2 2
yobnoc

Q

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

FYI: The Q analysts believe that Q is a military-run open-source intelligence gathering system or HUMINT comprised of seven military experts and three civilian experts.

QAnons are anyone responding to the Q posts. They are evaluated for usefulness and pertinence.

Note: We are the news.

WWG1WGA

Patriots

Are

Now

In

Control

Honestly it’s pretty sad to see vulnerable people exploited by con artists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

Information dissemination does not equal exploitation. 

True.

But there's no real 'information' being disseminated by "Q".

Just lies.

How many of the claims about arrests or 'military tribunals on Gitmo' have come to pass?

You believe it because it says what you want to hear.
"Q" knows that and keeps telling you those lies. 

PT Barnum was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Information dissemination does not equal exploitation. 

No. It is a crack pot conspiracy theory that would be funny if it did not endanger lives. 
 

Gullible people who are exploited and played. It is likely an internet prank by a few teenage geeks having a laugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2020 at 1:43 PM, gowlerk said:

But who are "The Q analysts"?

As near as I can determine at this point, the Q operation functions in this manner.

 

President Trump appointed a military intelligence command structure of the highest security clearance. It is thought to be a Level 17 above Top Secret. Q is the 17th letter of the alphabet and thus the name given. The Q team is thought to be seven military intelligence officers and three civilians.

 

When President Trump stated “the storm is coming,” many think it referred to the work of Q.

 

Q makes cryptic posts available to those who determine how to locate them. Those cyber investigators are the Qanons. When they respond to Q their identities remain anonymous. The strategy is that many in the computer science world have the ability to gather the information that complements the work of the Trump administration. It expands its intelligence assets to open source.

 

Many of these Qanon responses are simply emotional fantasy. However, some actually have merit and value and Q uses that information as needed.

 

Q will often confirm a Qanon post in another Q drop. Sometimes President Trump will confirm a Qanon in a Tweet, live speech, or on the Q board, signed Q+.

 

Some of the Anons have taken the position of analyzing the Q drops, the Qanon responses, and President Trump's behavior and statements. They look for correlations.

 

Thus far, since October 2017, these correlations have exceeded mathematical coincidence.

 

Some of the Q drops only make sense when something in the future correlates to it. This is referred to as future proves past.

 

I follow the Q drops not the Qanon responses, and three of the outside analysts to see how they correlate to each other. I find it quite fascinating and have not discovered anything here that would influence me to change my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

I find it quite fascinating and have not discovered anything here that would influence me to change my mind.

Change your mind about what? That it's interesting? And thank you for the answer.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

 

Thus far, since October 2017, these correlations have exceeded mathematical coincidence.

 

I'd like to see that analysis. Presumably to make this claim someone has shown you how they've calculated this?

How are they determining what normal statistical correlation between randomized sources is? How are they even determining 'correlation' - what's the definition they're using?  And then how are they applying that model to a method where they deliberately find sources that they claim are linked and then suggest correlation afterwards? Seems like there's an inherent flaw in there to me...

Can you provide a link to where they've broken this down for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yoink said:

I'd like to see that analysis. Presumably to make this claim someone has shown you how they've calculated this?

How are they determining what normal statistical correlation between randomized sources is? How are they even determining 'correlation' - what's the definition they're using?  And then how are they applying that model to a method where they deliberately find sources that they claim are linked and then suggest correlation afterwards? Seems like there's an inherent flaw in there to me...

Can you provide a link to where they've broken this down for me?

Unfortunately, I cannot.

I started researching this trail when ryoder introduced it to the SC about a year ago. I am not a mathematician. Ryoder seems to have more savvy in this area. I suggest asking him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Unfortunately, I cannot.

I started researching this trail when ryoder introduced it to the SC about a year ago. I am not a mathematician. Ryoder seems to have more savvy in this area. I suggest asking him.

Fantastic, I'll take Ryoder as your proxy. Will you accept his mathematical determination of the likelihood of Jesus as you believe him to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image

I always equate the naming of this mythical "source" with this character from several of the Star Trek series.  Claims to be all-knowing, all-seeing, but really just ignorant but arrogant, and likes to play games with what people will believe and do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

image

I always equate the naming of this mythical "source" with this character from several of the Star Trek series.  Claims to be all-knowing, all-seeing, but really just ignorant but arrogant, and likes to play games with what people will believe and do.

But Q is real, the Easter Bunny told me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the "Q" idiocy has stepped up it's game.

I wouldn't have thought they could get dumber or more dangerous.
I should have known better.

A 'prominent QAnon supporter' is posting videos telling people how dangerous the coronavirus is (it's really not), how it was created by China (probably not) and how to prevent or cure it.

Drink bleach. "Miracle Mineral Solution", MMS. 
It contains sodium chlorite, which changes to chlorine dioxide when combined with citric acid in the body.

Part of me would be fine with allowing this to be widely disseminated.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/qanon-conspiracy-theorists-coronavirus-mms-bleach-youtube-twitter-944878/?fbclid=IwAR1GLdhG2XQMn1-LHl15bkSFwsxeKoOSBH8pndNtDCTSnJpcdYNWRRASCMg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, the "Q" idiocy has stepped up it's game.

I wouldn't have thought they could get dumber or more dangerous.
I should have known better.

A 'prominent QAnon supporter' is posting videos telling people how dangerous the coronavirus is (it's really not), how it was created by China (probably not) and how to prevent or cure it.

Drink bleach. "Miracle Mineral Solution", MMS. 
It contains sodium chlorite, which changes to chlorine dioxide when combined with citric acid in the body.

Part of me would be fine with allowing this to be widely disseminated.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/qanon-conspiracy-theorists-coronavirus-mms-bleach-youtube-twitter-944878/?fbclid=IwAR1GLdhG2XQMn1-LHl15bkSFwsxeKoOSBH8pndNtDCTSnJpcdYNWRRASCMg

Hey, this is serious. To any Qanon believers, I want to take a moment to emphasize that drinking bleach is very, very bad, and you should not do it under any circumstances. I know I've had my differences with Qanon folks over the years, but let me, as a liberal, be frank with you. Do not drink bleach. The scientific elites are in agreement here, it's a bad idea. Liberals - from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi to AOC - all agree that it's a bad idea to drink bleach. I think you'll find most Hollywood celebrities also agree that drinking bleach is wrong. So don't do it, Q army. We, liberals, are telling you not to drink bleach.  Please.  Don't.

Edited by Skwrl
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2