>>17591909

I agree

What's the timestamp of the first boom? I don't see enough granularity on the graph, unless an anon can post a higher rez

First boom may have been at 3:05:59 or possible 3:06:00

>>17591995

>>17592060

>>17592081

Good question. I'm trying to figure that out. The two graphs conflict on the second boom. So you can't scale it from 3 to 17