>will bake one more
righteous, ty baker
>>4342129 lb
>Pretty much everything we do here is speculative.
Disagree here. But even tho you're correct that much of what we do is gather facts and speculate on their meaning/connections, "speculation" is a large umbrella. There are degrees of reach and factual foundation. Some is notable, some not.
The problem with the clock you put up is two-fold. One, there are too many overly speculative connections – the missing d becoming D5 becoming a rotational "delta." That's not how Q clock deltas work.
The 10/31 to 12/25 connection on its own is a Q proof. I believe Q intentionally dropped the 10/31 with the 12/25 reference to help us figure out the clock, teaching us how it worked, so it could serve as a means of comms. Since clockfags cracked the code, there have been so many drops and twats that fit, its legitimacy is established.
But when you add functions to it that don't exist, then build off those functions to speculate on meaning, you discredit the clock as a form of comms from Q/POTUS.
Not sure if you're a shill or just a well-meaning anon getting lost in the weeds of all the ways numbers can be made to fit patterns, but you can't invent new ways the clock functions and say "this is how I do it" anymore than you can invent new letters of the alphabet and say "this is how I write essays." Both result in a medium that fails in its intent: clear communication. Code only works when both sides agree to the lexicon.