My apologies for taking some time to get back to this. I am not trying to mean here. Hopefully, my explaination will be thorough enough you can see the evidence and reasoning behind my point of view.I am also back in school in paper-writing-mode so bear with me.
Freeper Jack Black on the thread OAN Exclusive: Online Movement QANON Exposed as Hoax made this point:
"In general the Q followers reject the claims that Microchip has made, despite the evidence he's provided. Several people refer to it as "debunked", despite them not actually debunking it."
Saying someone is debunked or discredited means it actually has to happen. The challenge to a person's story or credibility is itself subject to examination. "Question the evidence" works both ways. For this, I am questioning Q's refutation of Microchip.
Justinformednews says this is Q Drop #2120 and does not provide a link. That drop number is incorrect. There are two Q drops, #2123 for twitter and a YouTube link, and #2125 for the image. For me, when I see someone online making a claim, say the are examining it by just repeating it, and getting all the sources wrong, that is a immediate red flag to me. It tells me they are being manipulative or deceptive. They just want people to believe the headline and not critically evaluate the story. The MSM and much of the conservative press do this a lot, especially sites created after Trump became President.
In Q drop #2123, all of the twitter and YouTube links except the one to Tucker Carlson are gone. There is no way to verify what they say. The main claim is, Microchip linked to a article on Breitbart two days before it was posted. Q drop #2125 has the image where Microchip links the the Breitbart article. This image is taken from a Discord server.
For #2123, since most of the tweets and YouTube video are gone, I can not comment the issues with time stamps. "Praying Medic" had (past tense) a thread on twitter, repeated on twtext thread reader here. If you know where the video is, please post a link.
Praying Medic's twitter channel has of course been deleted in the current wave of censorship, and I can't find the original video. "The internet is forever" is running into massive corporate censorship and servers getting taken off line as the hosts go out of business. Finding information on Q from just three years ago is running into trouble, and that will cause problems for Q and Q supporters in keeping Q going.
If Q is real, acting like bullies when questioned will not help. Document it, archive, explain, justify, and actually do the background work instead of asserting it was done. If Q is a hoax, it should be exposed, not censored, and allowed to die on its own.
OK, time to really get into this.
Here is picture in Q drop #2125, full size, from qagg.new Q Drop #2125 :
1. This image is a edited Discord screenshot.
1. All the text is blurry. This shows the image was reduced in a "lossy" compression format like .GIF or .JPEG and expanded back up. That is editing by definition, and makes the image's authenticity suspect.
2. The date stamp after Microchips name is blurred and unreadable. It should be as readable as the other text, not less. This shows the date stamp was edited.
3. On Discord, the upper date stamp is used to divide between days while scrolling through comments. There are two short lines on eithe side of the date. So it should look like "---------- September 14, 2017 ------------". Those lines are blurred. This is evidence of resizing the image.
4. The identity and date stamp of the post below Microchip's is not shown.
5. The link to the article is real. I'll get to that next.
What Q did was put a fake date stamp after Microchip's name, and a fake one above it. Through editing and resizing, in varying combinations, got the resulting image. If you zoom in on the image you can see horizontal banding effect. A clean screen shot of Discord or any other chat or discussion board should not have this effect.
You can do this yourself. Take a screenshot in any browser, save it, then open it in MS paint and resize it to 20% or 25% of the original. Save it as a .GIF or JPEG. Open that image and resize it back up by 400% or 500%, the inverse of the reduction. You will see the blurry text and lines.
Point #1: Q faked the screenshot.
2. Q is citing Q on what Q claims Microchip posted, and not a actual post by Microchip.
Q drop #2125 is to a link on 8kun where Q posted originally posted the image, but not a link to anything Microchip said on Discord. This is a circular citation. Q is citing Q's own claim, not one of Microchip's posts. There is not enough information given to track Microchip's original post, so there is no way to find the original discord post. Q could have just provided the discord link, not a edited screenshot.
Point #2: Circular citations making accusations with no sources beyond the accuser, are suspect.
3. There is no real evidence Microchip linked to a article before it was online.
The Breitbart article is "Hungary Builds a Wall, Cuts Illegal Immigration by Over 99 Per Cent" by Jack Montgomery, and the date given is 16 Sept 2017. The URL is https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2017/09/16/hungary-builds-a-wall-cuts-illegal-immigration-by-over-99-per-cent/. Looking at the HTML shows this: "<time datetime="2017-09-16T08:27:24Z">16 Sep 2017</time>". The date and time the author gave is just what they put there, and the date time stamp in the HTML is just a computer read reference. Neither are the actual time the article was posted.
It is not possible to post to online content before it is actually online, and that article is clearly online. The first question to ask is, "what is going on" and not conclude "Microchip lied". The only way to know for certain when the article was posted is to look at the server logs. I could put a date of January 1 1900 on this, put in the HTML for the time stamp and it would not mean anything other than I put that date on this.
Point #3: It is not possible to link to a article before it is online.
Conclusion #1: Q lied.
So what happened?
The Brietbart article was posted 16 September, and Microchip posted a link to it on a Discord server afterwards. Then Q took a screenshot of that post, edited it to fake the date stamps, posted it to 8kun. Then posted it in a Q drop knowing most Q supporters will not question it.
4. Even if Microchip linked to the article before the date given or before it was posted (which could not have happened), that proves nothing.
How does linking to a article like this discredit anyone? In this case, it is not explained or examined. Q makes a claim, draws a conclusion, end of story, Q supporters did not ask if it makes sense. In real life, everyone tells truths and lies and makes mistakes. One lie or mistake does not discredit a person forever. If Microchip was part of a hoax, he was part of a hoax regardless of anything else he does.
5. Q supporters have double standards on Q.
Q made many specific predictions that did not come true. Q supporters are not holding that on Q (Here is every QAnon prediction that's failed to come true). Hillary was supposed to be arrested October 30, 2017, according to Q with the Q clearance. That did not happen. The last six months of interpreting Q drops has been Trump would still be in the White house. That did not happen either.
I don't see Q's failings troubling Q's supporters in the same way Q's critics trouble them.
Conclusion #2: Many Q supporters have not and are not thinking it through as much as they want to believe they are.