Q is Real, Because Math Says So
Time to Put an End to All Doubt
Greetings Friends,
I’m going to make a bold claim: the only way a person could doubt that Q is a legitimate insider is if they don’t understand Q.
Put another way, when someone claims that Q is just a “LARP” (an actor, in other words), then this alone shows you that they have no idea what they’re talking about.
I don’t intend to be rude per se—however, considering the derisive treatment of Q supporters by the “anti Q” world (comprising of many on both sides of the political aisle), I don’t plan on sparing anyone’s feelings, either. When people lambaste Q supporters for being “stupid” or “lazy” or “crazy”, they’re behaving in the precisely same manner as the left does when they baselessly accuse Trump supporters of being dumb, evil, etc.
Condemnation or dismissal without sufficient cause should NOT be the standard way that people deal with each other—nor should it be the standard method by which logical proposals are evaluated. If one is going to paint one’s countrymen with broad brushstrokes as dumb or crazy, then such an accusation should be founded upon a legitimate review of objective evidence. Society cannot function—let alone improve—when feelings supersede rationality.
My challenge to all who would say that Q is nothing more than a LARP is this: can you provide a workable mathematic/statistical model that compels us to assume Q is “fake”, rather than a legitimate insider connected to Trump?
If one intends to dismiss or debunk Q, then it’s nothing short of mandatory to answer this question. Not a SINGLE detractor has ever produced such a model in the past six and a half years since Q first appeared on the scene.
How come no one has done this?
Because it’s impossible. From the perspective of mathematics (not mine or anyone else’s subjective opinion), it’s far more rational to trust that Q is a legitimate insider than not. Today, I’m going to show you why this is the case.
Getting a Handle on the Basics
Before we get into the heart of the matter, there’s a tremendous amount of “noise” we must dispel.
In the first instance, we need to separate Q from content creators who have taken Q’s material and run wild with it. Q is not responsible for anything that 3rd parties might say—in order to determine Q’s legitimacy, we cannot rely on 3rd party reporting. We must go directly to the source, that being the Q drops themselves.
Consider how many people baselessly think that Q told us that JFK Jr is still alive—even though he literally said otherwise. Furthermore, how many times have you heard that “Q’s predictions haven’t come true”. Tellingly, no one ever substantiates such claims in the context of Q’s postings—which essentially means that they’re just making wild guesses..
The Mockingbird disinformation machine is funded to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year (that’s not an exaggeration). Plenty of seemingly “home grown” content creators have come out of the woodwork claiming to be “Q experts”—I’ve even heard folks boldly claim that they know Q personally, which is patently ridiculous.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if most so-called “Q influencers” are here to mislead us, while simultaneously discrediting us in the eyes of our countrymen.
Either way, why rely upon 3rd party reporting when the primary source is freely available to everyone?
The Reality of Information Warfare
In analyzing the Q drops, we need to give some leeway insofar as the Q team necessarily engages in a bit of disinformation themselves. This may superficially appear to be a contradiction, but when one looks at the Q posts, one realizes that we’re necessarily dealing with multi-layered communication. You must “read between the lines”, which is exactly what the Q proofs enable us to do—they allow us to decipher the real message without being thrown off by the “cover story”.
Riddle me this: if Q is being read by anons and Cabalists alike, then how can they spill the beans without risking national/operational security? The answer to this question is that Q must talk in riddles.
The drops aren’t for “everyone”—they were a gift to anons, because anons are the ones who have the intellectual wherewithal to look beneath the surface of things. And anons are also the ones who have what it takes to render complex, coded intel into a form that can be digested by others. Q himself said that the boards were chosen for a reason.
Every statement that Q makes must be evaluated in a broad context. One must recognize that we are in an optics battle—and recognize, furthermore, that there are inevitable losses in war. Do you think Trump, who’s been very outspoken in the past about vaccines, would go around promoting the Covid vaccine if there wasn’t a very good reason for doing so? What if the alternative was MUCH worse? What if Operation Warp Speed thwarted a decade’s worth of lockdowns, and the complete and final loss of our freedom?
Just some food for thought…
Anyways, the important point here is that there are multiple layers to every event, every tweet, and every move being made. Those who judge based on appearances alone will NEVER figure out the truth—and that’s a promise. “Expanding your thinking” inherently means considering possibilities that one would previously never consider.
Now, let’s get into some Q proofs…
On Math and Probabilities
When analyzing Q proofs, there is only one thing that objectively matters, that being the statistical likelihood of Qs posts lining up with Trumps tweets, current events, etc. When it comes to mathematical/statistical analysis, we must be on guard against the tendency of our emotions to muddy the waters—we must go where the data leads, even if the destination appears improbable to us.
Consider the following scenario: If I gave you a pair of dice, what are the odds that you’d roll the number six, six times in a row? Take a quick guess, and then keep reading after you have your answer.
Indeed, the chances that you’d roll six, six times in a row is approximately 1 in 60 million. On the flipside, this means that the chance of any other result occurring would be approximately 59,999,999 out of 60,000,000. Given that each die has six sides (totaling twelve sides when combined), this shows us that we only need a scenario involving twelve factors with six iterations, to produce wildly divergent odds.
Now that we know this is true, note that Q proofs involve thousands of more factors than the scenario we just described. If someone were to tell you that “all Q proofs are just a coincidence,” then this would be the logical equivalent of telling you that it’s reasonable to expect to roll the number six, not six times, but ten million times in a row.
A rational person might ask: At what point does one ask if the dice are loaded?
Likewise, the sheer number of coincidences between Q’s posts and Trump’s tweets alone should cause us to question the assumption that Q is somehow nothing more than a LARP. There comes a point at which we’re justified in asking if coordination is taking place.
