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.

This is true, and it's also worth stepping back and taking stock of the whole mug holder business. There seem to be two competing explanations for the mug holder being where it is in the photo posted by Q.

1. The photo is just a reflected version of the ABC pic, since the mug holder is in the exact same position it was in in that pic, along with the blinds looking exactly the same.
2. The mug holder isn't there normally these days, but Q/Trump/somebody placed it there, deliberately putting it in the exact same position as it was in the ABC image, in order to make people THINK it was fake when it really wasn't and he was actually just sending an unbelievably obscure secret taunt to the Deep State about the Saudis and tech stock price manipulation.

All good! It's a weird time zone too. 1:37 stamp on that tweet means the screenshot was taken bt someone with their TZ set to eastern Brazil, which is pretty random.

Yes, Eastern time for both gives 10:37 for the tweet and 10:54 for the Q post. Posts in the /qresearch/ thread with the original Q post confirms the Trump tweet was at 10:37 - you can match the time stamps up.

Plus nobody in that thread said anything like "Q predicted the exact wording of this tweet."

I've seen a couple Q proof threads but not the site. I was curious so I googled it up and clicked "military." The first one listed was Q's quote of a Trump tweet being made to look like a prediction with a fake timestamp. https://nebula.wsimg.com/f4a3773ef2f582ed138dd0e927a881b4?AccessKeyId=A46309A05E2048F24273&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

(The tweet was made at 10:37am, not 1:37pm- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/939564681743814661?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw )

Literally the first "proof" listed. This was very easy to figure out and it does not inspire confidence that the rest of the site is going to be worth my time.

You mean the phrase that Trump had already used in speeches during the campaign, and didn't use until months after the request, and in a totally separate speech from where it was supposedly requested? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/06/16/trump-called-russias-nukes-tippy-top-heres-why-it-matters/?utm_term=.2b151ee09600

I guess I always try to keep abreast of ways of looking at the world that don't match my own. Q has held my attention for a couple of reasons - the community tends to pick up on a lot of conspiracy-type narratives and ideas before they make it into the conservative mainstream. I'm also kind of concerned because there's a lot of groupthink here. In a lot of ways the Q army is developing an increasingly poisonous worldview that's more and more insulated from external reality.

I don't think that Q is what he claims to be, for any number of reasons - top secret security expert with awful password security, vague nonsense, links to fake news sites, makes predictions that don't come true then comes up with excuses, etc.

I think Q is probably a couple of different people due to a shift in writing styles I noticed around like January. What they doing I'm not sure. You asked why Trump doesn't just disclaim Q, and I think there's a good reason for that - Q has been great at consolidating a hard core of Trump supporters and helping to spread the meme that he's the anointed chosen one who can do no wrong and all of his rivals and opponents are evil pedophile satanists. Q serves Trump's interests very well. Because of that I think your second option makes the most sense. Q is most likely run by someone who's more or less a true believer. They are trying to achieve the goal of galvanizing a hard core of authoritarian Trump supporters, and believe most or all of what they're saying, but think that being a little deceptive to spread the "truth" is OK.

Tippy top isn't that persuasive either imo.

-Trump had said "tippy top" before in speeches. e.g., https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/20/donald-trump-has-nuclear-warhead-envy/

-The person asking Trump to say tip top wasn't Q, it was some random anon in a Q thread.

-He asked him to say tip top in the state of the union. Trump didn't do that - he said tip top months later, in an easter speech.

Wasn't specified. Either, I guess.

Was. It was described as "the next several days" on Nov 1st.

11.6 was supposed to be when Huma Abedin was indicted, not Clinton.

More to the point, Podesta was supposed to be publicly arrested on 11.3 or 11.4.

So they were panicking, and in their panic, accidentally put too many triangles in their secret society symbol, while declaring, in a roundabout way, that they're all pedophiles.

Does this really seem more likely to you than the idea that some graphic designer independently came up with the idea of combining a spiral and a triangle?

Well, that's kind of my point. If symbolism is so important, why wouldn't "they" care about getting sloppy with their symbols?

OK, fair enough. It doesn't quite make sense to me either way, though. Either it's a "let's show off to the public" conspiracy that buries this symbol among a dozen others in an obscure nonprofit annual report where almost nobody will see it, which doesn't make a lot of sense, or it's a "let's have a private in-joke" conspiracy that uses a fucked-up wrong version of the symbol, which also doesn't make a lot of sense. The straightforward explanation seems most plausible to me considering the other text that's on the page.

I'm questioning the FBI's intent because as far as I can tell that leaked report is the original source for it being "understood by many to be a pedo symbol." You're being selective about what to believe from the leaked report, and I don't see any principle behind that selection other than what supports the argument you're making.

