DEFCON 1 = "COCKED PISTOL. Nuclear war is imminent. Maximum readiness."

Is DEFCON [1] different?

>>23004

>>23005

Is Q saying this POST is a DEFCON [1] post? A nuclear post?

>>23013

Okay… Not meant to signify AUTH or that DEFCON 1 has been established, but to teach us to understand…?

But, there is no word missing "Q". Just two different words, one which has a "Q" and not the other.

Just explain it, if you know…

>>23020

Righteous graphics, anon! Thank you for your hard work!

>>23030

AF1 is a sky fortress.

>>23036

Fuck… Does this mean I have to go back over ALL of the maps again?

>>23053

Thanks… Agreed. Thought the same thing.

"[non-nuclear] - Q"

Let's hope so anyway. That's a BOLD term to be throwing around. Especially, after POTUS just had a nuclear dick-measuring contest with NK.

>>23249

Flynn is a good man, a trust-seeker and a truth-speaker. And POTUS vouches for him, as well. I trust him, Ma'am.

>>23266

Dingo… ;)

>>23274

I think you are correct, Mom…

Now, TOGTFO ;)

>>23332

No… The Zuma Payload is a skinny-ass little rocket made by Space-X. Not a flying-fortress in the sky. Ya'll need to descend in altitude, stat.

>>23357

"Bing. Bong. Boom." - POTUS

>>23370

Nah, lurk back to the Q post that mentioned "[non-nuclear]". Everything has meaning. Future proves past. (God, we sound like a fucking cult sometimes).

>>23399

No [0] yet that has been noted.

We're currently at [1] time-stamp difference from Q to POTUS/POTUS to POTUS posts. However, now having the "key" to the "map" (map-key), we can go back through the Q maps and compare with Tweets. And the future should prove the past in many instances.

Follow?

>>23456

Wait… what?

>>23481

The graphic you posted shows a [1] difference, not a [0] difference. I don't think [0] has happened yet. Unless, being WITHIN one minute counts. However, based on the other examples we've been given, we would expect it to be the same minute time-stamp.

>>23517

Good explanation, namefag. Thank you.

I'm thinking DEFCON [1], though non-nuclear, may signify a non-nuclear strike by /our guys/ that is of nuclear proportions.

>>23520

Nobody say "Tick, tock", or you'll be banished to the bog of eternal stench.

How much sand is that fucker, JA?

>>23594

Because of the bouncing around in sequence, which some other mathfag can get into to see if there's something there, it seems that these may just be time-stamps to look for. Perhaps, rated in importance? Hence, [1] being called DEFCON [1]?

Perhaps, [5] references DEFCON [5}?…

"[non-nuclear]".

The next question is, is this a reference to an attack in offense, or defense? Could this reference a biological attack or otherwise catastrophic-attack that is [non-nuclear]? Or is it merely a simple time-reference, which has no implications of "nuclear" proportions, though they be [non-nuclear]?

Much to ponder here.