>>1928200

Day's not over yet and Q was still posting… so I thought I'd better wait with updating the clock, esp. since I am working with two datasets (posts & tweets) that I maintain myself locally.

Also, I don't care much for (you)'s, but would rather that anons by themselves respect other people's work (and not smack their name onto it someplace else – no joke – I mean who does something like this, honestly?). Luckily, large majority of anons does.

I try to do the update tweets on a full-day basis – as you can see in the attached updated version, tweet count for today is still zero as the day's not over yet in EST.

Working on decoding clock stuff all the time wouldn't allow me to follow the breads as much as I want, and obviously I am too dumb to have been able to decode clock-related comms by now, as they should be (let alone to usefully implement any cipher/letter system into it), despite the numerous hints, tests & even a "solver" we've been given. Too few people are interested/able (small hive) … so I am all happy with anons hunting (anyone's) (you)'s, and just try to be nice & helpful, where ever I can, hoping that we'll figure it out in time in order to know if we choose to, or Q will let us know how to work it, when the time is right … lol.

>>1932073

Thank you, Sir. Good to hear your health is improving! There's more than a "white squall" happening, so we need all hands on deck … ;)

Thank you also for the @Jack post. Very suspicous of Jack (how not), and also of "notQ" – but when it comes to hints, I'll take anything I can get, trying my best not to get lost or mislead!

And @Jack, if you're reading this: To me you're still an asshole, w/ all the censoring, the (arab?!) money/influence and the "liberal" bias (and no, actually has nothing to do with being liberal) you appear to have & clearly practice on your platform. But who knows, maybe you'll improve, or "disinformation is necessary" … lol.

>>1941388

Timestamp (EST) actually is 13:36:25.

>>1940841

We've made the notables quite often, and I agree, persistence pays off, also humbleness & honesty. Talking about it: Look up evil-mofo's latest post on his webpage (paraphrasing: "just $1.99 per month on gab and you'll know what changes in the Q-Clock I am currently working on"). Much like a Q-Clock-Corsi. Reading his post, this guy is full of himself (and whatever else). I have seen the White Squall just yesterday (again). So I know what's it about…

>>1942277

What do you mean with line numbers? Total number of lines in each post? And why line numbers?

>>1947609

300 days back from 10/5 brings you to 12/09, 300 days forward is 08/01. 240 days backward from today is 10/31 – this is clearly visible on the clock. Difference between 12/07 & 10/05 is 63 days. That's a cycle & three days (just making sure) – so it shouldn't be too hard to do that in one's head. If someone comes up w/ stronger indications that "maybe Oct 5 is when the clock started", I'll look into it. Everyone at least around here should know that there tons of indications that 12/07 is when it started.

Guys, are you trying to keep someone busy for no reason?

>>1949168

Thanks Anon >>1951819

Didn't think I should answer, although I consider (at least some) knowledge about history rather important.

At any rate, Q posted 06/03 14:58 – we're probably not bad with one earthday being a Q minute: Starting at 00:00 on 12/07, that makes it 14:58 on 06/03 exactly.

>>1949168

So line numbers starting at line 1 for each post, I assume (i.e. not continuous numbering over all post)? Can be done (also a clock going back to 10/05 btw). Easiest solution, however, would be to use one of the text (ascii) archives in the dough via pastebin, cut out the post of interest and paste it into some editor. At the moment, however, I'm not aware of any indications that line numbers would matter.

Attached clock updated for final count yesterday with tweets & posts.

>>1952415

Apologies to those to whom it should matter. Have to correct myself as there's one Q post missing in yesterday's count. Q got me … lol … and I missed out on >>1952168

Clock will have yesterday's correct post count (25) by tomorrow. For today I'm out, appreciating that MyPillow guy is on /our/ side.

>>1949168

G'morning fellow clockfags! Posting two Q-Clocks with an updated count of yesterday's posts (which I missed out on previously).

For those working with dates/tweets back until 05-Oct-2017 ("Maybe it's the calm before the storm"), the second clock goes back to that date. Absent some good reasons (or requests) for those pre-Q dates to remain in the clock, in future updates I'll likely continue with the 10-28 clock only.

>>1959769

>include the Trump tweets going back from 10/28

Small numbers above the dates are [#Qposts/#TrumpTweets]. Where there's no blue circle, there's no Qposts, hence #Qposts=0. Found only three dates (01/31, 02/26 & 05/06) when @realDonaldTrump didn't tweet.

To avoid any misunderstandings: Those are the tweets of @realDonaldTrump only, as available in trumptwitterarchive.com, meaning that @POTUS (or @POTUS_schedule) tweets are not included (couldn't find @POTUS csv on trumptwitterarchive for 2018, and am not sure if their 2017 CSV for @POTUS is accurate).

For me to be sure and because you drew in numbers back until 10/05, you didn't mean to write "it's a good idea to include the Trump tweets going back from 10/05", did you?

