>>6776161

I pointed this out earlier, and then retracted my conclusion because I spotted an error in the reasoning.

It was a narrow-topic thread. I think post IDs are assigned not sequentially within a thread or bread, but sequentially within a board. A slow bread (as is common on a narrow-topic thread) will not get anywhere close sequential post IDs, because most IDs are eaten up in other (faster) threads. So the post IDs assigned in the slow thread will be widely spread out, accounting for the wide range of post IDs (over several thousands apart) that made me initially skeptical. The actual bread, as archived here, has 687 posts (which fits easily in a bread.) The wide spacing of post IDs makes sense as legitimate in the context described above. Any claim that it's fakery because of the widely separated post IDs must overcome this rebuttal.

>>6776211

Whoops, forgot the link

https://archive.fo/YJzmC

>>6776280

>>6776161

>>6776079

>>6776211

>>6776079

>>6776327

This is turning into a clusterfuck of confusion. Let me try to cut through the confusion with a sharp knife.

The original claim: A set of 8chan posts with the same user ID were (blah blah blah)

The original rebuttal: The post IDs are so far apart (several thousand) that they can't be from the same bread. Post IDs are not preserved across breads. Therefore fake.

The response: The thread was a slow narrow-topic bread that did not get consecutive post IDs because most posts were in more active threads on that board and (key point) post IDs are sequential by the BOARD NOT THE BREAD.

So the ENTIRE mess is coming down to a lot of anons engaged in bad reasoning because of bad premises leading to a FALSE (but seemingly reasonable at first glance) conclusion of fakery. (I was one of those anons at the start of all this, too.)

So PLEASE anons, can ANYONE point to a flaw in the reasoning I've presented which looks like a slam-dunk rebuttal to the "these posts aren't from the same bread, so fakery" argument?

If I'm right, it's super silly for the board to get all squishy on this point and act like there's evidence of fakery when there's clearly not.

>>6776447

Sounds good to me

Ignoring 29-post (possible shill) who responds to this with "nightshift baker pushing disinfo" but doesn't specify any factual errors in the reasoning or rational basis for declaring it disinfo

>>6776515

> I don't understand what was faked by who? The FBI faked the posts in the warrant? That's 1000000% fucking notable.

I think not in dispute: the FBI filed an affidavit including a fuzzy image of 8chan screenshots showing posts on /pol where a specific user ID had (you) in a placement indicating these screenshots originated with the post author (who is then either FBI or an FBI source)

Separate from that: Someone generated a screenshot of about a dozen additional posts (beyond what was in the affidavit) with the same user ID (which WAS in the affidavit). This was considered interesting because it provided more information (beyond what is in the affidavit) for what the post author (who is either FBI or FBI source) was doing on that day.

The claim: that this screenshot was faked. If true, this would NOT mean that the FBI faked anything, but that someone falsely attributed fake posts to either FBI or FBI source (in which case we should discount any information gleaned from those fake posts)

So far as I can tell, the ONLY evidence offered in favor of this claim is that the post IDs are so far apart that they can't be from the same bread (which would break the evidence, since user IDs are not preserved across breads, and this would indicate fakery)

However, as I've explained elsewhere in this bread, there's a slam dunk refutation of that claim. So as far as I know, there is NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that the screencaps were faked. Which would imply they are likely real 8chan posts authored by either FBI or FBI source (and not included in the affidavit)

>>6776672

We get promoted to Q?

(Sorry, but set up a straight line like that …)