TS@q and Dan Decodes & Call for Eyes On TS@q

I have several decodes but I am putting them in several posts as I have distinct comments on each.

The first graphic here I did not make. I got it here:

>>15819583 (pb)

>FOR THOSE STILL ON THE FENCE WITH TS@Q

>Do you believe in coincidences?

>How many coincidences before mathematically impossible?

I largely agree with those sentiments.

I included that anon's graphic since my graphic on the right basically builds on it.

@q replied to Trump's "return" post with a delta of 2:09.

Now think this out very carefully.

Suppose @q is a LARP.

Maybe he always has his phone handy and has the alarm set for when DJT posts.

If so, he could surely jam out a reTruth in about two minutes (or less), so the quick reply doesn't mean much.

But he nails a very nice delta TO THE SECOND.

Q used to pretend they couldn't do "second" deltas, but that was mostly when he was pretending to be some dude with a phone on AF1, cranking out posts as he ran after Trump.

I think this whole op is way more complicated than that, and they seem able to do second deltas (even 3 second Dan… see next post).

Does this mean we should regard TS@q as Q?

NO! The choice between LARP or Q is a false dichotomy. (Tucker just complained about that term, so sorry Tucker, it has uses.)

I am sure that Q team is perfectly able to do a proper Q post, and I am inclined to think it will happen at some point.

But right now they are putting out TS@q

The evidence on this has piled up pretty high now, if you have been paying attention.

This doesn't mean that every anon should jump on it, especially if you are doing useful stuff.

But I think that for anons especially interested in decodes, there is liable to be much more to be found.

Maybe the TS@q posts will "unlock" further stuff.

As for anons who remain skeptical or don't care, that is perfectly fine.

I myself did not "jump on" Q at the very start and found it very dubious as I thought Trump was supposed to be kicking ass.

(I had opposed Trump at first, but then flipped right around and wanted him to crush the enemies straight off.)

But that isn't how it happened.

>>16197089

>>FOR THOSE STILL ON THE FENCE WITH TS@Q

https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/15819373.html#15819583

(working link)

>>16197089

This graphic initially started as a simple "delta" decode much like the prior one.

I noticed that the delta between Dan and @q (for the same exact reTruth of Trump's return) was 93 seconds.

That matched the 93 days until Q's return.

Now I suppose someone might say we are not supposed to look at deltas between Dan and @q.

But why not?

Dan has been conclusively established as a dropper of Q comms.

I believe that @q has been pretty validated too.

So why not look at deltas between them?

In this case, it works.

What happened then is that I was looking at the RIG FOR RED drop, and the other tweet was just sort of "hanging" there in my mind.

I wondered if it might be relevant.

Then I remembered how this anon had noticed the Alice in Wonderland connection to Trump's pic:

>>16180090 (pb)

>Have any anons yet pointed out that on Trump's Truth Social post picture that he's standing in the middle of a croquet court?

>ALICE IN WONDERLAND

I had an aha moment and realized that this relates to Q's "paint the roses red" post where he tells Comey he's gonna get it.

So that relates to Durham and I figured I should put that in the graphic.

I think it works.

As for the next part, take it or leave it.

I noticed while I was working that the guy's name in Q's image was DeTurk.

Sometimes Q does tricks like that where the "irrelevant" thing turns out to be crucial and I actually got to thinking about the Turks.

But I figured this is just a straightforward decode and got back to work.

But then I went to the grocery store and on the radio I heard "Istanbul (not Constantinople)".

So I had the idea that maybe I better look again.

You can see what I came up with.

Except "take it or leave it" is a bad attitude.

Obviously the connections "work" and maybe they are just "coincidences" but maybe I am also missing further angles.

>>16197113

Vid used in prior graphic.

This is from the croquet chapter of the book.

>>16197113

This decode and the next don't even have to do with @q.

This one does have to do with Dan Scavino being very clever with times, someting relevant in the next one too.

Having said that, I think this one does relate to the deeper debate over TS@q.

I think some anons fear that if @q is somehow "legit", then it is sign that our work here is done.

But I don't think that is remotely true.

If @q is posting some complex codes/puzzles/riddles, then we need a place to debate and decode them.

This is that place.

We need to be using the same skills we have been honing over the past four years.

I think that is why Dan is reaffirming the "8".

TS Posts via QAGG:

https://qagg.news/?read=TO5713 Dan

https://qagg.news/?read=TO5203 Kash

This takes you straight to Hopewell Junction:

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@5121253

Note that Kash's sunset post also featured in my @q decode a few days back:

>>16161382 (pb)

>>16197136

This decode also does not involve @q, but it relates to the earlier decodes about Trump's "return" post.

Here (and in the prior one) I am playing "devil's advocate" at first and trying to think like a scoffer who regards all this as a big scam for the deluded.

But then I flip it around and aim to show that there are comms here.

In this case, there are three completely different pointers to the 23=PAIN marker.

I could probably make this "cleaner" but I am trying to show my thought process.

The vid is from Dan's deleted post.

>>16197148

This graphic is what I originally intented as my followup to the earlier decode I posted days ago:

>>16161382 (pb)

I found all this other stuff in the interim and figured it fit so I added it.

As you can see, the decode is less "numerical".

Also, it is scarcely "done" as I have not even attempted to deal with the over puzzle that @q drops.

But that gets me to my bigger point, which is that I am trying to stir up more interest in actually looking at these drops from little q on TS.

I have a few more possible decodes in the works and one of them also involves the number 117.

I can tell you this: there is an additional 117 "hidden" in a recent post from @q.

Here is a clue:

Not like Chris.

If you take that clue and make several distinct steps (each of them fairly simple) you can find a 117.

If you "solve" that you will know you are right since you will find the 117.

Also (and this really has nothing to do with the decode), I promised myself that I would post an update on whether I am keeping up with exercise.

Even if nobody cares, it makes a different to me, and it works, since I almost slacked off yesterday, but I remembered what I had said and forced myself to do some vigorous exercise.

Here is my thought for the day on this: if it requires technology to measure your fitness or writing down a bunch of numbers or trying to calculate when you are allowed or required to to this or that exercise it sucks.

It seems the point is to develop an intuitve sense of what improves strength.

(If all the numbers work for you, go for it, but I am having a much more positive attitude when I say screw the numbers.)