>>8709707

it is notable

reposting from late pb:

here is another "coincidence" that is mathematically impossible

the hashing website is:

https://md5hashing.net/hash

the hash for this (see attached):

>—————————

yields: 2acdcbbe90b5dff7aab49da61731c8ce

Which is the ID of:

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/2acdcbbe90b5dff7aab49da61731c8ce#searchresult

and if we look at a recent post (attached):

>infiltration instead of invasion

yields: 2d74ca542dbc8c727efd419bbdb8330d

and the corresponding id is:

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/2d74ca542dbc8c727efd419bbdb8330d#searchresult

THE EXACT SAME EMAIL!

THIS IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A DELIBERATE CHOICE OF WORDS AND NUMBER OF '-' SIGNS

Please elaborate where is my analysis wrong here?

The search in the Clinton emails was done via the "email id". If you check the hashes for more symbols and stringers, it will lead you to the same ~5-7 emails. This is statistically improbable.

>>8709776

forgot to add the email. here it is:

>>8709791

Why is it a "slide"?

What is incorrect with the analysis?

>>8709822

Look for stringers, and strange symbols.

for example search for '<' on qanon.pub. If i'm not mistaken, all lines that start with this give a legit email id.

also the "RED" that looks like a cross gives you the Kyrgyzstan refugee related email (if im not mistaken).

>>8709852

>>8709866

>>8709902

interesting.

but you're wrong. It is notable

see attached:

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/105e41614214904ff6e03b0c4ae80324#searchresult

vs

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/1#searchresult

different emails. see attached.

>>8709921

see:

>>8709923

>>8709889

it is more subtle perhaps, but the digit theory isn't 100% correct:

see:

>>8709923

>>8709961

according to that anon's theory, i was wrong because the email ID search is based in the first digit, which isn't true as I demonstrated.

>>8709988

The question is how many digits does it take?

Probably it can be easily estimated given the number of distinct emails in the dump.

But overall you gave an important note, WL numbers the emails, instead of randomly IDing them.

>>8709947

not so trivial…

see:

>>8709923