This again proves my point. Everything you mentioned is still true for any possible date. Therefore, they do not contribute at all to the theory.
The primary contribution to the theory was to qualitatively demonstrate the likelihood of Elon behaving in this manner in general, based on personality, motives and past behavior. Without any additional facts, I'd assign a much higher baseline probability to Elon pulling a stunt like this on Twitter than the average famous person. From a Bayesian probability perspective, it's critical to attempt to establish a base rate probability from which to update beliefs with new evidence.
Additionally as
@Artful Dodger has shown, 12/9 in particular would be extraordinarily favorable timing for bear trap, especially in light of the fact that it immediately follows the deadline for Elon to exercise his 2018 Compensation Award options.
We also know that December 2021 in general is expected to have an extraordinary amount of important Tesla news and developments compared to a typical month. If, hypothetically, Elon were holding onto some bullish information and wanted to bury the shorts in a tsunami of pain while effectively taunting the SEC in the process, why not disclose it at the same time as the two largest car factories in the world are opening and as intentions for a stock split are announced? That's what I would do if I were him and that were my goal.
And for each one of your examples is a bucket full of twisted logic, questionable "math", wild-ass assumptions, and fabricated, additional data. == Confirmation bias.
The six tests listed in my prior post are exactly what I would do if I were trying to post silly semi-cryptic messages on Twitter. The examples regarding prime numbers and a couple of the others are more of a stretch but nonetheless they exist and contribute to the overall body of evidence.
And the reason nobody can pick a random date and find all the same kind of relationships, is that for 12/9, everyone knew the destination [date], and it's easy to draw a path from A-->B to find some way to magically get to 12/9. It's not really possible to pick a random new date and work backwards to the clues/hints and go from C-->A.
That's not how this timeline went. A couple Twitter users noticed an apparent 12/9 pattern first and then started to connect the dots. Subsequently, several new tweets and stock sales happened that aligned with the predictions.
If you're asserting that it was easy to start with 12/9 and selectively find evidence to support that conclusion, then it also should be equally easy to do the same for any other date.
Shouldn't we also be able to say this?
"For MM/DD, everyone knew the destination [date], and it's easy to draw a path from A-->B to find some way to magically get to MM/DD."
Or alternatively, if you're asserting that it was easy to start with tweets and then identify commonalities and spin a narrative off that, then again it should also be equally easy to do that for other similar narratives.
For instance, what about all the other tweets that don't lead to 12/9? They're just ignored because they don't fit your pre-determined conclusion (or someone hasn't found a way to link them). But they're still all valid data. How many tweets lead to 12/9 versus how many don't? You can't just ignore that dataset because it doesn't fit the narrative.
The theory presented says that Elon is trying to make major announcements and probably setting up a bear trap without getting in legal trouble. If that were the case, it's reasonable to expect that not every single tweet would relate to this because:
1) He also tweets for other reasons, like having fun and communicating with customers
2) If every tweet were related then it may be too obvious, thus weakening the legal argument I suspect
Does this make the situation more ambiguous? Of course, but it doesn't invalidate the reasoning entirely.