2580 Comments

The truly deceptive fact that is ignored herein, is that the vote was stopped at a point by each of the Democratic polling places in swing states where voting irregularities took place, that had President Trump leading by wide margins. These coincidental time stoppages, (mid- 4am) enabled pollsters to be able to determine just how many votes were needed to be added by the mailin ballots to over come Trump's lead. Then they resumed the count bringing in ballots (likely that generally only had a single presidential vote for Biden on it, with no other down ballot vote, also likely an illegal vote), proving that those were likely illegal votes, just because of that suspicious indicator! Either we fight for only the honest votes or we might as well never trust any voting again!

Expand full comment

There’s got to be a pony in here somewhere. I mean, all that horseshit.

Expand full comment

IT must be coming from Putin!!!

Expand full comment

No. The GOP knows how to cheat and make up complete misleading bullshit all on their own. I would love to discuss issues and policy. Obviously, you know nothing about the subject.

Expand full comment

the Democrats (a criminal syndicate masquerading as a political party) has been stuffing ballot boxes since 1868; they've got a 152 year head start. So take your indoctrinated schizophrenia and go suck ChiCom wiener.

Expand full comment

You assholes stole the election, so watch what you say punk!

Expand full comment

Your orange chimp lost in a landslide, SUCKER BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Expand full comment

bull shitskies. TFG, on his egotistical power trip, couldn't conceive of the possibility of losing (losing isn't a possibility for a narcissist ) so seven months before the election he cooked up a rationale for what if he did lose? Well it couldn't happen, so if it appeared that he lost it had to be because of massive fraud. He spent seven months building up that, conning his base, so they were all on board with his bull shit when he did lose. Problem was, he had NO - ZERO- credible evidence. But he conned you and much of the country that he was right, lack of facts be damned.

Expand full comment

I’m on your side. Trump will be re-elected, even if it has to be a reverse Coup. A Coup of the Coup.

It’s funny they used the same language with the initial Hunter Biden story. “Baseless claims”, “disinformation”, and it has backfired.

It takes the truth a little time to push through the lies. FB, Google, and Twitter will not succeed in suppression. Section 230 will be repealed and they will immediately get hit with a steady stream of lawsuits. There will not be enough lawyers to defend them all.

Expand full comment

he doesn't care if he's elected or shoved in in a coup - as long as he has power. then welcome to the FSA - FASCIST STATES OF AMERICA, because all he cares about his himself and his power trip.

Expand full comment

Go ahead. Discuss. I am quite versed in all this and I will take you up on it. Go first. Oh, I do not mean advanced math so stay away from all of that.

Expand full comment

I have a math PHD, I can help translate if you would like.

Expand full comment

Your animal/feces fetish distracts from your twin strengths: Off-topic and incoherent ranting.

Expand full comment

If “in there” were a pony, “all that” would be ponyshit.

Expand full comment

Feces fetish + Bestiality = Ben Dover

His animal/manure obsession overrides even a semblance of credibility.

Expand full comment

Wow. You mean low life trolls, with most likely less than G.E.D. education exist in this academic environment? The comment says it all

Expand full comment

The "fact checkers" point out that all these spikes were due to the largest cities in these states all reporting their absentee votes in one batch that was heavily skewed to Biden. This ignores the fact that these ballots were counted in secret without party observers and may well have contained unregistered, illegal, or multiply counted ballots. The Wayne county recount found 171,000 votes that did not correspond to registered voters but were certified anyway. The fact that they all showed up at the same time looks more like the old-fashioned "bums rush" approach to ballot stuffing. Without thorough audits of these ballots no one can be sure this was legitimate at this point.

Expand full comment

Yeah they cheated heavily and now they lie. Coming up with all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify this. Yet in summary, this whole thing is so off that the committed fraud is obvious to everyone with two eyes. I really hope they strike this down in the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment

Yeah, you don’t offer any credible evidence of such. Um.....Bullshit

Expand full comment

You should go back to troll school, snowflake.

Expand full comment

Actually he just did

Expand full comment

Says this BentOver one on a page full of credible evidence. As Another One said, and I paraphrase, "if you were blind then you'd have an excuse for not seeing the truth, but since you insist that you can see, then you are simply a liar."

Expand full comment

Trolls like Bennie are too stupid to read or comprehend the article

Expand full comment

If TFG had actual verifiable facts, he wouldn't have has to beg, plead, and harass election officials to change the counts. but he didn't. He lost, fair and square. .

Expand full comment

SCOTUS will strike this down and Trump is coming out on top. He will not let them get away with this. 98.5% of his base do not want him to concede because he did not lose. He is actually winning electorally if the country was run legally. It is contested and there was no deadline constitutionally and until SCOTUS rules, nobody officially won any of those states that Google wants to censor and claim is over. It is actually funny because nobody is noticing or fighting for the obvious. The entire situation should have stopped at the poll watchers being persecuted all over the swing states in a strategic Hitler like method, which they always forget to hold a mirror in front of their face when they make accusations. The problem we have is that we let them change the subject and then go along the rabbit trail that leads nowhere.

It is like:

Rep: You killed this person

Dem: No I did not

Rep: We have footage

Dem: you guys cheat

Rep: No we dont

Dem: How about 20 years ago

Rep: that was a one time thing

Dem: You are in trouble you murderer

Rep: No. Im not

Social Media: Rep fact checked and proven to be murderer

MSM: Rep are murderers

General Public, Academia, Hollywood: Rep are murderers. You guys are racist and you are trying to stage a Coup

Rep: Holy crap. How did we get here?

It should have been like:

Rep: Overwhelming Evidence of Fraud

Judge: Here, take all these Electoral Votes back

Dem: Shit we got caught

Expand full comment

It is like...you've mixed your drinks, hit the crack pipe and truly let rip!!!

Expand full comment

perhaps fact checkers might learn about facts, in a comfort of a prison cell

Expand full comment

No whichever side you are on facts and fact checkers are a positive . let the data challenge your perceptions and free you from your prison cell echo chambers. Were all in them.Most people on both sides of this are good people. I made mistake of engaging deeply a few weeks back and can already sense I'm getting annoyed and ruder with my posts

Expand full comment

Let's just start over and count all the votes, every single one. then we can watch him lose all over again.

Expand full comment

The ballots were not counted in secret and there were republican and democrat observers. trumps lawyers have admitted this in court because they cannot lie there the way they can in the media.

Expand full comment

And funny how these only happened in swing states. You would think NYC or LA or Chicago, or some of the other heavily urban areas would have similar vote dumps.

