Yes but twenty-four ":17" times occur every single day. They can't all be significant. IMHO none of them is, without more to connect it to Q.
Disclaimer: I've played the game too, pointing out repeated instances of 17 capitals or words, in messages from DJT or Pompeo, etc. It's fun, but some of what looks like direct comms could instead be confirmation bias on my part. Even though I know that, it still looks real enough to remark on, when it happens repeatedly.)
The 34 seconds isn't a comm because it's impossible to get a tweet narrowed down to the exact second you intend. Notice how hard it was for Q and Trump to get the zero delta because of this.
Scavino and friends have been posting things that direct to post #34 for weeks now. No coincidences.
"No coincidences" was a phrase that was used in reference to political strategy. Not to every single tweet from anyone connected to Trump.
That said the Scavino tweet was at 5:17:34 so you could make the case the time adds credence.
Where are you getting that timestamp?
https://nitter.snopyta.org/DanScavino/status/1441995337820954626#m
how
There's a 17. And the 34.
Yes but twenty-four ":17" times occur every single day. They can't all be significant. IMHO none of them is, without more to connect it to Q.
Disclaimer: I've played the game too, pointing out repeated instances of 17 capitals or words, in messages from DJT or Pompeo, etc. It's fun, but some of what looks like direct comms could instead be confirmation bias on my part. Even though I know that, it still looks real enough to remark on, when it happens repeatedly.)
The 34 seconds isn't a comm because it's impossible to get a tweet narrowed down to the exact second you intend. Notice how hard it was for Q and Trump to get the zero delta because of this.
And what about the 5 in 5:17:34?
If it doesn't fit, we must omit! :)