These days it's quite hard figure out if something said is true or not, but if you first have to figure out what is actually being said in the first place then you probably don't even have a chance (Or you know it beforehand and just recognize it, then taking it as revelation). If Q would just say want it wants to say and what it can say, without all the mystery, it would be far less interesting for most people, and at the same time it would have maybe more value. And no, I don't think that applies in the same way for the C's, or for cropcircles etc. The C's comments are embedded in a discussion instead of a monologue and also in a step by step process of learning and exploration, with strong emphasis on coherence and continuation. And there is also the physical and time limitations of using the ouija board. About the cropcircles someone said to me why - if they are real - they don't just write clear messages for us to be readable and understandable. I think there are several reasons: Requiring some curiosity and openness from the subject. Allowing rejection. The multidimensional nature of the information. The limitations of our languages (and minds), you can't teach Chinese by using Latin. Q on the other hand is a rather mundane source from within our own level, so all the mist is just decoration. There might be some value in triggering interest and 'research' on some level or for some kind of people, but it's definitely not for me.