>>207779

Going off of the "approved" graphics and/or understanding why they were approved (and others not) is probably a good start. I also remember Q mentioned that his posts would form some order if we'd sort them by signature (or such) …

Won't start tonight, but I'll go over all posts and see if I notice something.

Also, there was another post with three or so circular diagrams, somehow connected to this post on halfchan:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/148428807/#148433657

These diagrams looked somewhat self-similar and repeating at different scales (i.e. altitudes), but silly me can't find them currently…

>>207969

Thanks. I believe I read the post when he "approved" it – I'd still have to look at it harder to understand why this graphic and in this form/geometry (and not others) … and also how these flow-diagrams helped these guys understand what's being communicated.

>>207984

True. Can be found in the archives of the Bureau d'Etudes: bureaudetudes.org

>>208002

>>208021

>>208085

>>208103

They have many more on their page/archive – but here's this one as PDF:

bureaudetudes.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wordlgov2005.pdf

>>208301

>>208195

… but that was the funny one where HC went on like:

"He should land around 5am Aspen time. Let me know what penance I owe you. And pls explain to Teddy. As ever, H"

>>208343

>How can we expose false flags?

Ahead of time, by making the public aware of the possibility of & interest in a false flag event – i.e. exposing the false flaggers & their intentions before the act ?

>>208409

[17]'s the key ?

>>208477

I hear you and stand with you on that. Looking very much forward for this come to pass ! (that vacuum is not there yet …)

On a technical note though, how does 17 relate to "We" (the anons/autists) ?

>>208596

Stringers, for me as an autist, are codes made of symbols, letters, numbers which may be breakable (often by math or some other more/less strict logic).

Rorschach blots ? – I'd probably answer those like the guys in the movie Armageddon did.

Who do you think is examining and/or "eating" the anons ?