>>1259808
>Q always seems to be talking about future events before they occur.
Yes, "Future proves past." Your theme is clear.
>What do you think, worth pursuing or just not enough there to be effective?
That depends. First question i woud have is "who is the audience for the proof?"
If it is limited to this board, I would note that from my particular POV, it is not required as that has been already been "proven" to me personally dozens of times already.
It would appear that the collective mood of the board has a similar POV at this time, then again, I have erred numerous times on the hopeful side of this topic, so you might be a better judge than I.
If it is "normies" on twatter, fB, etc., then I would agree that THIS is a ripe audience for this proof. If so, then, from experience, when it comes to a concept outside of their level of the normie understanding, the layers of resistance are as thick as a sheet of American STEEL, so a Hammer might very well be necessary.
Hence, the suggestion of repeating the dates all in one area so that the "not so coincidences" are as obvious as a car barrelling toward a herd of deer in the headlights.
Whatever way you decide with this particular one, encourage you to continue with these proofs, as you have a very nice eye for aesthetics, imho.