1) One thing that limited my view of Q was the presumption that no one can predict the future. Q seemingly does this in several separate episodes. Far too many and far to explicitly to be explained by advanved human planning, with time stamps 2-3 years ahead of the news cycle.

2) How is this possible? Did they flip FISA data collection and now have perfect intelligence directly from bad actors? How can they reliably predict everything the [other side] does?

I have an idea developed from various sources, some approved and some not.

3) I’ll appeal to “message over messenger” in this scenario. I’m anxious to hear your feedback. To understand what is happening we will start with a primer on Quantum Theory.
A Brief History of Quantum Mechanics - with Sean Carroll via @YouTube

4) at minute 14 he shows video of a piece of uranium ejecting particles, and not the field that Schrödinger predicted. In 1957 Everett explained this with his “Many Worlds Theory”. The uranium is direct objective proof of the multi-verse.

5) in our current reality the uranium ejects the radiation as shown, but in another world, the particle is leaving the nucleus from the opposite side of the uranium.

6) in the Q&A session. Watch minutes 13-18. The lady expresses logical thought about too many alternatives. The says the worlds would be numbered between 0 and 1.

7) if you added up all the uranium particle ejections, in all the multi-verse, then they would add up to Schrödinger’s Field Theory. But because we live in this dimension we only see the one particle. Important thing is there are several timelines.

8) so knowing that there can be 2 ways to predict the future. 1 way is to model the future based on what you observe now, and use game theory to guess what moves entities will make and then guesstimate the outcome probabilities. This seemed most plausible to me reading Q.

9) A second way seems theoretically possible. Quantum Entanglement. If you know the spin of one particle of Higgs Boson, then you KNOW the other particle will have the opposite spin.

10) even if entangled particles are on opposite sides of the galaxy that is the case. How? That could be 150,000 light years away. Does a message get sent at 150,000 light years/second? Somehow the answer is ‘yes’ for entangled particles.

11) it’s the pre-programming of entangled particles that seems more easy to understand. Much like the random number generators we see with computer log-ins. If you know a few numbers in a row you can predict the next number (no longer random).

12) what happens when a computer can calculate all the outcomes? Watch this Steinbart video, and ignore his quirks. What is the IBM quantum computer called?

13) it’s the IBM Q. And we don’t know the number of Q bits but it likely far higher then google’s 72. Could it calculate the future far enough in advance to seem omniscient?

The concept seems laughable. Almost as laughable at Bill Cooper claiming EBENS showed them an iPad that holographically scrolled through earths past and present. They called it Yellow Book or Yellow Cube. It’s discussed in his affidavit and in his book as I recall.

Was yellow book a (room temperature) quantum computer? What if our prototype was called Project Looking Glass? Our elites would be able to use it to predict the outcomes of their various plans. That is exactly what has been going on. Q mentions that they lost their ability to see

Why can’t they use Project Looking Glass to see varying outcomes? Sean Carrol alludes to it in the Q&A video. The timelines eventually consolidate. He theorizes it happens 10 to the 123 years from now, but maybe not for all things.

The problem with Looking Glass is it spit out the same future no matter what variables they put in. The timeline consolidated regardless. . It takes awhile to get to it, but the whole interview is fascinating.

I pray that we are in ascension. I have thought for some time that the Book of Revelation was playing out...but that it was THEIR tribulation and the end of [THEIR] world. We are set free in a new ascendant future....it’s only a theory though.