analysis by “Wiggins”
with introduction by Robert Patrick Lewis

Is Q real, fake or something in between?

This question has been pondered mercilessly over the past year, with one side (well represented by the Mainstream Media [MSM]) discounting all “Q Proofs” and accurate predictions, stating emphatically that Q is nothing more than a “conspiracy theory” promulgated by the “alt-right” and “far-right conspiracy theorists” bent on promoting violence in their support of President Donald J. Trump.

But there is a large swath of the population, steadily growing larger by the day, who not only believes in Q team and the validity of their drops but who have dedicated thousands upon thousands of hours researching those drops in meticulous detail, digging and hunting for connections, crumbs & confirmations and painting the full web of what Q has been telling us.

Some would say the Q phenomenon is much like religion, in that it’s a belief which must be taken purely on faith with no direct proof of who Q really is, validation by high-profile government officials (although Scaramucci recently made a statement confirming Q’s existence) or the mass-arrests that most followers of Q have been waiting for.

But there are many Q researchers who have explored the Q Proofs and accurate predictions on 8chan, YouTube, Twitter and VOAT ad nauseam (of which our show “The Intel Shed” on the Heroes Media Group YouTube channel is one) who point to mountains of confirmations, timestamps, foretold events and POTUS tweets as all of the proof that we need.

With all of the interest taken by millions of people to either support or discredit Q, neither Wiggins nor I have seen anyone undertake what should be the most important exercise when attempting to determine the validity of a subject with plenty of circumstantial but no rock-solid evidence: a true military analysis-style exploration of the potentialities of what Q really is and the statistical chances of each assumption.

This article will be using Wiggins’ particular skill set as a former Green Beret with experience in intelligence analysis, mission planning, the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) and Course-of-Action (COA) development to answer the fundamental question: is Q real?

Wiggins takes the three possible outcomes raised by asking what the true nature of Q is:

  1. Q is not an insider and has no access to insider information
  2. Q is a disinformation operation designed to feed misleading information intended to discredit or demoralize
  3. Q was/is a legitimate insider that has been feeding accurate information

In order to accurately analyze this most basic but fundamental question, a process must be used in order to fully appreciate each option, outline motives that would lead someone to undertake that type of project, evidence that would lead to the validity of said option and all possibilities said option puts on the table.

In business this would be called a “decision tree analysis,” a process by which a business leader looks at a potential decision, all possible ramifications of said decision and the percentage of likelihood that each possible outcome from said decision takes place.

Because of the potential geopolitical ramifications of the actions of Green Berets deployed around the globe, sometimes as the only American ambassadors or military presence in a given country or region at any particular time, US Special Forces are highly trained in analysis of the “knock on effects” to assess and weigh the potential outcomes of any action that we take.

Due to the highly sensitive nature of Unconventional Warfare (UW) and Foreign Internal Defense (FID) – the two main missions of US Special Forces – all Green Berets are trained to think of any action in terms of what may happen as a result down to third, fourth and fifth-order effects.

Only by wargaming all potential outcomes from a decision in advance can you truly be prepared for what happens as a result and prevent as much “blowback” as possible (unintended consequences of a military or intelligence operation).

As I’ve said in “The Intel Shed” I’d love to see the decision tree diagram that President (then candidate) Trump, Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon built at the outset of their plan to take back America, the Donald J. Trump campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America.

If you’re in the “Q is real” camp you are likely of the belief that the Q movement was a major part of that decision tree analysis. But before we can get to that supposition, we must first answer the initial question: is Q real?

So rather than taking it on blind faith, Wiggins has outlined below an analytical and military-style unpacking of all possible options regarding that ever-important question. For some of you this may serve as confirmation, while others likely stopped reading when I outlined the purpose of this article at the beginning.

But if this will help just one person understand what we are dealing with, add courage to their conviction in the validity of this movement or help us spread the message, this article will have served its purpose.

The information below is written as an analysis, in which he first lays the potential conclusions in order, gives the motives that would lead to such an action and then lists the confirming indicators which drive the statistical chances of the validity of said conclusion.

Only after all conclusions are laid out with motives and indicators does he list the conclusion analysis, as the full picture cannot truly be seen until all potential outcomes & indicators have been explored.

So please read this article in its entirety, and if you feel we missed any confirming indicators or motive potentials please reach out via Rob’s twitter @RobertPLewis.


