Thread by @QOrigins

TWO (BARELY) LOST DROPS FROM 11/1/2017 (BETWEEN DROPS 33 AND 34)

Let me be clear: these are, by far, the *least*-lost drops I've ever posted about.

But they are, technically, lost -- and it IS delightful that Q posted this content and got *only one reply* the first time around.

See, these posts are identical to drops 34 and 35 (which Q reposted less than 2 hours later, in another thread).

But unlike canonical drops 34 and 35, THESE posts vanished without a trace. They slid off the board in short order, drawing only one reply.

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/147…

It's not that no one NOTICED the posts -- we know because another anon started a thread titled "To Q Clearance Patriot" to discuss them (this was after the lost drops were posted and before the canonical drops went up).

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/147…

That spinoff is a VERY interesting thread (the OP makes an obviously correct argument about Q's entire premise being stupid, plus anons discuss Q clearance), BUT I'm not going to go into that in detail.

I WILL keep this "mini" thread under ten posts, dammit, even if it kills me.

So... why are these "lost?" Well, to be a *canonical* drop, a post has to show up on all or almost all of the main aggregators -- the websites that collect/disseminate the drops.

So a lost drop is any *non*-canonical post (i.e. not on the aggregators) that's clearly written by Q

And these posts-- in this thread-- AREN'T on any aggregators. So they're lost... technically.

What can we learn from this that we CAN'T learn from drops 34 and 35? Three main points:

First: these posts add to the (already v. strong) evidence that Q was using a word processor.

These posts went up 24 seconds apart. They were *clearly* pre-written and copied from another source; nobody could type this out in 24 seconds.

Second: *there was only one reply before the thread vanished!* This is interesting; Q was already a subject of SOME interest on /pol/.

4chan is BUSY at peak hours and it's not unheard of for a thread to slide off the board quickly, of course. (For the unfamiliar: at any given time, 4chan can only have X number of active threads in each board. So each new thread pushes less-active threads down towards oblivion.)

But Q had enough of an audience for people to at least see the post and go "Oh, that's Q!"

Third: previously, I've speculated that Q was an evangelical Christian or at least quite comfortable in evangelical circles.

This may be true, but read that Bible quote closely.

It's a mash-up of two famous verses -- one is John 3:16 (generally considered the heart of the gospel message) and the other is... uh, something you'd be... more familiar with from hearing it... used in... weddings???

That's strange! One of these things is not like the other.

I guess I could have gotten that from canonical drop 35 too, but full disclosure: I've forgotten point #3 and I'm dangerously close to 10 posts.

So here! Have a link -- and I can't believe I'm saying this, but: this 4chan thread is 100% safe for work.

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/147…

update: oh no it was eleven posts

welp

gonna go sit under a tree and look at the sky while sad guitar music plays

i chopped off some analysis to try to hit 10 but i guess i also chopped off the part of my brain that can count 🙃

UPDATE 2: You know what? I'm over 10 anyway, SO let me add a methodology section (and let me also add: if you have any questions, PLEASE ask; I think I explained a LOT of stuff very poorly, & wanna fix it). Now!

How did I find these posts?

I know that Q often re-uses bits of their earlier content in later drops. This often results in weird, clunky phrases bc Q's a bad editor.

Drop 34 has several such phrases, so I started with the first clunky word & searched for other /pol/ posts around that time.

This led me immediately to the lost drops.

*Later* searches for *other* clunky phrases led, regrettably, to pregnancy-fetish pornography featuring Anne Frank which was posted by a user with a Confederate-flag icon.

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate 4chan? 'cause: a LOT.