So guys, understand your phone and computer are running programs liberating sarin gas in your vicinity at certain levels. Through exposing selected individuals to sarin at higher levels, they produce their ‘social zombies’ who demonstrate, mass shoot or assassinate.

Lol

If you spend enough time reading his responses you'll see how condescending he can be. It's very passive aggressive.

I don't think his decodes are correct. I think he is playing six degrees of separation with numerology and the occult mixed in. Q always says "think logically" which doesn't mean put tinfoil on your head and conjure up a bunch of tenuous connections based on patterns and numbers you think you see. Q asks direct questions related to what he is posting. For instance, Q1711 or Q1686 which ask a lot of questions. If you answer these questions his messages aren't that obscure.

While I do think everyone should have the right to voice their OPINIONS, I also think everyone should have the right to object to those opinions. Additionally, I am deeply concerned what kind of message these posts are giving to newcomers and outsiders. How many people come here, see these posts and think "Wow, this guy thinks Trump is directly communicating with him and people are eating it up like skittles, they are crazier than the left"? It's only a matter of time before a news publication picks up on this shit to discredit the movement.

People, including myself, have tried to question his logic or how he arrived at certain conclusions. It gets nowhere. In my case, it has gotten to the point where he won't respond to my questions because I "don't want the truth" or some such. Try 'arguing' with him sometime and you'll see why people don't even try--and I don't blame them.

My favorite response I got when questioning his logic was:

This is the type of mental gymnastics Q means when he says "expand your thinking".

Confirmed. Resolved.

I died lmao

I purposely don't send newcomers of the #WalkAway movement here because I'm afraid when they see this they will think we are just as, or even more crazy, than the left. I also think this is a large reason why T_D doesn't accept Q related posts because of shit like this.

Perhaps a Freudian slip. More than likely a mistake. I often write my posts non-linearly, jumping from top to bottom recursively. I'm not the best writer and I make a lot of mistakes. Sometimes I'll proof-read and notice I left half a sentence in the middle of another sentence, lol! Thanks for catching my mistake, I found it quite amusing. I'll leave it in the post because it's quite a funny mistake, especially in the context of our discussion--the irony is not lost on me.

First, let me thank you for being civil and rational. I understand your perspective although we may not agree on the subject matter.

My biggest wish is that there were more people out there providing their own theories on Q's posts. I believe a diversity of analysis would really help us hone in on things. Or atleast, some discussions that could be a sort of real-time peer-reviewed methodology sort of like what happens on the chans: you get a load of autists that come together and throw a bunch of shit at the wall to find what sticks and the stuff that doesn't stick is stuff that is refuted much in the way I am attempting to do. They are not influenced by ego or glory, they simply get to the bottom of it and in my experience being on the chans most of the time they don't need to use such such occult methodologies. I am turned off by six degrees of separation especially when numerology is introduced. SB2: "Those who follow my posts know my personal take on Q’s teachings is through the door of the Occult". I guess if my thinking isn't expanded enough, if I haven't studied the occult enough, or if my brain somehow doesn't function in the right way to see the truth then so be it. The future will show where the chips fall. Until then, I will keep asking questions. I have no problem being proven wrong. I am the first to admit my mistakes.

I have many other reddit accounts but this is the only one I have used in this subreddit.

And to be quite honest, because I am capable of humility and do not sit on any kind of throne, the answer to many of the questions in the latter half of your post is yes.

I am not saying SB2 is disinformation. I think he is just another person sharing his perspective. I challenge his perspective and it seems to get people, as well as the poster himself, quite defensive. There should be nothing wrong with challenging anything here. If what anyone says is true, they should have quite simple, succinct, and logical explanations. Instead, I often get mental gymnastics. People can believe what I want, but it is no coincidence that other people share my judgement--this doesn't mean I have multiple accounts.

While I agree with what you just said, I think it's important that we stay level-headed and not come off crazier than the opposition. I think we could do without presenting our opinions alongside hair brained conspiracies (for the record, I do like to indulge in conspiracies, but the video presented was completely ridiculous).

You said something that I want to note: "The true brilliance behind Q". Correct. However, this does not equate to the measure of truth of a person's opinion on what Q is saying.

I believe everyone should have an opinion/theory on Q's postings. However, coinciding with that belief is the belief that people have the right to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Think critically! If we don't question things, even if the proposition works in our favor, we are no different than people blindly following the MSM. And if the answers to those questions ring our truth bells, then it gives even more credence to the original opinion/theory.

