What is the difference between the two versions of the manifesto?

I assume that the problem the mossad jews have is the 1st draft was written in American English, unaware that an actual New Zealander would be using British English

I presume that the 2nd draft has been edited to another one of the many holes in the isreali plot in NZ and adjusted the text to fit the nationality of the agent they chose to use for it.

That's the thing about jews, they're crafty, duplicitous and conniving but they're not truly intelligent

call me a shill but being not a burger, the english side of the internet is largely american english
there's only so many years i can shitpost on the internet until i find myself dropping the 'u's from colour and writing mum as mom

Attached: brch.png (512x512, 110.3K)

I can only assume you linked to that thread with this image because >>>/4chon/294958 no longer exists.

Of the Mediafires/Megas/SolidFiles/Zippyshares that he posted, are any still up? It doesn't appear that he attached the manifesto to that post, only a screw_your_optics.jpg file…

When was the first time a PDF was uploaded here, and did that PDF match the files in one of these 8 links?

This seems suspicious to me. If Brenton were a veteran of 8ch then surely he would know that you can attach PDFs and that 4chon allows more than one file to be attached per post. Also why is it that media is only referring to 8ch rather than "4chon on 8ch" ? Do they want people to assume it was Zig Forums?

Attached: screenshot of 12916717.jpg (1200x558, 130.81K)

er I mean because >>>/4chon/12916717 no longer exists? Wow… so since March 15 the number of posts in 4chon has more than doubled… what if this was all just a 4chon promotion stint?

Canadian here, although I do often habitually throw in the Us for colour/neighbour I sometimes catch myself just typing color/neighbor so as not to signal my wasteful nationality vowels to offend my American colleagues.

One manifesto is the original, the 2nd is bugged by feds to spy on hour computer

Interesting, simply because sherlock holms

Check the pdf using hexdump or something. Is there something after the closing PDF tag string?

Open it on a VM in which single TCP/IP connection is passed through wireshark (or equivalent): is it contacting any unknown IP addresses?

It probably has hidden messages

...

my pdf is 867 KB

Attached: 888kb.png (454x666, 82.87K)

888 KB? mine is only 765 KB

Checksum in comment. I almost always see them distributed as separate files or in text. This also lets you do shit like post the checksum first, then the file later as proof. Like “here is the checksum for my manifest; if the one you get doesn’t match it’s a fake”

I have the the 765 kb version, it contains 74 pages

Mine is 74 pages too, yet it's 733 KB. What a doozy huh?

I'm no Jimmy Neutron, but if you twisted my arm and had me venture a guess, I would say it maybe has to do with how an OS reads the file or something?

Attached: lalala.png (298x268, 7.23K)

Attached: 1552946888868.png (741x760, 756.3K)

i happened to read Brenton's thread within the hour of his posting it. of the links he posted, the only ones that worked for me were the solidfiles.com links.

the version of The Great Replacement pdf i got is the 888kb sized file. it is 74 pages. i'm not really sure why there would be a 100kb difference between the two files.

here is my 888kb version for you to download:

anonfiles.com/t4OfL1Sem0/Brenton.Tarrant.The.Great.Replacement_pdf

Might have to do with pic related, was spammed in nearly every BT thread. I linked that thread, because I found two pdfs there, of differing sizes.

Attached: d28ac653bd030ca583d5a92a6001267b02e053db5718490afc9f48329cac720f.png (530x780, 12.62K)

Did text comparison on the pdfs, only minor anomalies in spacing and redcurrant difference in the hyphenation of "ethnonationalist" to "ethno-nationalist"

recurrent*

Mine is 566kb 87pgs

Someone uploaded a copy to the blockchain that same night, I can find a link if you're interested

does anyone have the webm with the 2 gunmen in front of the school where they later caught some guy in camo?

OP, you faggot. I need a link to both versions to do anything.
This is the one I have, and I want the smaller one, or whichever is different size.

