I have a new angle here on Q's Paul Revere/"Watch the Water" pic.
More precisely, I have a technical observation that points to something Q may be doing, and then three different ideas about where to go with this.
To see the technical issue, look at the two copies of the pic from Q's post:
https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/8839099.html#8839415
The first is exactly the image I downloaded, with the original filename as it appears on 8kun. The second is the same image, but I renamed it: NowC@mesTHEP@in—-23!!!.png
However, that is not what shows up. 8kun is replacing the non-alphanumeric characters like the EM dash and the exclamation marks with underscores. This behavior started around a month or two ago, and I suppose it is a defense against "injection attacks" that might work by getting your browser to interpret some symbols as code. Whatever the reasoning on the 8kun end, I suspect Q might be using this (rather annoying) feature to give us some subtle clues.
Anons caught some of the possible meanings of the underscore when it was posted. It seems that it could be a followup to the earlier 5_4_3_2_1_.jpg post (Q3952). And Anons caught that POTUS did several RTs from @paulsperry_ (ends in underscore) shortly afterwards. But now I can think of three possible avenues that hinge on the idea that the underscore character might be "masking" something else.
First, maybe Q is directing us to ask what the ORIGINAL filename might be. It would have to be a single character that would get replaced. The interesting thing is that there could be a way to confirm that we got it right. Every unicode character has a number. Suppose that Q named the file with a symbol for a lamp or a rider or something relevant. What if the unicode number then somehow pointed back to a relevant Q post or date? I haven't even begun to take a crack at this, but here's the unicode map:
https://www.unicode.org/charts/index.html
Next, what if the same file has been posted before, with the UNMODIFIED name? If the file was posted before the new 8kun policy took effect, then the original filename will still be visible when you load the page. And you'll be able to see the image too, even in an archived bread, since it would have the same "hash name" as the current file. Maybe Q team "hid" this image in plain sight on a prior bread, but maybe there is text or additional pics with meaning we can now unlock? We'd be looking for *.jpg, where the * is some character that is now getting replaced. The challenge is that there seems no way to search prior breads for images. Instead we'd have to use text searches to possibly find the right image, and that might seem a Herculean task. But is it doable? That is the question, and I think it might be.
Finally, look at the chunk that I copied from qmap that shows how POTUS followed Q. First POTUS says: "The American people should demand NAMES!" I think he could be directing Anons to find the FILENAMES (and maybe more than one… the two prior avenues might have different "answers" that work). But then notice how he follows with seven retweets from Paul Sperry. Only the first has a little arrow made of punctuation marks… again possibly a confirmation that looking at the non-alphanumeric characters may matter. But Paul Sperry was up in the notables this week for another reason, since he wrote articles on 4/15 about how the WH had identified Victoria Coates as anti-Trump sleeper "Anonymous". It seemed some Anons were "buying" this but I think there are very dubious aspects to it and I keep finding more: she was brought in by Gen. Flynn, for instance… is it likely he would bring in a sleeper agent? But here's another thing: she wrote a book called "David's Sling"… "slings and arrows"… where have you heard that? And POTUS in the first tweet after Q is talking about finding names for "anonymous" people. It is all very coincidental. I suspect there is more to find here. If she is working with Flynn and Q team then maybe she dropped clues in that book:
https://www.amazon DOT com/gp/product/B00JD029T8/
Maybe the artworks chosen have pointers via their content or their dates? I don't know and I haven't even taken a crack at this either.
In any case, I think any one of these three angles MIGHT work even if the others do not. Or maybe they all work, I don't know. I figured I should post this before digging further so that others could take a look.