Ok my fren, this is epic.
Nice.
It's all I watch. I'll watch some of the debate skits on youtube, that's about it.
They're actually hilarious, they tear them to shreds.
lmfao BASED
>its not like it was done like some one word wonder or some half cocked "take this and do that and boom this"
And yea, it kinda was.
b-b-b-b-b-but global warming a-a-a-a-a-and climate change and COW FARTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Forgot about Al Shabaab…
NOTABLE BAKER, keep an eye on this.
Could be fake and gay but good to note.
When has Q ever confirmed the amount of minutes in a delta equate to a crumb number?
Also, like has been already discussed, you just made it 1558 to make the graphic, if you're just adding and subtracting whatever, it could legitimately be any crumb.
It's the kind of stretching that goes on here so much lately though.
Not saying it's not notable, just saying it's not a proof of anything and flimsy.
First time I'm hearing about it.
Dude, calm down. It's just a Q post with the word Kenya in it.
iirc, it was Rex Tillerson at the time.
I'm skeptical of the (# of minutes of a delta) = (post number) graphics, and the different kinds of unique and interesting yet unconfirmed and sometimes unreliable ways anons are trying to decode things. I try to stay with the most straight forward and simple things.
Like the [17] minute delta from the other day.
>Trump tweets a "q" where it has no reason to be
>Trump corrects it 17 minutes later
>Same way Q/Trump did with the "consensual/consequential" [15] and [1] minute deltas.
I'm just really skeptical and think all proofs should be bullet proof and able to be spread knowing they're solid. Too many times recently something is said to be a "proof" when it's not.
This [17] delta isn't a proof either, it's a "very odd coincidence" (kek) where Trump tweeted a Q then deleted it 17 minutes later.
For me, deltas are comms.
I understand. It's clever.
I just don't like the 1560 → 1558 thing. Too much of a stretch. Because +/-2 could be a bunch of crumbs. Again I'm personally skeptical of unconfirmed decodes and methodologies (like the Qclock shit) but anons liked it and was nominated and put in notables.
I'd rather have this discussion than being called a muh joo shill faggot clown mason.