>>1964406

>we need a simple clock (only date) for use with the normies.

Was afraid this would happen, and should have thought of this earlier.

Then we'll have two blanks from now on: One for us clockfags to use here, the other w/o the post/tweet stats. Since there are no known confirmed Q posts before 10/28, I'd suggest the simpler version to only start at 10/28, the other version will start at [:57] with 10/05. Would that work?

Also >>1964398

I'm working on several things in parallel currently, like summing up [HH:] & [:MM] to see how they related to [:SS] (like for example when [HH:] + [:MM] equal [:SS] or are the reverse (e.g. [22:] + [:23] = 45, and the secs [:SS] are 54 or 45), also trying to check flag posts to see if they are in any way significant/special.

Also trying to find posts that are connected thematically, like for example the stringer before Aylesbury (15-Nov-2017 00:38:48) and Q's post after that (2nd pic). Also considering if some 4-color code (red/green/yellow/blue) could be what's meant.

With reflections it's somehow confusing for me, as sometimes the mirror axis is vertical, sometimes horizontal, and haven't found any consistency in that yet, but it plays a role, I'm sure.

Then, I still haven't forgotten about primes & moduli – as for example when doing [:MM]*29 modulo 60, odd [:MM] all have a horiz. mirror axis, all even [:MM] are mirrored via a vertical axis (i.e. [:25] mirrors to [:05]'s position, [:24] mirrors to [:36], see third pic for example). No idea if that helps or confuses more … just trying things out.

This Nuclear-Disarmament symbol ("peace sign") also is interesting (check wikipedia for its history & connections to Navy flag signaling) ….

There's more I am working on – maybe I should just keep it more simple. Jeez …. ;)

>>1965961

Thanks. We'll do it that way. Will have to look into >>1965046 tomorrow to be awake & focussed – it looks promising.

Btw, >>1965046 are you the "persistent anon who actually "invented" the clock (via a table) in the first place?

Back to >>1965906

Very sorry to hear, trying to help.

How did it "crap out" ? If it is just the paint that was afffected by an update, and on win10 then there appear to be problems with the new paint3d (which appears to be forced on users after some update).

Page: www.tenforums.com/tutorials/70188-restore-paint-app-windows-10-a.html says so at least.

If that is the problem (and not anything worse), then on the webpage go to "Here's How:", and try "Step 2" to restore classical paint.

There is a .reg-file (Restore_Classic_Paint.reg) to download – I have checked it & it simply (and only) reverts an entry in win's registry to open classical paint instead of paint3d. So there's nothing else in it. I hope that helps … I hate win10 (and win in general) and don't use it, but know enough about it to know what a reg-file is and what's in win's registry.

I am not sure if that is the problem you have – if it persists, I can dig more on what the problem might be….

>>1966518

Yeah, we're few unfortunately, and possibly spread all over the world as well .. lol. Would indeed be cool if this is all over and won, and we'd not have to be anons to each other anymore.

Thought that poster b8d197 could possibly be the "persistent" anon, whose instructions/table & examples made me draw the clock back then.

Won't give it a 2nd thought for now, but would hate for you not to be able to do what you want, and what could help us. Let's hope, it'll indeed improve itself – but drop a note if not … there's ways to fix it even if only via instructions (or even videos, if needed), and even for an oldfag ;).

Will have to call it a day for today … great pleasure working with all of you Anons!

>>1972005

Had a text prepared to reply to one of your yesterday's posts, but thought it wiser to shut up & continue lurking, because: What do I know?

Answer would have been sth like: The tail that distinguishes O from Q is not infinitely long … maybe be 180 days, 240 or even 300. From proportions & my opinion + past observations, I'd say 240, thus one more cycle. But like I said … what do I know, and I'm shy to predict someone apparently as smart & knowing as Q team …

>>1966863

Apologies, Anon, for not having made it clear enough. I meant to directly address you, when I wrote:

>Btw, >>1965046, are you the "persistent" ….

It went under in the text and because I didn't add an extra line. Thought we'd lost you, and am very happy that you're still with us!

Also, thanks for >>1965046 , 2nd pic – sitting all day since I woke up, trying to wrap my head around it & recognize the pattern. Didn't plan to post until things became clearer understanding it – will continue.

Btw, another (ridiculous) reason for me not posting so often recently is and bundle answers is that the bread's almost full and I feel responsible for baking the new loaf (even though anyone can go for it who feels like it). Reason I don't feel ready to bake the new one, is that I wouldn't quite know what to put in the dough … there's too much, and at the same time too little, which I could put into it, that would be consolidated & understandable enough for a good dough (as I am used to see in the general) …..

>>1987871

Q Army Anon was kind enough to create clock+posts in advance, and posted them above >>1889948 and further down.

Reposting his Qlocks for today, updated blanks are in the works.

