>>8712065

Anon, I made a detailed post about this in the last bread and was called a divisionfag because it made a mockery of that whole thing.

Anything can be searched for in the Wikileaks dumps, the search term isn't exacting.

If for example you search for the literal term "1XXXXXXX" you'll get the first E-mail in the drops.

If you search for literal "2XXXXXX" you'll get the second email in the drops.

When the Wikileaks search can't find an exact match, it defaults to the number to the left-most of the search string and pulls the numbered email from that.

In other words, unless your search term isn't found as a word, isn't found as an EXACT hash string, then it defaults to the left-most number instead.

ONLY if you search for a string that doesn't begin with a number does it return 0 results.

>>8712307

Look, I'm gonna be kind, Anon, because others have been not so kind to me tonight…

In all honesty, no. I'm not calling any a shill, or deliberately perpetrating a slide post, or anything of the sort. Shit's crazy right now, people are restless, Anons aren't comfy, Q's not posting, and shills have been shitting the bread all night long.

To answer your question, I would say logically you could take any E-mail out of that piss-filled cauldron that is Hillary's Email server and find something to connect to in any of the Q posts. It's in our nature to make those kinds of connections.

But let me give you some insights into why that assertion wouldn't be logical. And I'm going to use words and not pics because, I'm too fucking tired right now to try and rope up some graphics.

The purpose of Hash generation is to take a string of letters and/or numbers and convert them into an output of a predetermined length. It's a one-way street. Barring a brute force attack, it's EXTREMELY difficult to determine a known hash and find the exact key that was needed to generate that Hash.

The fact that you're searching for hashes is irrelevant, the hashes aren't in the E-mails, they have nothing to do with the E-mails. It would be convoluted and meaningless to try and find a string of gibberish to generate a hash with and get a result that would pull up the E-mail you directly intended. When all you need is two, maybe 3 numbers, maybe 4 at the most at the beginning of the string.

It'd be like someone building a Rube Goldberg machine that does 2 hours of random shit just to knock a ping-pong ball into a cup.

Like I said, you can take any Hash key you want and plug it into the Wikileaks search and get a result from the Emails. It's more of a flaw in their search algorithm, and people not understanding that fact, than it was anything being figured out.

But I'm not going to tell you what to do or what to believe, do your own research, if you want to pursue this then by all means, but what I've pointed out to you is factually accurate.

>>8712262

Looks like someone just MSPaint sprayed on some pubes.

>>8712546

Baker, the following isn't notable:

>>8712065 Anon finds hash coding in Q posts which connect to Wiki Clinton emails

This has been debunked time and time again, there's been many replies to this anon why it's not notable and exactly how and why it's been clearly debunked.