this is how I see it.
Frankly, the way you see it is convoluted nonsense that isn’t even consistent with what is actually written. For example, there is no basis for asserting that the ‘signs in heaven’ are a ‘prelude’ to the ‘tribulation’. Your interpretation is not unique, but is one of various interpretations that have sought to make early Christian predictions ‘relevant’ after their original 1st-century expectations failed.
those around him did see him in kingdom glory. It's called the transfiguration.
There’s no evidence that it happened at all, but it’s also incorrect because Jesus ‘coming in kingdom glory’ is explicitly supposed to happen after the ‘tribulation’.