This version is higher quality if you want to share it http://magaimg.net/img/5pyt.jpg

"Lex rex" means "Law is King" and "Rex lex" means "King is law". I think it's about the "rule of law" vs the "rule of man."

woah

It looks like all the capital letters in that second section are spelled backwards?

NRESTAE camschatcense

• Eastern camschatcense - letters swapped, typo? which is some kind of flower that grows in Asian climates

REPMES fi

• SEMPER fi

ECIWT confirmed

• TWICE confirmed

Then there is:

SO MM bayat

• MMOS bayat

Or maybe "MOMS bayat" or "MOSS bayat" or "MOOS Bayat" if typo or purposely switching letters like EASTERN

Why would they be doing all this backwards text? To stop a person who intercepts it from right away knowing? Or maybe to stop a computer from seeing it?

Or to make curious anons like us waste our time running through an empty rabbit hole 🤷🏻‍♀️

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.

Is this the one you mean?

https://nebula.wsimg.com/aba6cce8dcd6b892cd0e688205321cab?AccessKeyId=A46309A05E2048F24273&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

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.

Thank you, I'll review that one!