that's what i mean by "two realities"

I've looked into Q but he's too hokey for me.

mandella effect hehehe

What if it's the Satan telling you he's hokey?

Have you seen the compilations of Q proofs?

yeah it surely does feel like some sort of retardo twilight zone, thats usually what it feels like before the bullets start firing

Yeah Q is pretty on point

from what i can tell

Conspiracy theories are fun, but I'm an amateur intelligence analyst. Sar, I think you appeal to authority more than I do.

Just like there is a public reality and an occult one (classified), there is also centralized government and self-government.

or central intelligence and general intelligence

Q isn't a "conspiracy theory", he's a real group of people

People posting photos from AF1 and the Oval Office

again, appeal to authority.

do you see?

That doesn't mean what you think it means

I hope I am wrong about what my 4-D eye saw re: OPN Taco Bell

"What's the proof Trump is President?" "He tweets from the oval office" "Appeal to authority fallacy!"

appealing to authority does not only mean referring to a fallacy. are you an NPC?

man go off script a minute

everything you say comes from some secondary source dude

its annoying

appeal to authority in common parlance is a fallacy

Since this is common parlance, we follow the modes of common parlance

If you're talking so only yourself can understand you, you might as well carry on such a thing privately

All I said was that QAnon is not a "conspiracy theory", he's a real group of people (based on evidence)

What he says is a different matter, but his existence is not in doubt

Well we know one thing for sure...

Q is not an L

😉

@𝓢𝓸𝓵ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็𝓻 appeal to authority

when you say things like "Q isn't a "conspiracy theory", he's a real group of people
People posting photos from AF1 and the Oval Office" what do you mean?

right there you are qualifying the fact that Q isn't a conspiracy theory because there are photos from AF1 and OO.

then you turn around and try to correct me about my usage of "appeal to authority" you gas-lighter

most of the stuff you post is some sort of referral to a secondary source, which is fine, I gather impressions from various sources too, not putting you down, but I stated already that I am a first hand synthesizer of intel analysis.

that doesn't mean I am always right. for example, Saddam didn't really have WMDs

at least according to public sources

his photos from AF1 and the OO are primary sources

They constitute proof of his identity

A theory is something that isn't proven

right, but you are using those as a secondary source