Q3826: Sometimes the past can find the future.
Q3827: Sometimes the future can find the past.
I've suggested before in
>>38971
>>39601
that Q has let us know that he is aware of the bi-directional nature of time and further suggested that the Q team may be guiding the consensus reality in a desirable direction by working in both directions of time, changing the past of the future and the future of the past, utilizing the combined intent of his followers.
Q is like the captain of a ship (the Albatross in White Squall) and anons are like the crew. Q determines the course of the ship, not by the stars, but with Looking Glass technology.
But no technology is perfect and future and past timelines are probable, not predetermined. There are time squalls to navigate through. The ship may need to make course adjustments. This is also consistent with Chaos Theory.
>>40556
In the past, Q has always hinted in definite terms such as "future proves past" and "nothing can stop what is coming". But for the first time, Q is using the word sometimes which indicates uncertainty, perhaps not in the ultimate outcome but in a particular path to get there.
If I was in Q's position, I would identify markers in both time directions and link them together to form a trajectory. Markers such as the US flag together with the words "In God We Trust". Then publish them so that they enter the consciousness of his followers.
The marker in the past would have to be placed based on a view of the future marker and the marker in the future would be placed based on a view of the past marker. But it would be necessary to be cryptic so that if the timeline doesn't get locked in, anons are not disillusioned and lose belief, which is vital for intent. Once the timeline is locked in, Q is at liberty to confirm it as a "Q Proof".
Now Q is letting us now that not all desired segments of the most desirable timeline get locked in. I suppose there are some dangling markers in old Q posts but we will never know. Maybe this is the real reason for Q's cryptic style, not "national security".