Groks full answer and why... Here’s the full exchange you’ve provided, including the Anon’s post and Q’s reply, followed by an explanation of Q’s cryptic response and an attempt to address your additional questions about Elon Musk, Tesla, Eric Schmidt, AI, and related topics based on available information as of March 30, 2025. Full Post Anon (ID: 1795201, Jun 18, 2018, 3:26:49 AM EDT): "Prolly going down the wrong road here, but … Q post about sun, moon, etc. Elon Musk. Heat = Tesla cars exploding Moon = Full moon 6/27 (or 6/28) Stars = Musk b-day 6/28 Missions = Space X launch 6/29 Don't know if the dates mean anything, other than pointing to Musk (raw speculation at this point). Question: Anybody have info on Elon Musk? Seems to be Eric Schmidt vs. Elon Musk re: AI. Tesla cars exploding. Any info about who was killed in one or more of these? Links to anyone in cabal? Would Musk be someone who might testify about something? Fraud in the government handouts for alternate energy? Anyone? Bueller … Bueller?" Q Reply (ID: 1795210, Jun 18, 2018, 3:27:31 AM EDT): ">>1795201 Message not for Anons. Q" Explanation of Q’s Cryptic Answer Q’s response, "Message not for Anons," is brief and deliberately vague, a hallmark of QAnon drops. Here’s what it likely means in context: Dismissal of Anon’s Speculation: The Anon is throwing out a theory tying a prior Q post (presumably about "sun, moon, etc.") to Elon Musk, using symbolic links (heat, moon, stars, missions) and specific June 2018 dates. Q’s reply suggests this interpretation isn’t on the right track—or at least not intended for the broader Anon community to pursue. Targeted Communication: "Not for Anons" implies the message (either the Anon’s post or Q’s prior drop) was meant for a specific audience—possibly insiders, operatives, or even Musk himself—rather than the public QAnon followers. This aligns with Q’s style of hinting at hidden recipients or purposes without elaboration. Musk’s Role Left Ambiguous: Q neither confirms nor denies the Musk focus, leaving it open-ended. It could mean Musk isn’t central to this drop, or that any relevance is too sensitive for open discussion. In short, Q’s reply shuts down the Anon’s line of inquiry for the public while keeping the door cracked for speculation among those "in the know." It’s a non-answer that fuels mystery. Addressing Your Additional Questions Now, let’s tackle the Anon’s (and your implied) questions about Elon Musk, using what’s known up to March 30, 2025, without inventing details or relying solely on unverified claims.

