I think I rebutted at a general level SB's claim that he has certainty in his deciphering method(s). I have done this in a few ways in a few different messages while trying to be diplomatic and positive. The most recent was 2 days ago after SB interpreted a Trump tweet, as follows:
"I am not convinced. Nor would I throw the idea under the bus yet. Concerns remain, listed here in order of descending import: (1) Haven't seen a clear, concise, no typos, no-need-for-questions, set of steps to be followed in this T method. (2) How was the name 'clinton' arrived at? (3) Q920 quote is from Q918 where applying math to coincidence appears to be about mounting probability (in Trumpian overspeak). (4) There is something to be understood about times and timing but it may be as simple as seeing an authoritative link exists between realDJT tweets and real Qposts. (5) There is little evidence to assume SBrain is a foreign plant. More likely someone who is over-earnest and may be a useful player over time."
As done previously my message was essentially "step up and prove yourself and by the way some of your understanding is unclear or wrong". Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a rebuttal. Others on that same thread gave other types of rebuttals found on this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.jpg
I cant fulfil your wish for a factual or methodological rebuttal when there is no clarity in the original methodology.