Expand full comment

These swing states are where Republican controlled legislatures prohibited any absentee ballot processing before election day. The spikes happened long after election-day in-person votes have been counted, leaving absentees, which already lean blue, but furthermore are from heavily blue large population centers. Not saying audits or recounts shouldnt happen, but to say that thspikes prove fraud is simply insufficient. Quite the contrary, if audits and recounts turn up no large disparities, and courts ultimately rule against Trump then all sides should abide by the election. Same goes if the supreme court rule for Trump

Expand full comment

Most of the states have rules that don't allow any processing of ballots until election day. Pennsylvania has this law but in the larger heavily Democrat cities it was ignored and ballots were opened before election day. Voters whose ballots had errors were called and allowed to come correct their errors. That in itself is not illegal but it can't be done before election day. The rural areas, more Republican, followed the state law. Having extra time to do this is a big advantage. Furthermore, not every state counts ballots in the same order. Some count mail-in/absentee ballots first, some last, and some don't follow any order. The one huge vote dump in MI or WI had a 95%-5% ratio. That big of a ratio could only be seen in DC and even there it wouldn't be all at once. In a state that was close or very close it just doesn't happen without a lot of ballot stuffing.

Expand full comment

The spikes happened in the early morning hours of Wednesday. There was no meaningful oversight of paper ballots coming in or the tallying of the non-paper votes.

Sending millions of unsolicited ballots left millions left over for the election officials to play with. Democrats and their values are disastrous to the continuance of our republic.

This is a communist(=globalist) movement embedded in our society that needs to be dealt with.

Expand full comment

go to bed, baby

Expand full comment

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Ole republics should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light of freedom.

Expand full comment

Democrats improved from 2016 to 2020 by 2.7% in non battleground states and 2% in swing states on average. Much of new York just came in last week post this study which is why lead now 7 million plus. No clue on LA. Detroit hugely democrat and the dump percentage actually better than Republicans normally do.

Expand full comment

Detroit. 3% republican 2016 2% 2012. 1.8% 2008. Trump did better in than dump than that and you don't even have to factor maiI in so he did considerably better than I would have expected. Just straight percentage...sense I'm becoming obsessed ..posted this 100 times and still waiting to see if one person who didn't already lean toward my view of the analysis would find it compelling

Expand full comment

This "analysis" is garbage. The timing of when votes are reported doesn't have to follow any particular pattern.

Expand full comment

Yes. Actually the do. It’s called science. Don’t you trust the science?

Expand full comment

This is math not science. There are no testable hypotheses in this piece. The only thing their math shows is that it takes longer to count votes when they are in bigger groups(i.e. cities) and that each of the 4 states has a big city with lots of democratic voters.

Expand full comment

I’m a Mathematician/statistician. Yes math is science. And data follows a smooth curve when there is enough of it. When it doesn’t, that alone is evidence of fraud. Not to mention all the rest. Tell me you science credentials. And if you don’t think math is science then don’t ever see a dr or get the vaccine or believe Covid etc... because we’re the guys that do all the science there.

Expand full comment

A masters degree in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech. This may help explain it to you:

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

There is also a more fundamental way to resolve the question of you received more votes. It's called an audit, which Georgia did, a recount which Wisconsin and Georgia did, and extensive controls like 3 memeber(democrat, republican, indecent) teams to count votes and certify votes which every state did.

Expand full comment

Not at all impressed with your engineering degree as it relates to mathematics/statistics. I’m married to an engineer and have a son that’s an engineer. I also worked with all engineers with a DoD contractor for many years. You guys are not too good with math and statistics. And no nothing like that happened. They simply recounted the fraud. There were no controls. It was a duplication of election night.

Expand full comment

Exactly right. Yes, the ballot stuffing was done. The envelopes were not preserved. It was impossible to verify the ballots. They just re-counted. It was not a forensic examination.

Expand full comment

Your husband/son must be environmental or sanitation engineers or perhaps one of the many backyard engineers that make perpetual motion machines. As for your abilities you've stated none but I'm certain my skills are far better than yours. While I know it's difficult to face the reality that to actually steal a presidential election, “the size of the conspiracy would have to be enormous”. It would require a mole in 1000's of election precincts or the Postal Service, such a conspiracy would require a coordinated, mailbox-to-mailbox operation, one with access to a huge stolen database of voter signatures and Social Security numbers. This simply did not happen. If you can't fathom that, you are simply going to have to sulk because Biden will take office on January 20, 2021 and you will have participated in making the country less great not more.

Expand full comment

"They simply recounted the fraud."

Circular reasoning. You have no evidence of fraud. The Trump campaign hasn't introduced any evidence in court. They can assert any old nonsense in the media, but not in court.

Expand full comment

You're a joke !

Expand full comment

Georgia merely recounted already counted fraudulently entered ballots. And...they prevented observers from observing. Oh, and then there are the commercial PO Boxes having multiple absentee ballots associated with each, resulting in a multiplier. Oh...and then there are the people who found out someone had voted for them, and their provisional was not counted. Apparently you have not looked at the non-compliant things GA officials did.

Expand full comment

audit can only uncover counting errors but not a fraud. the only fundamental way to resolve ALL issues is to redo voting in the disputed areas.

Expand full comment

Audits would need to compare paper ballot counts against machine tabulated numbers, I am not sure that this has been done or can be done! The statistical analysis of the data, assuming the 50 States use similar procedures is useful to identify counts that don't conform. It points out anomalies to target further investigations. The report clears most of the States and points to areas for further scrutiny. There was fraud, this has been proven, the next step is to determine if it was enough to affect the election.

Expand full comment

U clearly passed the stupid exam and failed common sense. In the Audit GOP wanted signatures verified because counting fraudulent votes is still fraud. This FRAUD is centered on the basic premise of include fraudulent votes into the mix where they cannot be discerned from legitimate votes. Only option all votes not verified are failed - option sue the election committee (all Democrats)

Expand full comment

While engineering uses math, it's not a degree that lends itself to statistical analysis

Expand full comment

"While engineering uses math, it's not a degree that lends itself to statistical analysis"

Tell that to all the people who specialize in machine learning, control systems, communication theory, or operations research.

Expand full comment

LOL. You know nothing about the field.

Expand full comment

Disagree your math. 1000 small dumps of little townships and one big dump of a large city such a Philadelphia. How do you compare these different data dumps mathematically? Philadelphia has 94% for Biden, is that not allowed?

Expand full comment

Hypothetical test: let's redo voting in the disputed areas. it's not going to take a lot of both time and money and would remove any doubts. now name a single democrat who would support this.

