>>2070366

>>2070336

That's very kind of both of you! Thank you.

There is, however, this archive >>2027173

which unfortunately is the only one that allows me to do this kind of work, w/o having to do it post by post manually.

Thing is, there are certain kinks & rules in this Q-Clock "game", so that it is much more effective – for this (possibly) very large number of words to extract & combine(!) from (almost) arbitrarily different posts – to use a local archive w/ a consistent syntax/format.

Even the text/ascii archives wouldn't be optimal in my view, also not online resources as qanon.pub – would all take much too long and not have the right format to only once create an algorithm, which then runs for all kinds of markers & timestamps.

Will use other resources however, when searching for example deleted posts, which might be in above archive, but not in the "standard" references. Thanks again!

>>2074177

Thank you so much!! – sorry, had been falling asleep in between and codefagging too much again … Catalog broken, probably for a reason…. Let's hope it leads to less gay porn in the bread, lol.

>>2063158

Have been working on the "backwards" linked messages and made things a little easier for me by creating a list of all posts and how they link, if they do.

Longest link I believe is seven long (by postID):

894699→894658→894571→894467→894401→894110→893904

(backward is forward in time/postID, meaning msg 894699 has a [>>]894658)

This way when I searching for these backwards links I can just look it up in the list, w/o having to do all the same routines over and over.

Also, I wasn't sure how many backwards linked msg would be allowed/required. What if, say postID 893904 has a matching timestamp – maybe it turns out I'd have to go back all the way to 894699 !? Not much of a problem now, if needed.

The sorting is easy – depending on what makes sense, I can any time apply any order to "@", "+", or "#" (even though for now we've discarded "#". That is, when we order them by prefix (and not time).

Posting the [:01] again for visual inspection. Used >>2061940 for comparison – it's a match when not taking order into account, and these few which we had talked about already:

# found "meaning" instead of you "awakening"

# found "safe"

# I found "failed" when you had "collection"

Will now re-check, if changes I made broke maybe [:15] or [:29] or so … lol, but will be around for a while, and also see if I can find the general (thanks again!)

>>2076614

Like I mentioned before, not rarely I get signs/directions wrong, so inadvertently I do things backwards. With the clock, like you said, it is still confusing sometimes, to remember which is which ….

I hope I'll have a large (all?) the character substitutions ready, and all the things that are consistently invalid (i.e to be deleted), like links etc. – links are a pain a bit, they are quite inconsistent.

Image names are hard to catch, when one doesn't want to do a dictinary search to determine if it is a word. So some manual editing would probably have to be done, but I'll try and run some more markers and see how far I'll get, and how consistency looks like currently with the script.

Would probably be easier for you too, if I ran & posted them (incl. timestamps) one by one, and then we, and some other anons, could verify them or check them. Would that save time/work?

>>2077131

Cranking already … lol. well the little computer is. For a test only to recognize systematic errors. There 's quite a number of cases when post were back-referenced "+" more than once. I'll fix this tomorrow, shouldn't be too difficult. Will likely also exclude all post where last line is a stringer.

I'm imagining printing out one by one and then trying to put them together like a puzzle maybe, to find a consistent way to order & combine them.

>>2078724

Good Morning clockfags & a beautiful Sunday to y'all! First thanks for the updates on the bread – very much appreciated as I indeed lost track.

Caught up on what's going on there before falling asleep …. mayhem! lol

Will have a tab open for the most current now. So can follow the links if baker posts them.

>>2078892

Will continue now fixing the bugs I noted in that test run yesterday, and also keep an eye open open on what's happening here (and there). Got the new chapter too (thanks!) t'was [:31]+[2] – how good I wouldn't have to learn that language all anew! Godspeed!

>>2077131

It's cranking! Lol. w/o technical errors until [:17].

Will have to remove some more of the weblinks that got caught. Posting example for [:41] from a previous run, raw as it comes out in a table.

Will have lunch ( and dessert ;) ), and then iron out these last little things, plus will review them one by one and check for accurate order.

>>2083612

First off, this is a thread, the board's name is /qresearch/

Which brings me to your question: We do research on the crumbs Q has given to us, specifically the many mentions of clocks, of winding them & of mirrors in Q's crumbs.

The quintessence of the answer is actually stated up above in the dough to this bread, specifically the 1st & last sentences therein.

It could be a slide but not so giant in fact. The giantest slide would be codename Q turning out to be a larp. But we were there already, and are still here – and chances increase that this "slide" of the giantest nature is none (see the various threads for Q proofs etc).

We're not concernfags, and there's plenty of indications that the clock actually is real.

