>>4482862 (lb)

The EO I'm talking about is the one that puts the new military justice code into effect on Jan 1. (Miltiary system, not related to indictments.)

I may not have used word "arrest" correctly, I mean detention in whatever form flows into the military justice tribunals.

>>4482922 (lb)

That helps explain. (EO expanding pool of possible judges for tribunals as an example of process changes.) To me it sounds like the threshold hearings would not need as many judges, so the arrests could happen first (before Jan 1).

(Just as background to note here, arrest date is generally not important for anything related to the punishment itself, due to ex post facto rules - the legal punishment can't be increase retroactively, it's not like waiting until after Jan 1 lets us have stricter laws on the books for punishing things done before now. Which is why we're looking to process as what matters in the EO.)

>>4482982

My guess is that "darkness" may refer to a time when big things are happening, but out of sight, where we may not even know that anything's going on until it's all over.

I know the storm is supposed to be fast and quick, but I don't know if it will be visible until the very end. The entire operation so far (Trump presidency) has seemed to prioritize keeping the surface appearances quite calm, nothing to see here, even while we know that major moves are underway. (10 days of actual darkness would therefore seem out of character.)

The maintenance of normal everyday life going on makes sense, for keeping the public calm, avoiding unnecessary flipouts and riots, and letting the cabal think it might be able to outlast Trump. It may be useful to present a fait accompli to the extent possible. I have the sense there will be power outages in the storm, but localized and for tactical operations, no nationwide or long-term blackout.

I could be all wrong about that, of course.

>>4482901 (lb)

I was thinking about this some more, and can be a little clearer about why the coincidence is interesting.

(a) "10 days darkness" and "EO Jan 1" are two of the most prominent topics out there, so putting these on the table is a restricted set for finding statistical correlations. The EO date is known, the mystery is the interval of the 10 days of darkness.

(b) One of the very few clues Q gave us about "10 days darkness" was the word "shutdown", which could very naturally be interpreted as a federal govt shutdown (perhaps the most common use of that word when discussing the federal govt). So even without any other evidence, it would be reasonable to suspect that "10 days darkness" might begin at the start of a federal govt shutdown. This is an "a priori" theory that's been floating around out there.

(c) There was a govt shutdown starting Dec 21. If that's the start of 10 days darkness, the period extends to Dec 31. (Yes, I'm sidestepping here the thorny computer science index question of "do you count the first day, e.g. is the first item 0 or 1?")

(d) There are two low-probability clues that appear consistent with this specific timeline. Q's initial post about 10 days darkness being at 12:31 am, a coincidence with 12/31 being a special date (1:360 odds); and the EO going into effect Jan 1 the very next day (if random, there's no particular reason to think this would be 10 days [of darkness?] + 1 after a federal govt shutdown begins.)

Q could have arranged for these three events to line up this way, so it would fit the way Q gives us "coincidences" and clues.

Contrary considerations: There's a leap here in interpreting the EO on Jan 1 as "light" to contrast with the "darkness" (this is playing off the darkness to light meme.) So pulling the EO into this discussion might be not well supported, unless the EO plays a more important role than I can see right now. (Expanding the pool of available judges is important, but doesn't seem this important.)

>>4483502

This fits the most likely scenario that the drill hole was either an accident or sabotage during construction on Earth of the Soyuz capsule.

Here's an article from September (not new):

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/09/04/russians-investigate-cause-of-soyuz-leak-focus-on-human-error/

Russian officials at the time floated the idea that the hole might have been drilled in orbit presumably by the crew, but that really seems crazy (would you drill a hole in your spacecraft?) and likely a pass the blame reaction to deflect attention from the problems in the Russian space program's quality control system. (There have been quite a few QC problems in the last year or two.)

The Daily Mail headline makes it sound surprising that it was drilled from the inside, but what's the alternative, the outside? Not likely drilled from the outside in space. On the ground, inside/outside seems 50/50.

Here's a December 11 article about the spacewalk that inspected the Soyuz

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/12/11/russian-eva-45a/

>>4483570

The Daily Mail. They could write a headline like this: "The SUN rose above the Northumberland horizon for a FOURTH morning in a row." (Why Northumberland in particular? Why four days? No one knows.)

They're great for photos, and touch important stories others ignore, but the hyperbole needs to get smothered with a blanket, and it always seems to be about the most random tangential aspects of the story.

>>4483158

>>4483197

>>4483243

I'm just stepping into this muddle (prompted by what looked like requests to turn the original observation into something more tangible.) So I may be missing background.

If the connection is the cipher wheel elements (?) in the graphics, those are substitution ciphers. Basic idea is that there's a one to one substitution between the plaintext and encrypted message. It's considered about the least secure kind of cipher out there because it's so easy to break - there are limited combinations, and statistical analysis of the frequency with which symbols appear can usually lead to a pretty quick solution.

The "easy to break" aspect makes it possible as a way Q could drop hints without being super-obvious. So the takeaway might be hunt for substitution ciphers in things Q has done by looking at the frequency of letter distributions?

Here's where we need help from the original poster to figure out where to go. How does Q 143, which was included in the graphic, tie into this? Not at all clear how we went from Q to cipher wheels from the other sources.

And separately, where would we go in Q to look for possible text encrypted in such a format? Cipher wheel substitution would look like a jumble of letters, we have the stringers but those are short while this kind of encryption would have the length of normal text. (or normal Q speak, which can be terse.)

>>4483693

I see the library link cited by an anon that Q responded to in Q 143 goes to a page that illustrates the cipher wheel as an example of encryption, among other things. Anon seems to be pointing to the NSA recruitment tweet referencing a similar concept.

Is there anything tying Q to the NSA tweet, besides (a) both sources make a nod towards cipher wheel encryption, and (b) NSA and Q are closely affiliated? (Like how we watch DoD twitter for clues)

My impression of Q 143 at the time was "think about how data can be encoded" more than pointing towards any particular method.

Cipher wheel is often used as an intro "we're talking about systems that encode, let's start by showing something basic and easy to get, and build from there." So it showing up on an intro page about encryption seems natural. Thus my thinking that Q was pointing us towards learning comms, not particular ways of comms.