Expand full comment

If I'm the loser, of course I will challenge the winner: do you dear to redo the areas that you won?

but why the winner should follow? If every-time the loser does this, when are we going to finish?

You call it hypothetical test. I'm sorry I call it loser mentality.

Expand full comment

NOT WHEN IN OTHER BIG CITIES HE DIDN'T GET THAT HIGH A VOTE!

He did worse than Hilary & Obama everywhere except the 5 major cities in swing states.

Expand full comment

2016 Texas: Hilary 3,877,868 (43.24%)

2020 Texas: Biden 5,259,126 (46.5%)

2016 Florida: Hilary 4,504,975(47.82%)

2020 Florida: Biden 5,297,045(47.9%)

2016 Philadelphia: Hillary 584,025(82.53%)

2020 Philadelphia: Biden 603,790 (81.4%)

Why don't you look at the real data before you make such a false statement?

Biden is doing better than Hilary almost everywhere but in Philadelphia he actually not as good as Hilary's 82.53%

Expand full comment

Yeah its not allowed because you could go to literally any precinct in the entire country and if you run an audit and verify and only count the legal registered votes in that precinct there is no way in hell Biden is taking 94 percent of the vote. So no it's not allowed.

Expand full comment

why Taxes some ridiculous high trump support counties are allowed?

Expand full comment

Watch a video explaining the anomalies. I can’t possibly educate you here. And no it’s not just mathematically and statistically improbable, it’s impossible. 1/62,000 chance is 0 chance. It’s math. Clearly you can’t do arithmetic.

Expand full comment

1/62,000 chance is because the calculation is flawed. It happen every election year, it is an almost 100% chance.

Expand full comment

Like the lottery. Impossible.

Expand full comment

Philadelphia went 85% for Obama, 82% for Hillary. This year, Philly shows 81% Biden(95% reporting). So, yes, a single LARGE dump showing 94% for Biden would be suspect. A small report from Philly showing 94% would be expected and is accounted for in the analysis. The article compares margin and log-ratio for this reason. In fact, nothing from PA shows up as anomalous in this particular analysis (which isn't to say there was no cheating in PA, if you watched the PA legislature hearing from the end of November, you'll see a forensic analyst claiming PA had suspicious updates happening consistently throughout the day-- but I haven't done a close look at those claims yet).

In the article above, you can see a HUGE dump from NY shows up in the outliers with the swing state updates. But some boroughs of NYC went 88% for Hillary, and even then outlier update in the NYT data is still only around 80% for Biden. Also, the big NY update happened around 9:00 PM, not in the middle of the night, so really no surprises there. Plus, it's New York. The city alone has 8 million people, only slightly less than the entire state of Michigan.

Expand full comment

Let's go into details. The article analyzed four abnormal data dumps, two of them in MI:

"An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump".

"An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump".

Let's add the two MI dumps together, it is 195,755 votes for Biden, 10,686 votes for Trump. That is 94.8% for Biden, 5.2% for Trump.

Let's look at Detroit, according to https://detroitmi.gov/webapp/election-results , Detroit as whole, 233,908 votes for Biden, 12,654 votes for Trump. That's 94.9% for Biden, 5.1% for Trump.

Now, do you really think the two abnormal data dumps are indication of fraud? Or do you think these two large dumps are both come from Detroit?

Expand full comment

" Yes math is science."

What? No it's not. Mathematics- inductive and deductive reasoning- is a branch of philosophy. It is NOT science.

"And data follows a smooth curve when there is enough of it. When it doesn’t, that alone is evidence of fraud."

^No real scientist would say something as nonsensical as this.

Expand full comment

You’re an idiot.

Expand full comment

You're a cunt.

Expand full comment

Mathematics is a language of numbers. While a language, it is a hard language, not a soft-philosophical one. At its core, mathematics is the stuff of the matrix which expresses the interrelatedness of all things. And yes, non-conforming points from data curves can indicate anomalies (which could be interpreted as identifying suspect data points...and in this case, fraud.)

Expand full comment

Excuse me, neither a scientist nor mathematician, but smart enough to know that this is bs: "When [data] doesn't [follow a smooth curve], that alone is evidence of fraud."

Expand full comment

I agree with you except for the "evidence of fraud". Their is evidence of an outlier that cant be explained. The next step would be to identify all the factors that may cause the outlier to test if these factors can in fact explain it. Unfortunately with only four observations this isnt going to be likely so we have four outliers that we cant explain. This in itself does not prove fraud.

Expand full comment

They appear pretty easy to explain. Also analysis would no longer show them close to biggest outlier I believe anymore ...I did not rerun this analysis. .big chunk of New York just came in earlier today and bumped Biden's lead by additonal 600k to 6.94 million dwarfing these others but for same general reason....areas of hugely democratic big cities.

Expand full comment

Correction my 600k increase in lead was right and Biden now up 7.05 million but my ratio is off and it wasn't the largest as I implied. Nothing needed , double checked all the Detroit data I posted and that was correct. Trump outperformed historically in that data dump

Expand full comment

Wrong. These don’t represent single data points but 1,000’s of votes. That proves massive fraud. There’s also many other points. Such as the physical impossibility of inputting these at the rate they were tabulated.

Expand full comment

Exactly right. It's amazing to me that so many self-professed geniuses in this discussion only accept a single possibility for whatever statistical anomaly they think they've found. The irony is this: By accepting only a single possible explanation, they show how little they know about statistical analysis. That includes you Jared. You too T-B-V.

Expand full comment

Yes, math is science, that's not the problem here. Explain to me how a "smooth curve" is applied to the "REPORTING OF VOTES" timing. This analysis isn't "complaining" about the physical count of votes, but the UPDATES. The process of REPORTING VOTES is dictated by the office of the secretary of state in each of these states. That's not to imply that the process is fixed and unchanging. So, I'll ask again, how do you curve fit that process?

Expand full comment

Smooth curve applies to reporting of votes because votes are reported in batches of different size. The relevant expectation here, which you would understand if you had spend more time reading the article instead of posting disingenuous attacks in the comments, is that as the margin of victory for any given reported batch of votes increases, the probability of an extreme ratio decreases.

In theory, it doesn't really matter the mechanism for sorting the report batches. So long as the reporting mechanism is agnostic with regards to the content of the vote totals, the assertion should hold. Take 2016 San Francisco as an example. It went 85% for Hillary, with about 400,000 votes. Imagine 100,000 votes are reported in a batch. What are the odds of 96,900 of those will all be reported for Hillary? Almost zero. It does not matter where they came from at this point. The ratio is just too skewed to be believable for a sample of 100,000 votes, even in a place where we know is already heavily skewed.

