maybe Vincent Fusca is placed there for high visibility

Well, "maybe", but then once you have this theory, then you need actual concrete data to support the hypothesis to give it any serious credibility.

Let's consider. Q as we know (or believe) is a military intel operation of the highest level. We should accept that such operations, whether psyop, or kinetic action, etc, are only undertaken with the strictest and most rigorous parameters. They aren't undertaken willy nilly. They involve application of very rigorous standards of analysis, planning, modelling, and evaluation.

When we engage with the Q operation, by considering the Q drops, and the Plan that they appear to point towards, and utilizing them to analyse events and situations we can observe, we should apply similar standards as much as possible, and approach things methodically.

An important part of analysis involves contemplating and using one's imagination to consider different possibilities. So it's OK to imagine, or contemplate: "Maybe Fusca is placed there for high visibility". But the question then becomes how do you deal with that notion? What are your next steps?

To me, this is a difficult and often problematic area, because (it appears to me that) a certain segment of the wider truth community, including the Q community, takes ideas or notions like that and then go with confirmation bias as if this is evidence or a satisfactory foundation for validating the idea.

It's like taking an idea, and then grabbing others, and others and others, and then putting them together as if they are validated because they make a certain picture that is either desirable, attractive, or stimulating in some way.

Oh, "It begins" + previous DJT and JFK Jr Relationship + mysterious disappearance of JFK Jr and wife, etc + idea: he's still alive + Hey, Fusca looks like what I imagine JFK jr would look like at that age + his wife seems similar + he's always at Trump rallies + Oh, now Trump pointed him out + Oh, look, he seemed very relaxed at the Trump Assassination attempt + etc. + I so want JFK jr to be alive, it would be so thrilling and amazing = JFK jr is alive and he is Fusca

And so forth

But this is not how military grade or serious analysis and evaluation works. They require data, evidence, factual and empirical data to support the ideas and test them.

In the world of ideas, we can take those ideas and make them into beliefs. It's easy, because in that subjective space, they don't really require hard evidence, critical evaluation or being tested against empirical data. But then they are beliefs, and they are not really actionable. They can provide some emotional or intellectual stimulus, but how do they help? How do they advance the goal of finding truth?

How do we take our ideas and bring them in to the practical world to advance our objectives? This is where the disciplines of critical thinking, empirical data collection, hard analysis, planning etc come in to play.

The Q operation and the Great Awakening have formed a critical core movement in the processes of world freedom and politics, economics, etc. So they inspire all sorts of responses, including emotional ones, and they naturally connect or interact with people's (our) internal needs - emotional, intellectual, volition.

But the core direction of the Q operation is rooted in critical disciplines that have resulted in what we now have, so to continue that core mission and direction, people need to adopt the practices that are at its root.

This is in effect the military intel units that deployed the Q operation mobilizing citizenry as a sort of citizen truth militia.

Not everyone is suited to be hard core intel, or analysis etc, but in the search for truth, which is a core mission and objective of the Great Awakening, it's important for as many people as possible to recognize HOW each of us individually engages with the ideas and the things we observe. Often this involves not simply attaching to concepts or ideas because they make us feel good, but because they have been tested, measured against and with empirical data and facts, worked over like in a laboratory, until they acquire an actual solid foundation of credibility.

That is the approach Q promotes and exhorts us to use, I think. And there are important reasons for that. Because the effectiveness of the movement as a whole is directly linked to the ability of participants to apply those skills and techniques - mental and intellectual - on which the operation is based in the first place.

Hope that makes some sense.

In summary, I don't think there is anything wrong with the "maybe...." kind of thinking. But the cruz, for me, is where one goes after that. Because maybe yes, maybe no, maybe or whatever. Where is the evidence? And what do the facts say?

Without facts, it's all just pure speculation, and that's no foundation to build a truth movement on.