POST THEM INSTEAD OF JUST SCREENSHOTS YOU FAGGOTS
("already exists" => media.8ch.net/file_dl/d9017cfda86a09390ffcea09766374fbe270c20d7ac5e53c0d895de8d6a97231.pdf/d9017cfda86a09390ffcea09766374fbe270c20d7ac5e53c0d895de8d6a97231.pdf)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (283x284 3.13 KB, 13.66K)

There's a 3rd one

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (321x237, 131.2K)

Don't be a faggot.

Also remember that, due to compression, the larger file might not be the edited one. You could add something to a PDF and still have it smaller because of e.g., compressing that cover image a bit more. So actually having both files to compare and comparing them is necessary.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (260x337, 144.81K)

I downloaded the video directly from Facebook's CDN while it was still available, and I also downloaded the PDF within the same timeframe.

Video checksums:

MD5: b91bc94079ee7bc4f1ed4addcabe815a
SHA-1: ec51337148ef1fcffb2316fc7e455da99a38c76f
SHA-256: 2a18ecf89bd945a8a51f8e10e41f64b9bf440d076f8c7c2f45309c108872fb01

PDF checksums:

MD5: 15b88ffce58f69e5c8826057384b8137
SHA-1: f532d2448601012285c2e9c79c1e7002c476c1a8
SHA-256: d9017cfda86a09390ffcea09766374fbe270c20d7ac5e53c0d895de8d6a97231

These hashes are from using the "md5sum", "sha1sum", and "sha256sum" utilities available in Linux.

According to my timestamps, I downloaded the video at 9:16 PM, and the PDF at 10:33 PM, on 14-Mar-2019, eastern time (USA). This would have been Friday morning in New Zealand's time zone. The video I got directly from Facebook's CDN, and the PDF I got from Zippyshare, I think.

FYI, the original Facebook CDN URL, without the final filename, is/was:

scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-29/XXX.mp4

Where "XXX" is a long ID that I don't want to give here, in case it was generated for a specific user (me).

Attached: Abdul.png (478x484, 302.5K)

Mine is 74 pages and 868k reported on android.
As some have suggested, opening and resaving pdf can change filesize. Macfags always see inaccurate sizes in their OS. And you can be sure there are versions with modifications floating around.

Here is the version I have>>12933396

...

One of the pdfs is the official word document (docx) converted to pdf. The difference is the pdf has higher quality version of one of the images.

My video filesize is 69,995,058 bytes. The PDF filesize is 888,387 bytes.

Because some places consider a kilobyte 1,024 bytes, while others consider it 1,000 bytes, and because some places round, and some don't, these could probably all be considered equivalent:

888,387 bytes === 888 KB === 867 KB === 868 KB

And for the video:

69,995,058 bytes === 69 MB === 69.9 MB === 70 MB === 68,354 KB === 68,355 KB === 69,995 KB

Note that cryptographers have been able to meaningfully modify a document, and have it generate the same MD5 checksum. I can't remember if they could do it with SHA-1, SHA-256, etc. And if they can do that, making changes and simply keeping it the same file size would be trivial, notwithstanding changing its cryptographic hash.

That being said, I highly doubt that would be useful in this situation. There are simply too many copies floating around at this point, and any alterations would be obvious.

See above for original file cryptographic checksums.

Note that if you got your video second-hand, and/or re-encoded for the chans, or elsewhere, it'll have a different checksum.

I'm assuming all of you know what cryptographic checksums are. If not, suffice to say that changing a single bit in the data should hypothetically completely change the checksum, thereby making it obvious that the data has been tampered with.

Checking exact file sizes is good, but checking multiple checksums is the gold standard.

MD5 is completely broken, SHA-1 is partially broken. SHA-256 is still good and so is SHA3.

100KB is a fucking ton of metadata. If a text file contains characters that are each one byte a piece, that's 100,000 characters of information. That's four copies of the original Constitution of the United States.
Differences in image compression are far more likely to be responsible for the discrepancy.

ITT: Computer illiterate boomers spook out about NSA backdoors hidden in PDF files

Attached: enhance.jpg (380x254, 12.33K)

OP, I'm the user on 4chon who noticed there was a difference between the file sizes written by the file name links.

