>>7719876 lb

I agree. The deltas were between Q posts & POTUS tweets, at least originally, to provide proof to us anons that Q was indeed in proximity of and working with POTUS.

Since even before 8ch shut down there were more and more convoluted and confusing ways people were applying "deltas" - even to the point, on endchan, of trying to use time differences between a random anons post on endchan to POTUS tweet as "proof" that anon's post was correct and approved by POTUS. Ridiculous and maddening.

I agree with your view simple, straight forward and the difference between an actual proof and an interesting coincidence such as the [17], which may be comms or not (I think it is), but it is not a Q proof per se as Q is not posting.

>>7720007

It's been around since the '90s and you should read what else there is on this document before making a decision as to its authenticity.

>>7720043

>>7720052

It states you can play this money spending game with most D's and many R's. What does money buy? Alice & Wonderland.

>THEY WERE ALL BUYING ACCESS TO PROJECT LOOKING GLASS TO ENHANCE THEIR FUTURES!

I think you are onto something…

>>7720092

I recognize the John Coleman one from the other night. A stickied library might not be a terrible idea, as long as it doesn't devolve into shilling and inane chit-chat.

>>7720126

Just working this out a bit more for myself as much as anything…

Graphic = ???

I've seen multiple Q posts relating together compiled to show relationships with each other

? what else? there might be other ways to describe this…

Side by side = future proves past

-article, tweet, other dig/info showing what Q was referring to that we did not know at the time it was posted by Q

Proof = POTUS tweet/statement/photos etc

-shows that Q is in physical proximity to or working closely with POTUS in coordination

From what I've seen and understood from the beginning - the [deltas] were, at least initially, with respect to the time difference between a Q post and POTUS tweet, specifically for a Proof.

There have been other applications of [numbers in brackets] that are not, in my opinion, incorrect, such as Markers, which someone asked about last thread or the one before. The explanation given was good and reflected the fact that we don't have a solid, tried & true definition or precise application of Markers yet.

I'm interested to know opinions on this because there are so many people here at different times, worldwide with varying opinions and views, that sometimes conflict or coincide.

>>7720094

Thank you for that explanation. It sounds a bit like the "Me's" of Sumer, which would explain a lot, although only one tiny fraction of what it can do.

>>7720108

I think it is definitely worth consideration. I was very skeptical of Looking Glass before -I don't trust the Camelot people- but I'm starting to rethink that more and more.

>The deeper you research the more unrealistic it all becomes.

Open mind and all…

>>7720312

Yes it does. I really do think >>7720043 is onto something relevant here -Obama, HRC, No Name, to name a few

>>7720288

>So we have had this under control since when?

>The Atu-Waa? 10, 15 years? Maybe a bit longer, I forget what year we found it.

And what is the sauce for this?

>>7720341

Yes, ausbro made the first graphics, and when imposters appeared, Q got a tripcode and fixed the graphic, clarifying which were 'official' and accurate Q posts. That's how we know where to start and which posts were authentic (also Q used EST/EDT, so that's how we kept the records).

So yes, 'graphic' is a very wide category. I think we're on the same page on it all. Thank you!

>>7720349

I kekk'd too

>>7720355

>why are the DOJ, Senate Republicans and POTUS legal team not brining FARA cases against the all of the various outside private legal counsel utilized by the Democrat House?

Why would you prosecute a serial killer for jaywalking when you have enough for a successful conviction of serial killing?

This does not invalidate the legitimate concern about Mueller boi Van Grack…

>>7720439

I'm familiar with off-line and early internet research.

What is YOUR sauce for these assertions, specifically the one I asked you about. Vague "I read it in a newsgroup" isn't going to cut it.

What is the actual sauce for this assertion:

<So we have had this under control since when?

>The Atu-Waa? 10, 15 years? Maybe a bit longer, I forget what year we found it

I'm very interested to know.

Thank you.

>>7720413

Never respond to fungus!

>>7720421

Hmm, after seeing that exact language repeatedly, you might be inclined to think it was coordinated, i.e., not organic.

>>7720609

So, it's stuff you read on the internet from a crazy lady - all assertions, no documentation, no proof And don't hitch rides on UFOs.

gotcha kthx

>>7720603

This site a a huge amount of articles but do publish all sorts of stuff that is totally unsupported (no evidence at all) and some is total bullshit, others are basically articles supporting petpopular but charlatan authors (i.e., Annunaki & Zecheria Sitchen) as actual fact. Take with dumptrucks full of salt.

>>7720486

No longer any need to use Lokinet, that was in the beginning of 8kun when the bitter cripple & co were working to deplatform. We're fine now so not any purpose in using Lokinet

>>7720530

Valid gripe that most share, I suspect, but what did Q say about it last?

>No one is above the law ANY MORE

(paraphrase pls no buli)

It's a tricky business trying to roll up human/drug trafficking networks that interconnect with .org/instituion/foundation-campaign money laundering etc, etc.

If you prosecute a middle person for the wrong thing and evidence comes out in court that would tip off the higher ups you REALLY want, it's no bueno.

Critical path, like in construction.

It has to be done RIGHT.