all lb

>>17944141

>Sometimes simple clocks are best.

>>17944162

>agreed

>>17944296

>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.

That presumes that the clock always lines up with the 4 digit number Q post.

That's not what happens.

I don't see what you mean, honestly.

What I see happen with the clock are news items lining up Q drops/Potus tweets on the clock despite the time shift of, for example, 5 minutes. 365 days vs 360 minutes.

I have clocks that still line up with the news after 2 or 3 years

NOTaBLE

Anticlockfag shill's questions >>17944322

answered, satisfactorally, >>17944381

Anticlockfag shill will claim it's not good enough

>>17944532

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

>60 minutes

>6 possible matches

>:27 :29 :31

<Flotus posted on 1 of the 6 possible match dates

<Flotus posted the timestamp in the picture. 1:29

>>17944635

>>:27 :29 :31

<:57 :59 :01

>>17944545

>Anticlockfag shill will claim it's not good enough

proving my point

>>17944630

>literally zero proof.

>>17944663

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

what doesn't make sense?

>>17944691

>the absolute state of this place.

classic line of the shill

>>17944532

>>17944680

>>17944712

>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

let's start here.

Q explicitly referenced "2 days ahead of schedule on 01/05/2019.

Post included a pic of a Q drop from 01/07/2018.

implication being the 2019 drop was 2 days ahead of schedule if the schedule was a 1 year delta.

good so far?

>>17944735

>If they didn't design it how can they keep hitting all the markers?

kek

saved

>>17944794

>Q explicitly referenced "2 days ahead of schedule on 01/05/2019.

>Post included a pic of a Q drop from 01/07/2018.

>>17944875

> What particular reason was there to make the 'seconds' parallel to the 'post date'.?

I don't understand this question.

What seconds are you referring to?

Seconds are imprecise regarding Q/Potus deltas and timestamps imo.

See 3 second Dan posts.

see Q/potus Zero deltas when Potus tweet timestamp ahead of Q drop timestamp. They try for 00:00:00 but haven't achieved yet to my knowledge

>>17944975

>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.

It's on the :36 minute, not second, and it 's because of the date

>>17944949

>Seconds are imprecise regarding Q/Potus deltas and timestamps imo.