As to the clock & what's being done: Without explaining to you the complete history of the Q-Clock (I will if you insist), the working hypothesis is that the clock, if used in a certain way, reveals, or better said, points out things within the crumbs (which we have all) that would improve or even extend our understanding of what Q actually has given to us (in terms of information).

The list in e.g. >>2083448 results from a certain way to group messages by timestamps & extracting the last words of these. These last words are then ordered and combined in a certain way, so that they start making sense in the combination that results from the process of correctly selecting & combining them.

In short – "think mirror" – the clock groups the minute markers around it [:MM] outside the clock ( >>2054017 , or outside the colored circle in >>2031990 ← check equal colors) into groups of four, which are related via their mirror-symmetry.

Think a "Z" drawn into the clock for example, and the "Z" in such way that you start at [:59], then move to [:01] (these two are mirror symmetric via a vertical axis axis), then go down to [:31] and over to [:29] (pic related read from top, & left to right).

This may be just one aspect of the clock, there are also others, like the arrangement of days calendar days around it, and how these days are connected via happenings in the current day, past days (or likely even future days).

Now I'll have dessert – don't be shy to ask moar, these things are hard to grasp by lurqing only ;).

>>2085262

Thanks. Was just thinking about how to put it even simpler – but that's a bit hard w/o leaving out things or stating them less clear.

Still cleaning links, stringers etc, but "it cranks" so far (haven't done all yet) …. will post a couple of lists once done.

>>2087420

Thank will have when done, because I thought about the ordering of "same-markered" matches like partially mentioned in >>2063952

Also had a look at >>2061748 …. I think you did this: It would make more sense (maybe) to order the finds by the markers the day of the post had on the clock.

In your [:31] example you have "deserve", "111", "fact", "believers". By their date and marker on the clock, those would be [:58], [:28], [:53], [:16], which is exactly in order of the <sec>. Since single words are listed in teh same order, it would make sense to me to order multiples in the same way, just instead use their date on the clock ….

You ordered them this way, right?

>>2087702

*Thank you, will have a look when done.

Apologies, getting tired again … lol

>>2088194

Thanks very much, no worries. The script runs so far – I just thought I'd better the in some way so it makes sense, before running all of them. I'll have the idea with the calendarDay markers and ordering multiples by them finished and posted as another example, before I fall asleep … ;)

>>2088793

Sorry to hear … I probably finish for today soonish, and continue tomorrow … lol

Ok, for now the words are ordered after <secas in the pic above >>2084486

This makes sense, but I could also try ordering by [min] from your list above >>2052761 – but for now let's not do that.

My question was related to multiple finds of say (for marker [:31]) and matching ":31:00", there are three valid finds ("deserve", "III" & "fact"). How to order these ?

So I thought by date, and not human date, but the marker each of the multiple finds' date has on the Q-Clock. as in attached pic (1st col) where "deserve" is [:58], "III" is date [:28] and "fact" is [:23].

One could also try ordering all of them, i.e the whole list (not just multiples) by their date in such manner.

>>2088920

pic … sorry

>>2088920

>>2088793

Here's another two tables before I'll have to rest.

Words are ordered as in >>2061940

Only that multiple matches for one marker were ordered by days (i.e. the order of <sec>, as if the days on the Q-Clock (i.e. the markers [:XX] around it) were also <sec>.

I have something written which would allow me (w/o too much fiddling) to order the complete word list by days as well. Can try that tomorrow, to see what see what this would look like.

For now, I hope you're not starving too much … ;) , and I wish a relaxing Good Night!

>>2090544

Back to time traveling (pic related).

Thank you for checking the list – I was getting sloppy a bit yesterday being tired.

"comp'd" & "safe/auth" were missing because they were in a last line starting with "Q", so the entire line got removed as it was considered a signature (fixed now).

"Todd Maklerr" post (word "large") has been added to the exclude-list, as has been the Q post linking to the "lllll" pic.

Also thank you for the reminder w/ the "graphic form" Q gave us – totally slipped my mind to also cross-check these …

Stringers are removed on a case by case basis. Here's a current list of which are deleted so far – when running the markers/lists one by one, I'll add more as needed, if needed:

37875 # 09-Mar-2018 18:30:50 (EST)

[0 0000 018739 7-ZjG] # 14-Feb-2018 18:41:23 (EST)

_SAT-re_Bz985300^00 # 22-Jan-2018 14:05:49 (EST)

_T_1A-23-go5 # 03-Mar-2018 23:08:25 (EST)

/_\ # 27-Jan-2018 00:09:55 (EST)

NATSEC_19384z_A_DT- # 19-Dec-2017 23:12:54 (EST)

58203-JX # 12-Jun-2018 17:31:20 (EST)

Corrected [:31] list accordingly, and will run some more lists maybe to combine a couple a of them and play w/ the ordering as mentioned in >>2088920