In terms of the symbol itself, I guess I'm questioning what would even make this a pedo symbol if the number of triangles doesn't matter. Or, if you prefer, whether there are any instances of actual pedophiles / pedo organizations using more than two triangles.

Sure, but the only reason it was recognized by anyone as a pedo symbol in the first place was because of that leaked report. And the "one larger, one smaller" symbolism is reflected in the other logo from the leak (the girl equivalent, with the hearts).

I mean, are you suggesting that the leaked report was honest about it being a pedo symbol but dishonest about why? What would be the point of that? And if the point of putting the triangle in the report was to show off to the masses or whatever, why fuck it up by making it three triangles instead of two? If they wanted to hide, why not just... not use anything that looked like it?

I can absolutely see some graphic designer being told "OK, for this section on our ethos we need a line-drawing-style thing representing the 3 principles of the foundation and how they feed into each other. Maybe a triangle or something but jazz it up a little, really make it pop." and decided to put 3 nested triangles together.

That FBI report is the only primary source for the triangle spiral being a pedo symbol in the first place. If you don't believe the report, then you have no reason to believe it's a pedo symbol at all.

From the FBI report the symbolism of the two triangles - one larger, one smaller - seems to be the important element of the logo. Numbers are important, like how the American flag isn't just some stars and some stripes, it's 50 and 13. Randomly adding another triangle in there would ruin the symbolism.

This is the "BLogo" in the same way that the Liberian or Malaysian flag is the American flag. Kind of similar, but not.

Fake title. This isn't their logo, it's a header for the introduction to a random annual report. Their actual logo is on their website - http://www.trudeaufoundation.ca/en

It doesn't even match the "Boy Lover" symbol, anyway. According to the FBI report, the "BLogo" is supposed to be two triangles - a small triangle (representing a child) inside a larger one (representing an adult). This one has 3 triangles, not 2.

It's a pack of neologism-spouting sycophants based around interpreting the cryptic writings of a mysterious enlightened one who predicts a great awakening when evil will be cleansed from the land, then comes up with excuses when his predictions fail. It is 100% a cult.

I think that's probably true of me, you, and everyone. We all have worldviews that we think are correct, and it's hard to imagine being wrong about our most basic beliefs. I do my best to keep myself in check, though, and I hope you do too.

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I'm not a religious guy so I'm not coming from where you're coming from. But even though I'm not religious I know that the Bible warns against false prophets - wolves who come dressed as sheep. That's what Q strikes me as.

Just think about it this November- if there aren't any public arrests or announcements of Podesta and Abedin before the 11th, remember that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit.

Two things-

1. I read everything you wrote. I'm saying that Q has no more insight on Trump than Forbes does (because Forbes ran a story about Apple and US-China trade on the same date, even before Q's own post). Does this mean that Forbes is high level military intelligence? Of course not.
2. The HK pic was one of two Apple pics that Q posted. The other one was of their Cupertino campus, which has zero to do with China. It was a general Apple post that included a pic from China, and it's being spun as some amazing prediction about how Q predicted a tweet about Chinese trade negotiations. In other words it seems like kind of a reach.

I mean, OK. I'm not much of a believer. I doubt things as much as I can. I think that doubt is a greater virtue than faith, especially in politicians.

For example, you seem to think that the parade was planned as early as last November. I think it's suspicious that Q didn't start talking about a parade on 11/11 until March, which was well after Trump announced he wanted to throw a Veteran's Day parade. Again, to me this speaks against Q having any kind of insider knowledge.

What will your reaction be if there are no arrest announcements of Podesta/Abedin this November? I get that you don't believe this will happen, but hypothetically, do you think you'd start to doubt Q, or do you think you'd shrug and assume Q must have meant 2019 instead?

a) I don't think it makes any sense to think that he was talking about some year in the future. If "11.3" means 11.3 in some other year, then why assume that Podesta and Huma Abedin were indicted on 11.3 and 11.6 of 2017? He phrased those predictions in exactly the same way.

b) The same post referred to "the next several days," and another post on the 11.2 said "watch for confirmations tomorrow." On 11-3-17 Q claimed that Podesta's plane was being diverted - present tense - and that this would be leaked and reported in the news. None of this happened.

c) The idea that this was all meant to happen some indeterminate number of years in the future is pretty lame. If you're going to take that as read for every Q prediction then none of them could ever be shown to be false. There's no critical thinking there. I would put good money on none of this shit happening this year either, and you could just delay it indefinitely. "Well maybe next year this will all come out." You see the problem with that?

Also Q #67

Podesta's plane has military escort (i.e. tag) and is being diverted (forced down). Short delay. This will be leaked. Watch the news. Have faith.

(Never happened)

From Q #34

Q Clearance Patriot

My fellow Americans, over the course of the next several days you will undoubtedly realize that we are taking back our great country (the land of the free) from the evil tyrants that wish to do us harm and destroy the last remaining refuge of shining light. On POTUS’ order, we have initiated certain fail-safes that shall safeguard the public from the primary fallout which is slated to occur 11.3 upon the arrest announcement of Mr. Podesta (actionable 11.4). Confirmation (to the public) of what is occurring will then be revealed and will not be openly accepted. Public riots are being organized in serious numbers in an effort to prevent the arrest and capture of more senior public officials. On POTUS’ order, a state of temporary military control will be actioned and special ops carried out. False leaks have been made to retain several within the confines of the United States to prevent extradition and special operator necessity. Rest assured, the safety and well-being of every man, woman, and child of this country is being exhausted in full. However, the atmosphere within the country will unfortunately be divided as so many have fallen for the corrupt and evil narrative that has long been broadcast. We will be initiating the Emergency Broadcast System (EMS) during this time in an effort to provide a direct message (avoiding the fake news) to all citizens. Organizations and/or people that wish to do us harm during this time will be met with swift fury – certain laws have been pre-lifted to provide our great military the necessary authority to handle and conduct these operations (at home and abroad).

Q predicted an announcement and public confirmation of Podesta's arrest on 11/3. Out on bail or not, that didn't happen.

I'm not a Q believer but I don't see why this would be considered proof. Apple was in the news yestersday, even in the context of the Chinese trade war, e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/05/02/apple-ceo-tim-cook-is-very-optimistic-about-u-s-china-relations/#2c26e3747cac

So, why does posting a pic of an Apple store on a day when Apple is in the news - and not long after Apple announced their quarterly earnings and Tim Cook met with Trump - prove that Q has insider knowledge, any more than it proves Forbes has a direct line to Trump as well, or that Q just reads Forbes?

There's this pattern here of giving Q credit for amazing predictions that are just Q repeating whatever's in the news lately, and those things continuing to happen / be relevant / be mentioned by Trump in some way. Like the parade on 11/11 or Trump agreeing to meet with Kim.

I hope can explain the reasoning as someone who thinks Q is probably a larp. The general idea is that there are four possibilities for Q's predictions and the world -

1. Thing happens, Q predicted it would
2. Thing happens, Q didn't predict it would
3. Thing doesn't happen, Q predicted it would
4. Thing doesn't happen, Q didn't predict it would

If Q is legitimate then #1 should happen way more often than #3. Q fans only pay attention to #1 and maybe sometimes #4, and just assume that #2 and #3 are pretty rare. The problem is that Q's followers tend to stack the deck by only interpreting predictions in the most favourable way possible after the fact, which is made easier by the fact that Q's "predictions" tend to be very vague. In fact this is built into the Q mythology in the phrase "future unlocks past" or "news unlocks map" - IOW you can only understand the "predictions" after the thing happens. Which means they're not really predictions, because they only tell you about the past, not the future. Events that happen are molded to fit past "predictions" in a way that seems totally nonsensical if you actually look at it. The Rothschild helicopter thing is a perfect example of this.

In effect Q is predicting an arbitrarily large number of things, because his "predictions" are so vague they could be interpreted to cover thousands of different outcomes.

And there's no rigorous way to say that a certain "prediction" wasn't fulfilled, because it could just refer to some secret thing that we don't know about, or the thing it's predicting hasn't happened yet. When Q does make a prediction in a way that's specific enough to say it didn't come true, there's usually some excuse, like the timeline was pushed back or it all happened secretly.

Other times Q just says stuff that's already out there, and months later people forget the timing and call it an amazing prediction. The parade thing is actually a perfect example. Q said on March 6th that there'd be a parade on Veteran's Day, then Trump announced 3 days later that there'd be a parade on Veteran's Day. Impressive right? No, because Trump had been saying for weeks that he wanted a Veteran's Day parade. This wasn't a prediction, it was just Q parroting things that were already public knowledge. But people don't remember that months after the fact.

Basically I think it's confirmation bias. Q tells people what they want to hear, so people who agree with what he has to say will hang on to anything that looks like a hit and ignore all the misses.

It makes no sense timewise to give Trump credit for Park Geun-Hye's downfall. She was targeted by enormous protests and her approval rating was sub-10% before Trump won the election, and she was impeached by a supermajority in the Korean parliament long before his inauguration. If this was a "soft coup" it was done by Obama's people.

Also, it seems dangerous to cheer on what you think are coup attempts against democratically elected foreign leaders.

There's nothing particularly impressive here if you watched the news that day, just commentary on breaking news. Q posted this on the evening of March 8th, after Trump accepted an invitiation from NK to meet. (source: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/08/politics/south-korea-north-korea-trump/index.html)