Biden 2.5 hours late 3 year delta. Coincidence?
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
I noticed that too. The suggestion about the significance is still unclear.
It's also worth noting there was a Fed Board meeting on June 14, 2018, at 2:30pm (2.5 hours pm).
double meanings
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/boardmeetings/20180614open.htm
I've thought most of the proofs and deltas since the election have been a stretch or wishful thinking tbh but this one.... damn.
Its a Google bike, zoom in to see it.
2.5 = 25 = 25th amendment marker?
How about this...
Somebody with some clout says "Joe, just sit here for two and a half hours. Then we'll come back and take you to your meeting."
White hats are in control.
Here's your afternoon "candies" Joey, now be a good gramps and take a nap. We'll make sure you're up in time for the meeting
Cheeses. Great find, anon
Hard to explain that away.
Real stretch there. we can’t get tied up with maybe two/three year deltas plus a day or two.
Some stretching is always required to draw connections to Q drops, by design; doesn't make it untrue.
I'm not sure that this was a prediction, but no can say it wasn't. It doesn't hurt to investigate as long as there is something to be learned from it, though I'm not sure that would be the case here. Let's say it was a prediction. Now what? What can we do with that information?
Perhaps the energy would be better spent on understanding what is implied by a 2.5 hour timeframe.
I don't think you read my comment if you think I'm trying to divide anyone, or believed your hostile and defensive attitude was a necessary reaction.
There is plenty of proof. Anyone who hasn't seen enough proof that there is validity in Q drops will likely never see it. This may be a prediction, I never said it wasn't. I simply asked, "what do we do with the information if that's the case?" and suggested that looking into the potential meaning (cause) behind a 2.5 hour delay would likely be time better spent, because there's a much higher chance it was called out to draw our attention to it, rather than to be an empty proof.
I have learned plenty. There have been suggestions about who to watch with scrutiny to see their roles in things kept from the public eye, as well as those they unwittingly implicate with their facial reactions.
It seems odd that someone who demands everyone accept the infallibility of all Q interpretations imply in question that we aren't meant to learn anything from the proofs.
I don't understand why learning something equates to doubting something. If you believe that suggesting there is something more to learn from the drop is the same as an irrational disbelief in it being a prediction, I suppose there's no hope for constructive discourse.
I never said or implied this. I said it was more probable that there is more to it (which is backed by the evidence of past proofs), and our time would be better spent looking into things that would be beneficial to our understanding of the events, rather than determining if it was a prediction of yesterday's events, which is substantially less important, especially for those that already know Q drops aren't fancy. Otherwise, we would be like the foolish "theologians" and historians who spend so much time trying to figure out the historical (material) circumstances of Biblical accounts, past or future, that they are completely blind to the messages contained therein.
Hope or optimism should never be a substitute for seeking truth. If you believe the only purpose of Q drops is to provide blind hope, I would argue you have a lot more research to do.
What? No, that's not even remotely what I said. Reading comprehension is a valuable thing.
Goodness, your defensiveness is misdirected.
Does "Future proves past" ring a bell?
This proof is A LITERALLY telling us that the future proves the past
Exactly, this is not delta 3yr+1, this is delta 3yr two days in a row referencing each other. Truly spectacular find OP!
Eh. I'm not buying this one.
Biden was late because he was busy taking his afternoon nap.