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.
Saying there are 24 17s in a day to invalidate a coincidence is just as valid as invalidating any other coincidence based on numbers. The point is that maybe the tweet was posted on a 17 to add another indicator of Q.
For the record I'm not agreeing or disagreeing I was simply pointing it out for fairness sake
Saying there are 24 17s in a day to invalidate a coincidence is just as valid as invalidating any other coincidence based on numbers.
This is true only if the other coincidence being invalidated based on numbers also has 24 of that same number happening every single day.
There is no need to sell the idea that a number occurring literally dozens of times per day makes it less impactful from a standpoint of being a special number. It just does. If someone doesn't perceive that, then no amount of insistence will change it. That person will be hourfagging round the clock, every hour on the :17. But there's no law against that, so why not have fun :)
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! :)
Saying there are 24 17s in a day to invalidate a coincidence is just as valid as invalidating any other coincidence based on numbers. The point is that maybe the tweet was posted on a 17 to add another indicator of Q.
For the record I'm not agreeing or disagreeing I was simply pointing it out for fairness sake
This is true only if the other coincidence being invalidated based on numbers also has 24 of that same number happening every single day.
There is no need to sell the idea that a number occurring literally dozens of times per day makes it less impactful from a standpoint of being a special number. It just does. If someone doesn't perceive that, then no amount of insistence will change it. That person will be hourfagging round the clock, every hour on the :17. But there's no law against that, so why not have fun :)