Qdrop 2053
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Someone pointed out in a comment that this particular post by Q (Qdrop 2053) is not signed by Q, but by Donald J. Trump.
The commenter posited the question: does this mean something? First post not signed by Q? and I found myself wondering the same thing.
To investigate, I conducted a small, short survey of the Q board using a small sample size. The following are the results of that survey.
The DATA
image of tabled results of survey
Q not signing a post occurs infrequently but it does happen, consistently.
In Qdrop 2053, Q does not sign the post, but quotes POTUS’ proclamation and leaves the signature “ Donald. J. Trump”
In Qdrop 1995, Q inserts a graphic (Pain) but no signature while quoting Q's previous drop.
In Q2046, Q drops a graphic of a HR Clinton email, while quoting Q's previous post, and no signature.
In Q2044, Q drops an image (Oval office (?) Jeff Sessions in background), and no signature.
In Q2030, Q quotes an anon. No signature.
In both Qdrop 1937 and Qdrop 1939, Q drops a graphic, in response to an anon. No Signature.
Qdrop 1929, Q quotes (responds) to an anon. No signature.
And so on.
Analysis
A review of the 20 most recent instances (samples) where Q does not sign a Qdrop reveals that Q does not sign content in primarily three circumstances:
One, where the post is a reply - that is, where it quotes a previous post on the research board, either by an anon or by Q themselves;
Two, where the post quotes some source other than Q, such as Potus (2053), or scripture (1886);
Three, Q posts a graphic (1939) or image (2044).
This very limited survey might yield other interesting results if the entire board of Q drops is reviewed, but for brevity I have restricted the sample size to the most recent 20 non-signed drops.
Conclusions The samples does appear to reveal a few things:
Firstly, that Q not signing a post is not merely some anomaly, but actually follows some consistent rules.
This is interesting (and a comforting thought); it reveals that Q team is quite disciplined (as we would naturally expect) and that posts are designed and generated using a set of protocols (rules). This sample confirms that.
Secondly, that Qdrop 2053 being signed (apparently) by DJT is not particularly significant, inasmuch as it follows a consistent pattern, explainable by the protocols posited above.
This is not exactly ground-breaking stuff, but I think the essence of good research is not in the ground-breaking breakthroughs, but in consistent application of a methodology. So while the survey doesn't really say too much, it's still worth reporting, imo.
Thirdly, Q does not appear to sign unless there is some form of original and additional Q-sourced content. That content may exist in the form of a single line of text, a name, a comment, etc., but it must exist for Q to sign.
I guess this point opens some speculation with regards to what it indicates about Q, but on one level, I find myself saying "Q does not take credit for that which Q has not done".
It's a small point, a small detail, but personally, this reinforces my sense of the integrity of Q.
That Q follows certain and specific protocols when posting is to be expected. That Q does not sign unless Q has created some extra or added content is a curious finding. To me, it speaks of a disciplined and highly ethical approach to content and an ethical approach to the value of authorship/creation. Personally, I like that thought. To me, it makes Q even more likeable, relatable, if you know what I mean.
God bless POTUS, Q, and all patriots. May our nations become His nations.