You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Sallywuffs ago  (edited ago)

I am sympathetic, sometimes it is hard for me to go back and understand my own notes. I have trouble following SB2 sometimes, and do not use all of his methods or even refer to Q drops.I stay totally within the published tweet.

Decoding is not for everyone.

The trouble is that unless I publish the decode"proof" and reasons for my speculations, a lot of people will scream that I am just making it up.

I never make an assertion on a decode unless I can back it up with the clues and the "proof"; but I usually do not publish the full proof, unless I am challenged for "making it up". Most people cannot follow or are not interested.

And there are many ways to interpret the codes...I do not claim to be 100% correct in my decodes, nor do I claim to understand their meaning. They are inherently vague and "deniable".

But in the tweet cited above, there are 5 references that can be interpreted as pointing to Barack Obama (plus one to Hillary); and the tweet occurred within 24 hours of Q posting portraits of six individuals in the Obama administration suspected as being involved in treason.

So whether the coded occurrence of "44" and "H" five times in a short tweet is a coincidence or not, each person will have to decide for themselves.

I posted the proof because Lysolhead expressed hope that Barry and Hillary would be included in the party, and my decode happened to hit on that particular sentiment. Of course, it could all be a coincidence...this possibility must be admitted. But it is not a possibility that I consider likely, although I admit there may be errors in my method or its meaning. For example, Huma Abedin could be indicated in one of the references.

0
0

[–] hildberht [S] ago 

Fully respect what you do and why. Just struggle with, that's all. But that's why this board is helpful, people with different skills, different ideas and different opinions tackling the Q interpretation.

0
0

[–] Sallywuffs ago  (edited ago)

The decode I posted on Obama (44-8-H multiple times)is a great example.

Q posted pix of the "Dirty Seven" (Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Lynch, Rice, Yates, and Lynch) with NO COPY, just headlines indicating the role they played in OBAMA's administration.

So the posts point at Obama as much as they point at the individuals in the portraits.

The repetitive appearance of "Obama" in code five times in a concurrent TRUMP tweet is thus a strong circumstantial confirmation both of the code in the tweet, and the real implications of the Q posts.

But each is independent of the other, and does not rely on the other reference.

0
0

[–] Sallywuffs ago  (edited ago)

I read Q and tend to believe the hints and narrative there...but my decodes are completely independent of Q. SB2 refers back to a lot of Q material and Q drops, but my decodes are completely independent of Q. They are done only with reference to the internals in Trump's tweets, though naturally I get informed on names and ideas from Q and Qanon.