1. Info on Elon Musk (circa June 2018 and Beyond) Background in 2018: Elon Musk was the CEO of Tesla (electric vehicles), SpaceX (aerospace), and The Boring Company, and had recently co-founded Neuralink (neurotechnology). He’d stepped away from OpenAI (AI research) by 2018 due to conflicts over direction, focusing instead on AI integration in his own companies (e.g., Tesla’s self-driving tech). Public Persona: Musk was a polarizing figure—celebrated for innovation, criticized for bold (sometimes unfulfilled) promises. In 2018, Tesla faced production struggles with the Model 3, and Musk’s Twitter activity (e.g., the "funding secured" tweet in August 2018) drew SEC scrutiny, later resulting in a $20 million fine and oversight of his communications. QAnon Context: Musk wasn’t a core QAnon figure, but his disruptive image made him a speculative target. Some saw him as a potential "white hat" challenging elites; others questioned his ties to government contracts (e.g., SpaceX’s NASA deals).
2. Eric Schmidt vs. Elon Musk re: AI Differing Views: In 2018, Eric Schmidt (ex-Google CEO, then Alphabet advisor) and Musk clashed philosophically on AI. Schmidt, at events like VivaTech (May 2018), argued AI’s benefits (e.g., enhancing human intelligence) outweighed risks, dismissing Musk’s warnings as overblown. Musk, conversely, saw AI as a potential "civilizational risk" (a view he reiterated at a 2023 Senate AI forum), advocating regulation and founding xAI in 2023 to pursue "safe" AI. Context: Musk had pushed for AI oversight since at least 2015 (e.g., meeting Obama), while Schmidt favored industry-led progress. Their rivalry wasn’t personal but ideological—Musk feared uncontrolled AI (like Google’s DeepMind, acquired in 2014); Schmidt saw it as a net positive. No direct "versus" event occurred in 2018, but their stances were public and divergent.
3. Tesla Cars Exploding – Fatalities and Cabal Links Incidents in 2018: Tesla faced scrutiny for battery fires, not "explosions" per se. Notable cases: March 23, 2018: Walter Huang, a 38-year-old Apple engineer, died in a Tesla Model X crash in Mountain View, CA. The car hit a barrier, caught fire, and Autopilot was engaged. NTSB investigated, finding driver error and system limitations. May 8, 2018: Two teens (Barrett Riley, Edgar Monserrat) died in a Tesla Model S crash in Fort Lauderdale, FL, when it hit a wall at 116 mph and burned. Speed, not battery failure, was blamed, though the fire raised safety questions. Other Cases: Fires occurred post-crash (e.g., a Model S in LA, May 2018), but no conspiracy-level "explosions" tied to a "cabal." Tesla attributed fires to battery damage, not design flaws, though critics highlighted risks. Cabal Connections?: No credible evidence links these deaths to a "cabal" (e.g., deep state). Victims were ordinary citizens, not political figures. QAnon might speculate about elites targeting Musk, but no data supports this.
4. Musk Testifying – Fraud in Government Handouts? Alternate Energy Subsidies: Tesla benefited from federal and state incentives (e.g., $7,500 EV tax credits, California ZEV credits). Critics, like David Einhorn (2019), accused Musk of inflating Tesla’s value, but no formal fraud case emerged by 2018. The SEC’s 2018 settlement was about stock manipulation, not subsidies. Testimony Potential: Musk could theoretically testify about green energy programs if fraud were proven (e.g., misallocated funds). However, no such probe targeted him by 2018, and his companies’ contracts (e.g., SpaceX’s $1.6B NASA deal) were standard. As of 2025, his DOGE role under Trump raises conflict-of-interest questions, but that’s unrelated to 2018. Likelihood: Musk testifying about "government handouts" seems unlikely without a specific scandal. His critics (e.g., Sen. Wyden, 2021) focused on tax avoidance, not fraud.
5. Broader Speculation June 2018 Dates: The Anon’s dates (6/27-6/29) align with Musk’s birthday (6/28) and the SpaceX CRS-15 launch (6/29). The full moon (6/27-28) is coincidental. Q might’ve used celestial terms symbolically (e.g., "light" vs. "dark"), but no clear Musk link emerges. Cabal Ties: No evidence connects Musk to a QAnon-style cabal. His wealth and influence invite theories, but he’s more a capitalist disruptor than a shadowy operative. Conclusion Q’s "Message not for Anons" sidesteps the Anon’s Musk theory, suggesting it’s either off-target or not for public decoding. Musk in 2018 was a high-profile innovator clashing with figures like Schmidt over AI, facing Tesla safety critiques, and navigating government ties—but no concrete "cabal" or fraud links surface. Tesla fire fatalities were tragic but not conspiratorial. If you’ve got more specifics (e.g., the prior Q drop), I can dig deeper!

Groks answer... Q’s "Message not for Anons" sidesteps the Anon’s Musk theory, suggesting it’s either off-target or not for public decoding. Musk in 2018 was a high-profile innovator clashing with figures like Schmidt over AI, facing Tesla safety critiques, and navigating government ties—but no concrete "cabal" or fraud links surface. Tesla fire fatalities were tragic but not conspiratorial. If you’ve got more specifics

This post has some more info https://greatawakening.win/p/19AwtFklkr/reminder--in-a-2021-interview-on/

To whoever downvoted me, these are Grok's words, not mine.