Qanon Conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
LSSBB said:
Flatulence often precedes defecation.
Click to expand...

It really is interesting that the 13 Democrats on the Mueller probe became 17 without any explanation and that 17 is the number for Q. I do have to wonder whether that change was Trump trying to confirm the QAnon theory to its followers.

This is not, of course, to claim that QAnon is anything but stupid. I'm merely wondering whether Trump is (once again) encouraging useful stupidity.
 
Q could disappear leaving no way for anyone to prove or disprove whether or not he was a hoax.

On the other hand, if shown to be a hoax, some followers will deploy a reality-denial construct which says "cover-up" or whatever.

On yet another hand if Q is shown to be valid, will some Q deniers deploy their version of reality-denial, or maybe not ?
 
Last edited:
Besides, it looks more like political intrigue, rather than conspiracy material
 
Bubba said:
Q could disappear leaving no way for anyone to prove or disprove whether or not he was a hoax.

On the other hand, if shown to be a hoax, some followers will deploy a reality-denial construct which says "cover-up" or whatever.

On yet another hand if Q is shown to be valid, will some Q deniers deploy their version of reality-denial, or maybe not ?
Click to expand...

Q is not valid.

ETA: here are the people that probably, in my estimation, invented Q.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
Today (or reported today) a Q post again followed a few seconds later by a matching POTUS tweet.
Click to expand...

Q post something like:
wefvewfp;jipo lvksb ;klfnn
Coalescense manifests according to the ways of shadows
Power is beheld - why is that?
Ask yourself: why does the insignificant appear significant?
dfhni lohf r;nn
Click to expand...

Trump Tweets something like:
Best FEMA response to a disaster ever! NC understands #MAGA big league! #Florence
Click to expand...

Qanoners:
"WE ARE APPLYING AUTISM TO Q's POST! Look at what we've found!"

"Coalescense manifests according to the ways of shadows" = It's CLOUDS over OCEANS that coalesce through invisible (shadows) wind currents!

"Power is beheld - why is that?
Ask yourself: why does the insignificant appear significant?" =Hurricanes are powerful! The fake news media is saying Trump ignored Florence!
 
Anyone remember that whole John Titor craze a number of years ago ?

That's what this Qanon thing reminds me of. It seems that anyone can get on the internet, post a whole bunch of crap consistently for weeks on end... and ultimately end up with a cult following.

It's times like these that really make me question the so-called "higher intelligence" of the human animal.
 
Bubba said:
Q could disappear leaving no way for anyone to prove or disprove whether or not he was a hoax.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant troll sinks back into obscurity. Good result. Bye.


Bubba said:
On the other hand, if shown to be a hoax, some followers will deploy a reality-denial construct which says "cover-up" or whatever.
Click to expand...

Given the well-known propensity of conspiracy theorists to do just this, this seems likely. Not much change there, then.

Bubba said:
On yet another hand if Q is shown to be valid, will some Q deniers deploy their version of reality-denial, or maybe not ?
Click to expand...

And here is where we part ways. You are, once again, appearing -deliberately or not- to misunderstand the difference between skeptics and conspiracy theorists.
Skeptics will happily accept new evidence, and incorporate it into their world views- because that's what skepticism is. CT-ists, OTOH, almost never accept new evidence, and rarely re-evaluate their beliefs, because that's pretty much how they became conspiracy theorists in the first place.

Examples of this would be Watergate, Snowdon and Manning. I am not aware of any large-scale skeptic denial of the truth of their revelations. (Apart from, I guess, the Russian use of wikileaks to pursue their own agenda). Contrast that with the howls of "shill!" from the CT camp if anyone questions their position.
 
A while back Q followers say Q predicted Rosenstein will go. They made references to draining some swamp, whatever that means.
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
A while back Q followers say Q predicted Rosenstein will go. They made references to draining some swamp, whatever that means.
Click to expand...

A couple of weeks ago when they were still on Reddit, they were certain Rosenstein was the actual hard core good guy who was about to blow the lid on Hillary being in jail.
 
Draining swamp was a trump promise to remoe corrupt parties from govt.

Q fans say according to Q, this will include Hillary and Obama being indicted, and that there are now over 50,000 sealed documents filed which is roughly 4500% more than typically, nationwide.
4500% increase sounds erroneus.

ETA
In 2009, 26 % of sealed documents were indictments.
That would be 13,000 indictments in the asserted 50,000 sealed documents.
Sounds implausible.
 
Last edited:
That post is so badly written in every possible way. Spelling, grammar, content, punctuation, formatting, math.
 
That could be messy. So it is good to hear that Q is not valid.

ETA
*messy* meaning indicting Hillary and Obama, plus many others would be messy.
 
Last edited:
An excerpt from Q re the Generals around Trump, and who he would task today with infiltrating parties such as Antifa and the like.


"...During the 1950s and 60s, federal troops and federalized National
Guard forces, accompanied by military intelligence personnel, were
deployed to help integrate Southern schools and to help deal with
civil disorders in Detroit in 1967 and other cities the following year....

The Army's activities were summed up by Senator Sam Ervin:
Allegedly for the purpose of predicting and preventing
civil disturbances which might develop beyond the control of
state and local officials, Army agents were sent throughout
the country to keep surveillance over the way the civilian
population expressed their sentiments about government
policies. In churches, on campuses, in classrooms, in public
meetings, they took notes, tape-recorded, and photographed
people who dissented in thought, word, or deed. This included clergymen, editors, public officials, and anyone who
sympathized with the dissenters..."
Click to expand...


....from part of a discussion about what could be going on now, behind the scenes, linking that 4,500% increase (average) in sealed legal documents filed nationwide. Q seems to repeatedly place emphasis on Trump's relationship with the Generals.

Who else would be targeted/investigated by Trump in this way today, and is it legal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom