>>2276194

Found a quite simple way to render html into png – so I extracted (and read) all posts for days on marker [51] (e.g. 07/26 ) and also the reverse (i.e. [21]).

Lots of F_I, DOJ, Rod & Rob and HRC stuff.

Found the CFR/Biden video snippet quite interesting where he chatted about the "Billions" (with a B) to Ukraine and how he blackmailed them essentially. – Darn, he's a dirty pervert …

No "HAMMER" explicitely though …

Dates were: 27-Jan-2018, 28-Mar-2018 & 29-Oct-2017, 27-Apr-2018, 26-Jun-2018

Also converted timestamps in the posts to EST, so everyone can copypasta to their hearts content w/o needing the three timezone headerline.

Rendered to 1100 px width – not sure if that's good enough.

>>2277149

>You elected us to do the heavy lifting.

Yes, seems like it – it's an honor, I'd say.

Let's hope we can do it right! Nice pic!

>>2274429

You probably didn't post it, as you're not his/her FS -- but it's not quite honest what the anon had done in the pic:

Using an EDT timestamp from 2:11:27 p.m., and then connecting it to "2 Nov".

Reminds me of mindless numberfagging like "dutch clockworker anon" appears to be doing....

If anything, he should have done it like this anon (pic from #2862) >>2271219 , since the connection is by topic only and not timestamp (unless someone can explain to me why suddenly use EDT).

Same (and even worse) goes for (above) >>2271449 , as show off anon even falsely claims that qanon.pub would be off one hour, and it'd actually be 14:11 (EST). Why would that be? What's going on, show off anon? Still so much "off your game"? Was that you posting >>2271051 ?

In case sensationalism/notables is more what you strive for than accuracy, then anons better have an eye on the accuracy of your graphic compilations of Q posts from now on, since some were planning to re-use them ...

Posting pic from three timezone HTML for proof. Double checked the original unixtime stamp in the source, which as expected corresponds to 18:11:27 GMT.

>>2279366

Thanks, no problem. I didn't even mean anything bad to show off anon.

But we're few & the board is "under attack" assumably…

It's just unnecessary for clockfags, who make it to the Notables almost all the time (almost too easy as anons there don't verify much what's being posted clockwise), to contribute to any argument that it's all bogus & craziness with neither relevance nor truth.

Think what a clock stands for in general, and what we think it could be in relation to Q's posts, i.e. the (or one) key ….

We've got several sources for Q posts, and errors will always happen – just important to be honest and also double-check first instead of assuming the error on the other side collecting an easy notable.

I know it's tedious & not always pleasant, but – at least I think – these principles are valid for many, if not all things in life.

>>2281260

Lol. Just done – you reminded me … see below.

>>2280474

Interesting idea … will do some guesswork/thinking a little later today. Still looking at tweets & posts …. ;)

Also, thanks for reminding me – so I updated the hexCodes as usual with

times & hexCodes: pastebin.com/bFYPm5sq

hexCodes only: pastebin.com/UXUMrxCR

Number of hexValues was odd (not even), when even number is expected – so I added a 0 as last value., i.e. last pair is E0, with 0 added by me to make the script run.

Also posting the simple Q-Clock, as Q posted early in the morning (or late at night). Didn't check yet if there was another post apart from the one this morning. lol.

No idea btw why my id had changed over night – maybe wifey needed the microwave & pulled the plug on the modem.

>>2280474

Oh, and re this:

>particularly of note are the posts from PDT and other TZ that are intentional to obfuscate

Not sure if you mean the three timezone html with what you wrote.

If so, I find it practical because w/o twitter account I can easily check/translate timestamps, since PDT is twitter's default.

EST is what we assume should be used for working with the clock, and the GMT timestamp is probably there for clarification of the timestamp in the actual post.

It's my primary resource for Q posts, I don't find it confusing, and I haven't found any errors in it yet, as opposed to, let's say, qanon.pub, where some (if few) errors are present.

>>2281629

I'm working on it and will have it ready on time, just as last bread.

We're still good for another 140 posts – if nobody comes spamming the thread, this should last through tomorrow (maybe even longer). Will post Notables ahead of baking for anons to add/correct, just like I did before.

The updated "expert's" clock & @realDonaldTrump tweets.

Clock & tweets are as of 07/25. No Q posts for today's date (yet), and POTUS' "SHADOW BANNING" tweet of this morning is not included.

Interesting "happening", for sure. Anyone w/ connections to the VFW should ask why this song was played. My guess is it was POTUS' (or his staff's) request. If we could find out it was by request, then that would be another "Q proof".

As it touches so much on clock-related stuff, here's some observations:

The video above >>2269306 has a timestamp (LR corner). The RSB guys are based out of Auburn (AL), the convention was in Kansas City – both Central Time (CDT).

CBS had a tweet/video: twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1021801069012234240/video/1 stamped 09:55 (PDT) or 11:55 (CDT).

Would all work fine with the timestamp in the video, which then likely would be CDT.

Q's "From Sea to Shining Sea." was posted 10:45 (EST) or 11:45 (EDT) or 10:45 (CDT).

