You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash.
No, you couldn't, and I explained why.
If you believe that, you are dumber than I thought.
Perhaps you aren't even a programmer?
Of course one can write a script to hash all continuous portions of the Sartre document and check against the hash and then show that he could not possibly be correct with any contiguous portion of the Sartre document that was claim to have been signed for.
Please don't waste my time with your inane inability to understand rudimentary concepts. Even Yarkol already explained it.
I want you to prove you understand how cryptographic hash functions are constructed and prove you have knowledge about how collision attacks are often constructed. Because these are things I had researched in the past.
Why should I? I'm not the one making outlandish claims about the subject. You are, and I doubt (based on the fact that your posts are nonsense) that you have actually researched it in any capacity.
I will proceed to explain once you confirm that do not understand why MerkleDamgård construction is relevant? Either explain or admit you don't know. So I can proceed to teach you something. You are wasting my scarce time with your stalling/deception tactics and trolling.
Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume.