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?
It's simply stating that everything is compartmentalized. Operators are given a specific mission, they have no knowledge of the overall plan. Only less than 10 have the complete picture. That way there is less chance of leaks, either intentional, accidental or forced. It's safer for the operators and the security of the overall plan. This is how a lot of large covert operations are managed. Take for instance the Manhattan Project. Although there were thousands of people involved, including hundreds of scientists, only a few people knew the overall plan. Every team worked on their specific project isolated from what the other teams were doing.
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.
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!