Preface: Any reference to enemies or opponents are referring to any entity or individual focused on destroying or degrading the natural rights of humanity, as outlined in the Constitution.

Allies would be any entity or individual focused on preserving and strengthening those natural rights globally. This delineation is essential for the reader to understand potential motives and desired end-states.

The ‘community‘ refers to the disparate collection of “Q Followers and Researchers” across the globe.

Sources” refer to the verified Q account.

## Conclusion 1:

“Q is not an insider and has no access to legitimate information.”

### Primary Motive Potentials (what would a person’s motives be for this to be the case):

distraction, attention, ‘for the lulz’, mass psychology experiment, AI learning honeypot, financial gain,

### Confirming Indicators for this Conclusion:

The primary indicator for something like the ‘Q’ source being a fake or ‘LARP (Live Action Role Play) would be consistent holes in the story and consistent, unprofessional intelligence and behavior.

Challenges to legitimacy would be frequent and direct coming from anyone investing more than a passing glance. All responses to these challenges would be equally unprofessional and dubious to skeptical bystanders.

* frequently provides verifiably false and objectively misinformed information
* decreasing frequency of objective information
* increasing frequency of subjective information
* attempts to provide insight on topics as an ‘authority’ that is shown to be inaccurate by public authorities on those topics
* prolonged periods of inexplicable silence
* juvenile/erratic language or responses
* hyper-competitive language
* frequent changes in writing style or thought flow

## Conclusion 2:

“Q is a disinformation operation designed to feed misleading information intended to discredit or demoralize.”

### Primary Motive Potentials:

demoralization, limited hangouts (threads and rabbit holes leading to nowhere), discreditation, momentum disruption, divide and conquer attack vector, poison the well, individual/organization targeting honeypot, positive ally psychological operations, negative enemy psychological operation, operational recruiting,

### Confirming Indicators for this Conclusion:

The primary indicator that the ‘Q’ entity is a disinformation campaign would be a progressive cycle of the following:

small amounts of good intelligence -> promises of actionable intelligence -> previous reports confirmed false -> unverifiable excuses for false reporting -> repeat.

This would gather, trap and demoralize believers in the stated goals of the ‘Q’ entity, while progressively discrediting the goals of the Q entity.

* key promises failing with poor explanations or justification
* increasingly subjective predictions
* ‘pet project’ or side focuses that lead to specific individuals, organizations, or events
* encouragement of criminality or violence
* encouragement of social seclusion
* identification of ‘leaders’ and ‘sub-leaders’ within the ‘community’ (approved leaders/sources)
* specific claims of authority over information
* delegation of leadership or authority
* ‘divide and conquer’ tactics employed by ‘approved source(s)” within the ‘community’

## Conclusion 3:

“Q was/is a legitimate insider that has been feeding accurate information.”

### Primary Motive Potentials:

intelligence mobilization, positive ally psychological operations, negative enemy psychological operations, asymmetrical research support, decentralized communication node, operational recruiting, individual/organization targeting, asymmetric information distribution

### Confirming Indicators for this Conclusion:

More than any of the other conclusions, these confirming indicators would be directly correlated to the stated goals of the ‘Q’ entity upon first arrival on the collective conscious.

As indicated above, the objective and subjective goals of the ‘Q’ entity are to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, apply justice equally, and lead the global movement towards the same equal justice for allies and enemies alike.

Additionally, the byproduct of such goals would necessitate an increased understanding in both the sources and methods of control exerted over the global populace. While a populace that is more knowledgeable may acquire justice, such a monumental feat is near impossible if the levers of justice are not under control of anyone seeking said justice.

* official public admission (primary)
* event indicators
* prediction confirmations
* unofficial confirmations (subjective)
* unofficial hints (subjective)
* increasing intensity and frequency of derision from ‘enemies’
* gradual increase of public figures indicating or declaring support of source(s)
* increasing intensity and frequency of objectively or marginally provable predictions
* unexplained defections from support once public ‘allies’

## Conclusion Analysis

### Conclusion 1 (Q is a Larp)

Based on the preponderance of available evidence and the amount of consistent, solid information, the likelihood that Q is merely a LARP is slim (<2%).

