Anonymous ID: ba3ff9 Jan. 8, 2018, 5:08 p.m. No.30141   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0157 >>0170 >>0173 >>0342

>>21439

 

>IMPORTANT

>Do you understand what just occurred?

A mock "Keystone sequence" was just demonstrated for us to learn from.

 

>POTUS Tweets [15 min] between.

>POTUS missing "Q" in select word.

This sequence had no preceding marker on here, therefore there is no "Q" or in other words no message to us, or relevance to the map.

 

>DEFCON [1] POST HERE

[Marker] posted here.

>POTUS mods Tweets [1 min] between.

POTUS tweets with a "time stamp delta" that matches the marker, confirming it.

>POTUS adds "Q" in select word.

This tweet, or sequence of tweets, will contain a word or clue that references the map in some way. In this case, it was a word in the former tweet. If you look for pairs of tweets from POTUS, you'll notice there are often words in all CAPS, could be related. Otherwise it could be a keyword in either tweet that lines up to a MAP subject in some way, possible giving us a hint at what's occurring in private by referring to a topic on the MAP.

 

>This was not meant to signify AUTH / established.

This wasn't merely done as another verification of Q's authenticity, that has already been established.

>This is to train you how to understand the correlation between posts and Tweets.

 

I feel the particulars of this sequence contain important details. Every anon trying to find the "keystone" and learn to read the map should start with this post. It's as explicit of instruction that we have received so far.

Anonymous ID: ba3ff9 Jan. 8, 2018, 5:40 p.m. No.30384   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0396 >>0422

>>30342

 

I'm mostly irritated that 80% of everything that anons are working on, including half the clock shit, I have been over and done, or seen done by someone else, weeks ago.

 

No one has the focus to take any concept idea further than one or two beats, then it gets lost in the memory hole and we start from scratch.

Anonymous ID: ba3ff9 Jan. 8, 2018, 6:20 p.m. No.30753   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0852

Can an oldfag remind me:

Did we ever solve this stringer?

>[R]_( )[+ 4]

 

Because I just did, and it revealed a lot…

 

I just don't want to waste the time making a graphic to explain it if I missed this somehow.