What you need to explain, is why anyone would any state selectively withhold reports of Biden votes, only to report them all in the dead of night under circumstances that immediately makes everyone suspicious of fraudulent activity?

Expand full comment

I fully understood the "expectation" as you call it. I don't know that the homogeneity of the batches must follow the expectation that you have. It's been a while but shouldn't a confidence interval calculation have been done here? The author uses the phrase "almost impossible to believe" which, honestly, you don't see in papers that would be submitted for peer review. I hope this work is thoroughly reviewed by experts who also have access to the data needed to do a proper review. As to your question about "witholding" the reporting, I hope a thorough investigation provides you with an answer.

Expand full comment

I’m not sure what your asking. But a large vote dump with a distribution of 99% to Biden between 1 and 4 am, that couldn’t be inputted at the rate it was, where the ballots can’t be produced is fraud. Just the 99% alone is fraud.

Expand full comment

I can't speak to the "rate of input" but the posts here by "Ross Stalker" touch on factors that could explain it. I tend to agree that 99% of any particular batch, of a significant size of course, would raise eyebrows. I just haven't researched that particular claim enough to be able to comment.

Expand full comment

It points out anomalies to target further investigations. The report clears most of the States and points to areas for further scrutiny. There was fraud, this has been proven, the next step is to determine if it was enough to affect the election.

Expand full comment

Where has the fraud been proven?

Expand full comment

Not much of one, apparently. There's no reason for the cumulative value over time of non-random discrete count data to be a smooth curve.

Expand full comment

Actually there is. There are only two reasons a curve isn’t smooth: not enough data or fraud. The more data, the more smooth the curve. And we have plenty of data here. And “non-random discrete data” is complete gibberish. Is that something the Ministers of Propaganda told you? Discrete variables have nothing to do with actuals. Lol.

Expand full comment

You've already made clear in other posts that you are almost certainly lying about your background. If you think that "discrete data" is gibberish, you are obviously not a mathematician or statistician. I'm only being combative because of your attitude toward other comments here.

Discrete data can only take on specific values. You can't have 0.52852 votes. In this data, some ranges of values are less frequent than others. Most of the updates were very small. The top tenth percentile in the Edison data were around 30,000 and they range up to over 1,000,000. If you look at the distribution of update sizes (I have) it is not Gaussian. It's not even log-normal and may follow a power law distribution.

So in a sense it is sort of true that it is due to a lack of data, but not because of sample size but because of either how things happened to be reported or, if it is correlated to counties, because there is not actually a smooth distribution of populations in reality.

The updates themselves are not random samples of state-wide votes; an update might be heavy on mail-in ballots from part of a city, each of which might be biased toward one candidate. Together, it could make it very biased. But that would vary from city to city. The variation in vote ratio goes up with size. This is evidence supporting variation between cities and suggests that there are confounding variables.

Combine those factors, you will probably see large sudden jumps in any cumulative plot of total votes. Since larger updates are also more rare, there is not enough data to be confident enough to call any of these anomalies.

Expand full comment

Your statement: "When it doesn't, that alone is evidence of fraud." This is 100% incorrect. It is evidence of a yet to be explained influence. You, and so many others, want to believe it is fraud but it may be something else.

Expand full comment

The only safe way to explain it is to tell the 6 states that they must not certify results. Trump is then the President.

Biden should be allowed to challenge on the basis that all 6 states hand over the machines ballots envelopes and any video etc to a special investigator with bi partisan control. The scope will be to charge ANYONE found guilty of any fraud with TREASON.

I would put money on Biden saying he is just going to moan for the next 4 years. None of the senior party or the heads of Google/Facebook/Twitter etc etc and 90% of the press would dare risk the death penalty

Expand full comment

Guess what, anyone found guilty of this type of election fraud would not be convicted of treason. Look it up.

Expand full comment

"The only safe way to explain it is to tell the 6 states that they must not certify results." That sentence makes no sense.

Expand full comment

Oh enlighten us wise one. It’s fraud. It’s called forensic evidence. 🤡

Expand full comment

If you saw data that showed trump outperformed republicans in this dataset for detroit since.at least 2008 would that change your mind on that one item. I'm having similar discussion with someone not online and trying to figure.out how to reach them. Also on the other side I have someone that has went the other way and literally thinks trump is controlled by the devil and I'm trying to reach them as well. These are both good people and feel like they are.both going.down a rabbit hole and trying out logic and data on a.bunch of sites to see what resonates and.feels.like nothing does with either extreme and its really depressing

Expand full comment

Still waiting for an answer....

Expand full comment

You have what you feel is "evidence", of something. Fine. Why can it _only_ be evidence of fraud? Just answer that simple question...

Expand full comment

It quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck. You- it might not be a duck.

Expand full comment

Try not to be a simpleton.

Expand full comment

When you actively destroy evidence before everything is settled you are OBVIOUSLY hiding something.

Why not verify signatures?

Why separate envelopes from ballots?

Why no voter I.D.?

Why not make it mandatory to REQUEST a mail in ballot if you want 1?

Why disregard established law in states and accept ANY ballot regardless of errors or omissions?

Why stop the vote counting?

Coincidence that every state that stopped the vote counting and discovered Trump was WAY up suddenly had HUGE vote dumps for Hidin Biden?

Any 1 anomaly is rare. Each additional anomaly favoring the same side raises the incidence of fraud exponentially.

To disregard that is just dishonest at best.

Expand full comment

You're bringing up some very "big picture" issues and I'm trying to stick to this particular mathematical analysis and interpretation. And states didn't "stop the voting". Let's see your proof they did.

Expand full comment

Your statement: "When it doesn't, that alone is evidence of fraud." This is 100% incorrect. It is evidence of a yet to be explained influence. You, and so many others, want to believe it is fraud but it may be something else.

Expand full comment

It’s fraud

Expand full comment

That's what I thought. Giving you a red heart here.

Expand full comment

That's not what this math shows...it shows that the vote counting AND reporting in high populous battleground state cities were vastly anomalous to almost every other precinct in the US. It's highly suspicious that these extremes in counting/reporting would exist in key battleground state cities.

Expand full comment

There is no VAST anomaly in these datapoints. They're just the most extreme values which are expected in any sampling study. Statistically speaking, it is not unexpected to see outliers this large based on the overall distribution. The author likely knows this and provided p-values based on an illegitimate null hypothesis. Based on the overall handling of the data manipulation (term intentionally used), I would be very surprised if the author didn't do this intentionally as a way to mislead non-or lay- scientists.

