>>2105606 (lb)

Not convinced. Do you have indications as strong as say "Watch the water" for these 89 days & 61 days?

Also there's no observation of 2111 days, so why 289? Why not n*17, for all n=[1,17], or the first 45 primes, or the Fibonacci numbers?

>>2105685

Maybe one could also look at [:55], as this would be the 180 to [:35]

>>2105685

>>2105806

Sorry, meant to say mirror to [:35] and 180 to [:25], of course.

>>2105967

Sure, sure. Since you appear to be the only one in the know, good luck.

Looking forward to some more combinations of numbers, lines & posts.