On paper, yes.
In practice -- on another thread within the last 2 or 3 days you posted a link to one of the other sites, I *think* it was a military one.
There were no persuasive arguments in that thread (remember, it was your link, so you chose which thread was presented). There was a great deal of snark, including a long post which mockingly presented, in an unfavorable, bombastic tome, the more extreme variants of / exaggerations of some of the interpretations of Q's posts.
Think of a member of the secular press describing The Rapture and Evangelistic doctrine on the last days & the second coming, or a TV anchor mocking a preacher for saying "he claims rock music has secret messages which make kids worship Satan" (as opposed to the actual claim of backward masking and sublminal messages normalizing the occult, not "making them" do anything) and you'll have a decent analogy.
If you’re not talking about the Arfcom thread then I have no idea what you could be referring to. If you *are* talking about the Arfcom thread, then there were several references to actual theories posited by Q-believers. The Arfcom posters weren’t making anything up at all. They just mentioned a few of the actual theories that are being seriously considered by Q supporters.
The factual information was mainly on the 2nd and 3rd pp of the thread. Iirc, the timestamp explanation extended over both those pp. The ATT reference was, I believe, explained on p 3. There was also an image posted by Q, ahead of the time that it was posted by the Pentagon. I’m doing all this via memory, but if I’m right that one was explained on p 4 (i.e.: it’s a traditionally posted image that has appeared on that same date in multiple prior years).
The airplane window pic was explained on The_Donald. That’s the site on which the conservative coders post, and nothing technical gets past them. That’s why The_Donald effectively rejected Q in the first week of Nov. Unlike many on this site the ‘centipedes,’ haunt 4Chan. They posted Q’s first predictions within hours of them appearing on /pol. As I’ve mentioned, the consensus was simple and to the point. If the predictions were fulfilled, the ‘pedes would conclude Q was real. If the predictions bombed, the ‘pedes would agree that Q was a LARP.
The predictions bombed. That very first Q thread on The_Donald now has an update in the header. It says, “It was a LARP.”
A couple of feeble attempts have been made to revive Q on The_Donald. They’ve been shot down right out of the gate. The tech savvy generation doesn’t have a lot of time or patience for larpers, at least not re something this important. As someone else mentioned, Q is now considered a Boomer phenomenon. They believe boomers are more technologically gullible than they are. It would be very hard to argue otherwise.
If I could make one point, it’s this. Among those who watched Q’s first predictions spectacularly fail in real time, Q has few if any believers. Among those who came along later, and only got into the cycle after Q started posting codes and riddles, he has a much higher percentage of believers.
Iow, the point at which a person was introduced to Q makes a huge—if not all—the difference. Those who came late try to ignore, reinterpret or disavow the earliest predictions. Those who followed Q in real time were not a priori operating with a pro-Q bias. They simply looked at the results and drew the obvious/only conclusion.