>>131976

Is that in Russian?

Hello QRB, from UK BREAD

Hope all are well in qrb. We are fussing over on UKbred atm. Went looking for burned out light bulbs and found moar than we hoped to find. That’s gud and bad. We are atm like astrophysicists, splitting into our divergent camps of theory. Atm we have a series of pics and captures some of which only provide a ‘posted on’ date.

My take is that when trying to put them in a proper date order we must (kind of like Occam’s razor) stick to the absolute simplest of explanations for the progression of changes. One of the greatest threats to that simplicity is simply explaining a pattern change by saying, Well they must’ve swapped out the burned out bulbs at that point. If one allows for one unjustified rationalization such as that then ANY day you view may have been ‘the day after they changed the lights”, and your hopes of trying to sequence the series is shot to hell.

Another thing that has is in separate camps atm is the idea of a persistent unlit bulb which, after defying previous attempts to fix the bulbs, some of us believe they see it lit in an admittedly light-glared pic, then it is seen unlit again in two others. I think the bulb is still unlit and that a weakness of the light can still be seen at just where you would see the unlit bulb in other pics. This is kind of where in 5 grainy photos of

Saturn you can see the red spot, but just because you can’t make it out in one pic you don’t say it is not there. It’s kinda like when scientists tell you there is a black hole somewhere but you can’t see it. All disagreements set aside, I think the field can be narrowed to DECEMBER by a certain clue left by Q. I think Q either was hinting or made a Freudian slip when they asked, ‘What event is held at Hyde Park IN DECEMBER.’

With what we have (currently) I see the closest similarity of the Q pic to its closest cousins on the 15th and 17th of December.

(the meme is stolen)

>>132001

Let me just say that we already have established by gathered pics that unlit bulbs have been replaced after some dates. That said, I am really conscious of the threat of using that type of event to make a square peg of a round one rather than putting the pieces in order.

(Posting the light diagrams we have atm) I must confess up fromt that these I am showing represent my own view of what I think is seen in those pics.

These diagrams have 2 different light patterns: the eaves and for the sign banner atop the stand.

I have put them in the descending order I think they belong in.

Using this order, I think I have cut the number of bulb replacement occurrances to 2 or 3.

>>132002

Posting those images in dispute.

I think that there is an unlit bulb on the bottom left in these. To my mind there is a “weakness” that can be detected at the bottom left of the banner in each. This I think is a damaged light socket that was never lit (that year at least).

The second two photos we even disagree on how many bulbs are lit. I think there are only 3 unlit bulbs in each. And that they ate the same bulbs. Look at the XMAS GRILL sign.

>>132003

Quite simply, I think that unlit bulb beneath the ‘S’ in XMAS GRILL is an inoperative light socket that never functioned. You may say I am guarding that unlit light to preserve my theory and you wouldn’t hurt my feelings, because you would be right. The unlit light at that location, inho, allows the sequence to make sense. And to say that certain light was repaired later begs the question: why was it never fixed before? That’s the current disagreement. We’ll get over it.

By the facts. Hoping we will find what we need.

>>132003

Sorry that last photo does NOT have the same lights out. That’s the Kalpachev D17 pic. Sorry for confusion. It’s hard enuf trying to help you understand the dig.

I still think we can pull this off. We are finding other stands with lights out. Multiple points of reference. Like 3-D may help. Wish us luck.

All speed to you.

UK Bread here again. After an anon posted the earlier enhanced pic of WW woman, he posted another enhanced image that has an entirely diff looking woman. He said he had changed the settings to ‘structural’ or something. He warns that images can be distorted. That’s understating it.

I do think her smile in this new image is more what the original Q pic shows. Just sherin’ this with the usual caveats.

One obs I have re the Q original is the unusual number of asian ladies in the pic. Mebbe more than one intelligence agency was on scene observing.