Idk man. People are making up the comm rules as they go. Sometimes it's the timestamp of Scavino tweets, sometimes it's the video length. Sometimes it's from another twitter account altogether.
"5:5" means loud and clear, that is well-known jargon alright, which we can all agree upon.
"0:55" is another matter entirely.
My point is it doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily drop a zero then push the : sign forward just because it fits nicely and conveniently with a timecode.
5:5 really is "loud and clear", whereas 0:55 really is just an arbitrary and random time mark.
It can't. That's my point, friend. That "5:5" isn't related to "0:55" in any way shape or form, other than it looking aesthetically similar. It's an arbitrary connection. It's like saying a power outlet symbolizes a pig's nose - it doesn't, they just look similar.
...Yeah, but none of which relate to 5:5 ...right? This is my point.
".5" means "0.5" and that's one thing (common notation custom), but "5:5" doesn't relate to "0:55" in any way - it's arbitrary. This is a free for all, like when you don't know the answer to a math question and then you just shoot for / guess the number that looks the closest one to what your calculations gave you: "Mmm I got 12 but the possible answers are 10, 20, 22, and 32 so I guess I'll mark 10."... It's arbitrary, taking a random guess.
It's like saying a power outlet symbolizes a pig's nose - it doesn't, they just look similar.
Your description is exactly correct. Sometimes timestamp sometimes duration.
Plausible deniability, and flexibility. You check both, and see which fits. Also functions to make more eyes read more drops.
As for who writes them, I've seen pompeo and scavino mostly, which makes sense. Also, space force, and other special military units make them that "fit" the moment.
Other high profile twitter users may put out a message that fits, even if it isn't "official" - they just happen to be an Anon, and send one out that works.
And lastly... You'll sometimes see folks here post a message that is just wrong. People are filled with hopium (rightly so!) and can make connections with confirmation bias, that are well intentioned mistakes. We also have black hat shills here that will happily post incorrect or slightly ludicrous "Q comms/connections" in an effort to discredit or blur the real comms.
Idk man. People are making up the comm rules as they go. Sometimes it's the timestamp of Scavino tweets, sometimes it's the video length. Sometimes it's from another twitter account altogether.
Triangulate.
5:5 is established even by Q. It means "loud and clear". No, it's not a "made up" comm. It's very well known.
"5:5" means loud and clear, that is well-known jargon alright, which we can all agree upon.
"0:55" is another matter entirely.
My point is it doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily drop a zero then push the : sign forward just because it fits nicely and conveniently with a timecode.
5:5 really is "loud and clear", whereas 0:55 really is just an arbitrary and random time mark.
It can mean both and in this case would make sense.
The storm is upon Loud and clear.
It can't. That's my point, friend. That "5:5" isn't related to "0:55" in any way shape or form, other than it looking aesthetically similar. It's an arbitrary connection. It's like saying a power outlet symbolizes a pig's nose - it doesn't, they just look similar.
Not necessarily convinced by this comm, but you generally drop a 0 before another number.
0.5 becomes .5, 0:55 becomes 55.
...Yeah, but none of which relate to 5:5 ...right? This is my point.
".5" means "0.5" and that's one thing (common notation custom), but "5:5" doesn't relate to "0:55" in any way - it's arbitrary. This is a free for all, like when you don't know the answer to a math question and then you just shoot for / guess the number that looks the closest one to what your calculations gave you: "Mmm I got 12 but the possible answers are 10, 20, 22, and 32 so I guess I'll mark 10."... It's arbitrary, taking a random guess.
It's like saying a power outlet symbolizes a pig's nose - it doesn't, they just look similar.
u/#q4593
Pray.
u/#q596
Your description is exactly correct. Sometimes timestamp sometimes duration.
Plausible deniability, and flexibility. You check both, and see which fits. Also functions to make more eyes read more drops.
As for who writes them, I've seen pompeo and scavino mostly, which makes sense. Also, space force, and other special military units make them that "fit" the moment.
Other high profile twitter users may put out a message that fits, even if it isn't "official" - they just happen to be an Anon, and send one out that works.
And lastly... You'll sometimes see folks here post a message that is just wrong. People are filled with hopium (rightly so!) and can make connections with confirmation bias, that are well intentioned mistakes. We also have black hat shills here that will happily post incorrect or slightly ludicrous "Q comms/connections" in an effort to discredit or blur the real comms.
Life of the digital soldier! 😎 NCSWIC