I'm also the autist that discovered that on this DoDbotnet site any original file link DOES NOT give the same file as an user uploads.
You only get the same hash as the original uploader when downloading over TOR clearnet. Downloading from any link over TOR onion, or non-TOR will give you a different hash to the original file uploaded.
Pic related.
I'm also the user who told you all is botnet, so realize this is a glownigger slide thread baiting faggots into admitting they downloaded the v&able document. This is why OP hasn't bothered to find out and answer the question himself. Notice how he asks (you) to do something for him, but doesn't do it or even try to do it himself, or give a reason why it needs to be done - merely suggests answers of what you might find?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1806x854, 195.16K)

time to double check all your thousands of Zig Forums pdfs's you have saved

jej

Sheeeeit, I fell for it.

Being in the United States, though, I don't think it matters. I think it's legal to possess/view/share the video and/or PDF, although certain sites may prohibit it in their legalese. Is this understanding correct?

Should have been:

69,995,058 bytes 66 MB === 66.7 MB === 66.8 MB === 67 MB === 69 MB === 69.9 MB === 70 MB === 68,354 KB === 68,355 KB === 69,995 KB

Depending on the definition of a kilobyte (1,000 vs. 1,024 bytes), a megabyte (1,000,000 vs. 1,048,576 bytes), and whether the resulting value is rounded.

for comparison

Brenton_Tarrant_Manifesto.pdf: PDF document, version 1.7
868K (888387 bytes) Mar 15 22:19

MD5SUM: 15b88ffce58f69e5c8826057384b8137
SHA1SUM: f532d2448601012285c2e9c79c1e7002c476c1a8

The_Great_Replacement.pdf: PDF document, version 1.4
733K (750768) Mar 17 15:17

MD5SUM: 94b5bdea692bfd920413e2ca202cf8be
SHA1SUM: 0d4fbe42c8e8f0889e7ac063e7a3293082cbf002

Attached: Brenton_Tarrant_Manifesto.png (774x514, 221.78K)

ffs missed one attatchment

Attached: The_Great_Replacement.png (699x378, 85.62K)

Interesting. As you noticed, the versions differ: 1.4 vs. 1.7. Original was your version 1.7, as evidenced by above cryptographic checksums.

This probably accounts for 99% of confusion out there.

If anybody has a PDF that they believe has been meaningfully altered (not just re-saved, re-compressed, etc.), then post a link. An intelligent user could print the PDF to an image, then use an image difftool to compare it to a known authentic copy. This would be a way to confirm that two documents have identical content, despite being different formats/checksums/etc.

If nobody is seeing that going on, then yeah, this is a slide thread, so sage it.

also note that the header on the 1.7 version has Brenton Tarrant as author

Eye roll. I was being very lazy in that post and have a degree in comp sci. What the fuck do you want me to say when I don’t have actual files to compare with hex editing tools?

Just want you guys to know I wholly support you, you are doing God's work, thank you

Digitally sign it

pgp really isn’t as commonly used as it should be

Wasn’t the original file a word doc? Not even a pdf? Which implies various people converted it to pdf.

Thank you, tech anons

My PDF hashes match yours. People should not consider MD5 or SHA1 reliable because both have been broken for a while. That means I can edit the content of the PDF and have it produce the same hash. SHA256 is safe but more people should use Blake2b.

People should state the byte count when talking about filesizes because there's two ways (even though one is technically wrong) to calculate filesizes in larger units. You either use base 2 or base 10. Most people are used to file appearing as base 2 (1KB = 1024B or 2^10) while some systems use base 10 numbers (1KB = 1000B or 10^3). There is no rounding involved in the calculations. Like I said, MD5 and SHA1 have been compromised for a while and should never be used or trusted. Blake2b is the best successor while SHA256, SHA512 or SHA3 is fine if you trust (((NIST))).

List the SHA256 hashes since we can't trust MD5 or SHA1.

He officially gave out both a docx and a pdf version.

