Anonymous ID: 9b3c64 Jan. 8, 2018, 7:52 p.m. No.31712   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1804 >>1842 >>2049

>>31592

>[1] s20.postimg.org/l2cxesp5p/1_marker_clock.jpg

Uh, bakers… 256x163px

 

>>31592

>[15] s20.postimg.org/ar0kmpah9/15_marker_clock.png

Uh, bakers… this is only half finished, is missing a relevant Q post, and the tweet's timestamps are two hours ahead of where they should be.

 

Didn't one of you just tell me you know what you're doing? Again, you'll have to excuse my skepticism.

Anonymous ID: 9b3c64 Jan. 8, 2018, 8:19 p.m. No.32025   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2043 >>2074 >>2076

So it's about a full day later since Q's posts. Have we fulfilled the first basic task of mapping the conf's he dropped last night in a single, widely internally distributed and accurate image? I don't have and can't find one.

Anonymous ID: 9b3c64 Jan. 8, 2018, 8:25 p.m. No.32095   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>32049

I would like to but I don't have them. That's why I sought out the images in those links in the first place. The seemingly completed version posted last thread also suffers from the same problem: incorrect timestamps.

Anonymous ID: 9b3c64 Jan. 8, 2018, 8:29 p.m. No.32138   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>32107

Well the fatal flaw I see with this one instantly is it speaks in absolutes. Do we really know some serious shit's about to break very soon? Wouldn't it be much more effective at this stage to post Q confirmations? Of course, to do that, we'd actually have to fucking have them neatly and accurately organized.