If that's all correct, then Q posted 1 hr 08 mins (or 01:07 give or take) before the song started at the convention.

From what I can read on his lips, POTUS first says "Thank you", followed by "Listen" (after the "plains of Texas"). Works well with putting his finger on his ear repeatedly. Think it's a word ending on "N". "S" (as in saying "Texas") would look different, also a "T" in the beginning would look different, I think.

It's a "listen" though, more pronounced like "lesson" (in the "e"/"i"), than the "i" in e.g. "mirror".

Wouldn't over-interpret (in terms of bow-like motion) his moves at "It's time we stand". Checking videos of him dancing (also the sword dance in SA), it would appear to me that it is his way of moving to music – with rhythmic motions of his head mostly, parts of shoulders/upper body and knees a bit (depending how engaged he's dancing).

He certainly emphasizes this part though – by touching ear again & pointing up with his finger.

I'd completely agree that there's three things emphasized (may have been more, as the camera shows audience at times): "Texas", "Sea to Shining Sea" & "It's time we stand and say […]".

So it makes sense to connect this to the tweets shown – even though deltas are not typical (i.e. 1, 5, 10, 15 etc) … but I might have to double-check that.

Darn … Sorry

Above post made in ref to >>2290934

>>2301275

Thanks "master clockfag" ;)

Just observing and trying to get things right …

With the 01:07, yes I saw that, which is why I put it in italics. Should have made it more clear, as the song very likely started these 15 secs (or more) earlier than from where I cut out the video.

So the correct time would probably be more 01:07 than 01:08 after the Q post.

Still trying to figure out all the details of your proofs from above though – wasn't clockfagging too much today, as anons were all over stego stuff today in the general …. so I also couldn't resist ;)

Will leave the stego alone tomorrow and make it a clock day instead ….

>>2300954

Thanks for the sweets … can't let that distract me from the seriousness of quality clockwork though … lol

For the tweets – I wouldn't know if you can schedule them to be send (unless you have a good secretary) at a specified time.

But I did notice that he is trying to be quite clear (if not blatant, as you say) – and thank him for that! … and also apologize for still not having understood all modes of their comms all perfectly in depth …. I will – kek wills it too! ;)

>>2304235

Would cautiously agree with the anon >>2304445 stating the fact that there's little actual connections to anything with only a single post shown and days not involved at all, instead also the hours marked ….

Seconds matter, we all agree by now – so this is not the problem …. but probably I just don't understand. Never mind me please …

>>2305380

If you're into stego things, I can post a list of (rough) detections in all Q images + mentioned posts, if of interest.

There was one clear find, however – and I haven't extracted anything yet, so I guarantee for nothing – in image:

d879e4fd98e8922c194bd9a50f6ea4e5fa6da7a68331269372ba76714aa61b12.jpg

original filename:

Inkedq_LI.jpg

an anon's post mentioned by Q in post:

07-Jan-2018 22:03:47

It has unencrypted (non-random) data appended. I found PK signatures (i.e. zip), and another anon looked into it, and found three files hidden in it, and also said something like:

"That's why you have to be adult when surfing the chans" or such … Lol … As I said, didn't extract anything of it yet, just found it.

>>2305539

You're most welcome!

There was indeed another, probably more random observation: Using stegdetect for checking jpg files, I simply took one single file to play with (and develop a script).

stegdetect gave "jphide()" (the asterisk probably denoting degree of certainty from "" to "" – but's that's just my guess as I have little experience with stego.

However, I ran image

DfcXSDKUEAAVzjm.jpg with SHA256:

cda5d06e8d42f553ca4b7488f18b8fd54e13943d135dafcc9f89ce2cc04e2c77

from post

12-Jun-2018 12:23:48

through jpseek, and made the script try passwords (e.g. using the reverse, sha256sum, upper case, lower case etc) and also a simple Caesarian shift of the original filename.

Got errors in decoding in all cases, except

when using reverse filename & shifts 7 & 10, i.e. passwords:

(7) tqgCHHLBRKZEjmK

(10) wtjFKKOEUNCHmpN

Even though jpseek decoded w/o error, output was still gobbledegook (or binary data), and I wouldn't mention it if it weren't for the 7 & 10 shifts on the reversed filename.

Don't know if random – would have to look more …. Mentioning it in case someone else wants to look into that.

>>2305872

Hehe – sorry …. didn't think of that … dang !

It says "jphide ( 'asterisk' 'asterisk' )" and "from 'asterisk' to 3x 'asterisk'. Sorry again.

>>2306259

No worries, mister. lol. Thanks for the expert advice though.

>>2316186

Clockfags should know better, I think, but I may be wrong on that: The Q-Clock cannot be intended to (accurately) predict things – not by it's periodic nature, for one (as many dates fall on a single marker).

Additionally there are at minimum two valid markers to look at, if not four (in case the associated markers theory holds), or even six if all theories have relevance.

Q said repeatedly "Future proves past", and not past proves future, and he twice said that moves are not announced to the enemy.

