It's drop 60: https://qalerts.app/?n=60
You can count the people who have the full picture on two hands. Of those (less than 10 people) only three are non-military. Why is this relevant? Game theory. Outside of a potential operator who has been dialed-in w/ orders (specific to his/her mission) nobody else has this information. Operators never divulge. Alice & Wonderland.
Specifically this line:
Outside of a potential operator who has been dialed-in w/ orders (specific to his/her mission) nobody else has this information.
I've never seen anyone focus in on that one. But it's ALWAYS stood out to me. One of the craziest things about all this is who would have been in on it from the beginning, right? This post, and that line, seem to be telling us that someone else is part of this, but...only potentially...
So even team Q wasn't sure? Who is this one, apparently special person? And how are they actually related to the plan? Who would have all the same information as the original Q people, but not really be part of them? And what is their mission? Where did they get their orders from? And why are they a "potential" operator?
I'm just going to copy/paste my response to someone who made a similar argument:
If that were the case they would have just "outside of potential operators". They specifically said "a" singular operator and the post is about the people who have a birds eye view of the plan.
I'm not trying to be rude, but grammatically you take isn't correct, and, as we know, details are important.
General "special operators" wouldn't be in on the initial plan, nor would they "have the full scope", which is what that post says that potential operator has.
but they said "his/her mission"...
so that means generic operators, One of which might be specifically called upon.
The enemy would like to know as much about this person as they can, so they didn't want to specify their gender. The post is talking about who has the full picture. They mention a, singular operator, who has the full picture. The kind of person you are talking about would not have that information.
They are dialed in with order specific to their mission based on their shared knowledge of the full picture.
The grammar of this line:
only makes sense if that potential operator has the same information as:
Think about Dr. Jan Halper. She would fit the description of an operator for a specific mission. She described her work and others like her as working in silos. That first sentence that you refer to is in the singular, the second sentence is in the plural. I think that there would need to be several operators, each would carry out a specific part of the mission, and would only know their part, can’t jeopardize the plan, no one person could do it all and this has been going on for years. That one lone operator, your theory, would have to be able to find a way in to every group/ area without raising any suspicions. Not going to happen.
Exactly...she even addressed this specifically.
You are being unnecessarily strict on your interpretation of the grammar. Most commenters here believe you are mistaken, Which means even if you are technically correct in one school of thought, at a minimum the writer could belong to the other school, aligning with the common interpretation that it is a general reference to any operator.
Why would they go out of their way to specify both genders then with the logic of grammar, and not just say “their”
I’m with the operator is plural camp.
The way I take it is think of like that time all the black hawks landed in LA and extracted something.
“Dialed in with orders” “specific to their mission”
IE those helicopter pilots and raid team had to have been told at least WHAT they were doing and WHY they were landing in LA.
Let’s say it was some prominent person they were after, surely they would have to be clued in as to WHY they were raiding with military arms, for example let’s say Hillary Clinton.
Another example might be the Las Vegas night. This is just my take.
It’s very interesting however that you point out this often glanced over portion of a very famous Q post, and the implications are still rather interesting regardless of this one detail IMO!