Obviously, if it’s true that Q and Trump are coordinating their posts, then this means Q is a real insider—not a LARP, as so many say.
A Handful of Proofs is All We Need
One could spend hours and hours researching Q proofs, but such effort is not required to clearly demonstrate the validity of Q. It only takes a handful of proofs to make an extremely compelling statistical case that Q and Trump are connected.
The first Q proof I want to address is the fact that on December 9th, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Q wrote, “We love our U.S. Military. On behalf of an entire Nation, THANK YOU for your sacrifice and service”, after which, Trump posted the same message VERBATIM to Twitter (including the capitalization and punctuation) at 1:37 PM on the same day. That’s 98 characters worth of text that perfectly matches.
What do you think the odds are that Trump would unknowingly repeat 98 characters worth of the very same text that Q posted only a few hours earlier? Both the number of characters as well as the timing represent more factors than were present in the dice scenario above.
Indeed, we’re only one proof in, and already we’re well past the point where it would statistically be likely for this to be a coincidence.
But, to drive the point home even further, let’s examine another proof:
We can see in the graphic below that many politicians (not just Trump) have echoed a Q post from April 9th, 2020. Now that we’re adding additional people to the sum of factors, the chances of this being just a coincidence could very well be less than 1 in 100 trillion (just to throw an estimate out there, as the sheer number of multiplying factors we need to calculate this are almost uncountable).
Now, anyone could theoretically make any image they want. What if this image was created in photoshop? Well, I double checked on Twitter to see if these posts were real, and discovered that they’re indeed real. What, besides a coordinated effort, could possibly explain this?
So there you have it—we’ve only looked at two proofs, and we’ve already reached the point where the likelihood of Q being a LARP is, for all intents and purposes, zero.
What is the Threshold for Statistical Significance?
Researchers commonly use 5% as a threshold for rejecting or accepting a hypothesis.
In other words, if a scenario has less than a 5% likelihood of occurring, then it is standard practice to reject it as a causal explanation. Now, there’s no hard and fast rule that says that 5% “needs” to be the threshold, but that just so happens to be the standard used by many researchers in the realm of mainstream science (see the book, Naked Statistics if you’d like to learn more about the way that mainstream science/academia handles statistics).
Given that there’s only a 0.000000000001%* chance that Q is a LARP, then we must reject almost the entirety of mainstream science if we decide that such a small percentage is sufficient to throw away the hypothesis that Q is a legitimate insider.
(*For the record, since the factors involved for calculating the veracity of Q number in the thousands, I’m simply picking a random, big number here to make a point. The amount of time and effort it would take to come up with a precise estimate is enormous, and it’s simply not necessary to do so, given that we already demonstrated that it only takes a handful of factors to produce highly divergent probabilities via the dice rolling analogy.)
As many who’ve read my writings know, I’m NO fan of mainstream science or mainstream academia. My point is simply that if they want to paint Q as a LARP, then they cannot do so without simultaneously disavowing almost the entirety of their own “science”. If 5% or less is a good enough threshold for them to throw away a hypothesis, then the notion that Q is a LARP must also be discarded.
What it Means to Be a Rational Person
If we were taking bets on the possibility of two scenarios occurring, the first of which has a 99.99999999999% chance of happening, while the other has a 0.00000000001% chance of happening, then what would be the safer bet?
This isn’t a trick question—obviously, the former is the safer bet.
When someone tells you that Q is a LARP, it’s the equivalent of telling you that it’s somehow more rational to go with the latter bet (from their perspective, it's not so cut and dry, but this nonetheless what it boils down to).
Looking at the word rational, we can see that it includes the word ratio, which strongly suggests that the essence of rationality is to put things in proper proportion. To be “rational” is to be “measured” in your approach to things. Conversely, to be irrational is to utterly disregard proper proportion in one’s actions, decisions, and judgments. A rational person seeks a harmonious middle, while an irrational person wittingly or unwittingly careens towards disharmonious extremes.
In light of all the evidence we’ve presented, it’s actually an extreme position to say that Q is a LARP, given that there’s simply no statistical argument in favor of that position. Isn’t it interesting that those of us who believe Q is a real insider are the ones labeled as “extremists”?
The law of psychological projection is one of the most reliable of all psychological “laws”.
Conclusion
I may or may not have convinced you that Q is a real insider—you have the right to your own opinion on that matter.
But be advised that “it sounds too crazy to be true” is not in any way a logical argument—it’s the equivalent of saying, “the limits of my imagination are synonymous with the limits of reality itself”. Alas, one’s subjective sense of “what’s normal” can never be a viable substitute for an objective logical standard by which claims may be legitimately proven or disproven.
Q has given many people an incredible amount of hope—how fortunate it is that we can trust this source of hope with genuine logical conviction. We are fully and rationally justified in believing that the nightmare of Clown World will someday come to an end, and that America will one day be restored to greatness. Furthermore, we are justified in our quest to find hidden clues and “comms” everywhere we look.
If Q is real, then that means we’re doing a real service to America (and the world) by putting the comms together and broadcasting our findings online. In fact, it’s one of the most important things we could be doing with our time.
There’s a 5G battle going on, and we were invited to PARTICIPATE.
I can hardly think of a greater honor.
WWG1WGA!
Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.
If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of this author’s work for free at American Hypnotist.
Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.
Love this article Hypnotist! You are exactly right and you laid out the logic in believing Q was an operation to ignite an online army to fight the constant propaganda that we are force fed by all media.
Truth wins and we control the narrative battlefield now, so everything has changed.
Keep up the great work!
Agreed! A friend of mine told me several months ago that Q was not legitimate. I told him, "How do you know? You've never looked into it. Never read any posts. You don't know anything to make that claim."
He said, "I can't argue with that."
We have to stand up to these people. They have no facts to back up their claims.
Great article!