Thinking about it logically: There are friends watching/posting and enemies, and it stands to reason w/o any doubt that also enemies can buy "intelligence" (or smart people) – much smarter/experienced than we are, most likely.

If the Q-Clock was a tool to predict anything, then chances are not small that (((they))) would find this out much faster than the few of us could, and the whole plan would be at risk.

For these reasons above, naturally!, the clock sucks for making predictions. Who's disappointed about that hasn't understood what the clock is all about.

>>2285931

>>2314776

Also, the clock can't be "forced" to show things that it doesn't – like the three occurrences of "Sea to Shining Sea" w/ the [:20] marker.

This wouldn't even work out assuming the clock is two days slow – or any other idea so far floated around here.

It's advisable for (curious) "new" clockfags not just to "check out your :20 delta post", but all posts, including the ones in the first clock thread.

I for one, don't exclude anything that's plausible, which is why I'm patient and wait until things happen (or not), in the meantime trying to learn about it.

I am not sure why some posts/posters (repeatedly) cause me to get the impression they are sliding (or trying to keep us busy, for that matter).

There's many things that the clock could be and things we do not know about it. So I see no reason to be either disappointed, or too much focussed on a single idea, and neither to exclude plausible ideas of any kind.

>>2316881

>>2317125

You really are some pathetic douchebag, spreadsheetAnon! And always had been – I remember it well!

Since you're asking for it, here you go:

You couldn't get your timestamps right in your spreadsheet, and so-called rawtextAnon helped you.

"rawtextAnon" himself didn't have his timestamps right, and another anon helped him first (that was in CBTS around #280).

After "rawtextAnon"'s work was somewhat correct, you "harmonized" (i.e. corrected) your timestamps.

When later some anon pointed out that "rawtextAnon" still had errors in his work, you "vouched" in a pathetic manner for "rawtextAnon's" "accuracy" and hard work, instead of verifying if the errors were indeed present (or not).

"rawtextAnon" maintains the pastebin (still in the dough) pastebin.com/3YwyKxJE, which to this date he was lazy enough not to correct, as there are still errors in content & timestamps (more back then, than now though, I still have the copy from the time you "vouched").

As pathetic as you are, "vouching" like a drama-queen in a mafia-like manner for quality that isn't there, instead of checking actually, you should better not come back here and "advertise" your spreadsheet – like I said, those that use your work know (as it's in each dough twice), the others will be told.

I attach some pic from CBTS & TheStorm for proof. You don't care for the difference b/w "rudeness" and when someone is stating an opinion/observation, esp. after you keep advertising your spreadsheet repeatedly.

You seem to be of the "muh feelings" kind – go try that in the general. You're in the wrong place here for sure.

>>2318298

He asked for it.

>>2318380

Before, I never asked him to go away or not advertise his work – just not three times, that's all.

I apologize, and will now go back to clockfagging but this:

>FYI, no one helped me with timestamps or spreadsheet in the beginning, except me, myself, and I. Therefore, save your demeaning and belittling speech, as you have no idea what you're talking about.

is plainly not true, and paired with "muh feeling, oh you're so rude" is just a bit too much – I am here, so I can honestly say what I see, and I wouldn't have him writing this w/o being able to defend me (and prove him wrong).

>>2318592

I don't think there's anything to forgive: Please read again what I wrote above that triggered him to state his lies –

I said his work is appreciated and asked him for what purpose advertise his work three times, and asked him not to do that. For chans that's very civilized, I think. –

No "undermining" of his work in any way, esp. not if it's to be found in each dough twice.

And just so you know, back then I was one of those going over his spreadsheet finding/correcting wrong timestamps!

The only thing I apologized for was not being able to sit on my hands and be quiet when someone tells lies! – and this won't change, I guarantee!

And no, I didn't tell rawtextAnon where the errors are, as he was/is "famefagging" with having his work in the dough, while (when he was baking) removing other anons' work (that might be competition to his).

Again – this is not WWG1WGA, to act like a mafia and undermine simple, plain truth by "vouching".

Sorry, I am not acting like Jesus – for that (essentially) I apologized.

>>2319381

If you're not the spreadsheetAnon, then I do have a strong reason to apologize to you for most of the things I said, especially because I indeed didn't have an idea what I was talking about.

I do so, hoping you'll accept my apology.

I was not being rude, however, asking you to not advertise it repeatedly, neither belittling, nor demeaning. We know about its existence by know.

Even though reluctantly (for it is goog-based mostly, but also web-based), and because such listing obviously is useful for some of the clockfags' work, I can put the link in the dough of the next bread in some kind of small "Resource" section – then it'd be unnecessary to have it mentioned in the bread several times.

>>2320693

Several anons said it's useful for them, so there's little doubt they'd appreciate you continuing the updates.

As it's an old habit, I'll have a quick look at it later double-checking, and will add it to the resource section.

I assume it's also downloadable for offline use/archiving, just in case ….

Really didn't mean to be rude etc, just saw someone repeatedly mentioning it – when we're about 5-10 regulars here or so ….

All contributions of all kinds are appreciated, as I mentioned, so if you have the time, I'm sure anons will gratefully continue using it.