Looks like I don't have the correct video. Mine is a couple megabytes smaller. Do you know of a good version right now?

sure (sha256 was not installed on this terminal);
Brenton_Tarrant_Manifesto.pdf: PDF document, version 1.7
SHA256 d9017cfda86a09390ffcea09766374fbe270c20d7ac5e53c0d895de8d6a97231

The_Great_Replacement.pdf: PDF document, version 1.4
SHA256 6b177bda177850ed87affec3a5c9c32b8ff220eb3e71c9f814c92db1fe4f68e6

further differences,
Brenton_Tarrant_Manifesto.pdf has creation dates in header

The_Great_Replacement.pdf has info in footer with later creation date

Here's my analysis using the original pdf and the one from
hastebin.com/raw/uzazorejog
Evidence points to no malicious changes. It looks to be as though a GNU / Linux user converted the docx file to pdf using LibreOffice. It uses a different font, reflowed the document, and recompressed the images. The filesize difference is from the second pdf using an extra ~100KiB on images and saving an extra ~200KiB on the fonts that are bundled in the pdf.

The only viable attack on SHA1 so far is a collision attack, not a second preimage. Collision attacks produce two different documents with the same hash, so to use the known SHA1 attack would have required the glowniggers make both versions of the file, meaning Tarrant is on the glownigger payroll.
I'm not even sure that there's a second preimage attack on MD5 yet, but MD5 collisions are trivial.

In short, unless the glowniggers have somehow gotten back to being decades ahead, for which there is no evidence with all currently available data suggesting parity between the open and glownigger cryptographic communities, or both versions of the manifesto originated from glowniggers, meaning the whole thing is a false flag, we can trust SHA1 hashes of these files.

There's also a larger video ~85MB that's simply higher bitrate for both audio and video.

I only have the word doc, downloaded from his link. I didn't think to read if they wete different. He gave about a dozen links iirc

I know. What I'm worried about is glowniggers taking down or replacing the original and spreading their altered/infected version and trying to pass it off as the original. Plausible MD5 and SHA1 collisions are very easy to produce when you contract it out to half of AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure.

Attached: 37541938_1966526830305582_6374657560997265408_n.jpg (253x199, 8.04K)

Doublepost but my file is a .docx. This is all above my head anons I just wanna know whether my pooter is kiked or not

THIS IS IMPORTANT

That is original docx. I got it from original thread.

The original was 766kb with images FYI.

(The PDF) He posted it in both docx and PDF format.

Opps sorry, my mistake the orignal PDF was 765KB and guys, just for your information right click the file to see the real size, Windows shows you the size on disk (which isn't the size of the file) rather than the actual file size, so this might also lead to some confusion.

"Size of disks" differs depending on your hard drive, etc.

Attached: ddd.png (311x147, 3.4K)

What if the PDF is a Trojan / keylogger etc?

Somebody post it in plain text

I'll have it on Pastebin in a jiffy, with links to the pictures in the original included.

Thank you

So I'm reading the manifesto, and the primary driving factor behind this is revenge for a half-deaf loli. I feel guilty in that while I had heard about these truck terrorist attacks, I never knew her name, never knew her as one of the victims. The media certainly did not put much effort into highlighting that. Why the fuck did I know Heather Heyer's name within a day, but not Ebba Akerlund?

Anyone know how to make a "do it for her" parody with Brenton and Ebba?

Attached: for imouto.png (800x420 33.24 KB, 29.28K)

there are multiple meme threads for this, try asking there

fucked up that link

No, it wouldn't, unless you read each version start to finish and memorized it for comparison to the other. One guy above pointed out hyphenation and spacing as one obvious difference, for example, and I don't think most of us would've caught that. That's just what you can SEE, too, and not whatever malicious code might be buried deep within. For all I know they've added lo-res CP to try and get people v& for reading the manifest.

What's fucked about this is that if you edit the original for legibility, that's fine: but list it as "edited by X on DATE" so that we know it's not the original!