Expand full comment

Not with normalized data sets! That is the point. Votes coming in by MAIL should be randomly distributed, whatever the ratios.

Expand full comment

Votes coming in by mail will NOT be randomly distributed and that's the whole point (and where this author made their critical error/attempt to deceive)!

Expand full comment

At 6:31AM there was a report in Michigan of Biden getting 141,257 votes vs 5,968 for Trump, a 96.9% ratio. You have failed to explain that. You can't just dismiss a sample that large as an "outlier." That's roughly the population of Kansas City.

Expand full comment

Er, that's what the whole analysis is about. A practicing statistician would not pinpoint that datapoint as an obvious anomaly. In fact, it's no more of an outlier than the Fig 10 datapoints at -1,9 or -8,-1. Now those three datapoints at x = -1, and y < -8 are SUSPICIOUS - we do not expect three values grouped so far beyond the tail - I wonder what kind of hanky panky was going on there...?

Expand full comment

Literally Detroit voted lower republican than that last 3 elections. I lived near Detroit 40 plus years...its that democratic

Expand full comment

You are a moron "There is no VAST anomaly in these datapoints." Buahahahahahaha!

Expand full comment

No, it's just that I know how to interpret and evaluate data and you don't.

Expand full comment

when compared to other metro areas that also had high volumes of mail in votes, these are indeed abnormalities.

Expand full comment

But did they also have high volumes of mail in votes, AND have state laws that meant those ballots couldn't be processed before Election Day? Because that's an important difference between these states and other states.

Expand full comment

Show me the data

Expand full comment

and in a 5 hour window when all 4 states supposedly stopped the count and sent observers home.....very odd.

Expand full comment

Would that window happen to be in the middle of the night? I think so and not so odd. Please tell me why reporting has to stop when counting stops. I think we can agree that reporting must occur after counting. How much time delay do you think is reasonable between the ending of counting and reporting?

Expand full comment

It's actually the opposite. Counting continued all night long. There wasn't any reporting because counts aren't reported until the large absentee counting boards were completed and reconciled. A lot of people don't seem to understand that the results from ballot counting don't happen in real time.

Expand full comment

Counting is very important...the TIMING of reporting is much less so. So, for the moment, may be focus on counting? In what ways was vote counting "vastly anomalous"?

Expand full comment

Reporting is irrelevant. Physical vote counts are all that matters. Go ahead and do another round of recounts....

Expand full comment

The problem is the elimination of the verification stage by the Dems through litigation before the election and that can't be fixed. Once you get a ballot post verification (signature, ID, etc.) and it is separated from its envelope, it is unidentifiable. If it is fraudulent, then you have succeeded in getting it into the process with no way to retrieve it. So a recount would just recount the same fraudulent votes introduced into the system. The only way to fix it is to void the elections in these states and have a snap election, in person, with ID. If Biden won by these margins, then he will win again. If there were hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes, however, Biden will lose bigly.

Expand full comment

That's the thing about conspiracist ideations, there is always a "gotcha". So, what you are saying here is that a massive fraud has taken place by which illegal votes were injected into the system. But the perpetrators, while masterful at injecting those votes, screwed up on the timing of the act? In other words, they should have "spread it out"? Of course, your statement about elimination of verification is just plain false.

Expand full comment

The authors visually suggest that the certain updates in MI, WI and GA look anomalous (e.g. in joint extremity of vote ratios and vote differences, in update times, etc.), relative to other updates from the counties and states in question, as well as to updates from other counties across the country, including other urban Democrat strongholds.

The next step would be to test whether the claims made in the visual demonstration are statistically significant, given reasonable assumptions about the data generating process. With almost 9k updates across the country, including multiple updates per county and a large number of urban counties, it might be feasible to do that.

Your claim is that urbanisation alone explains these apparent anomalies. If it does, then updates from similarly urbanised counties elsewhere in the country should appear to be similarly anomalous. Based on the authors’ visual story, that doesn’t seem to be the case. To be convincing, that visual argument should be supported by a model that produces testable hypotheses about the extremity of updates, given all of these variables like urbanisation, state law, etc.

Expand full comment

An important variable many people are ignoring are when ballots are counted and reported. For example, in Michigan, absentee ballots couldn't not be counted before Election Day. With a record breaking vote and a record number of absentee ballots, it was going to take long into the night and into the next day, in some cases, to count all the ballots. That delayed the reporting of results in some jurisdictions. In states that allowed those ballots to be counted before Election Day, like Florida and Ohio, those results were reported almost immediately, no matter the size of the jurisdiction. Most of these "anomalies" are nothing more than artifacts of how and when the votes were reported.

Expand full comment

So I’m curious, do we know when the absentee ballots boards reported? Are these reports published? If there are 1500 AB boards, did they all report at the same time?

Expand full comment

Mathematics and logic is 1 of the 4 branches of science. Both show this was a Fraudulent election as does probability. like Trump won 26 of the 27 40 year bellweather counties,51 of the 57 10 year and all of the 27 seats the democrats targetted! would be the only sitting president to get more votes and lose(11 million)only president in 150 years to win Ohio & Florida and lose.Biden won with more% votes in 4 cities than Kim jong Un,Sadat and Sadam Hussein! but did not have the same results in other cities of comparable population make up. when 24 pallets of votes are transported (evidence says even more) from NY-where they would not be needed to PA where they almost certainly became a 4.30am dump that had to be entered without vetting.

When u have something with scales, gills,swim bladders,cold blooded or live in water it is probably a fish. When it has all 5 IT IS A FISH!

Expand full comment

BIden did.better in no battleground states than battleground in improvement from 2016 2.7% to 2%. These anomalies dumps include percentages where trump performed better than any Republican had since at least 2008. Detroit's vote increase from 2016 far less than Michigan or US average. The only president to lose by over 7 million votes....it doesn't look like a fish

Expand full comment

not sure i understand your point

Expand full comment

Point is that fraud could make sense if trump did worse than historic in anomalies. where he did better that would be a sign of no fraud or trump fraud. 2nd point is people keep saying fraud was in Battleground states and on Nov 5th you could see that Biden did better in improvements from 2016 in battleground states but vote counting kept increasing in non battleground and the reverse is now true as we pass 7 million Biden lead. Showing that this data at least doesn't support some of the narrative.of fraud. Thanks for asking

Expand full comment

Math is science. 🙄

Expand full comment

When you talk about "science" or use the word "science" to refer to something concrete, you are doing hypostasis. The "part" is muddied in the "whole" or the whole in the part. Mathematics is not "science", mathematics is one of the sciences among others; therefore "mathematics is a science" and not "mathematics is science". Problems are not solved by science but by one or more specific scientific categories: math, physics, chemistry, & c. To make a lens you do not resort to medicine, nor to "science", you resort to optics, mechanics, and chemistry (for coatings). When people say that science has solved the origin of the universe: this is pure metaphysics or scientific fundamentalism. Very similar to the use made of other words like "humanity", "democracy", & c.