The amount of time, planning, coordination, and frankly luck, would be astronomical. There are simply too many events that coincide with information or predictions that had been previously made public by the Q entity.

Furthermore, the development of a legitimate, global organic movement around the standing theory further damages this conclusion due to the nature of global information dissolving under tremendous scrutiny. While it is possible the early information was simply more solid/provable/objective, the consistency of accurate information that could have simply not been known is too large to ignore.

I only apply a 2% chance of this conclusion being accurate because it is conceivable that the right person or group with the right access and placement to information sources could generate enough early momentum to push the movement into the future.

Though, it is extremely unlikely and grows less likely with each passing day.

Conclusion 2 (Q is a disinformation operation)

This is a common refrain in many of the social media spheres, as well as the different chans where topics like this are discussed ad infinitum by anonymous individuals from across the globe (not to mention AI bots).

For this to be a potential conclusion, the important question would be determining ‘who benefits’ from running this time consuming operation, who would finance the operation and who would risk access to legitimate information sources in order to execute it.

The question then becomes: would it be worth the effort? Particularly given the obvious risks of ‘red pilling’ an entire generation of global personalities who would have otherwise never engaged in the personal time and research necessary to reach the conclusions necessary to swallow the narrative being outlined.

The end result of such a tactic would have been obvious to even the most novice of strategic planners at the outset: it will generate a life of its own as people research far and wide to prove/disprove the various “breadcrumbs” laid down.

This is generally ill advised for any individuals looking to engage in criminality on a global scale because the hints of your movement’s existence is often enough for many intelligent observers to begin to guess your makeup. Conspiracies are best in absolute dark.

I have seen no indication of the ‘enemies’ of natural human rights and the American republic desiring anything other than absolute darkness and secrecy. The ‘Clinton Body Count’ is a thing for a reason: information is valuable and potentially lethal.

I only place a 15% likelihood of the Q operation being a disinformation operation. The risk to reward factor is what stands out to me the most. Only a fool would underestimate the network effects that can come from impassioned research, particularly from individuals who become incensed over any number of topics.

Even detractors of the Q theory admit (or should be able to admit) that it has created a large group of people who began to research matters on their own and reach their own conclusions about the way the world works.

If someone is unwilling to admit this reality, consider them an overt or covert enemy, or at least an imbecile. I have seen no indication that any members of the ‘Cabal’ want their behaviors and activities revealed in any way, slowly or quickly to the broader public, yet this exact result is the inevitable outcome to employing the strategy that Q has employed.

The ‘Cabal’ is absolutely NOT stupid at the strategic level. They are cunning and malicious and I find it hard to believe that any planners would even suggest such a strategy, let alone finance and execute it.

Conclusion 3 (Q is a legitimate insider)

As stated in the analysis of conclusion two, one objective truth of the Q phenomenon that should be simply indisputable to any honest observer is that it sparked a passion for sentient humans to research matters out on their own, without relying solely on third party framing (which always comes with biases).

Many of the avenues of research that have been well-developed were reached by multiple anonymous individuals locating multiple sources of information that confirm a triangulated, objective truth or falsehood. This sort of self-motivated research and confirmation was the purview of (legitimate) journalists, academics, and recluses just five years ago.

This result alone indicates to me that there is something valuable behind the Q entity. Beyond that, the veracity of certain claims have been increasingly confirmed with greater frequency, and confirming things that are simply statistically impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy WITHOUT foreknowledge and control over very strategic levers of influence. At a certain point, the laws of statistics and probability simply demand respect.

I would wager that cognitive dissonance plays a strong role in many who refuse to at least recognize that some of the ‘proofs’ are beyond the point of sheer chance. Anytime you can identify cognitive dissonance in otherwise rational players, it should be an indicator that something important is occurring.

At this point, I place an >80% likelihood on Q being a legitimate insider for the reasons listed above, and my own personal subjective reasons grounded in the belief that the United States is full of people who love the IDEAS of America, even if they disagree with the BEHAVIORS of America.

When you have that many people who believe in a common set of ideas, the degree to which they are defended in times of trouble becomes proportional to the threat that is developing.

In my years, I have noticed an obvious pattern of increasing threats to the ideas that hold America together as a nation. To the untrained eye, it may have appeared that the defense was simply decaying. But in my opinion, Q represents the natural defensive reaction to those growing threats.