>>1805176 >>1802509
Having checked all kinds of scrambling using moduli and re-drawn above images, it appeared useless to look for periodicities/patterns in them. As said, the above were results of a bug in the script. Will update these as time progresses, and if someone wants to see them, I can post them. Other than that, if no patterns emerge, I won't post them anymore. … It was as frustrating as it was silly – lol.
Back to the markers & winding: As shown above in >>1791968 I've checked all tweet/Q post timestamp differences for (arbitrary) deltas, and found that, the [:15] min example is a good one to demonstrate the idea of winding the clock, as I currently understand it. It goes well along the lines of >>1599207 (above), but I might as well be wrong … So here's the idea:
(1) On 07-Jan-2018 22:09:13 (EST) Q posted "LOCK: 15-10-5 […] [1] SIG" – anons started looking for time differences of 1 min (also, possibly, for 5, 10 or 15 mins).
(2) 22:23:39 (EST) POTUS posted a correction of a tweet. Correction was "consensual" -"consequential" ("Good[win]").
(3) A minute later, at 22:24:23 EST, and 15 mins after Q's initial post, the second part of that tweet was posted, which triggers the winding.
(4) To start off, both times fullfilling the [:15] min condition (Q post & DJT tweet) are drawn into a clock (left pic)
(5) Now we "wind" the clock – Q said 15 mins, so we "wind the clock w/ all markers" by 15 mins (movie)
(6) Observation of the clock (and mirror lines) after winding it by 15 mins shows, that one of the main mirror lines (darkgray) hits exactly the date of both, Q post & DJT tweet (right pic, date circled dark).
Note to (5): Of course, it doesn't matter much if clock hands are rotated, or if the complete clock w/ all markers relative to the hands.
Note to (6): The fact that the correct date lands on one of the main mirror lines, could be understood as confirmation, that the process was conducted properly.