Expand full comment

Wrong. Mathematics is the foundation of all science. Mathematics is the science on which the whole world is based. Man doesn’t invent Mathematics, he discovers it.

Expand full comment

In many ways, math is closely related to science. ... Mathematics is such a useful tool that science could make few advances without it. However, math and standard sciences, like biology, physics, and chemistry, are distinct in at least one way: how ideas are tested and accepted based on evidence.

Expand full comment

Math is science. It’s the purest science there is. The most precise. That is a fact. Math is the evidence in all those fields.

Expand full comment

"Math is science. It’s the purest science there is."

Mathematics is not science. It is a branch of philosophy.

Expand full comment

No, math uses logic. Theres a distinction between what Mathematics claims as proof in contrast to science. For a scientist, ten experiments with consistent results might constitute proof, For a mathematician, a million successful experiments is not enough proof. Instead, mathematicians rely on logic. Mathematics is very often inspired by nature, but it is a purely intellectual pursuit. It is just a bunch of ideas in our heads, like philosophy. Pure abstract reasoning. Someone who has a degree in Mathematics is call a mathematician and someone you has a degree in physics, biology, chemistry is call a scientist.

Expand full comment

Wow, you actually think math is not science? You think that math was not developed using the scientific method? That statistics was not developed using the scientific method? Statistics itself is the backbone of every higher scientific endeavor. Math is the root science of all other science. Math is the fundamental science that holds all other science together. I'm amazed that you think math is not science when it is the foundation science of all other science.

Expand full comment

"You think that math was not developed using the scientific method?"

Ha! You don't even know what the scientific method is. Nor do you understand what mathematics is.

Expand full comment

Science could not exist without math. Math and logic are not tools of science... They are the basis for it.

Meaning there is no such thing as scientific evidence without mathematical analysis... And mathematical analysis is itself scientific evidence.

Expand full comment

Science could not exist without language. language is not tools of science... It is the basis for it.

Meaning there is no such thing as scientific evidence without language... And language is itself scientific evidence.

The above is a false augment. Regarding what should be considered as science, please check with the most influential philosophers of science Karl Popper.

Expand full comment

Math is not a branch of philosophy. Are you the kid that ate the glue?

Expand full comment

No, it's a statistical argument and can be considered evidence in a US court of law.

Expand full comment

No, that's false. The article's import is that highly "anomalous" voter ratios, particularly in comparison with 3rd party results, are strongly indicative of fraud. Statistical evidence of this type is admitted into evidence in voter fraud cases all the time. Whistleblower affidavits also indicate exactly how it happened.

Expand full comment

The analysis is a tool to identify anomalies to target further investigations. The report clears most of the States and points to areas for further scrutiny. There were other lines of evidence that identified fraud, this has been proven, the next step is to determine if it was enough to affect the election.

Expand full comment

Science is math, How do you think Scientist can figure out how long it takes to go tot the moon and orbit the earth thru Math. As they say it is scientifically mathematically impossible.

Expand full comment

Nope. Science is not = to math and anyone who thinks so is not a scientist.

Expand full comment

Have you been hitting Hunters pipe? What is science?

Expand full comment

This isn't science, it's garbage. Reporting of votes isn't some physical process. Votes can and were reported in clumps. Jeez... stupid people...

Expand full comment

Wrooooong. its pattern analysis. NOT vote counting.

When the pattern breaks, it means someone put numbers in manually not understanding that they were breaking human voting patterns.

More or less Democrats does not change the patttern.

Higher density of D or R is typically a smaller sample county.

Larger counties do not get 95%+ D or R eveeeeeeeeeer.

Expand full comment

You're assuming each data dump is a random sample of ballots, but that isn't how the process works.

Verification of mail-in ballots. Ballots sent for adjudication. Transcribed ballots. All reasons that batches of ballots might not be reported in the same order that they were counted. And that's all perfectly normal.

There's no expectation of uniformity between counties on how they will report their unofficial results.

Also if someone just put numbers in manually, that would be discovered during the state elections board canvass of counties.

Expand full comment

What you're ignoring is that these winning vote dump anomalies only happened in the 4 swing states in 4 updates in the middle of the night. If it was legitimate we could expect to see similar midnight reporting spikes in many other states and big cities like L. A., New York, Seattle, etc. where tons of democrats also used mail in voting. Nope, we only see it in the" too close to call "swing states where Trump was winning before the dumps happened. Fraud.

Expand full comment

What you're ignoring is that results reported on election night are always unofficial, and are separate from the official tabulation for certification by the state canvassing boards, and also that different states have different rules around the processing of ballots.

You wouldn't expect to see a "midnight reporting spike" in New York. Why? Because New York didn't even start processing mail-in ballots until November 6th! And their process for verifying mail-in ballots is particularly slow as well. NY was called for Biden by the networks on the basis of early and on-the-day in-person voting. But it took more than a week for all the House races to be called.

As for Seattle? Almost everyone in Washington votes by mail, and ballots are alloweed to arrive as late as November 23 (so long as they are postmarked in time). In Washington the counties can start processing mail-in ballots as soon as they receive them, and they release updated totals once at the end of each day. With the vast majority of ballots being mail-in, and with them being processed and reported on a rolling basis, mail-in ballots don't cause a "spike" here, midnight or otherwise.

As for Los Angeles; California has a long history of mail-in voting. It is another state where mail-in ballots can be processed before Election Day. They aren't counted before Election Day, but if they arrive early enough that staff aren't totally focused on Election Day prep (i.e. before the weekend preceding Election Day) they are verified and ready to count. So in most counties, the first votes reported will be mail-in votes that arrived early, then in-person early votes - and THEN in-person on the day votes. Followed by mail-in votes that weren't processed before Election Day. So again, mail-in ballots in California don't cause that same "spike"... middle of the night or otherwise.

So no. Not fraud. Just low information on your part.

Expand full comment

It’s important to add that we don’t see similar anomalies in all of the key swing states. PA, AZ and NV don’t appear have them. Neither do FL and OH.

