This is an unusual reaction and unexpected. My questions are valid and deserve thought, not feeling. I do appreciate you posting hours of video for me to review. From my first 30 minutes reviewing q proofs from the three videos you subsequently sent, it seems possible if not likely that someone posting as Q is reasonably close to POTUS. But it also seems many proofs rely on words or topics in tweets and posts…things like Q post uses the word tarmac and then a day later Trump post uses the word tarmac. When adding up the many similar seeming coincidences, it starts to feel more planned than accidental. The proper way to evaluate this feeling is by using the same methodology between known unrelated posters and seeing if discernment can lead to similar outcome say between Trudeau and a Canadian political blogger. I bet it can but am unconvinced.

So while the proofs can’t and in fact don’t intend to _prove_ anything, it seems strange Q spends so much effort trying to repeatedly bring legitimacy / believability to his position…either give reasonable evidence once and then move on with the message or forgo proving / supporting legitimacy entirely…The photographic stuff seems like enough evidence for me to listen to his message…the rest seems plausible but irrelevant.

But then I’m left with: ok, I’ll listen, but what is the message? There doesn’t seem to be anything to act on, so more proof isn’t necessary. I’m totally ok with it being all a hoax or totally real. I just don’t see the point. What is one to _do_ with this info?

Thx for sending this. I sent a more in depth reply to a prior note.