CALLING ALL CLOCKFAGS AND DELTAFAGS.

Anon has a degree in game design and theorized that our lessons from Q on posts and deltas were just tangential training for something larger. Watching Q+ and/or Dan (Sugar-bear) Scavino post that match Q posts has taught anon to believe that we aren't the only ones with that method. Anon wants to know if Q was teaching us about this style of comm because it's common amongst those being watched. If so, could anons cross reference some target's who posted in the past with some Q posts that are yet to make sense.

Anon trusts the plan but also trying to dig (dog) deeper.

We dig, they dog.

AI REWROTE THE QUESTION:

CALLING ALL CLOCKFAGS AND DELTAFAGS.

Anon has a degree in game design and has been kicking around a theory:

What if the lessons from Q about timestamps, deltas, and cross-referencing posts weren't only about decoding Q drops, but tangential training for recognizing a broader style of communication?

Watching posts from Q+, Dan (Sugar-bear) Scavino, etc. appear to line up with old Q posts got anon wondering whether the method itself is the important part.

Hypothesis: If timestamp/delta-based signaling is actually a communication method used by people who expect their communications to be watched, we should be able to test that idea outside the examples we already know.

Could anons take historical posts from specific public figures/targets, cross-reference their timestamps/deltas against Q posts that still don't have convincing explanations, and see whether anything statistically unusual emerges?

Important part: don't start with the conclusion and work backward. Find the hits and the misses. Otherwise we'll manufacture comms out of noise.

Maybe there's nothing there. Maybe there is.

Anon trusts the plan, but also wants to dig (dog) deeper.

We dig, they dog.