If what appear to be anomalies were simply artefacts of mass mail-in voting in swing states with Democrat-dominated urban centres, then we’d expect to see similar patterns in other such states, including states that Trump won. The fact that we don’t at least suggests that the explanation isn’t as simple as a combination of mass mail-in voting and Democrat-dominated urban centres.

Expand full comment

all mail in ballots have to have observers of both parties watching the envelope opening. at 011 to 0700 there were none so not a single vote in these batches was legal. That is a loss of hundreds of thousands of votes for Biden in every state. In any case the legislatures cannot certify unless there is a complete investigation and only Trump will do that

Expand full comment

As I already said, the unofficial vote totals are not updated in real-time, a batch could be added to the unofficial totals after it has actually been counted. That's the nature of the unoffical totals, although they are updated in batches there's no expectation that the counties need to try and do this in real-time. Adding numbers to those unofficial totals isn't what makes those numbers 'legal'. There's a separate process of tabulation for the state election board's canvassers which is what makes the numbers official.

But on the issue of mail-in ballots, you are even more wrong. Because the ballot envelope opening, and verification of whether or not the ballot should be accepted, is a separate process from the counting of the mail-in ballots that have been accepted.

I think you should stop speculating on these things until you go and actually look learn about how the process works on the ground. Maybe watch some of the videos from the different counts - there are many. Because knowing that the validation and the counting of the mail-in ballots are two separate processes, that could happen hours apart (or in the states where they're allowed to validate them before Election Day, could happen days or even weeks apart), is a REALLY basic bit of knowledge about how the process works.

And honestly, it's frankly embarassing for you that you didn't know this, and yet in another comment you said with absolute certainty that we should "accept that there was probably fraud" so it's "on balance better to keep the current incumbent". You are really in no position to allege that the things you're noticing are evidence of fraud when you clearly lack this very basic knowlege of how the count process works generally.

Expand full comment

Rrff

Expand full comment

The trolls are too stupid to understand how statistics works. Don't waste too much time explaining to them idiots.

Expand full comment

I find it hard to believe that a person with such poor grammar understands statistics.

Expand full comment

Believe it bitch.....I took 2 statistics courses as part of my major in Mechanical Engineering (Bachelor of Science t*rdface). And I aced both the 200 level stats course and the 400 level Statistics for Engineering. Statistics is cake.....as if I care what you think of me. Moron.

Expand full comment

Then do a recount. The "physical" ballots are available.

Expand full comment

But they aren't in many cases. They are images standing in for ballots. Electronic "image" ballots that were recorded by humans who were not the original voter.

Expand full comment

Ok, you're telling me that the original hard copy ballots are no longer available in these states? If true that is a surprise to me and it doesn't seem wise. But, as others like Miss1776 have pointed out, if the ballots themselves were fraudulent then the recount is meaningless. So, at the end of the day, I withdraw my suggestion to recount.

Expand full comment

Straw man argument that you make over and over again. Once the ballots are removed from the envelopes they are untethered to an actual, legal voter. Counting illicit ballots over and over again is how we got here and why the anomalies exist.

Expand full comment

How convenient for your side. You just described a situation that appears unwinnable. This statistical analysis isn't enough in court. If there was fraud, you need to provide more than statistics.

Expand full comment

I just looked at the City of Detroit Absentee ballots (more relevant to this analysis than total In-Person plus Absentee).

Detroit City Absentee was 166,203 Biden / 6,153 Trump / 1,081 Other thus 95.8% / 3.5% / 0.6%

Wayne County (of which Detroit is a part) Absentee was 426,129 Biden / 131,315 Trump

Of note, Detroit appears to have reported its results directly to the state. See my other comments on this thread for details and links.

Expand full comment

So then you go to precinct level data in Detroit and find precincts with over 95% voter turnout and many with over 100% of registered voters. So tell us again?

Expand full comment

You'd have to supply a link or reference. I believe many of the >100% reports are explained by on-site Election Day voter registration. In my opinion this is terrible public policy: (1) undermines integrity of voter rolls, (2) encourages voting by people who don't care enough to bother registering beforehand.

But the article is a statistical approach to identifying potential fraud, and I'll try harder to keep my comments on-topic.

Expand full comment

Nope. That's not what it is. Pattern analysis is a statistical analysis that requires data from many many elections (when applied to elections) and does not work for anomalous elections like this one (i.e. unprecedented turnout). In addition, as with all stats analysis, the result is a possible answer and not the ground truth because, when dealing with people, there's a huge element of randomness.

Expand full comment

You are uneducated fool for thinking this analysis is garbage. If you think having a candidate of your choice sit as President is more important than the future of our elections then you deserve to lose your citizenship. Millions of people have died protecting our constitution. I used to always vote Democrat but over the years the party has been taken over by criminals who are trying to destroy our constitution. As America wakes up the Democrat party is falling apart and more people are moving away from them which is why they cheat. Trump rallies would have 10’s of thousands show up with traffic backed up so badly many thousands more couldn’t even get in and the most people Biden had at any rally was 14 people. That was a good turn out for him too. Wake the fuck up man

Expand full comment

Many of Biden's rallies had hundreds of supporters -- the rallies in cemetaries.

Expand full comment

LOL, even this "libtard" found that funny. Bravo!

Expand full comment

The real source of many Dem Votes lol

Expand full comment

Biden voters didn't and don't need to go rallies. As a republican, I will also say that rallies are stupid, and serve no purpose. They were basically voting against Trump, not *for* Biden.

Expand full comment

Plus there is a correlation:

- People who voted for Biden are very concerned about Covid19, tend to wear masks and socially distance. Of course they would follow the advice to avoid big crowds.

- People who voted for Trump were generally less alarmed about the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, his tightly packed rallies left high numbers of infected people in their wake.

This also explains the mail-in votes skewed for Biden (aside from people who were very clear that they wanted to get rid of Trump perhaps also wanting to vote in advance so they could say, been there, done that.... vs. whatever might happen on Election Day)

Expand full comment

Well, and trump literally told his supporters not to vote by mail because their votes wouldn't get counted... That maybe played a role in why mail in was skewed toward biden. Just a thought, you know, because reasons.

Expand full comment

I don't think this analysis is garbage, but after a lot of thought, I don't think it points to anything meaningful. I think there has to be better evidence out there and this is a distraction from finding it. I just wish it would come out. I've so far been very let down by what has been presented as evidence and was really disappointed after watching the star witness in Michigan, particularly during her interview with Lou Dobbs. Maybe our president has the wrong people running this. Interesting side note, while I lined up to vote for our president, I do know more than a handful of my republican friends voted for biden by mail, not because they like him, but against Mr Trump. I can't imagine what they were thinking, but they did. Purely anecdotal, but it did make me wonder.

