Q and the ever-growing worldwide movement it's inspired have been the objects of fascination, mockery and hatred, but of surprisingly little serious analysis. Given this: link text On multiple occasions, QAnon has dismissed his false claims and incorrect predictions as wilful misinformation, claiming that "disinformation is necessary".[52] This has led Australian psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky to emphasize the "self-sealing" quality of the conspiracy theory, highlighting its anonymous purveyor's use of plausible deniability and noting that evidence against the theory "can become evidence of [its] validity in the minds of believers".[45] Author Walter Kirn has described QAnon as an innovator among conspiracy theorists in his approach of enthralling his readers with 'clues' rather than directly presenting his claims: "The audience for internet narratives doesn’t want to read, it wants to write. It doesn’t want answers provided, it wants to search for them."[53] Why would anybody waste their time doing what you call "serious analysis". Clearly the statements from Q are not falsifiable: