>>4848942 (lb)
so focus on the [15], [10], and [5] parts of the graphic to see the context in which Q posted that crumb
again, just my opinion within my theory, but Q was saying that there was a [15] delta in the PAST, a [10] delta in the PAST, and the [5] delta had been confirmed TODAY (on 12/23/17)
not sure why you assume [5] is in the past when it literally happened the day of the crumb, nor why you give the others present and future when Q said the were both in the past
that 'wind the clock backwards' thing seems like clockfaggotry, this is a theory that doesn't have to do with the "Qclock" at all, just based on deltas and the confirmed delta markers