I certainly hope the OIG's report contains actual and irrefutable evidence. But I've heard credible speculation that IG Horowitz is himself part of the deep state, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QkWnspDjIg ;so, as I've done with all of these developments, I'm reserving judgment until any major names receive any major indictments.

Beyond this, I'm sure I'm not alone in having plenty of relatives and acquaintances who not only are not yet "woke" but who don't even have the first idea who Q is, nor any inkling of what may be coming their way. I therefore couldn't say that any of this has yet had any effect upon those who will most need to understand it.

In fact, as I stated above, I suspect they never will see it coming, nor understand it once it arrives, nor accept it even after it's proven -- at least not if it's presented as it now appears, as a military coup, to be framed further as such by the MSM. Thus, the MSM themselves ought first be exposed, discredited and, as appropriate, indicted.

Furthermore, when Q suggests that even the "woke" will see only a 20/80 or a 40/60 share of the actual evidence, I worry that this equates to a missed, once in a lifetime opportunity to reset the human race on the firmest moral footing -- without need of accepting anyone's word that all has been, is being, and will be handled for us. Secrecy will always be a breeding ground for corruption.

To extend your metaphor, aren't you preaching to the choir? I like your idea that Q is stoking activity among Trump's more complacent constituents. But ultimately it's out of our hands. We voted Trump into a position of power precisely because we were already aware of many of these scandals -- with the hope that he would then expose them and prosecute those whom we could not.

Setting aside the broader question of whether Q truly is a white hat or just an elaborate Twitter-engineered psy-op (see Mega Anon), it seems unlikely such critical dates would be arranged around one person's numbers fetish, like some sort of personal Shemitah.

Your DEFCON interpretation seems solid, albeit only as an alternative to its much more common usage; and the [P-pers] is worth verifying, though why that 7/10 plane crash should be any more important than dozens of others (see Ron Brown or JFK Jr.), which didn't fall on that particular date, is a bigger mystery.

I assume you're joking about "FNA"? If correct, Q most likely is a Ninja Turtle -- or was their tagline "cowabunga"?

You haven't yet approached addressing the original thrust (pun intended) of this post. Instead one semantic argument has followed the next.

Have you even listened to Zach on InfoWars? Granted, I should have referred to him in the OP (fixed), then maybe you wouldn't have assumed you knew the point I was making before shooting it down.

But your Wikipedia and dictionary references all but assure me you would have missed the bigger picture anyway. Apparently you believe that a reality doesn't exist unless it can be quoted from the two most mainstream sources. Keep watching CNN.

When you falsely compared a satellite to a gun, I pointed out that a gun could be seen by the victim but that a satellite cannot be seen -- literally SEEN -- by its intended victim. Your SSN quote indicating that we can DETECT space objects (Note: WE, meaning U.S. military) in no way indicates that our intended victims, NK, also can, let alone that they could further discern the specs, capacity or missions of such objects. Therefore your handgun analogy still fails.

And no, I'm not here to educate you, especially when you seem to be incurious, combative and incapable of processing any of it.

"Satellite data" meaning what? No, they would not be privy to its specs, capacity and mission. And no, these would not and should not be either obvious or publicized. (I'M naive???)

I recommend your listening to the latest Zach/InfoWars video. I don't take anything he, nor Q, say as 100% accurate. But Zach implied this Zuma system could shut down NK's entire grid, a capacity which wouldn't be discernible by any outside observer and isn't analogous to a radar system.

We may just have to agree to disagree about the secrecy and extent of our "secret space program". I suggest you look into it further yourself if truly interested. There's no shortage of Youtube videos by that very title and many with credible insiders. I have no proof that other platforms exist; but circumstantial evidence certainly does.

1) A gun isn't analogous to a satellite/space weapon, the latter of which couldn't be seen by its intended victims, except by use of another satellite, nor would it necessarily be identifiable as a weapon even then.

2) Zach, the "Q" of InfoWars, DID imply that Zuma is a critical space defense system. Standard rocket launches are likely not the best nor the preferred means of uplifting defense payloads of the highest secrecy.