Expand full comment

Millions have died?

Expand full comment

Millions die every year. What's your point?

Expand full comment

Did you read Joe's remark? "Millions of people have died protecting our constitution." Is it reasonable to assume that would be comprised of all the men and women killed in our many wars?

Expand full comment

That’s the mirror pal. It’s science. I’m an actual scientist. Go back to your barista job. And these numbers aren’t just improbable, they’re impossible.

Expand full comment

Hello miss ,

You don’t sound like scientist. I am a guy with 2 masters and one PhD in control systems engineering. So I am must be good at math . There is no correlation between time of vote reporting and number of vote .The number of votes reported are depends on sample size. Higher the sample size , higher the vote . Now, these vote may be mail in ballots counted on side by 100s of machine and aggregated and reported . You can’t correlate timing of votes and numbers to look for patterns. Its equivalent to correlating cars with bread . Two completely unrelated things . Go back to your Geology

Expand full comment

Maybe good a math - not at English - and absolutely no common sense! how could these votes happen at 0300 - 0640? there was no counting and no observers so any votes processed at that time would be illegal?

Expand full comment

"votes happen'" ? What exactly do you mean by that. You need to learn the entire process. Counting is not the same as release of information. Pretty basic....

Expand full comment

Control systems engineering? That isn’t even a real engineer. Lol. Ok. You push paper. What a joke. No you’re not good at math. You suck at math. Absolute gibberish. There is no “sample size” or correlation conversation here. 🤡 The election isn’t a statistical/mathematical exercise, the audit should be. And yes, everything follows a pattern. Everything.

Expand full comment

As someone who studied control systems as part of a BSME program, I have to point out that you are clueless. The math involved in this field is very complex. And that specialty is seen in various engineering curricula, Mechanical, Aerospace, Electrical, etc... And this entire thread is mostly about the statistical analysis presented here. This is why those terms are being used. And finally, not everything follows a pattern. At its foundation, statistics teaches us there are "outliers". This is fundamental to the study.

Expand full comment

Excellent post and to underscore: "there is no correlation between the TIME OF VOTE REPORTING and NUMBER OF VOTES". By the way, I love those PID control loops. I also focused on control theory but only achieved a lowly BSME.

Expand full comment

Well that also outs you. No statistician would say they're impossible.

Expand full comment

Wrong again. Amazing. There are things that are mathematically and statistically impossible. Like this election. Maybe do some research about mathematics.

Expand full comment

Thank you for REASON, Miss1776

Expand full comment

No they can’t. It’s science

Expand full comment

You are lying. there is NO WAY you are a scientist. I am one and I can see that you do not know what you are talking about

Expand full comment

Really? tell me about your degrees and work experience. I’ve shared mine.

Expand full comment

Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

Expand full comment

Trust comes from seeing authors/reviewers/editors/journals stake hard-earned professional reputation on the validity of results. Here I see an anonymous blog post.

Expand full comment

Not sure what your point is but it’s a stupid one.

Expand full comment

You asked “Don’t you trust the science”, I explained why this post lacks the elements that make science trustworthy.

Expand full comment

Math and science do not become "trustworthy" because of the name attached to the work. The name of the author (and credentials, for that matter) should be irrelevant. The data is public, and the analysis is laid out clearly for anyone to refute.

Expand full comment

The lack of a name attached to the work means the poster has nothing to lose from being wrong. That doesn't mean he _is_ wrong, but from my standpoint he is _more likely_ to be wrong than someone with an incentive not to be wrong (incentive being the protection of hard-earned reputation).

Expand full comment

I am right-winger, but I agree without a name less convincing.

In some cases you do need to publish anonymously - but in this case you just need to own up to it. This site has no real information on who runs it, etc. If they are anonymous because of fear of reprisal just say it in site information.

Expand full comment

> Math and science do not become "trustworthy" because of the name attached to the work.

Generally speaking this is exactly how they do become trustworthy, and the lack of an identifiable name on this post raises doubts.

Expand full comment

Much more importantly in this case, the votes can be audited (recount). So the next question is, how many recounts would you like?

Expand full comment

Wrong. It simply means you don’t understand the science. Maybe work on that.

Expand full comment

As a professional, it raises much suspicion that this is an anonymous published paper that is not backed by a legitimate organization. A legitimately published piece would have an author in order to establish that persons credentials. Additionally, the public should be aware of how the effort was funded to understand the presence or lack or influence. For all we know, this could have been authored by a foreign national with interests in creating discord in the US, which it clearly seems to be doing by this post. I understand the premise of the work and it is logical, but don’t agree with the conclusion, in that these anomalies show fraud. Anomalies can be created by a mathematical analysis based on the wrong set of variables, or in other words, by a lack of understanding of how the votes were counted. I am interested in seeing something similar to this from a legitimate source.

Expand full comment

You can't apply sophisticated math to a turd and turn it into a gold bar. Read the many posts here from the real engineers, mathematicians, and scientists. Their counterpoint is consistent. Also, at the end of the day, all that matters is the actual physical count of ballots and NOT when the reports were issues.

Expand full comment

If you're not sure what the point is, how do you ascertain it is a stupid one?

Expand full comment

That should be obvious unless your stupid. Think about it.

Expand full comment

"you're" ....hmmm a telltale sign of the uneducated...I believe your stories about engineers, math, your son's salary are all made up. You're a fraud.

Expand full comment

Surprised you don't understand the scientific method. Did you claim to be a scientist? If you really were a scientist you would know that the S.M. demands that these results must be verified by others.

Expand full comment

Mathematics is a very disciplined science unlike the physical sciences. Mathematics proves itself. And many mathematicians are coming to these same conclusions individually which is superior to any “peer review” or white paper. Which are mostly garbage these days.

Expand full comment

Well, math "results", like scientific results must be verified. Right? Look at the solution of Fermat's Last Theorem. The initial proof submitted by Wiles was close but not quite correct. Peer review revealed there were problems. Eventually, he provided a rigorous proof.

Expand full comment

There is no science here - this is presentation of data in a way that wishes to tell a particular story. The "anomalous" data points shown here are totally expected in any sampling study and statistically-speaking aren't that extreme at all.

Expand full comment

Actually no. I’m glad you brought this up. Almost all statistical data is being used as propaganda today so it’s important to understand the difference. Real statistica