How do you assess the integrity of these YouTubers who are analyzing Q?
I ask because as has been stated, there are “Q Experts” popping up all over the internet.
Excellent question! One to keep in mind with each passing day.
Experience with the vlogger over a long period time. Watching videos and reading widely to see how others interpret, checking the page that shows to the tweets to make sure the vlogger is accurately reporting the tweet, and then looking at people who endorse or review favorably that vlogger.
In the Tracy Beanz case, she was acknowledged by the board moderators where Q Anon was posting at the time. Q has since moved to his own board but at the time, he was at a board and the moderators were facilitating his security as well as possible. Those moderators then agreed to interviews with Tracy and endorsed her work. Tracy started a board for “normal people” (e.g., those who didn’t fit into the “autist” culture on other boards, to share Q posts.
Once you get a feel for one or two people with their head on their shoulders, you look at whose posts they follow and endorse. ANd then check and verify as you go (keep checking they are reporting Q text accurately and are still endorsed by those who orig. endorsed them.
I find that Tracy tends to have videos which are more raw research/granular in nature (not always) so I tend to prefer Dustin Nemos and others. Tracy is solid and does her own research (reads stacks of official filings and documents) but my interest is in information that has already been assembled into larger, more recognizable patterns. For example, raw research will feature names of people and organizations that you may hear once and never hear again - they were only leads. I can’t follow that much minute data but I am hugely indebted to autists and other researchers like Tracy who are willing to assemble the tiniest details into leads.
Q noted recently that some sources which were reliable were no longer reliable and I think I have had that experience - one of the articles I referred, well the vloggers are now singing an entirely different tune too intently, so much so that I stopped following them. So your question shows you are ahead of Q in that respect.
Here’s an example of Dustin Nemos. It’s longer though at 19 minutes, most of his are half that or less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-UqVZGshxU&t=509s
Please pardon my verbosity!
I forgot to add that FR is an important source of verification for me. FReepers I’ve posted with over time (recognize their names) are also testing this information. Sometimes we come up with conflicting information and THAT is pricelss - it’s a chance to go check it out and get to the truth or as close to it as information and reason will allow.
Also - I read the text of Q’s posts and sometimes am able to interpret them myself or find news articles that answer the questions - then I go check with others to see if I am right. :)
SamAdams76, I forgot to perform the courtesy of including you in one prior post but it’s long so I think you can count yourself lucky.
REGARDING MY PREVIOUS POST: “Here’s an example of Dustin Nemos. It’s longer though at 19 minutes, most of his are half that or less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-UqVZGshxU&t=509s";
_________________________________________
Okay I resumed watching the Dustin Nemos video for which I provided a link above and I got stuck on Bitcoin etc. Normally he doesn’t discuss financial market - I coulda found you a better one to start with. I rely on the ones that discuss Q and current events and they are usually about 8 minutes in length.