You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 17774829? [S] ago  (edited ago)

If I have made a mathematical, typograhical or operational error, or created signals that are not there, that is an error; it is a mistake; and I will be grateful for the correction.

But with all due respect, my decoding may be invalid for SB2's methods,

But that does not mean my methods and results are "wrong".

Multiple meanings are possible.

___________________________________-

  1. CAPS I do treat all caps "equally", if I have not done so please point out my error.

  2. CONTEXT I take context into account. As far as context, I am well aware of references and confirmations across multiple tweets But I have found that related tweets often have somewhat different subjects; they are not all necessarily part of one grand puzzle over multiple tweets. I am aware of references and puzzles across multiple tweets. I do not read them as well as SB2, but I am aware of them.

I am working on one now in the April Fool's series. T P R. or **2 P R **appears in consecutive tweets on April 1.
It appeared four times in one. I read it as BILL CLINTON. Do you have a different read than I do ?

  1. If my timestamp calculation has a mechanical mistake or additive , please point it out. An addition error, I will admit. A more likely read, I will concede. But I am entitled to read time stamps differently that SB2 does.

I do appreciate your call-outs and I greatly respect SB2 and his work. But SB2 and I have different methods. That does not make your method correct, and mine incorrect.

I do not claim to use SB2's decode methods, my method does not involve referring to Q drops, hence SB2's methods and mine are not going to be consistent in all particulars. I do not refer to Q drops nor claim to be working within SB2's methods, as you are.

0
0

[–] 17776741? ago 

Can you prove anything you do? SB does. That is the difference.

0
0

[–] 17779093? [S] ago  (edited ago)

I do not post unless I have a proof.

Sometimes the proof is incomplete, but I am confident of the main subject.

People don't like the proofs very much, they are like reading math equations....boring for most people and they have trouble following. I have a few examples on the TRUMPTWEETDECODES subverse.

If I am not confident of the subject, I do not post about the tweet. On a few short ones I post some proof on a thread like this, to stop people from accusing me of making it up.

0
0

[–] 17778405? [S] ago  (edited ago)

What do you mean ?

My code proofs are there in the open, in the tweet by PRESIDENT TRUMP.

SB2 requires one to give credibility to Q, an anonymous source.

My code proofs do not require you to consult anything, other than Trump's tweet.

I am not criticizing SB2, I admire him. And Q is credible to me.

But my method is closer to proof and known sources than his is.

President Trump is sending my source material, the material I am looking is from DONALD J. TRUMP.