>>1987871

Here are the blanks, as of most recently. As agreed above >>First one is the simple version, second one has posts/tweet stats (nr of tweets not updated for today).

>>1989141

I do have an easy way of checking/marking every 23rd day from 10/05 (2017) Is that what you meant? – they are circled brown.

Today's calendarTime is 03:26, if clock started 00:00 at 12/07 (pic).

Also checking seconds of all posts with [:26] (red) & mirrored [:56] (yellow).

It would cost me a bit of time & work to put them together in an image. Since I am using the three timeZone html, it is very easy to search simply for ":26 (EST)" or ":56 (EST)" in my browser and press F3 to go to the next find ….

>>1989879

>>1989773

I'm a dumbass sometimes. I'm sorry. In previous pic all was correct except the brown circles (i.e. the 23rd days). Attached is the correct version … fuck me, I should check better before I post … (facepalm)

I guess you noticed sth was wrong, though. Sorry again!

>>1990170

If I am getting the direction (i.e. sign) right, then the clock was two days slow. Meaning I'd just add 2 days … brown circles are now two days ahead than they were in previous image.

Red circles are all days that have a second marker of [:26] (22 posts by count), yellow circles are all days that have a second marker of [:56] (34 posts is my count).

Not rarely I'm getting directions/signs wrong, so let me know if you think that's the case.

>>1990306

It's really no problem to produce any number of clocks, with any number of markings or colors. I'm honestly not doing anything except changing a script & re-running it.

So don't be shy with ideas or floating trial balloons – if the Q-Clock can help visually (before it takes anyone hours to do it manually on pen & paper), then I'll always be happy to post it.

>>1990526

Makes sense with the flexibility point.

After having checked some examples, and seen some of the dubz/tripz/quadz etc, by now I think it is quite likely they have some kind of access (or whatever else) which enables them to time seconds accurately and also posterids & postnumbers. Considered it unlikely before though >>1609836

>>1990828

Lol! Sounds plausible!

Autists earned my highest respect when they trolled Shia LaBeouf so geniously.

I wouldn't know if the party in the embedded video actually happened, but once this is all over – and God willing successfully so – then I'd really love a Kekistan Party to take place!

Been working on a new graph, which I'll post here together with the updated Q-Clocks (simple version & clockFag version, pic1 & pic2).

If you're not a hardcore clockfag, just ignore it. Otherwise this is how it is to be read:

The numbers outside around the circle (bold) are the markers, as also drawn around the Q-Clock.

Numbers next to them, further inside, are the total numbers of Q posts which have either the marker as minute in the timestamp of the post, or the marker as seconds of the Q post.

Example 1: For the marker [:00], there are 14 Q posts, which have a timestamp that has ":00" minute, and there are 26 Q posts which have a timestamp that has ":00" as seconds.

Example 2: For the marker [:26] (yesterday) there were 25 posts with a minute-timestamp of ":26", and 22 posts with a ":26" seconds timestamp. Mirrored (i.e. from [:26] to [:56], one will find that there were 21 posts with a timestamp having ":56" as minutes, and 34 posts having ":56" as seconds.

The small numbers around the circle correspond to posts which have a timestamp that corresponds to the marker of the current day or it's mirrored complement. There are seven rings, the innermost starting at 10/08 ([:00]) & ending at 12/06 ([:59]). The next ring further outside from the innermost, starts at 12/07 ([:00]), and ends at 02/04 ([:59]) and so on.

Example 1: For the date of 2018/04/06, the fourth ring from the inside, there were exactly 0 posts having ":00" as the minutes in their timestamp, but there was 1 post, which had ":30" (the mirrored) as timestamp. That post was from 06-Apr-2018 17:30:31 (EST).

The 2nd row of numbers below those just described do the same with the seconds of each timestamp, meaning on 04-Apr-2018 there were exactly 2 posts having ":00" as seconds in there timestamp, and 0 posts having ":30" seconds in their timestamp.

Example 2: Yesterday (marker [:26]) there were exactly 0 posts having ":26" as minutes, and 1 post having ":56" as minutes (01-Jul-2018 10:56:14 (EST)). None of Q's posts from yesterday had either ":26" or ":56" as seconds in their timestamp.

I will color-code this image tomorrow, so that mirrors can be recognized easier, and also the outermost (total of corresponding posts) will get a special color to distinguish them from the daily corresponding posts (small numbers).

In the center I will write the "manual" how to use it. Posting it now already to learn if such scheme might be useful, as I have no intention of confusing anyone.

>>1995580

Thank you, yours even more.

As I said, will add dates & colors to make it easier to read, and would have to check if posts somehow connect when analyzed by timestamps in this way.

>>1995721

Lol. Yeah, this is how it feels a bit. Thanks. Hope the graph will become a bit less geeky and more readable when colors are added.

Will quickly catch up on the general now, and then be out into dreamland. Pleasure working with you saving the world, Anons!