>>13790806

>Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: e623e7 No.1700867📁

>Jun 11 2018 12:47:23 (EST)

> Anonymous ID: 5c1418 No.1700690📁

> Jun 11 2018 12:33:29 (EST)

> strzo 2015.PNG

>POTUS already told us. Dec 2015.

>CLAS_WW_UK_ACTIVE_T.png

>Good.

>Tweet meant to provide time guide.

>What event occurs in Dec (London)?

>Think Hyde Park.

>Think prev pic [2] people.

>Provides Timeframe.

>Q

I remember a long time ago we had a TIMEFRAME vs TIMEGUIDE.

So we are told that 2 pics at (WW) are the [Time frame]. How can that us with a timeframe other than WW ran for 46 days?

So our TIMEFRAME is 45 days.

Now how can the POTUS tweet provide a TIME GUIDE? Maybe the TIME is our GUIDE.

Maybe the TIME of 7:37pm, which is the 17hour and 37th minute of a 24-hour day, represent a comparable fraction of the TIMEFRAME of 45 days.

Let's start by converting 37 minutes into a decimal by dividing it by 60 to get .6166.

Now let's add that to 17 hours to get 17.6166 hours.

Now divide 17.6166 by 24 hours to get a fraction we can use as our "TIME on the clock". Our clock day is 45 days and our time will represent how many days we are into that 45 days.

Alright, let's divide 17.6166hrs by 24hrs to get our "TIME". (ie portion of 45 days). It comes to .7340

Our TIME is .7340 x 45 days.

Ready? drum roll. 33.03 days

The 33rd day of WW falls on 24DEC.

Just sayin. Maybe. And we had that convo seems like years ago. Is that spoopy?

>>13798722

>>13798722

>I remember a long time ago we had a TIMEFRAME vs TIMEGUIDE.

CORRECTION:

s/b I remember a long time ago we had a discussion about TIMEFRAME vs TIMEGUIDE

>How can that us with a timeframe other than WW ran for 46 days?

CORRECTION:

s/b How can that provide us with a timeframe other than WW ran for 45 days?

>>13797853

Okay your comment on one pram or two jogged my thinking. 2 prams. I had only been thinking one mommy for those 2 prams. Now that I look again, it looks like 2 ladies, similarly clad against the cold. One is tending to her child. A look at the other's arms shows the arms more in position to be holding the handle of a pram rather that arms loose while walking. I may rule that suspect out. Or maybe that is a common tactic used in ACTIVE_T: The old pram-pushing mum disguise. But yeah makes sense. 2 moms. Maybe it's just backpack guy that is the active tail.

>>13798947

>Unlike the more or less clear sky, albeit pitch dark, in EMB/CH, the Piccadilly pics are overcast

Sometimes pics can be deceiving. If I recall correctly, the store front for Cool Britannia is North-facing and will NEVER see the Sun's direct rays. Check it. In the Northern Hemisphere, the Sun's arc is in the South. This means even in the Summer, the Sun is a little south and a shadow at noon will point North. It is especially noticeable in Winter when the Sun hangs low to the South in its transit across the sky.

>>13799036

Unfortunately, making that into a graphic would be beyond my abilities. But anyone may have at it.

But in that Q post, the context seems strong that the "event" in question was at Hyde Park.

And, no I did not do that backwards. I just took the "time" provided and applied it to the timeframe provided.

>>13799142

Don't be absurd, Old boy. I understood your prior post's jest perfectly well. We aren't going to need smileys are we? I thought of using one on my previous post. But I resisted out of a kind of smileyface sense of moderation directed solely at myself of course. Now let's hear nothing of it, Old boy.

>I knew I should have used a smiley face.

>>13800007

I don't know. If I am trying to tell you what a certain day is along a [provided] timeframe, I am not concerned about the quality of each day within that [timeframe]. I only care that the timeline is 45 days. I can then tell you exactly when somebody was at WW.

(Reminder-this is just anon's theory.)

>>13800043

>>13800043

Anon, Please forget that timeframe/ guide thing. A time error on my part. Checking.

>>13800248

Sorry. Entered wrong military time. Would have been 19:37, not 17:37. Sorry again. Bad math and not much sleep. It's not near the current target dates. Ah well, another thing looked at at least.

>>13801151

Sorry to have wasted anons' time. I used an incorrect time. Theory does not work. Thanks for taking a look.