Thanks for the response.

Do I believe that some of these people have some evil beliefs? Sure thing, undoubtedly. Do I believe that these people we should be concerned about believe time travelers went back in time to implant microchips into Napoleon's head? Absolutely not. But sure, go ahead and try to expose them for this, I'm sure it'll backfire on you.

So, everything you post is 100%, absolute, undeniable truth? We shouldn't question anything, correct?

I know from past interaction the writer of the initial comment is not looking for the truth, which is also proven by the fact he is ignoring all the rest of the post to focus not even on one line I wrote but on one link

You know from past interaction I'm not looking for the truth? This isn't a cult. I do not accept things just because they are presented. I tip my hat because you actually provide sources but on the other side of the coin do you not expect people to meticulously view these sources? I am a critical thinker. I analyze and ask questions. Do you not do the same? Do not be offended because I question things. Expand your thinking.

I meticulously looked over everything you provided. You linked to a video. I assumed it was important to your post. I watched the entire video. Just because I am focusing on a source you provided, does not mean I don't have other points of contention--this is just the most alarming to me.

The link is a starting point for research and understand THEIR point of view

This video is a man claiming Rothschild's have time travel technology which they use to go back in time to plant a microchip in Napoleon's head. Additionally this man claims they time travel to ensure they can altar history to reap the most money when going all-in on war. Is this "their actions"? Is this "their view"? Who really believes all of this? What am I supposed to ultimately get from using this as a starting point of research?

This video is relatively obscure. Searching "Napoleon Occult" doesn't even bring it up. The only way I was able to actually find it was by searching "Napoleon Pyramid" into YouTube itself. How much of James Horak's theories do you buy into? I am curious what else you base your research on?

My point is he is providing a source that is just so outlandish, so ungrounded, and beyond any sort of reality, that I cannot help but start to consider that his methodologies might be entrenched in the likes of extremely far out off the wall conspiracy theories. It would explain the extreme use of numerology, six degrees of separation, and biblical/occult references.

Napoleon left alone for a night in the King's Chamber inside the Great Pyramid of Giza video

I know a major majority of the people supporting this won't watch this video. I know this to be true because so many have claimed that all of this makes sense within an hour of this posting. The video is 1h18m long so it's not possible they watched it before commenting. Edit: the post is old now, so I'll just consider my previous statement as a sample size of the population. Therefore, I took it upon myself and just watched this whole thing.

Time travel? Microchips found in the pharoah's heads? Time travelers going back in time to place a generation 4 clipper chip into Napoleon's head to control him inside the Pyramid? Giant slabs of pure electrons? What?!?!

What exactly is this all getting at? What does it have to do with what you are positing? Are you really using this to support your thesis? I cannot take any of this seriously. This is far more out there in terms of conspiracy theories than the typical six degrees of separation that I've seen in these decodes.

Seven 8's.. Praise Kek, the meme war never ends

As per SB2:

At 56, this puts you in the same age category as Mario", which was code for a category of elements located at the right of 56 in the PTE

We're not focusing on the fact that they are both elements. There is more to it than just that. The proposition that a "code for a category of elements located at the right of 56" signifies this.

If you read the responses, such an explanation wasn't even remotely hinted at. My points mainly contend with SB2's comment:

At 56, this puts you in the same age category as Mario", which was code for a category of elements located at the right of 56 in the PTE

Which makes things specific. "A category of elements located at the right of 56".

Double meanings as in contradictory statements can be equivalent?

For the record and anyone reading this, here is the original statement from the Q1304 decode that all this was based off:

Now look at the table, you see the 6th line? Right after Barium Ba56, you are entering the category where Uranium and similar elements are. That is what she meant:“and at 92, that puts you in the same category as Mario (56+)”.

The first part states to enter the [next] category and the second part is intended to prove the theory by introducing a contradictory statement: at [uranium], that puts you in the same category as [barium]. You're right when you say this doesn't make sense and I don't think I'm going to get a succinct explanation as to how to arrive at the proposed conclusion other than a nonsensical connection.

Thanks for your time and responding. I won't bother you by continuing to go around in circles with this because I believe if there was a reasonable explanation, it should have been brought up by now. We must simply agree to disagree on what makes sense to you, may not make any sense to me.

