Q source / Qanon

lindrie said:
I've started watching Dark Journalist recently as a more casual way to learn about the UFO and Esoteric connection. The more I watched, the more it looked like he was tracking the same phenomena as the Q post but under a different banner or scope. He used a term that I think is more fitting for the trend that I've seen, he called Steganography. I was going to start looking through his older videos to see if the "X" marker and Steganography term was the same kind of plain-speak as the Q stuff was alluding to.
Click to expand...
I think stegonography should have its own thread, as there is definitely something to it. Maybe the moderators can move your messages regarding it to the new thread too, starting with the quoted post from March.

Stegonography has little to do with Q, it has been in use for a long time. And it is confusing for people to have a discussion about it in the Q thread.
 
axj said:
Stegonography has little to do with Q, it has been in use for a long time. And it is confusing for people to have a discussion about it in the Q thread.
Click to expand...
While I understand the point you're making, I think I'm still missing on the delivery of a crux component. Because I agree with your statement. Mainly because I'm not sure what I'm trying to outline here would fall into the steganography category. The impression I'm getting is its like a notch down, more fluid and informal, down and dirty kind of framework. Heck, its used for updates on hit jobs...

The whole point of the Q post was a kind of soft disclosure of this communication framework with examples in real time, without violating the internal rules of engagement. At least that's how I see it, and why I placed it here.

If I find that its actually is some kind of sub-category of steganography, I can branch it into its own thread.
 
lindrie said:
These are not Q post/messages decode. I think that ship has sailed.
Click to expand...
You said yourself that your messages have basically nothing to do with Q. Discussing stegonography or something similar in this thread creates unnecessary confusion. You can simply start a new thread and maybe ask the admins to move your messages from here to there.
 
Was this meant to be strictly a Q post/message decode thread? I thought it was a general discussion on Q source / Qanon which could involve some/lots "decoding" ie trying to unravel the actual message behind the words used? I did read through this entire thread before I made my segments of post and I did not see it as a strictly "decode the Q post" kind thread. I understand why people would want to do so and it seems to be the defacto mentality associated with it.

This puts me in a weird dilemma. To me, saying something to the affect of not discuss background info on Flynn in this thread because its not a Q decode. If you replace "Flynn" with "fight club comms" (my name for it), hopefully that gives some perspective? As far as I'm aware, "fight club" comms wont make much sense without the Q post... there's not really a way to break it out cleanly. Kind of the whole point of hiding messages in plain sight...

Its easy to point to something that has an existing known name, but when something doesnt, then what? The only thing I can think of is to give examples...

I'll refrain from posting anything related to the fight club comms in the meantime, since it seems there's some kind of disconnect.
 
lindrie said:
I did read through this entire thread before I made my segments of post and I did not see it as a strictly "decode the Q post" kind thread.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how you could have read this whole thread and still think that it is about "decoding Q messages". This thread focused on who might be behind Q, how truthful the Q information is and what they might want to achieve with the Q psyop.

Overall, the consensus has been that Q is not a particularly good source or an outright disinformation psyop.

What is more important, again, is that what you are wrting about has basically nothing to do with Q. Is it really so difficult to just start a new thread?
 
axj said:
the consensus has been
Click to expand...
I personally have not reached a conclusion other than it is indeed a psyop. But that is a very general term these days and even some of the things my kids try to pull would fit that same definition.

I did factor in heavily how the C's said it, "insider" but they did not (AFAIK) specify or attribute any "good" or "bad", which they rarely do as I do not feel that we down here swimming in molasses are qualified sometimes to understand what is "good" or "bad". We are too subjective, all the time, about everything.

I do agree to kick the Stenography topic to another thread as it is like a couple of other threads, creating additional noise while trying to tune into the signal.
 
I've followed the Qanon phenom a long time on the Kitco MB...there were believers and non believers, all people who I felt were intelligent, so I was staying out of it and just observing from a distance.

Ill say that I found myself rooting for Q to be a white hat...but as time went on and there was no good news happening, the phrase was always its a movie...and NCSWIC and trust the plan and wwg1wga.... yet it never delivered. Great catch phrases really drew in some smart folks. Its so frustrating what is happening in this country, to save your own sanity, you need to limit your exposure to it all.
 
lindrie said:
Was this meant to be strictly a Q post/message decode thread? I thought it was a general discussion on Q source / Qanon which could involve some/lots "decoding" ie trying to unravel the actual message behind the words used? I did read through this entire thread before I made my segments of post and I did not see it as a strictly "decode the Q post" kind thread. I understand why people would want to do so and it seems to be the defacto mentality associated with it.

This puts me in a weird dilemma. To me, saying something to the affect of not discuss background info on Flynn in this thread because its not a Q decode. If you replace "Flynn" with "fight club comms" (my name for it), hopefully that gives some perspective? As far as I'm aware, "fight club" comms wont make much sense without the Q post... there's not really a way to break it out cleanly. Kind of the whole point of hiding messages in plain sight...

Its easy to point to something that has an existing known name, but when something doesnt, then what? The only thing I can think of is to give examples...

I'll refrain from posting anything related to the fight club comms in the meantime, since it seems there's some kind of disconnect.
Click to expand...
Its interesting to me, but no longer give it any weight...wont be one who ridicules people who believe or want to believe...who knows, this movie might have a surprise ending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom