While I don't agree with all of your commentary, some of it was right one.
I take particular issue with this comment.
nothing stands out as clear Q proof that is obvious to all.
While that may be true, consider the nature of the "all" and what they are willing to consider as "proof".
Also, the sheer quantity of "proofs' is in and of itself "proof". As Q likes to say, when does it become mathematically impossible?
Think logically.
Bagster
Bagster - the sheer quantity of “proofs’ is in and of itself “proof”.
I am not disagreeing with this comment at all. This is held by a number of people who have spent much time studying this. These are very nuanced and are not black and white. My point is that for the masses to be awakened, there should be something easy and explainable. I will give an example. Q noted that Trump met with Kim Jung Un in November 2017. That was before any agreement or breakthrough to meet between North Korea and the US. I remember being floored by that Q post. If that comes out to be known as true then that would be the perfect Q proof that would be easily to explain and understandable to all. I believe such proof would have a big influence.
I also note that the onslaught of media mentioning Q is a sign that something is up. Otherwise they would not hold attention to it. This occurred when the first mention of Q at one of the Trump rallies occurred. At that time I wrote in one of these threads that expect a wave of Q to appear. This was tamped down for security reasons and the wave of Q shirts/signs was stifled.
bitt - “What you might not have considered is that many here have been reading and discussing Q for so long that they can see connections that you haven’t assimilated yet.”
Bagster - “I have reasons for every one of my opinions or perceived opinions.”
Similar comments. I do not disagree with your statements at all. My point is not to denigrate the Q proofs or research. It is to point out somethings that fall out of the realm even by good people. I referenced Lisa Mei Crowley and Praying Medic who have terrific commentary and interpretations. I have a lot of respect for them. However, sometimes they go too far in implying a Q proof that is ridiculous - I used the word delusional. I cited the 53-47 postings as such a case. In no way, shape or form is this a Q proof. (This statement implies nothing about the myriad of proofs to make it mathematically impossible as Bagster correctly quotes Q). To put it in PMs terms - Coincidence? Answer- Not at all. It also doesn't lessen the quality of Lisa and PMs overall commentary on Q interpretations. I speculated that they are so invested in Q that they lose the forest for the trees and are trying their best to get the Great Awakening. I have mentioned Q to a number of people. No way in hell would I point to the 53-47 posts to make a Q proof. That would destroy any credibility. Thinking about it, they make my point of the need for a simple explainable Q proof that is obvious and easy to explain. This would eliminate the need for Lisa and PM to stretch (I am being kind with this word) to point out Q proofs that in no way are proofs at all.
Both of you add great commentary and add much to the discussion.