We need a way to backtrace by date of creation/editing with the original uploads which I assume are all taken down at this point.

Need targets,
Preferably (((influential figures))

(heil'd)
Why would you re-save though? For images this is more likely, but I'm not aware of any PDF reader which alters PDFs without telling you.

I think what you're talking about was just a collision (making two random files with the same MD5) but I don't think they'd bother because even just the SHA1 would be different (moreso for SHA256) and it would raise huge suspicion if found out.

>You only get the same hash as the original uploader when downloading over TOR clearnet. Downloading from any link over TOR onion, or non-TOR will give you a different hash to the original file uploaded.
THE FUCK???!!!=

Attached: excuse me what the fuck.jpg (480x451, 15.36K)

Israel

plaintext incoming. if its not up tomorrow ill do it myself

If he cared about white children he would not be deliberately convincing Muslims to retaliate.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-19 at 12.05.27 AM.png (252x72, 8K)

Fair enough.

In any case, the original file checksums are above, including MD5, SHA-1, and SHA-256, for the original Facebook live stream video, and for the PDF.

All I have heard of is people becoming confused about KB vs. KiB, MB vs. MiB, filesize rounding confusion, size on disk confusion, and PDF vs. docx confusion.

I have not seen or heard of any maliciously modified copies floating around.

Therefore, time to sage this thread. It's a needless distraction.

This. And of course, we would find out.

Summary

Summary:

``Original Facebook live stream video:``

Size: ==69,995,058 bytes==
SHA-256: ==2a18ecf89bd945a8a51f8e10e41f64b9bf440d076f8c7c2f45309c108872fb01==

``PDF uploaded to Zippy:``

Size: ==888,387 bytes==
SHA-256: ==d9017cfda86a09390ffcea09766374fbe270c20d7ac5e53c0d895de8d6a97231==

Whoops, formatting.

Summary

Original Facebook live stream video

Size: 69,995,058 bytes
SHA-256: 2a18ecf89bd945a8a51f8e10e41f64b9bf440d076f8c7c2f45309c108872fb01

PDF uploaded to Zippy

Size: 888,387 bytes
SHA-256: d9017cfda86a09390ffcea09766374fbe270c20d7ac5e53c0d895de8d6a97231

funny how a plain text file wasn't uploaded instead of suspicious PDFs and DOCXs where script can be executed was shared

dont update your iphone or any software for that matter

actually i'm on the fence about updates, patches could be repaired, but backdoors could be introduced

I want to see the video someone send me that shit or drop a link to it or someshit

Attached: 50616EAB-4D01-41F7-8A00-6B6193CB2DF5.jpeg (640x640, 62.18K)

Because it wasn't convenient for the narrative for you to know Ebba Akerlund but it was for you to know Porky Pig.

Wrong. See my analysis here
That file was created shortly after the shooting.

Don't use PDF, use an open format like EPUB. Convert it when you can

Is there a way to convert a PDF to ePub while actually conserving formatting, font, and style? I'm having trouble doing so with an advanced document.

Great, supposing that is the original file, of course. Now please also post the stats of the bigger files for comparison so we can easily identify things on the web as one, the other, or a 3rd outlier?

I remember seeing 2 different sizes in the same thread. This isn't due to KB v KiB because 8ch would display the same way.

MD5? Your phone can do it in less than an hour.
SHA1? Google needed most of a year to produce the SHAttered collision.

> THE FUCK???!!!
KikeFlare has a feature they call "Polish" that recompresses images if they sit in the cache long enough. Zig Forums is currently serving all image requests via the clearnet site. The .onion redirects to media.8ch.net on http which redirects to media.8ch.net on https which actually returns the file from the (((cache))). I haven't done the analysis to determine if ((("Polish"))) is deterministic or is somehow tagging the ((("polished"))) files yet.
This previously only affected images. Videos and PDFs always came straight through, but I've been observing the occasional (((polished))) video lately and its possible some (((cache))) servers may be performing similar processing on images inside PDFs under unknown conditions.

KikeFlare really needs to be ovened.