Yes, this could finally be it or this could be the ultimate troll on us or it could be pure coincidence.

They were talking about Telsa stock crashing & it would make sense that a new software version could save the day. I found this: https://tesla-info.com/blog/release-notes.php which is the most current. The highest version number I could find on that was 10.69 So yeah, I suppose 11.3 could be next but not that likely. 10.7 would be more likely, no?? Or maybe a new 11.0. Why would it go from 10.69 to 11.3 without an 11.0 first???

SO yeah, I think it's one of the top 2. 2 weeks, or 14 days from when he posted it would be, um January 21. That is the EXACT day one would expect Trump to return so that he can serve another term after. hmmm, maybe we really aren't fooling ourselves this time

That would have an effect on Tesla stock too of course or rather a whole game changer altogether as to why the owner of Tesla isn't too worried about his stock crashing

Also, on Brunson, we will find out Monday but they were only going to decide if they will hear it & schedule a date. If it's scheduled anytime before January 21st that would really be a good confirmation (It depends on how long they expect the case to go for - they are usually one day but considering how significant it is it might be a few days before) We will find out Monday

I stumbled onto Q via X22 about 6 months after Q's first drop. It seemed like a foreign language for about 2 months of Dave's podcasts. I felt like such a noob until things started to make sense. I came to X22 while seeking sanity and hope. You people were like finding an oasis in a desert.

Thanks, Fren.

I may have met you at a Breaking Stuff Convention.

I'm only as old as dirt, so I guess you're my elder. Thanks for the cheer-up, Fren.

Here's all the other versions. But I'm here for it!!!

https://www.notateslaapp.com/fsd-beta/

Here ya go fren, cheers!! https://greatawakening.win/p/16Zqdc2cVj/did-musk-just-set-it-off-confirm/c/

Embed doesn't work because https://qaggregator.news/ and https://qagg.news/ have been taken offline.

Let's be clear, shall we? That is a theory. To treat it like a fact is not Q-like at all -it's not what Q taught us to do.

I've listened to MajicEyes vids and decodes on LOW manual, and I think they are very good. I stated "concurrent" for that specific reason. There are, I believe (and I acknowledge when I have beliefs and don't pretend that they are facts, btw), numerous concurrent meanings.

However, I have also done a LOT of digging into LOW manual, and specifically the theories about "waiting times" required before engagement can occur, etc, and in my view, they are extremely bogus. They are premised on mis-readings of the LOW manual content + severe prejudicial interpretation + a form of hopium.

One such (nonsense, imo, although I caveat that I AM speaking rather passionately, I admit) theory that was being promoted by 107 and others who latched on to it, ONE YEAR AGO, was that for some reason (aka misreading of the LOW manual) the rightful sovereigns could NOT engage the belligerent forces for 12 months due to Geneva conventions, so when Jan 20, 2022 came around, all gloves would be off and we would see them activating and swooping in.

See: 11.3 End of Occupation and Duration of GC Obligations

Majic Eyes stuff is very high quality, but he does NOT (if I recall correctly) go so far as to throw out time period date fagging theories like some who follow on from his work and then mis-apply (imo) reasoning to the LOW manual. They do not, imo, apply the same rigorous logic and due diligence that MajicEyes does in his work.

"military may engage the occupier"

If you can specifically point me to any content that actually says this (after having been vetted for ambiguity, analysed in terms of semantics and actual langauge) then, I'm all ears.

Although it's by no means a validation of my opinions, I will mention that I professionally read texts to interpret their precise and accurate meaning for my work, and have done so for almost 30 years now: I've done legal texts, contract, legislation, medical research, civil engineering, manufacturing, journalistic texts, religious texts, etc. If I misread the meaning in texts, I don't get paid and I lose work. So that's the approach I bring when I look into and analyse something like LOW manual.

Thanks.

Ty, anon 🫡🇺🇸

Are you implying it's not real? It's fairly easy to find on his page under replies