>>2194416
I'm of 2 minds about SB2 - or more specifically, of some of his decodes. If he's indeed correct in many (all?) then there's no way in hell the average - or even extremely above average - anon has even a hope of having decoded correctly those messages. If he 'is' correct then he's what we've occasionally referred to as a 'helper anon' - a MI/Q+ team member that's out there to give us the info. That or a team of people.
Seems more likely he's a squirrel that just occasionally finds a nut to me.
But I'm a lowly barely able to chew gum n walk anon so what do I know. I do know I enjoy watching/listening/reading, even if I'm skeptical.