Anons, this could be big or it could be a total diversion. At the moment I'm not sure what I think.
I'm going to push this idea in an odd way. I'm going to first push a sort of general truth that I think at least some Anons have speculated about. The evidence I will use in pushing this general truth will have nothing whatsover to do with the ultimate point I am going to try to make, so I suggest reading this particular post and forming an intuitive judgement about it before proceeding to the comment where I will aim to put it to use.
My general point is that Q may very often post as an Anon.
Let's thing about this: why WOULDN'T Q use EVERY POSSIBLE means to get the job done? This is not a game, where Q needs to play by the rules. It is a war. And if posting as an Anon can help win the war - and it is EASY to think of all sorts of reasons why this might be so - then why shouldn't Q do it?
And keep this in mind: we ALREADY KNOW that Q is making plans to post as an Anon, via the series of test posts that give us ID's for non-tripcode posts. But if THAT is part of the plan, why shouldn't unheralded Anon posts also be part of the plan?
One reason to post as an Anon is to avoid overt detection from the enemy. Another reason to post as an Anon is to avoid Q "Anon" postings getting promulgated across the entire Q world. I suspect most of these posts are planted with the hope that the few who might catch any given post and do something with it will do so.
If I am right, then I suspect other Anons have also suspected this, but I have never seen the topic overtly discussed.
In any case, here is a recent example of what I think could be two Q "Anon" postings in the same thread.
First, a putative real Anon asks: "Q, if NZ was a MOS FF, please expose it."
Next, another "Anon" replies: "We're working on it." I take that as a likely Q "Anon" posting. Why would a real Anon say that? Why would a shill say that? But Q could say that simply as a way to drive the mood of the board.
Next, another "Anon" replies to that post:
"Note, the worshipers of Baal used to cut themselves as a way to scare their followers. Their tactic goes all the way back to the days of Elijah.
Just in case you didn't know that already.
Godspeed and thanks for all you do for patriots."
This is from a different ID. But note the language VERY carefully. The final line suggests that this is supposed to be coming from a real Anon replying to Q: "thanks for all you do for patriots". Q calls us patriots, and so this sounds like an Anon thanking Q. But will most actual Anons think that the prior post came from Q? Of course not! Maybe a few will suspect this, but the majority won't, not even at qresearch. But this "Anon" is taking it as obvious that the prior comment was from Q. And then the term "Godspeed" is a familiar Q term (used by Anons, but also repeatedly by Q).
But now look at the content of this actual comment. If a real Anon were doing a dig on ritual practices of Baal worshipers, there would be a lot more here, some combo of text and links and graphics. This Anon seems to be putting out a CRUCIAL piece of info, but isn't doing any of the legwork! Yeah… that does sometime happen. But think further… this "Anon" seem to be trying to communicate a crucial piece of obscure info to Q team, while FAILING to provide the evidence.
Let's think: when Q says they "have it all", that isn't really true. They may have "all" of many varieties of modern data, but they DON'T "have it all" regarding everything in human history. Nobody does. Piecing together obscure stuff about human history is HARD. (We KNOW that since that IS what we do here.) If some "expert" had a crucial piece of info on Baal and thought Q team needed it, that expert would PUSH it.
But this "Anon" just "drops a hint"… and supposedly for Q team?! Does that make sense?
What makes MUCH MORE sense is that at least these two posts came from Q, and that Q is the one dropping the hint about Baal and cutting, which may very well be relevant to the NZ shooting, even if it is highly non-obvious.
MOAR in comment….