After reading everyone else's notes I decided to have a crack at the code myself. I love algebra and I love working things out, so this was right up my street.
Unfortunately, there's no discernible relation between any of the numbers. I tried dividing second number by first (76/8) which is 9.5.
76 (number 2) times by 9.5 is not 514...the only way to get 514 from 76 would be to times by 6.8 (rounded up), so the multiplier in that case drops by 2.7.
In which case, 514 * 4.1 (6.8 - 2.7) = 2107 (rounded down)...nothing.
I've tried various other methods: adding/taking away the first two and multiplications of them, but still nothing. Heck, I don't even know how the first number was cracked (I'm guessing trial and error seeing as there's only 9 to sift through) . and then to work out 76 from that was probably a similar manner.
I tried putting the numbers in a pyramid fashion:
8
76
514
Again, nothing. 8-2 = 7. That works for 7-5 and 8-6 and 6-4. But where the hell does 1 come from? 3112? 3122? I think these have been tried already...:?
Also tried:
A (or 8) x10 = 80
80 - A * 0.5 = 76 (happens to be the second number...)
That calculation doesn't work for 76 to 514 (760 - 38 does not equal 514 or anything remotely close)
The only relationship I was able to even find (a multiplier) was after those numbers had been figured out (working from the first number alone would have to be a complete shot in the dark too) and as pointed out in my first example, this doesn't even continue onwards and even when accommodating any difference in the multiplier, nothing. Post-facto analysis just isn't yielding any results.
We do know of course the amount of numbers increases by one so far. But the whole 8, 76, 5xx -- there's no relation or correlation (if it is intentional, then it is a red herring to throw you of course. Otherwise, it's nothing more than coincidence and not an actual pattern). The INJUSTICE on the first page is just them being smart-asses and giving you a clue as to what the numbers represent (A =1, B = 2 and so on). 3E in the latest page I think is not even a clue (as much as I'd want it to be).
There's simply no connection between the first and the second nor second and third numbers (certainly not that can be extrapolated and repeated as the evidence has shown nothing).
If anyone knows exactly how the first two numbers were derived (beyond trial and error), please let us know. Right now, and at least until some more numbers are revealed, I'm calling random on the whole thing. Trial and error it is.
Check out the first few minutes.