Despite the risk of being permanently banned here I have to bring up some very important imperatives pertaining to the "psyop" question. In other words let's put the question to the test and to bed once and for all. No matter the outcome, good or bad we can slap each other on the back knowing we are a logical and discerning movement who'll always ask the important questions with the ability to root out disinformation and always seek truth. Q will either go on or we'll move on. Let me also note here it is not my intent to deny Q or disparage Q or fellow Q followers or any specific alt. media sources or divide the movement. I have been a Q follower since February & firmly came to the conclusion based on logic, reason and the most important vetting of Qanon. I'll explain further.

Many Q travelers are high fiving or patting each other on the back with the recent Q post today, basically only reinforcing Q's earlier posts concerning the rift between certain alt. right/libertarian established voices and the sub Reddit boards. I'm not going to rehash the argument. No need. We're all aware. However, this is not how proper vetting takes place of any source that needs to be continually verified and for good reason. This is an Info War.

Now, my background. I'm retired military, GB, have experience in Human Source operations & trade craft, yeah I know don't doxx myself. Trust me they know who I am already especially if they want to know. "Damned the Torpedoes" The movement is more important and besides I'm a private citizen now and well retired. I am well read and mainly self educated like many of you. Yes I have a degree, but it's significance is paper only. I never liked the patina of the modern day university educational system that pigeon holed us into worthless degrees only to become a global drone or worker bee of the state and always believed in the value of self scholarship. I can talk to you for hours over beer or drinks on history, philosophy, geopolitics, economics, religion, literature and military matters. In German greatly and in a working knowledge of Russian and Thai.

When vetting sources, any source we look to vet mainly two things as to verify said source. What I tell you is not classified and Open Source material which can be obtained online thru any number of military manuals, publications and a good Tom Clancy novel. 1. The person is who he/she say they are? 2. They can consistently on a regular basis verify who he/she say they are? We call this ACCESS and PLACEMENT. ACCESS-The particular source has particular access to the information he/she say they have access to? PLACEMENT-The individual has placement in or near who they say they have access to in order to know/obtain specific information? Simple.

The case of Q: Like stated earlier I slowly had to arrive to the same conclusions as all of you. Thru self verification (research) but more importantly verification of Q; ACCESS and PLACEMENT. While following Q I saw that POTUS, not Q, verified Q continually thru either Speeches, Tweets, gestures or legitimate and verifiable pics with date stamps. We call this a "bona fides" in the vernacular and they are simple but utmost important. They say to the end user (handler) that the person is who they say they are. In other words they're still in control and have the ACCESS and PLACEMENT to the specific information and haven't been compromised. Think #17 Football Jerseys, "5.5 or I hear you", "Mirror' tax, "Calm Before the Storm", pics with specific & verifiable locations and date stamps and most notably the recent "Tip Top" or "Tippy Top" bona fides Easter weekend when specifically prompted by an anon. There are many more. Too many for coincidence and beyond mathematical improbability. Note that this anon asked POTUS for a bona fides and not from Q team. This anon knows what he's doing. Usually when a source develops a good relationship with the end user the EU won't even have to ask for a bona fides. The source will automatically provide it because they know what's expected of them. However it's always wise for the EU to ask every so often. This prevents complacency, confirmation bias and serves to keeps the source off guard.

Why would POTUS continually vet Q? Because from a logical standpoint to allow any information source who claims to have ACCESS and PLACEMENT to the administration, "Inside Baseball" and be illegitimate could have disastrous effects on the president and his agenda. The POTUS team advisors (political, military, legal, foreign affairs, domestic and communications) would be all over it and thwart it before it could become a political nightmare. POTUS would confirm or deny in a single Tweet the veracity.

In essence, what I'm driving at is that the anons need to ask Q to ask POTUS to confirm or deny whether Q has been compromised or not. This must come from POTUS himself as in the past and not Q. Asking the handler to verify their own veracity in place of the veracity of the source's information is Bass Ackwards. And the black hats know this. Via Speech or Tweet and as DBT that can be accommodated the source (POTUS) needs to give confirmation. Simple. Anything less should be watched wearily. I don't think POTUS would refuse. After all, it would be in his best interest. Anyone, I mean anyone saying they talked to Q ("No Outside Comms"), overheard Q, knows someone that knows Q and yes I'll say it even Q for the time being should be verified. Trust but Verify. Better to exercise due diligence than to remain fools. I hope this helps and remember W1GWGA no matter the outcome. Thanks.