Anonymous ID: c5bea3 July 28, 2018, 2:16 p.m. No.2328811   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2328632

Q didn't say it was fast. from a distance of 10-20 miles (as an anon said last bread) and with a 20 second timelapse, the picture makes sense.

 

i think you misunderstand me, misunderstand the evidence, and/or misunderstand Q. but it's ok, it's all difficult to digest.

Anonymous ID: c5bea3 July 28, 2018, 2:18 p.m. No.2328844   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>8960

>>2328709

the jolly roger article was from late 2017.

 

if you don't think it's a tomahawk, i'm going to need some more understanding why.

 

the picture matches up, the timeframe matches up. camera facing north watching a missle arc to the northโ€ฆlooks right to me.

Anonymous ID: c5bea3 July 28, 2018, 2:27 p.m. No.2328991   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2328664

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcB4eJ6lHOY

 

oh yeah, that's an amazing shot, and it illustrates this perfectly. no smoke trail, just the flames.

 

that shot, as a timelapse, would look exactly like whidbey.

 

thanks, frend.

Anonymous ID: c5bea3 July 28, 2018, 2:29 p.m. No.2329027   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2328960

tomahawk range = 1550 miles (published - probably a bit more, since we usually 'underestimate' our mil capability)

 

from washington, it could hit some of the aleutians, for sure.

 

for the sake of discussion - what is your alternate/competing theory?

Anonymous ID: c5bea3 July 28, 2018, 2:39 p.m. No.2329174   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2328843

if i understand the Trident architecture correctly, every trident is a nuke.

 

i believe the distance between that island and hansville wa (the camera) to be about 1800 miles.

 

i strongly believe (but am open to alt suggestions) that it wasn't a trident (which requires many more launch steps) but something non-nuke.