>>3308849 old bread all
>>3308851 >>3308855 >>3308865
Thanks Anons for responding about No Name's end and the Q Posts that hint of a significance to a proposed delta between Q Post and departure of No Name.
Revisiting this because the proof does not seem solid enough. Yes, intuition plays its role. And, yes, Anons look for patterns and confirmations. However, it seems we are missing something that Q has placed in our hands.
So:
Hands up = 5 by 5 (loud and clear). Also surrender?
Timestamp: Jul 25 2018 18:28:35 (EST)
Stopped treatment but no time/date announced by No Names senatorial office, nor noted by Q. Office Press Release dated Aug 24 2018
Next Press Release: "died 4:28pm on August 25, 2018"
Q 1932
Timestamp: Aug 26 2018 10:46:38 (EST)
[30]
[0:28]
Impossible?
-
If go by the authority of official press releases (as per the news articles noted earlier by Anons), then, No Name departed Aug 25 after stopping treatment Aug 24.
In subsequent statement by Cindy, strongly implied that lack of treatment led to his end. Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
-
And the time of death that day, 4:28 pm.
-
But to reconcile Q's posts, discard one press release in favor of another press release.
Why chose one over the other?
Q 1706 said only that No Name returned to headlines. Timestampe Jul 25, which is a month before the announced end of No Name.
Q 1932 appeared after the Press Release on stopping treatment, after Press Release on time of end, and after Cindy's statement "own his own terms".
So what did Q predict? Or what has future proven in past?
Look to the content of Q 1932 which included [0:28] in the context of noting a seemingly impossible coincidence. What did Q point at if not the timestamp on Q 1706?
Yes, also pointed at hands-up -- surrender -- and two open palms -- 5 by 5. If the message was transmitted loud and clear, what was the message in Q 1706?
How was that particular message confirmed in Q 1932?
Must we discard the time of day match between Q 1706 and the Press Release stating time of No Name's end? Also discard [0:28]? If yes, why?
Q seemed to respond to Cindy's statement. She wrote: "He passed the way he lived, on his own terms"; statement dated Aug 25 5:47 PM.
Q 1934 appeared Aug 27 2018 19:04:20 (EST): [He did not depart on his own terms] Think Flynn [30] Exactly [30].
That may be the primary message.
Note difference between "passed" and "did not depart". Both are idiomatic: relate to death but also to moving on, yes? Even the euphemism of "moved on" relates to death. Might Q have referred to No Name's political departure rather than mortal end? Might No Name have suicided by his own terms but Q meant to emphasize that No Name was forced to depart from power?
Might Q have meant to bracket the departure of No Name: between [30] and [0:28], meaning between 24th and 25th of August? If yes, how does that reconcile with the note in Q 1934 -- Exactly [30] -- and in Q 2034 -- [exact 30]? These notes differ in format, yes? Exactly versus exact; and Exactly outside of the kill box versus exactly within the kill box alongside 30. Significance?
Press Releases, by form or style, traditionally end with -30- or with ### and both mean end of transmission -- or end of message. Not sure what -28- would mean.
Perhaps it qualifies the primary message in context with Think FLYNN?
Q 1934 came more than a full day after Q 1932 and about 2 days after Cindy's statement.
(FWIW Prior to Q 1932, Q had not posted for about 5 and one-half days. After Q 1934, Q posted another 5 times during Aug 27 2018.)
I do not really have answers to propose to this puzzle.
###
Old school way of ending press release:
-30- or -END- or ### or XXX (Roman numeral for 30).
Goes back to telgraphy and the Western Union 92 Code.
30 = No more, the end.
28 = Do you get my writing?
5 = Anything? (Have you business for me?)
55 = Important.
(5 + 5) = 10 = Keep this circuit closed.
(5 x 5) = 25 = Busy on another wire.
3 = What time is it?
(3 + 0) = 3 - What time is it?
2 = Very important.
8 = Close your key, stop breaking.
(2 + 8) = 10 = Keep this circuit closed.