had to check the catalog to find this thread. how come it wasnt posted in the last thread?

>>17944162

>is that a problem or is it continuing to affirm?

It's a problem because the further time progresses the higher the chance dates/events will coincide with the 4 digit number q post. MM/DD you see? or DD/YY MM/YY SS:HH.

>>17944183

My opinion is the idea looked neat and nothing gets going like a good designed graphic. As Q has reiterated, its a memetic war. Graphics are key. The q clock looks good but reading too much into it won't do any good. Q is already legit regardless of the clock. Lots of proofs with or without the qlock. the qlock looks cool though . lets just remember q has never reposted or replied to a clockfag so that says a lot.

>>17944397

why?

Any anons still use /pol/? For me it's unbearable. Sorry Q. It's like a daycare in there.

>>17944480

How does that image prove your point? 9 is 4 days after 5. Not "2 days ahead of schedule". Explain your reasoning.

>>17944545

>Q team designed it

literally zero proof.

>>17944600

The movie is about the 3rd path; The Way.

1. Right hand

2. Left hand.

3. (Balance) Middle

>>17944645

>>17944635

Dude you're not making any sense at all. I'm just about close to ignoring all clock post

>>17944657

>guys please help me understand how q is real

>"because q team designed it"

>literally zero proof

>"OMG GUYS SHILLS BTFO PROVING MY POINT AHAHAHA I WON'T PROVIDE ANY PROOF BUT I WILL SMUGLY REPLY TO YOU"

So…does the report button for trolling actually work? Might test it out.

>>17944680

When you brought up 60 minutes or something like that in response to me asking you explain "2 days ahead of schedule" in context of your so called q clock

>>17944704

Maybe stop sperging out and actually show proof q team was behind it. An anon last thread said he was the original q clock guy and he said he wasnt part of the team. im the original anon who asked in the notable

>>17944678

>guys please help me understand how q clock is real*

fixed. I know q is real. But not the q clock. Thats why Im asking for proof and anons are sperging out

>>17944733

>Literally cannot make a coherent argument

>gives up immediately when questioned on one of the most highest contingent topics on this board (qclock) that is used to make fun of us

>cannot prove its legitmacy

I don't use /pol/ anymore because of these bullshit meme responses. Leave your mud outdoors this isn't the place to act like this.

>>17944771

>no one cares what 'they' think

Actual demonic behavior. The entire point of Q coming public is for Revelations.

>i wont explain why im right

It's just cringe dude. You're pathetic.

>>17944799

Look who's talking about ego "mr. who cares about normies".

Retard.

>>17944828

And somehow Qclockfags will STILL call you retarded for not following their map made on a meth binge.

>>17944794

I see your next point. Except the positioning changes based on who makes the map and where each node is placed. What particular reason was there to make the 'seconds' parallel to the 'post date'.?

>>17944878

see >>17944812

>>17944891

There are dozens of versions of the q clock dude. I mean probably over a hundred. With different sized onion layers. Someone who understands what they're fucking talking about can explain it to a kindergartner, you've never heard of the saying? The fact Q has never even reposted a qclock says a lot. There's more of a burden of proof on you than anyone else here.

>>17944949

see this graphic v

>>17944794

that 2 days ahead post was posted on 12:45:01 EST. for what reason at all was that post lined up on the 35 second marker inside the clock.

>>17944963

>NOOOO YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO ASK QUESTIONS

>WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T IMMEDIATELY UNDERSTAND THIS CLOCK WITH COUNTLESS DIFFERENT VERSIONS FLOATING AROUND?!

>>17944979

Except I'm trying to actually get an answer and understand the q clock. Posting a wojak will just make them avoid me. I'm trying to actually understand here.

>>17945001

mate. you keep posting DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the same clock. this one has the original 2 days post lining under the "34 minute" marker. This post >>17944480 has the origingal 2 days posted lined under the "29 minute" marker. How is there any consistency at all?