>>10372391

"A shill tactic is to accuse Anons of 'debunking' Q or to make the insinuation that Q communicated something he did not actually state."

You were right, Anon. Your tone was correct. I was wrong.

>>10380651

I had looked into that. Just be careful if assigning a number to just a letter. The system of coding pics is called "hexadecimal" because it uses numbers 0 through 9 (10 in all) plus the first 6 letters of the alphabet (A through F).

Not saying there may not still be a substitution code. Just sayin.

(see pic related)

>>10387593

>What would actually happen if the US, UK, NZ, and Australians got together and went to the German and Netherlands boards and started comparing notes? Sounds like a good thing.

>Where We Go One We Go All

If anons want to start conversing with France, Germany and Netherlands, et al,

posting Yandex here. Very easy to use.

https://translate.yandex.com

>>10387860

Sounds gud.

>>10388178

Das ist fantastisch, Anon. Sie sind jetzt ein internationaler Mann der Intrigen. Wohin wir gehen, gehen wir alle. Ja?

>>10385216

Very interdasting, Anon. Thanks for the post.

>>10385216

Anon, am not ignorant about this stuff. But do have a question. Are you saying there is a portion of the UUID that will be the same if, say someone posted Embankment pics in a series from the same phone? Can we use this to prove some or all were taken, or should I say sent to 8ch or 8kun from the same device? Or same broad location?

Tell us more, pls.

>>10388398 (me)

Sorry, meant to say "am ignorant of this stuff". Was starting to say am not knowledgable, but changed what I said.

To: >>10385216

>>10385216

>>10336363

>Tidal still of interest, imo, as it has gud chance of being linked with lunar/sky dig. Vids will be in a series of shorts and will start with an overview that references those shorts for those interested in the details. Further details will have to be 'footnoted' as per your lists and such. Many still images will prove superior to vid for the laser-focus of some key Anons both present here and elsewhere.

Anon, in looking into your request for a breakdown of tidal relationship with pictorial evidence, have stumbled across something NEW. It is the low tides on the evenings in question, their relative proximity to midnite bearings and to full high tide. In the picture that shows the water level and also the one of the Moon. For 11/21, 12/20, 12/21, 1/19, 1/20, 2/18 and 2/20, the measured low tides were, respectively, 9:22p, 10:11p, 10:31p, 10:16p, 10:29p, 10:17p and 10:41p.

Not a problem, but actually may provide an additional point of reference considering it takes approx 4-5 hours from a tidal low to reach a high tide. (see sauce attached)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tideway#

Okay so our pic showing the water at a fairly high tide yet a good meter? maybe more from the top of the bank. Still all gud. We now know the tide is def coming in.

Now let's look at that 4-5 hours it takes for the tide to roll in. If it were a 4 hour time to roll in on this night, then knowing we are not yet at high tide, we could be looking at maybe a 3-hour point from those low tides times provided above. The time in ROT1 could be later than prev thought. But need to reconcile position on Moon at 135 degrees SE. Looking at later moonrises to better match events portrayed in the two relevant Q pics. This might push out the time portrayed. In this 3-hour scenario, the times would be approx 12:22a, 1:11a; 1:31, 1:16; 1:29a; 1:17 and 1:41 respective to the above-mentioned dates. This is new, so I have to look at which suspects might have either later moonrises and those which rose farther North of East(taking more time to transit to bearing in pic).

>>10372775

>Three anons, maybe four, jumped on that pic and in less than an hour had the image enhanced,

Anon, could you ask that anon in General a favor, if it is possible to enhance ROT1? Trying to narrow the time frame on it. Should have asked a while back. Looking at new info on the low tides preceding the pic that evening. Thames tides take from 4-5 hours to roll in. The shorter 4 hour times may be neap tides vs spring tides taking longer. Mariner's rule of 12ths says the tide would be 3/4's in by the 3 hour mark (for the neap tide).

>>10372775

>n less than an hour had the image enhanced

P.S. Think that anon could enhance the LisaMI6? No harm in asking, I figure. Reason for that one is the water level at the Embankment. Combined with ROT1, could cause re-think if at an older moon. An older moon rises later, therefore at SE bearing later. Therefore time of evening later which might explain the low tides mentioned above. Thanks in advance.

>>10417559

ROT1 was Q post 1423.

LisaMI6 was Q post 3645.

>>10419880

Tyvm, anon.