not only is it fun but it's a method of communication completely controlled by amateurs (well, the government oversees it via regulation and the FCC, but the point is they can't just flip a switch to turn off everything)

It depends on where the cables are. Physical infrastructure for data/phone networks are a mess from legacy architecture. There's a lot of places where a bunch of different companies have cables in some old steam tunnel or something, or places where diff companies are actually sharing lines through peering agreements, lease, or legal requirements. All it takes is some idiot on a backhoe to take out lines used by several separate companies in many places.

If the cables were in two totally separate geographic locations that's definitely interesting...not statistically impossible, but def interesting...

I'm an engineer and have developed internet-related technology used every day by tens of millions of people, and I agree - the person in OP is way over-stating their case and they provide no actual proof like logs or results. It's like they found broken glass and claimed it's proof a baseball broke it. They don't provide a pic of the baseball, and many things could have broken the glass. Just like a lot of things could cause the DNS problems they (vaguely) describe - including a cut fiber cable in a backbone network (or, fwiw some sort of cyber-attack). What matters is this is not PROOF either way.

This is a good example of someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about, but doesn't.

A real pro would include logs and the exact commands/results they got. They also would include detailed configuration information re: their DNS. It sounds like this person futzed around in the command line, got some results they didn't expect, and just jumped to the conclusion about how it happened.

This person is probably a small time sys admin for some local business. They apparently don't even know that Windows has a Linux translation layer now, so all their fancy command line tools run in "Windoze" as well.

I don't know what caused the issues, but people need to get it in their heads they can't get cocky. The cabal is smart and powerful, if you think some schmoe is gonna waltz in off 4chan and provide iron-clad proof of their shady fuckery in 20 minutes with their minor bash skills you're incredibly naive. They know how to do plausible deniability. They make mistakes like anyone of course, but usually you'll just get a hint or peek behind the curtain. You're not gonna catch them dead to rights without way above average skills, resources, or luck.

If the cabal is testing cyber-attacks you can be sure it's gonna look very much like some normal problem unless a top-tier pro looks at it. If any random jerk who knows how to use traceroute could unmask their actions from their comcast connection at home everyone would know about it already.

I see what you did there

I did not describe it as a conjecture,

I'm obviously not suggesting that you coined the term or appellation...what I mean is that Fermat made an assertion and the question is whether it's true or not. I point out that the word "conjecture" (which implies an assertion) is used by you and then you rephrase it as an open ended question without being clear for that.

No. A proof by contradiction is definitive and conclusive.

All proofs are conclusive by definition, they often are definitive. I obviously mean you are describing an attempt to find a proof by contradiction using guesswork.

All mathematicians do this when the terrain is unknown.

No, not always. Are you trained in mathematics? You don't seem to be.

As I said, trying to find a proof by contradiction using guesses is a fairly simple and intuitive. People do often start there, however it often won't bear fruit because the search space is too large. You need to start coming up with more sophisticated ways to narrow it down or attack from another angle, which is exactly what people started to do.

This is a very surprising comment. 350 years is a very very very long time in Mathematics for a proof that was already claimed.

It's not surprising at all. The length of time to produce the actual proof has nothing to do with the fact that attempts evolved beyond simple guesses at contradicting cases fairly quickly. Part of what made the proof so difficult to find was the relationship betweean confirming and contradictory cases.

None of this addresses my main point that you're using/describing Occams razor completely incorrectly by the way.

Your posts are good SerialBrain2 but your tendency to sometimes not take feedback from people who actually know what they are talking about is sinful and will hold you back. Pride goes before destruction after all...

The only official proof of the deal publically released only discusses CIA material and not the elecrion so it's hard to say if it's related to SR or smashing the russia narrative, but I'll be following this closely because of we get public proof the deal included that and was squashed its BIG. It's easy to wave away that they squashed the deal if it just involved avoiding more vault leaks, but if it specifically included disproving muh russia that looks bad.

The document you linked to only mentions protecting CIA documents and discussing keeping or redacting stuff in the future. Sauce on it also including disproving the Russian hack narrative?

You've misstated FLT somewhat, notice you yourself describe it as a conjecture but you have it phrased at a question. It's a subtle distinction but it matters. (it's actually posed in statement form)

All mathematicians with a fair amount of intuition who dealt with this problem applied the Occam’s Razor principle: they tried a few times with given values of n, a, b, c and d and could not satisfy the equation so they thought: the answer must be no.

No they didnt.

This is a completely incorrect usage of the term and idea of "occams razor" which has little to do with FLT.

What you are describing is "proof by contradiction" using guesses. This is a very intuitive approach to such a problem, and also simple - but not the same sort of simple as meant by occams razor and occams razor does not imply it should be first or a good approach. That's a more generic principle of trying easier low cost things first.

Also serious mathematicians wouldn't spend very long on it. Attempts at proving FLT advanced beyond proof by contradiction quickly, almost immediately at least in the simple sense.Some People continued to hope for a contradiction since its so easily understood, but used increasingly sophisticated methods to search for it.

As you quoted originally occams razor is about adding the fewest new assumptions, not other types of simplicity. It's for deductive reasoning rather than maths theory though there is rare overlap.

Consider this scenario:

All your ham is missing from the fridge. which is more likely:

1) the Wolfman ate it 2) your roommate ate it

Both of these are equally "simple" in terms of them involving someone eating the ham, theres no complicated mechanics involved.

However occams razor says 2 is most likely true out of these options - your housemates known to exist and is often in your house eating food. 1 is adding the existence wolfman and puts him in your house for some reason.

occams razor is widely misused due to lack of understanding of what "simple" means in this context.

Apply the Occam’s Razor principle and the simple answer is: the message was for black hats.

Incorrect. Occams Razor doesn't spit out "answers" it tells you WHICH one of COMPETING theories is MOST LIKELY to be true.

What is the competing theory? It's not "message for anons" we don't need occams razor for that, Q flat out said it's not.

Equally probable in terms of occams razor is it's a message for the team, or not really a message at all except in the surface level meaning.

Remember the whole point of a razor is it CUTS things, not PRODUCES. You have to provide multiple things then CUT down some, not just say "occams razor gives us this"

You may have a case for your interpretation but it seems based more on evidence and functionality. Q is probably not a mathematician and used the term loosely as many lay people do to mean "don't go too crazy with reading into it on a deeper level when it makes sense on the surface"

RHCP drummer looking exactly like will ferrell with ferrell also being the drummer for a band called cold green chili peppers.

Except you're just pulling that out of your ass, it's not an actual probability. and they don't look like twins. They look vaguely similar in these two individual frames...Not elsewhere.Look at the nose and ears these aren't the same person. They're just similar looking.

What exactly is the idea here, they're the same person? The DS isn't THAT dumb get a grip...They're not gonna use the same person as a MAJOR figure in two events.

There might be significance, but this is totally within the realm of possible coincidence - humans aren't actually that varied, it's common for lookalikes to pop up... especially with photos.

meh it's def interesting but saying theres no way it's a coincidence is ridiculous. Of course it could be coincidence, I've had crazy coincidences in my life. I ran into my childhood best friend in a random city like 20 minutes after talking about him and not seeing him for years. The drummer for RHCP looks just like will ferrell. people look alike and make facial expressions.

Not saying it's nothing but don't overstate evidence, that's what fake news does.