At first, I doubted it too, just like you. But after seeing the evidence, I think you haven’t really read the whole thread. Anyway, this ain’t my fight, so I’ll respect your take.
I'm afraid I haven't really seen the evidence you're referring to.
If it's about the "winnings" when compared with the same traversal order sibling method, then you are a victim of not understanding some basic statistics, and actually believing the psychedelic explanations, which lack any sort of theoretical basis or proofs whatsoever, let alone actual empirical results. It is totally irrelevant even if the so-called "better" method has 100% wins and solves stuff a billion times faster than some other method, if it only takes 5 seconds to come up with a counter-method that not only isn't so easy to beat, but it actually wins more. Isn't that something that, maybe, uhm... would make someone wonder why it happens? Perhaps because there was a linkage between how the methods were compared, when such a linkage should never exist?
All the tests / experiments / results / scripts so far that the troller claims to "not have proven anything" have all demonstrated that a uniform distribution doesn't give a shit about what strategy you use to attack it. It's retarded to ever think that if some
whatever search method can be completely obliterated by 3 lines of code, that it somehow broke cryptography. The only thing broken about it is common sense.