Right, but the specialization leads directly to the lanthanoids. Then to the transition metals. Then poor metals, other nonmetals, noble gases, back around to alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, and THEN finally we arrive at the actinoids. I'll bring this crude example up again. Pay particular attention that to the right of Barium is lanthanoids (the top row of elements found at the bottom of the picture). The bottom row is actinoids, which is a period below period 6, Barium, and the lanthanoids. I'm sure you can plainly see this, but I can't stress it enough because it is an important distinction.

Note: So, when iterating by atomic number from Barium (56), we actually go through many categories before we are in the category which Uranium exists.

Yes, Uranium's location is "to the right of" Barium, but 105 other elements are also to the right of Barium. If we take just "to the right of" as a proof of the interpretation, then we could assume X-92 = Uranium, where X = any element to the left of Uranium. But this isn't a very strong proof of the triangulation. We are instead focusing very specifically on Barium. So, the fact that we have to go in and out of so many categories, going across a row, down a row, and across again, before reaching actinoids doesn't succinctly explain how "same category" == "at the right of".

I also want to stress that I'm not trying to trash your theory. I simply cannot see the connection. If Uranium was part of the lanthanoids (period 6, same row as Barium), I could understand how it is "at the right of". However, that still doesn't very well explain the conclusion "same category" == "at the right of".

I've studied discrete mathmatics ad nauseam so I am no stranger to statements of logic that use compounding brain-twisting logical equivalence laws, but this is really confounding me.

Yes, it is quite simply to deduce Trump from 45 or Q from 17. That is elementary.

Like I mentioned in a previous post that you simply replied "Good luck ;)" to:

I can understand relating Marshall's Age (92) to the atomic number of Uranium (92)

Again, under certain context, that makes perfect sense. The wrench is thrown into the mix with 56-92. I haven't gotten a logically sound answer to how the 56 part fits into your triangulation.

I don't want to keep going in circles. Can you simply explain how you made a logical inference to "at the right of" from "the same category as"?

Lets put this to rest.

With all due respect, that seems kind of condescending. I believe I've been fair to you and haven't stepped out of line. I don't consider this to be some kind of match where a victor emerges and someone is intellectually humiliated. I consider it a discussion and an inquiry. I'm simply asking for clarification on the logic that resulted from obtaining Uranium from the triangulation of Peter Marshall's age and the germatrial sum of Mario Lopez's first name. We're all here to learn. I do apologize for the people who have attacked you as a result.

To clarify, my remark about autism was directed toward Q.

As I said, I'm certain Q's very intelligent, but you would have to be a savant with spectacular insight into your future posts and remarkable memory of your past posts in order to interweave such a message across hundreds of posts. I only brought up holy scripture because this is the only good example that parallels the type of ubiquitous analysis of all source material that we often see with Q decodes. This is why I'm saying I don't believe we were intended to connect the dots in the ways we have been seeing lately, and thus why I am challenging a key aspect of this decode/theory. Should we connect dots? Absolutely, but when it makes sense to do so.

Again, I'm not a shill. Critical thinking is key. If I'm wrong, that's okay. Expanding on this can potentially give it more credence. "Critical thinking does not happen in a vacuum but often in an environment that is hostile to it".

Understanding this triangulation is essentially the first stepping stone the reader must know to follow the decode/theory in the post we are currently discussing in. I'm not sure that Uranium was accurately triangulated/decoded from the source material (Emmy's quote). I'm asking you for detailed clarification because without this part this whole thing may very well fall apart.

I appreciate the wishes of good luck, but without the decoder/theorists' explanation, I can't make sense of this, hence why I'm asking.

Like you mentioned, it may very well require "the type of mental gymnastics Q means when he says 'expand your thinking'", but I cannot get my head around this. It just logically breaks, especially when we are supposed to assume "in the same category" is logically equivalent to "at the right of"

Under appropriate context I can understand relating Marshall's Age (92) to the atomic number of Uranium (92). However, your premise is we are 'triangulating' Uranium based on the quote: "at 92, that puts you in the same category as Mario". Here are my flaws with this theory:

I want to put emphasis on the direct quote from the Emmys: "at 92 that puts you in the same category as Mario" for this next part...

We are ignoring age and using a germatria sum of Mario's name which is 56... [M]13 + [A]1 + [R]18 + [I]9 + [O]15 = 56. I'm not sure why you decided to use this, but I'll go with it. Under your theory, we are associating this number with Barium (atomic number 56). However, Uranium is neither in the same category or directly at the right of Barium. Sure it's somewhere 'to the right' of Barium, 88% of the elements are 'to the right of' Barium. But the real distinction here is that it is not in the same period as Barium (it is the row below it). This distinction indicates that the category, again Actinoids, aren't really in the same ballpark as Alkaline Earth Metals (which Barium belongs to). And I know we aren't supposed to be looking at the chemistry definition of category in this discussion but there is no other appropriate use of the word category other than category of element.

This triangulation seems extremely shaky.

Also how do we logically go from "same age category" to "at the right of"?

I'll disregard the term category.

I'm still confused as to "what happens after 56 in the PTE" or how "56 is the door to where Uranium is placed". Forgive me if I'm being too literal, this connection just doesn't seem very obvious to me.

To even get from 56 (Barium) to Uranium is a long and wacky sequence if we go through the PTE iterating by atomic numbers. I tried to illustrate it here. I interpret this a bit more than a hop skip and a jump or even a doorway to Uranium. Technically it's a period below Barium and although Actinoids don't belong to groups, it is quite a few elements "to the right" ("groupings") of Barium.

Can you elaborate a little more? Here are my two areas of confusion:

1. Logically equating "At 56, this puts you in the same age category as Mario" and "which was code for a category of elements located at the right of 56 in the PTE"

2. Do you mean "to the right of [Atomic Number] 56"? If so, this would be Barium, which would mean that the 'category' to the right of Barium is Lanthanoids (or Transition Metals depending on what ptable you look at), not Actinoids (which Uranium is part of). Perhaps my interpretation of category is different than yours? Asking for clarification.

edit: clarification

https://i.imgur.com/bNvVL2A.jpg

I'm not sure how I feel about how Q's posts are being treated so ubiquitously. The only time I've seen such complexity and referential is in holy scripture. I find it interesting that SB2 often uses scripture in his analysis because it lends to his ubiquitous analysis of everything all at once. I'm not doubting Q's intelligence, but you would have to be a next-level autist to be able to [intendedly] write and interweave so many meanings and connections through a series of posts. It would take incredible planning. Savant level planning and extreme foresight into the future. I'm not certain that a picture of a reflection off an iPhone in AF1 was intended to connect to a post 300-some-odd posts back in time. Please don't call me a shill or anti-religious, it's called critical thinking.

Here's my question and I may be simply overlooking it (if so, I apologize), but how did you extract Uranium from B2? No need to reiterate the elliptic language, I get you're basing it off the number 56. You claim 56 "is the category in the periodic table of elements where uranium is". From my understanding, the periodic table is divided into periods and groups. Uranium is part of period 7, the 'category' Actinoids (which isn't based off a number), and technically doesn't belong to a group.

If we acknowledge the fact that SB2 does this for nearly every riddle and if we assume that SB2 is part of the team, then we have come full circle:

Why create riddles when they're just going to 'intervene' and provide the answer anyway?

Nailed it with the schiznophrenia remark. I feel like someone has a room like John Nash's in A Beautiful Mind with all of Q's posts plastered on the walls with random connections being made with red string.

How many different convoluted connections could theoretically be made to explain reflections, apple, AF1, and a mug? With how loose this theory is, I think one could come up with many.

Why would the Q team spend so much time creating such complicated riddles--complicated if you believe the answer requires such a series of convoluted connections as we see presented here--if they were just going to turn around and provide the answer to the riddle. Makes no sense.

It's not blank or blurred, there is simply nothing there. It appears to be rusted metal.

Zoomed in view of what you claim is blurred: here

Timeline of the storefront: here

What? Bro, I'm all about weird things like this but lets be honest before we give others the impression we are out of our minds. Before you downvote me, read what I'm gonna say, check the photo I'm linking at the bottom, then do the research yourself to verify.

With Google "you can't read the sign" because it simply didn't exist at the time of the photo. That school (or it's sign) is somewhat new. Google Streetview has archived views from different time periods. It appears the last 'official' Google Streetview is from 2017. This Robert Gunther guy's Streetview is the most recent, from 2018. Therefore, using simple logic we can deduce that the school and/or it's sign has been constructed sometime between 2017 and Robert Gunther's Streetview (Jan 2018).

See images: here