Hello QRB, UKbred anon here. Taking a break from digz controll over dhere. We basically are arriving at a time period for the WW of the last 2 weeks in DEC.

Suprised? Also did sum weather almanac checks for certain conditions which we thought would apply. Namely, some precipitation earlier in day but clear skies at end of evening to allow a star seen over roller coaster. Best in this time were 19, 22, 30 and 31DEC. My fave was 22DEC coz of weather, proximity to Christmas (LISAMI6 already pegged to 24/25DEC). I feel that any “visitors” to London would not be there for an extended period all the way to the end of the year. Some disagree with me though.

>>134164

My ‘circular’ reasoning is not approved. And my understanding of a Q drop is not shared. I think Q strongly hinted WW occurs in DECEMBER. That’s why I think the dates were already narrowed to last 2 weeks in DEC. Then, weather matches narrow even moar.

>>134166

Yeah. Diffs are this:

My ‘circular’ reasoning involves my gut instinct telling me the “visitors” were not in London terribly long and that all indications are (as ALL of the London Q drops involve CHRISTMAS 2013, what is the bloody likelihood that we are witnessing 2 or more DIFFERENT intelligence operations that COINCIDENTALLY happened fugging Christmas week? Not bloody likely, is my response to that question. Plus, my understanding of a Q drop is not shared. I think Q strongly hinted WW occurs in DECEMBER. That’s why I think the dates were already narrowed to last 2 weeks in DEC. Then, weather matches narrow even moar.

I agree with you that once you start to ‘circle’ closer to the truth, like a shark, your logic can be circular.

Some disagreements are just flat out I see a burned out light bulb and someone doesn’t. How can you then talk about a sequence of events involving the process of those bulbs burning out? Very hard.

>>134164

One example of disagreement would be this: If you have one, two, maybe three very good pictures of a sign, showing some lights obviously burned out (we agreed to say ‘not lit’ as a non-binary description. Kek)

NOW, what if you some other blurry, with glare blowout pics but they all seem to show a weakness in the light at those SAME LOCATIONS seen in clear pictures, and from different camera angles, cameras and distances? Should you be ultra conservative and say we can’t see a burned out light for sure. Or should you take all the sauce together? In law you might call my approach the combination of direct and indirect evidence. Factual and circumstantial.