The drops themselves don't ever refer directly to the LOW manual. Rather, they infer a connection with the manual by the shape and structure of the drops.
I do think that its still important to acknowledge that this is theory. It seems like a bloody good theory, but it's still theory, just like devolution.
As far as Q drop explanation theories, however, its the silver standard, I would say, even if we don't really understand it fully or even much.
I think there are two dimensions to the drops in terms of anons: one is to inspire us in the mission and work of anons during the plan, the other one is for us to prepare for after the plan, aka after the storm.
If LOW theory is right, its probably more about the latter than the former, I think. That, or its simply just a huge, massive, gargantuan Q proof: "future proves past".
why so heavily implied by the Q drops*
The drops themselves don't ever refer directly to the LOW manual. Rather, they infer a connection with the manual by the shape and structure of the drops.
Details matter.
Yes, that's what I meant, I am careful with language I said "referred to" but that may not have properly described it since as you say, it's coded.
Whew. OK, glad to have the clarification.
I do think that its still important to acknowledge that this is theory. It seems like a bloody good theory, but it's still theory, just like devolution.
As far as Q drop explanation theories, however, its the silver standard, I would say, even if we don't really understand it fully or even much.
I think there are two dimensions to the drops in terms of anons: one is to inspire us in the mission and work of anons during the plan, the other one is for us to prepare for after the plan, aka after the storm.
If LOW theory is right, its probably more about the latter than the former, I think. That, or its simply just a huge, massive, gargantuan Q proof: "future proves past".
We are in the very situation that the Law of War was written and updated for. That's my view. I think the white hats will apply it.