Talk about f'kg coincidences that only LondonFags would know about! Here we are looking South again from a riverbank. A moon is at 135 degrees. A Waning Gibbous Moon is expected to rise around 9pm and be at about 135 degrees at midnight. That number 135.
Picture provides 40,000 ft v. This is not necessarily an altitude. Double meanings exist. 1:40,000 is a commonly used scale in maps. It means 1 inch = 40,000 feet.
This may be a reference to the MAP.
It may turn out that there are more ways than one to read Q drops because at some point Q said they are no longer going to be at that "altitude". At other times, we are told to pay attention to time stamps.
>>13426554 (me)
Welp, Just did a search of "40,000" and it is always followed by "ft", meaning feet. The map scales are not in feet, so that avenue of inquiry is wrong. Q always says feet after 40,000, so that's that. Disregard the map scale thing. They are generally a conversion of a number of centimeters to kilometers depending on the scale. Could be 1cm, it cold be 2.5cm. Sorry, learning this stuff myself. i stand by my obs that the Q pic of Washington faces SE at roughly 135 degrees and other speculations though.
>[F]?
Not sure, but could we have reference to a certain SEQUENCE to be applied when we see [F] and/or "40,000 ft v"?
Post 128 seems to great effort to tell us about the map and that it has a legend as how to read the Q posts. Am still intrigued by MAP PROVIDES PICTURE, PAINT THE PICTURE, etc. A painted picture? And I am currently of a mind that SOME THING about that PICTURE is a KEY to decoding Q's drops. THINK DIRECTION?
Okay, so clearly the painting is not doctored, but that doesn't mean it can't be used to communicate something, like its direction or compass bearing whose numerical value could be a KEY.
We have it all.
Nice to watch that vid again.
>say what you will about the historical accuracy of the painting,
Why yes, I think I shall. But when I do, I will be talking of the ORIGINAL, the one destroyed. The one that has faint stars in the upper right corner. Before anyone immediately throws out a snowflakes comment, please scrutinize the rest of the painting and tell me why they only appear against an area depicting sky. This kinda reminds me of London2847's faint stars mystery. Let's look at the painters first and literally darker depiction. Even the STARS on the original are not (readily?) visible. Yes we may only have this surviving B&W photo but things still appear darker in the sky. If one wishes to attribute the "stars" to photographic damage, then such damage (white spots) appear suspiciously limited to the sky area. The subsequent "re-paintings" have changed the sky. DARK TO LIGHT.
Let's talk about the stars in the sky disappearing and "new" historically inaccurate stars showing up in the battle flag. UNDISCOVERED STARS…Were these reproductions even done by Leutz? That phrase, "undiscovered stars learned" has always seemed odd to me as in the word "undiscovered" seems to have a superfluous and redundant feel to it. Unnatural sounding. Aren't most things simply discovered or learned? The word "Undiscovered" seems like it could imply a covering-up or suppression of a discovery by "un-discovering" it or like "un-finding" something.
All of the above leading to this:
As for who might have done the re-painting of said paintings, the original has been changed, perhaps by a different painter maybe. So should we check/compare the signatures (if that is possible)? Is this signature important?
Let's call this B/W version Delaware2847 cuz stars.
Well, that's my tuppence for now.
>>13452192 (me)
I placed a post in the German thread asking if they could search for any possible record of a DETAILED description by a German art historian of the original 1850 painting which might mention anything about it depicting a nighttime sky with stars in it. Worth a try. Fingers crossed.
Don't sell yourself short kid. You've got what it takes. You'll always be welcome to join in "THE (UN)BAKER NOTABLES".