1 / 2 - - - - - - 1 / 2 - - - - - 1 / 2

🔥☄️🔥☄️🔥☄️ :-: A potentially narrative-shattering thought :-: :-: What if we've been wrong in our assumptions regarding Q's positioning? IMPORTANT

As far as I can see, based purely on the evidence we've been permitted re: Q's authentication (the Trump tweet time markers, accurate prediction of military events / problems, accurate relation of leaks and testimonies before the fact, etc. etc.) it seems as if this is a person with at least a comprehensive understanding of military processes and jargon, if not an embedded military persona in essence.

Perhaps this is an individual or individuals leaking info. not from inside the Trump team / alliance, but from within the opposition / cabal-oriented forces.

This would cast almost all of the most dramatic Q drops in a completely different light; a few examples below;

🛑*** 1 - "=" timing is everything "="

• 🧠 - as referenced before SOTU, for example, might have been a forewarning regarding the recent train attack / ff warning.

🛑*** 2 - "="Super-predator" "Bring them to heel" Define heel. (of a dog) follow closely behind its owner."="

• 🧠 - might have been a reference to how Q follows 'closely behind his/her/their owner'

🛑*** 3 - "="Mourn. Murder. Heart attack. Coincidence?"="

• 🧠 - this line might have been code for Media Matters / Hilary Clinton (this one is of course possible without the insider status of course, but IMO far more probably an internal perspective)

🛑*** 4 - "="May is neutralized. MI6/SIS undergoing house cleaning. Queen/monarchs seeking shelter. Patience. These people are stupid"="

• 🧠 - this language makes far more sense in the oppo. tense (ie. to say May is "neutralized" from the perspective of considering May to be an ally). This commentary always sat ill with me, as I would have assumed that - rather than being

'neutralized' - the anti-NWO language would have been more akin to something like; 'defected' / 'changed sides' 'our guy' / or even 'come around', or something of that manner.

🛑*** 5 - "="Select news members / journalists are vital to delivering the message (as are YOU). Imagine if these people were removed. Total control re: MSM. They represent a clear and present danger to the enemy. Re-read past crumbs re: security. Where is JS? How do we truly protect those important to us? [19] immediates [no longer with us]. Self-suicide if actioned. Real life."="

• 🧠 - again, this one always bothered me. Why refer to the FBI as 'no longer with us' is the FBI is a rogue DS / NWO controlled op? Wouldn't "no longer with them" be more suitable? Or even if they were dead, and 'with us' is being used in the colloquial sense, 'no longer a threat' or simply 'gone' / 'dead' / 'eliminated' / 'removed' / 'neutralized' etc.

• 🧠 - also, why "as are YOU " instead of "as are WE "?

>>225273

2 / 2 - - - - - - 2 / 2 - - - - - 2 / 2

🔥☄️🔥☄️🔥☄️ :-: A potentially narrative-shattering thought :-: :-: What if we've been wrong in our assumptions regarding Q's positioning? IMPORTANT

🛑*** 6 - (the one that sits the least well with me as an insider post) "="What would happen if texts originating from a FBI agent to several [internals] discussed the assassination (possibility) of the POTUS or member of his family? What if the texts suggest foreign allies were involved? Forget the Russia set up [1 of 22]. This is only the beginning. Be careful what you wish for. AS THE WORLD TURNS. Could messages such as those be publicly disclosed? What happens to the FBI? What happens to the DOJ? What happens to special counsel? What happens in general? Every FBI/DOJ prev case could be challenged. Lawless. Think logically. We haven’t started the drops re: human trafficking / sacrifices [yet][worst]. Those [good] who know cannot sleep. Those [good] who know cannot find peace. Those [good] who know will not rest until those responsible are held accountable. Nobody can possibly imagine the pure evil and corruption out there. Those you trust are the most guilty of sin. Who are we taught to trust? If you are religious, PRAY. 60% must remain private [at least] - for humanity. These people should be hanging. Q "="

• 🧠 - 'what would happen?' as in, what I have seen happen? not that which I have been told as happened?

• 🧠 - 'what happens to the '[…]' again, all considerations of the insiders. Not - what happens to the NSA, to the administration etc. but what happens to "bad actors" as in (again, guessing) those closest to the source?

• 🧠 - 'We haven't started the drops' - again, could work from both sides, but if there are people working within the establishment to leak info and to 'drop' secrets, this would hold to be linguistically concordant.

• 🧠 - 'those [good] etc. etc. who know' this is the big one…for me at least. This seems to be an urging to consider that some who know about this full extent of the utterly demonic and disgusting happenings within this topic are essentially [good] people who are either helpless to resist (ie. outsiders without the power to affect the problem) or trapped (ie. insiders who must remain concordant and silent, and who are able to avoid participation). If helpless outsiders,why bother specifying that they are [good]? The assumption must, after all, be that any outsider who is aware must be as repulsed as we are, and therefore the specify such a thing would be superfluous.

• 🧠 - ( and before anyone latches on to this point - the [sq.brackets] code doesn't seem to apply to this particular entry, as far as I can tell, and therefore it seems as if the [sq] brackets are used in this context much the same way as would be general parentheses = as in ' (*) ' )

-~-~--~-~--~-~--~-

-~-~-~-~-~_-~-~-~-~-~-

~--~--~--~--~-_-~-

I'll stop there - way too much possibility for analysis /re-analysis to consider all the angles here. The keen-eyed Q-followers among you will be able to (easily) see that I'm just tracing back from today, for now, so it's very possible that earlier drops which i've forgotten (or failed to read carefully enough) may completely invalidate this theory. Regardless, I encourage those intrigued by this theory to share any of their "re-readings" of past Q posts here if you think there's anything pertinent to add.

Furthermore; while I don't think anything done or said by the GOP (or Trump himself) is in direct contradiction or ignorance of the Q drops and/or directives, an insider source on 'the other side' would perhaps better justify to some of the more 'disappointed' people here as to why more overt and dramatic action hasn't been taken thus far.

This is of course all pulling at straws, and splitting hairs etc. but this seems like the sort of thing that it may have simply been so easy to overlook that it's flown under the radar. Again - I may be easily proven wrong by earlier drops, but your thoughts and theories may yet shed some significant light…

(oh, and happy moon-day to all of you lovely people ;) )